Amgen filed a cross appeal in this long-running case on October 15, 2018. The appeal challenges, among other things, the district court’s previous judgement that Hospira had not infringed on another patent named in the original suit, US Patent Number 5,756,349, which covers the production of erythropoietin.
In 2017, a federal jury found that Hospira had infringed on Amgen’s US Patent Number 5,856,298, which covers erythropoietin, in producing batches of a biosimilar epoetin alfa, now approved as Retacrit.
At the time, the court had ordered Hospira to pay Amgen, the reference product sponsor, $70 million in damages.
Since then, the Delaware district court entered final judgement, in September 2018, against Hospira. The judgement included an additional $10 million in pre-judgement interest, plus post-judgement interest from September 2017 until Hospira satisfies the final judgement, computed daily and compounded annually at a rate of 1.31%.
The damages were decided based on the jury verdict in 2017 that Hospira had infringed upon an Amgen process patent by manufacturing 14 batches of erythropoietin outside of the protection of the Safe Harbor Act. Hospira had unsuccessfully argued during the trial that its batches of the drug were part of its FDA approval process, and thus protected under safe harbor.
After receiving the final judgement rule, Hospira had 30 days to respond, during which the biosimilar manufacturer filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit in Delaware.
Subsequently, Amgen filed a cross appeal on October 15, 2018. The appeal challenges, among other things, the district court’s previous judgement that Hospira had not infringed on another patent named in the original suit, US Patent Number 5,756,349, which covers the production of erythropoietin. The appeals have since been consolidated into a single case.
Due to the filing of a cross-appeal, there will be 4 rounds of appellate briefing, and Hospira’s opening brief is due on December 10, 2018.
To date, in Europe there are currently 3 biosimilar versions of epoetin alfa available on the market, sold as Silapo, Retacrit, and Epoetin Alfa Hexal/Abseamed/Binocrit. Conversely, the United States has only 1 approved biosimilar epoetin alfa, Retacrit, though no launch date has been made available in light of ongoing litigation.
Eye on Pharma: Aflibercept Legal Drama; PBM, Humira Biosimilars; Denosumab Regulatory Review
October 15th 2024Regeneron appeals legal decision after judge refuses to block an aflibercept biosimilar; Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), becomes the latest to offer biosimilars referencing Humira (adalimumab) at a low cost; the FDA and European Medicines Agency accept a denosumab biosimilar candidate for review.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Patent Dance Insights: A Q&A on Reducing Legal Battles in the Biosimilar Landscape
August 18th 2024In an interview, Ha Kung Wong, an intellectual property attorney, explained that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 provides a structured but optional "patent dance" for biosimilars, which helps streamline patent disputes, potentially reducing litigation and encouraging early settlements.
Eye on Pharma: VA Picks Hadlima; Biocon, Sandoz Partnership; A Stelara Settlement Abroad
February 21st 2024The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has chosen to replace Humira (adalimumab) with Organon’s biosimilar version on its national formulary; Biocon Biologics and Sandoz announce a new partnership in Australia for 2 biosimilars; Alvotech settles with Johnson & Johnson over its biosimilar to Stelara (ustekinumab) for the European and Canadian markets.
Patient With MS Sues J&J Over ERISA Violation
February 14th 2024After a patient with multiple sclerosis (MS) was forced to pay exorbitant out-of-pocket costs for a brand name medication when she could’ve gotten a generic for way less, the patient filed a class action complaint against her employer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).