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.
Study Documents HCPs’ Experiences of a Mandatory Switch to Inform Future Transitions
December 2nd 2023A survey explores the experiences of health care providers (HCP) throughout the transition process following a mandatory switch from the adalimumab originator (Humira) to a biosimilar in New Zealand in 2022.
Biosimilars Regulatory Roundup for September 2023—Podcast Edition
October 1st 2023On this episode, we discuss several regulatory updates from around the globe, including some European and Japanese approvals, the FDA’s 2-day workshop on the present science behind clinical efficacy testing for biosimilars, and streamlining biosimilar development.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
Part 3: Study Questions Usefulness of Clinical Efficacy Trials for Oncology Biosimilars in Europe
November 16th 2023In part 3 of a 3-part series for Global Biosimilars Week, The Center for Biosimilars® reviews an analysis investigating whether clinical efficacy studies have an impact on prescribing decisions for oncology biosimilars across Europe.