Category: Patent Litigation

According to the Federal Circuit, $173 million was the right damages award for almost three years of patent infringement resulting from Baxalta’s sale of its biologic product Adynovate^® (Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), PEGylated).  In Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., et al., Nos. 2019-2418, 2020-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the circuit court upheld an award to Bayer HealthCare LLC of $155 million in royalties and $18 million in pre-verdict supplemental damages, without enhancement, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,364,520 (the “’520 Patent”), which is directed to recombinant forms of human factor VIII.

The Federal Circuit considered its 35 U.S.C. § 112 enablement case law and found that “the enablement inquiry for claims that include functional requirements”—in this case, claims to antibodies defined by their function—“can be particularly focused on the breadth of those requirements, especially where predictability and guidance fall short.”  Dkt. 132 at 10.  In Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, et al., 20-1074 (Fed. Cir.), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of non-enablement for claims asserted by Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing, Ltd., and Amgen USA, Inc. (collectively, “Amgen”). 

On November 5, 2020, in Valeant Pharms. N. Am. LLC  v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 2019-2402, the Federal Circuit held that venue in Hatch-Waxman cases brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) is proper “only in districts where actions related to the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (‘ANDA’) occur, not in all locations where future distribution of the generic products specified in the ANDA is contemplated.”  Slip op. at 3.  If the ruling stands, it will restrict venue available against domestic generic drug makers in ANDA cases, and may similarly impact venue in litigation under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”).

In December, in Amgen v. Hospira, 944 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019), a panel of the Federal Circuit issued the first decision applying the statutory Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) to BPCIA patent litigation.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding that Hospira’s pre-approval manufacture of batches of its biosimilar was an act of infringement of Amgen’s manufacturing patents not protected by the Safe Harbor, even though data from those batches was used to support Hospira’s BLA.  The court held that the relevant Safe Harbor inquiry “is not how Hospira used each batch it manufactured, but whether each act of manufacture was for uses reasonably related to submitting information to the FDA.”  Hospira has now petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the court’s holding “calls into question the continuing viability of the Safe Harbor, particularly in the context of BPCIA litigation.” 

As 2019 draws to a close, a handful of actions regarding biologics are pending in the federal courts.  The current cases are listed below, in order from most-recently-filed to oldest:

On July 23, 2019, Amgen, maker of the cancer treatment drug Neupogen (filgrastim), filed patent infringement claims in the Southern District of California against Tanvex Biopharma over Tanvex’s proposed filgrastim biosimilar.  See Amgen Inc. v. Tanvex BioPharma USA, Inc., 3:19-cv-01374-BEN-MSB.  Amgen asserts a patent that claims methods of refolding recombinant proteins used in the manufacture of Neupogen.

In Enzo Life Sciences v. Roche Molecular Systems, No. 2017-2498, 2017-2499, 2017-2545, 2017-2546, Slip op. (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement of Enzo’s two patents relating to non-radioactive labeling of polynucleotides.  The decision highlights non-enablement issues that may arise with respect to broad functional claims in an unpredictable field.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited opinion in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 2017-1694, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2019).  While many had hoped the decision would provide clarity on whether a biosimilar maker who has not yet filed an aBLA has standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding an innovator patent, the Federal Circuit instead dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and mootness based on post-appeal developments making it clear that Momenta had abandoned its efforts to develop the biosimilar in question.  Nevertheless, Momenta is important in that it illustrates the continued risk to biosimilar makers of unappealable IPR decisions when they bring IPRs years before filing an aBLA.

Two cases decided by the Federal Circuit in 2018, Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, en banc rehearing denied, 890 F.3d 1354 and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, en banc rehearing denied, 890 F.3d 1369, address what qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and how courts should resolve that question.  These cases expose divisions within the court on § 101 issues, however, and leave uncertainty in their wake.  Many stakeholders, including judges, are therefore calling for guidance from the Supreme Court as to how to resolve such issues or seeking the aid of Congress.

Earlier this month, the President signed into law the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act (Public Law 115-263). The Act mainly focuses on eliminating so-called “gag clauses” that prevent pharmacists from telling patients when paying for a drug out of pocket is cheaper than paying through insurance.  In addition, the Act amends the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) to require branded drug companies and biosimilar applicants to disclose settlement agreements relating to the “manufacture, marketing, or sale” of biosimilar products to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for evaluation under the antitrust laws. The new legislation brings biosimilar litigation in line with ANDA litigation, for which the same disclosure requirements were already in place. 

