- Bone Health
- Immunology
- Hematology
- Respiratory
- Dermatology
- Diabetes
- Gastroenterology
- Neurology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Rare Disease
- Rheumatology
Robert Cerwinski: Hatch-Waxman Litigation of Follow-On Insulins
Robert Cerwinski, JD, partner at Goodwin, explains why Hatch-Waxman litigation may provide a smoother path than does the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
Transcript:
FDA granted tentative approval to Merck for an insulin glargine follow-on pending the outcome of Hatch-Waxman litigation; does the fact that FDA regulates insulin as a drug have an impact on the litigation process?
I think it does. The Hatch-Waxman laws were enacted in 1984 and we’ve had a lot of practice with these litigations in the district courts and appellate courts, and the metes and bounds and contours of the Hatch-Waxman laws have been pretty well defined through decades of adjudication. It’s a pretty rapid and efficient timeline from [Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA] filing to final resolution of the appeal—pretty well-oiled litigation procedure. We have a lot more uncertainty with the [Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, BPCIA]. It’s a new statute, courts are just adjudicating it now for the first time, and we are seeing a lot of—I wouldn’t say confusion—but a lot of testing of the gray areas of the statute, for example, with Amgen v Hospira. Litigants are really trying to take advantage of every perceived advantage in the statue and are bringing motions and are litigating those. So, the pace of litigation is likely to be quite a bit slower in the context of the BPCIA, at least initially. Also, we see a lot more patents typically being brought to bear in and BPCIA litigation. So, the fact that Lantus is being brought along this sort of well-oiled generic drug litigation track, I think [that] in general, although the specifics will vary from case to case, I think that in general that’s going to be a faster timeline right now, than BPCIA litigation.
Senators Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Skinny Labeling
January 2nd 2025To close out the year, 4 senators came together to introduce a new bipartisan bill to protect biosimilar and generic drug manufacturers from patent litigation when obtaining “skinny label” approvals for their products.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
How Vertical Integration Drives Innovation and Access in Biosimilars
December 27th 2024Elie Bahou, PharmD, highlights how vertical integration in the biosimilar industry streamlines costs, improves supply reliability, accelerates market adoption, and enhances patient access, while emphasizing the value of collaboration, quality control, and value-based contracts for sustainable health care delivery.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
BioRationality: Withdrawal of Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule Spells Major Setback for Biosimilars
December 10th 2024The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s withdrawal of its proposed terminal disclaimer rule is seen as a setback for biosimilar developers, as it preserves patent prosecution practices that favor originator companies and increases costs for biosimilar competition, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.
