The ongoing district court litigation of Amgen v Hospira—a case regarding Hospira’s proposed biosimilar to epoetin alfa (Epogen), a biological agent used to treat anemia—progressed on May 26, 2017, when counsel for Amgen filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
The ongoing district court litigation of Amgen v Hospira—a case regarding Hospira’s proposed biosimilar to epoetin alfa (Epogen), a biological agent used to treat anemia—progressed on May 26, 2017, when counsel for Amgen filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. As Big Molecule Watch reports, the motion seeks to keep Hospira from launching its new biosimilar until Hospira “has complied with the requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A), which states that ‘[t]he subsection (k) applicant shall provide notice to [Amgen] not later than 180 days before the date of the first commercial marketing of the biological product licensed under subsection (k).’”
Amgen’s motion follows on the heels of an FDA Advisory Committee’s recommendation on May 25, 2017, that the epoetin alfa biosimilar proposed by Pfizer (parent company to Hospira) be approved across all indications. In a press release, Pfizer representatives announced that the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee had recommended approval of its biosimilar product, marking the first time that a biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agent has been recommended for approval by such a committee.
Amgen v Hospira represents yet another legal battle in the so-called “patent-dance,” and joins the ongoing case of Amgen v Sandoz, which is currently being considered by the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in Amgen v Sandoz is whether a biosimilar applicant is required by law to provide the reference product’s sponsor with a copy of its biologics license application and manufacturing information, and what recourse the reference product’s manufacturer has should the biosimilar applicant decline to provide those materials.
As Big Molecule Watch also reported, it is Sandoz’s position that, in legislation that stipulates that a biosimilar product manufacturer “shall” provide its application and marketing materials to the reference product’s sponsor, “shall” could be construed to mean that the applicant shall provide those materials only if it wishes to do so. Amgen, for its part, called Sandoz’s position a “surpassingly strange interpretation.”
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Amgen v Sandoz on April 26, 2017, and is expected to rule shortly. The Court’s decision in this case will have ripple effects throughout the industry, and may well affect the outcome of such ongoing cases as Amgen v Hospira by providing a clear judicial interpretation of the requirements for pre-marketing notice for biosimilar applicants.
Eye on Pharma: Sandoz Files Antitrust Suit; Yuflyma Interchangeability; Costco’s Ustekinumab Pick
April 22nd 2025Sandoz's antitrust suit against Amgen, the FDA’s interchangeability designation for Celltrion’s adalimumab biosimilar, and the inclusion of an ustekinumab biosimilar in Costco’s prescription program highlight growing momentum to expand biosimilar access and affordability for patients with chronic inflammatory diseases.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
President Trump Signs Executive Order to Bring Down Drug Prices
April 16th 2025To help bring down sky-high drug prices, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pushing for faster biosimilar development, more transparency, and tougher rules on pharmacy benefit managers—aiming to save billions and make meds more affordable for everyone.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Latest Biosimilar Deals Signal Growth Across Immunology, Oncology Markets
April 14th 2025During Q1 2025, pharmaceutical companies accelerated biosimilar expansion through strategic acquisitions and partnerships in hopes of boosting patient access to lower-cost treatments in immunology and oncology.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.