Earlier this month, AbbVie filed suit against Sandoz’s proposed biosimilar to AbbVie’s HUMIRA® (adalimumab).  Invoking the Biosimilar Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), AbbVie asserts two patents protecting Humira, a fraction of the 84 patents AbbVie wished to litigate.  Taking full advantage of the pre-litigation “patent dance,” Sandoz limited the number of patents-in-suit to just two.  As this case illustrates, following the patent dance affords biosimilar makers considerable control and power over the scope of biosimilar lawsuits.

Today FDA approved the first-ever “small interfering RNA” (siRNA) product, marking a significant milestone in the story of RNA interference (RNAi) technology and clearing the way for a new type of therapeutic.  Alnylam® secured approval and Orphan Drug Designation for its siRNA product Onpattro (patisiran), a therapy for the rare hereditary disease transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis in adult patients.  The disease is caused by mutations in a protein called “transthyretin” which leads to symptoms of neuropathic pain, loss of sensation in the hands and feet, and wheel-chair confinement.  In Alnylam’s Phase III clinical trial, Onpattro improved multiple clinical manifestations of the disease and demonstrated safe administration of a siRNA product.

Amgen has sued Apotex in connection with Apotex’s efforts to market biosimilar versions of Amgen’s cancer drugs Neupogen (filgrastim) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim). In a complaint filed on August 7 in the Southern District of Florida, Amgen alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,856,287. This is the third time that Amgen has filed a BPCIA lawsuit against Apotex in connection with its filgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars.

On July 18, FDA released its long-awaited Biosimilars Action Plan (“BAP”).  In prepared remarks to the Brookings Institution the same day, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb described the BAP as “enabling a path to competition for biologics from biosimilars” in order to “reduc[e] costs and to facilitat[e] more innovation.”  While the BAP is straightforward, the Commissioner’s remarks included unexpected jabs at innovator drug makers for what FDA believes is anticompetitive conduct.  The speech was likely driven by the Trump Administration’s American Patients First plan, which sets as a top FDA priority the reduction of prescription drug prices, including by reducing “gaming” of regulatory requirements, but what the speech achieves given the role of FDA remains unclear.

Generics and biosimilar makers have increasingly used inter partes reviews, proceedings made possible by the America Invents Act, to challenge patents protecting innovator small-molecule drugs and biologic medicines.  Senator Orrin Hatch, co-author of the Hatch-Waxman Act, has introduced an amendment that would require these manufacturers either to take advantage of the abbreviated regulatory approval pathways provided by the Hatch-Waxman Act and BPCIA and challenge innovator patents in district court or to challenge innovator patents in IPRs before the PTAB, but not both.  Senator Hatch explains that while he strongly supports IPRs and the America Invents Act and that IPRs are of particular importance to the tech community to fight “patent trolls,” they are also “producing unintended consequences in the Hatch-Waxman context” and “threaten[] to upend the careful Hatch-Waxman balance by enabling two separate paths to attack a brand patent.”  If enacted, generics and biosimilar makers that choose to take advantage of the abbreviated regulatory process will challenge innovator patents in court rather than in IPRs before the PTAB.

Two recent Federal Circuit decisions address when a party has standing to challenge the validity of a patent. Though the cases arose in different contexts, they both center on the question of what it means for a party to be facing an imminent and cognizable injury. In Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc., 17-1487, the Federal Circuit upheld a party’s standing to appeal from a post-grant review where it was at risk of an infringement suit. In AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al., 16-2475,[1] however, the court reached the opposite conclusion and determined that the immediacy requirement to bring a declaratory judgment action was not met for a party that had an interest in purchasing generic drugs, but did not itself produce them.

On Monday, April 16, 2018, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in WesternGeco LLC, v. ION Geophysical Corporation, No. 16-1011, a case with broad implications for patent holders that sell products abroad.  The case addresses whether lost profits accrued outside of the United States can be recovered for patent infringement occurring domestically.  In the decision below, 791 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit adopted a per se bar to recovery of such foreign damages, even when domestic patent infringement is established and proximately caused.  Although WesternGeco involves infringement under 35 U.S.C.§ 271(f) – which prohibits the supply of components of a patented invention in the U.S. with the intent that they be combined abroad – in its argument in support of the petitioner, the Solicitor General framed the question more broadly as whether lost profits accrued outside of the United States can be recovered for any domestic act of patent infringement under § 271.[1]  Four key takeaways from the oral argument are discussed below.

