A bipartisan bill, introduced by US Senators Chris Coons (D-Delaware), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), seeks to make a number of reforms that would make it easier for innovators—including the manufacturers of reference biologics—to defend against challenges to their patents.
A bipartisan bill, introduced by US Senators Chris Coons (D-Delaware), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), seeks to make a number of reforms that would make it easier for innovators—including the manufacturers of reference biologics—to defend against challenges to their patents.
The bill, known as the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of 2017, or the STRONGER Patents Act of 2017, proposes changes to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and their counterparts, post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. (While IPR is a trial proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, that provides for a review of patentability after a patent has been issued for 9 months, PGR provides for such a review during the 9 months following a patent’s issuance.) As reported by JD Supra, the act’s proposed changes to IPRs and PGRs would favor patent owners in several ways, including the following:
While Senator Coons says that the STRONGER Patents Act is designed to bolster investor confidence and foster the development of new technologies, the act does have the potential to create difficulty for biosimilar manufacturers in bringing their products to the US marketplace. IPR petitions—on the rise for the biopharmaceutical industry throughout early 2017—have presented biosimilar developers a litigation option that is both faster and potentially less expensive than litigation under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). If the STRONGER Patents Act is passed into law, the biologics industry could lose IPRs as a viable means by which to challenge innovators’ patents, further delaying patient access to biosimilar treatments.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Eye on Pharma: Sandoz Files Antitrust Suit; Yuflyma Interchangeability; Costco’s Ustekinumab Pick
April 22nd 2025Sandoz's antitrust suit against Amgen, the FDA’s interchangeability designation for Celltrion’s adalimumab biosimilar, and the inclusion of an ustekinumab biosimilar in Costco’s prescription program highlight growing momentum to expand biosimilar access and affordability for patients with chronic inflammatory diseases.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
President Trump Signs Executive Order to Bring Down Drug Prices
April 16th 2025To help bring down sky-high drug prices, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pushing for faster biosimilar development, more transparency, and tougher rules on pharmacy benefit managers—aiming to save billions and make meds more affordable for everyone.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.