Genentech Sues to Halt Biosimilar Version of Cancer Drug
Genentech Inc. has accused Samsung Bioepis Co. in Delaware federal court of infringing 21 patents for its breast cancer drug Herceptin.
September 05, 2018 at 05:32 PM
4 minute read
Genentech Inc. has accused Samsung Bioepis Co. in Delaware federal court of infringing 21 patents for its breast cancer drug Herceptin.
In the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Genentech aims to stave off the latest threat of biosimilar competition for the drug, which is used to treat about 20 percent of the 2.8 million women who suffer from a form of breast cancer known as HER2-positive.
Genentech has launched similar lawsuits in recent months against drugmakers Celltrion Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Amgen Inc..
In a 54-page complaint, Genentech, a subsidiary of Roche, said it would suffer “irreparable injury” if Bioepis were allowed to market its planned drug, SB3. The suit requests a declaratory judgment that the sale of SB3 would infringe its patents, as well as an injunction and monetary damages, including lost profits, against Bioepis.
In the filing, Genentech said Bioepis had filed an abbreviated biologics license application in January seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to market SB3.
Under federal law, Bioepis was required to provide Genentech with a copy of its application and other information describing the process for manufacturing SB3; however, Genentech said, Bioepis turned over only redacted portions, which represented a “small fraction” of its entire application.
According to the complaint, Genentech provided a list of patents in April that it believed SB3 would infringe and refused to license the patents to Bioepis. Genentech said that Bioepis continued through August to deny any infringement and challenged the validity of the patents. On Monday, Genentech said, Bioepis agreed to litigate each of the 21 patents.
“Bioepis' failure to provide sufficient information under those circumstances supports Genentech's contention that manufacturing Bioepis' [abbreviated biologics license application] product will infringe such patents,” Genentech said in the complaint, which was signed by Richards, Layton & Finger partner Frederick L. Cottrell III.
Bioepis did not respond Wednesday to an email seeking comment on the lawsuit.
One of Genentech's top-selling cancer treatments, Herceptin was the first treatment to utilize an antibody called trastuzumab to fight HER2-positive breast cancer, and Genentech said that it had worked with the City of Hope cancer center in California to develop some of the key inventions that underpin its drug before gaining FDA approval in 1998. City of Hope is also named as a plaintiff in the suit
The patents, which were issued between 2001 and 2016, include techniques for making antibodies that can be used as drugs and for administering Herceptin in combination with the chemotherapy agent taxoid, the complaint said.
Tuesday's filing comes as Mylan and is looking to break into the market with its own biosimilar version of Herceptin. European regulators in 2016 approved Mylan's drug, which it had developed with Indian pharmaceutical company Biocon. The FDA in December also approved Mylan's drug, Ogivri, as a biosimilar to Herceptin.
In March, Mylan agreed to drop its challenge to two patents for Herceptin, after Genentech provided Mylan with global licenses for its trastuzumab product.
Both of those patents are asserted in Genentech's current suit against Bioepis. The case, captioned, Genentech v. Samsung Bioepis, has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the District of Delaware.
Genentech is represented by William F. Lee, Lisa J. Pirozzolo, Emily R. Whelan, Kevin S. Prussia and Andrew J. Danford of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr's Boston office; Robert J. Gunther Jr. of the firm's New York office and Robert M. Galvin in Palo Alto, California. The company is also represented by Daralyn J. Durie and Adam R. Brausa of Durie Tangri in San Francisco. Cottrell and Jason J. Rawnsley of Richards Layton are acting as local counsel.
An online docket-tracking service did not list attorneys for Bioepis.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
Chancery Again Rules in Plaintiff's Favor in Earnout Provision Dispute
3 minute readNovo Nordisk Files Patent Claims to Fend off Generic Rivals of Wegovy
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250