Biosimilar developers have been aggressive in filing petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs) of biologics patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), many of them preceding the filing of a marketing application.  Such early IPRs are attractive to biosimilar makers, because they provide a chance to challenge innovator patents years before the biosimilar maker files a marketing application with FDA.  Since a petitioner need not have Article III case-or-controversy standing to bring an IPR, the remoteness and uncertainty of future infringement in such circumstances does not preclude these early IPRs.  Under settled precedent, however, a biosimilar maker must have Article III standing to seek a Federal Circuit appeal if the PTAB issues a final decision upholding the challenged patent.  A decision expected from the Federal Circuit this quarter in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 17-1694 (Fed. Cir. argued Dec. 5, 2017) will address how and when a biosimilar maker can establish that standing.

In a highly anticipated decision on the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s motion to terminate inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected tribal sovereign immunity to IPRs.  The PTAB’s decision also raised doubts about the effectiveness of assignments even in cases where the sovereign assignee has immunity but the assignor effectively still owns the patent.  The portion of the decision broadly holding that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to IPRs came as a surprise to some commentators, who observed that the PTAB could have reached the same result on narrower grounds.  Following on the heels of the PTAB’s December 2017 University of Minnesota decision holding that a sovereign waives immunity to IPRs when it asserts the patent at issue in district court, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe deals another blow for patentees seeking to avoid IPRs with sovereign immunity.

2017 was a record-setting year for biosimilar approvals in the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S., five complex antibody products were approved, two of which are in new therapeutic areas for U.S. biosimilars. In Europe, 16 biosimilars were approved. The number of approved biosimilars in Europe has doubled in the past two years. These approvals have expanded European biosimilars into new therapeutic areas and new classes of biologics. In both markets, biosimilars of pegylated biologic products, such as pegfilgrastim, continue to pose challenges for biosimilar makers.

The Federal Circuit ruled that Amgen’s state law unfair competition claims, which were premised on Sandoz’s failure to follow the patent dance, are preempted by the BPCIA.  The decision largely affirms the status quo, making clear that biosimilar applicants may opt out of the patent dance without incurring any consequences besides those specified in the statute.

On November 13, The Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming a district court judgment that Apotex did not infringe Amgen’s recombinant protein patent in its abbreviated Biologics License Applications referencing Amgen’s Neulasta and Neupogen.  Judge James Cohn of the Southern District of Florida ruled in Apotex’s favor in September 2016 after a bench trial.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit found sufficient evidence in the record to support the judgment of noninfringement.

In Sandoz v. Amgen, the Supreme Court interpreted the U.S. biosimilars statute, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), for the first time. The Court held unanimously that provisions of the BPCIA requiring disclosure allowing innovator companies to assess whether their patents are infringed cannot be enforced under federal law. The ruling also allows biosimilar makers to provide notice of commercial marketing long before FDA approval of the biosimilar. The Court’s decision introduces uncertainty into provisions of the BPCIA that many viewed as necessary and enforceable. But, due to the value of certainty for both biosimilar makers and innovators alike in resolving patent disputes for blockbuster biologics, the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision may ultimately be modest.

To read the article by Irena Royzman and Nathan Monroe-Yavneh in Nature Biotechnology, please click here.

In July, a split panel of the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s use of an adverse inference from litigation misconduct to hold a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit’s decision in the case, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merus NV, raises interesting questions about the relationship between attorney misconduct during litigation (which is not supposed to affect the enforceability of a patent) and misconduct during prosecution of the patent (which can). Because the court’s opinion gives no clear answer to these questions, it opens new tactical opportunities for defendants asserting inequitable conduct defenses in patent cases and may incrementally expand the use of a doctrine that the Federal Circuit has famously referred to as a “plague” and repeatedly tried to rein in.

To continue reading Aron Fischer and Rachel Schwartz's article from Law360, please click here.

In one of the first Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigations to reach trial, a jury on Friday awarded Amgen $70 million in damages for Pfizer’s infringement of one of Amgen’s expired patents protecting Epogen®.  The jury found that Pfizer’s subsidiary Hospira, in manufacturing its proposed biosimilar ahead of FDA approval, was not protected by the statutory safe harbor, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1).  This action provides an important lesson in the potential value of expired or soon-to-expire patents in BPCIA litigation.  Because a biosimilar maker’s pre-approval activity may not be covered by the statutory safe harbor, patents that are expired at the time of approval may still have been infringed.