Federal Circuit Called on Once Again to Judge the 'Patent Dance'
Genentech is looking to block sales of Amgen's cancer biosimilar Mvasi because Amgen failed to provide 180 days' notice when it shifted manufacturing plans from California to Rhode Island. Judge Kimberly Moore said Genentech is proposing "an extraordinarily broad view" of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
June 03, 2020 at 09:12 PM
4 minute read
A Federal Circuit panel seemed to resist Genentech Inc.'s efforts Wednesday to pull a generic Amgen Inc. cancer treatment off the shelves for six months.
Genentech told a Federal Circuit panel that Amgen failed to serve the 180-day notice of commercial marketing required by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act when, in August 2018, it supplemented its Food and Drug Administration application for Mvasi, Amgen's biosimilar version of Genentech's $3 billion-a-year drug Avastin.
Roche-owned Genentech asked the Federal Circuit to enjoin Amgen from marketing Mvasi until it complies with the BPCIA, the 2009 law that established "the patent dance" for biosimilars.
Amgen gave notice when it first applied for FDA approval in 2017. U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly of the District of Delaware ruled last year that Amgen was not required to serve new notice when it supplemented that application. The supplement outlined plans to manufacture Mvasi at both Amgen's home base in Thousand Oaks, California, and at a Rhode Island facility. It also made revisions to the Mvasi label.
"As long as your supplement is a change to the existing license, and it is the same biological product, it would not trigger a new notice," MoloLamken partner Jeffrey Lamken argued on behalf of Amgen.
Williams & Connolly associate Luke McCloud argued that would let companies such as Amgen disclose "Potemkin versions" of their manufacturing process—"the version that implicates the fewest of the innovators' patents"—while keeping their real plans secret until close to launch. "Congress could not have intended to create a statutory scheme that could be so easily gamed," McCloud said.
McCloud gave a poised and polished argument in Genentech v. Immunex, which like all Federal Circuit arguments the last few months was conducted over the telephone. But Judge Kimberly Moore sounded wary from the outset.
"Suppose it was a very minor, minor, minor supplement, an ever-so-slight change in wording on the label that was really of no significance or consequence," she said. "You think that starts the 180-day clock over again, even if there were no change to the manufacturing facility, no change to the underlying product itself?"
McCloud argued that the clock would reset only on changes to the license that require FDA "pre-approval."
"What are we supposed to do?" asked Judge Kathleen O'Malley. "Make a determination as to what in each instance the FDA would decide needed approval?"
McCloud acknowledged that could occasionally pose challenges. But "that is an easy question to answer in this case," he said. "When they are making changes to the manufacturing facility and to the labeling that goes to the product, those are significant changes" that require FDA sign-off.
"To be clear, your view is an extraordinarily broad one," Moore told him.
Lamken and Amgen met some resistance too. O'Malley turned the argument around on him, asking, "Is it your position that there is no form of supplement that would ever trigger a new notice?"
Lamken said the court can defer to the FDA, which knows when changes to the product are so substantial as to require a new application.
"But isn't there possible mischief here," O'Malley asked him. The manufacturing process is often at the core of patent infringement allegations in biosimilar cases. "So doesn't this imply that there could be a bait-and-switch? You could say here that we're going to use X process, and then turn around and use Y process at the last minute. Doesn't that create a potential problem?"
"I don't think so," Lamken replied, arguing that parties can typically learn that information via discovery. The BPCIA's notice provision "is a heads-up notice about launch. It's not an opportunity for further informational disclosures about the means of production."
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
'Blatant and Audacious': Sideman & Bancroft Wins Injunction for Biotech Startup Trilobio in Trade Secrets Theft Case
Los Angeles Secures $35M Settlement From Monsanto in Water Contamination Lawsuit
After Guiding Illumina Through Harrowing Merger Fight, GC Charles Dadswell to Depart
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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