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.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Alvotech’s Stelara Biosimilar, Selarsdi, Receives FDA Approval
April 16th 2024Alvotech’s Selarsdi (ustekinumab-aekn), a biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab), gained FDA approval, making it the second ustekinumab biosimilar and second for the company to be given the green light for the American market.
The Subcutaneous Revolution: Zymfentra and the Future of IBD Care With Dr Andres Yarur
December 17th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Andres Yarur, MD, a researcher and associate professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, discusses the significance of the FDA approval for Zymfentra, the world's first subcutaneous infliximab product, for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.