This week, the district court of Massachusetts granted Celltrion’s motion for a summary judgment of non-infringement of the last patent in question in the long-running Janssen v Celltrion case.
This week, the district court of Massachusetts granted Celltrion’s motion for a summary judgment of non-infringement of the last patent in question in Janssen v Celltrion.
In April 2018, Celltrion asked the court for the summary judgment of non-infringement; Janssen, maker of the reference infliximab, Remicade, claimed that Celltrion infringed on a patent that covers chemically-defined media compositions for the culture of eukaryotic cells.
In support of its motion, Celltrion said that Janssen’s patent is not new, and argued that the court should terminate the case based on ensnarement, or the principle that prior art—or elements of patented information that are already publicly available—restricts the scope of what the alleging party can assert under the doctrine of equivalents, which is a legal rule holding that, while a product may not literally infringe on a patented invention, the product may have elements that are equivalent to those described in a patent.
In this week’s ruling, the court said that the ensnarement defense prevents the patent holder form using the doctrine of equivalents to gain coverage that it would not otherwise be able to obtain by claiming literal infringement. “In essence,” reads the decision, “the court finds that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the hypothetical claims that Janssen relies upon to avoid ensnarement would have been patentable because they were obvious rather than inventive,” and obviousness of an invention is a statutory bar to its patentability.
The decision brings to a close a long-running case that involved not only the patent covering media compositions, but one that covered the infliximab antibody itself. That patent was invalidated by the district court of Massachusetts in September 2016 for double patenting.
Biosimilar Cases to Watch: Prolia/Xgeva and Denosumab Competitors
March 11th 2025The denosumab biosimilar market is poised for disruption with 3 FDA-approved biosimilars, at least 5 awaiting approval, and launches anticipated to start in May 2025, while ongoing patent litigation continues to shape the competitive landscape.
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.
Top 5 Most-Read Legal Articles of 2024
December 23rd 2024The top legal stories in biosimilars from 2024 emphasize the ongoing struggle between ensuring timely patient access and addressing challenges like litigation, regulatory hurdles, and patent disputes that shape the competitive landscape of affordable biologics.
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.
Eye on Pharma: Celltrion, Costco Partnership; Amgen Sues Samsung Bioepis; Denosumab Results
August 21st 2024Celltrion's adalimumab-aaty biosimilar is now accessible for all Costco members, while Amgen sues Samsung Bioepis over the latter’s denosumab biosimilar candidate, and GlycoNex progresses its denosumab biosimilar SPD8 to phase 3 trials.