In a previous post, I discussed a district court decision holding that the process for resolving patent disputes under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) is optional. That post contains extensive background on the BPCIA and its purpose to provide an abbreviated pathway for “biosimilar” drugs to get to market and compete with their branded analogs, resulting in lower prices for consumers. The bottom line is that, under the BPCIA, makers of biosimilar products can rely on the clinical trial data developed for the branded (or “reference”) product in order to accelerate FDA approval. Nevertheless, the BPCIA provides 12 years of data exclusivity to the manufacturer of the reference product. And beyond that period, even if the biosimilar garners FDA approval, the brand owner can try to continue to keep it out of the market by asserting claims of patent infringement. The BPCIA provides for a procedure involving pre-suit information exchange between the brand and biosimilar makers—the so-called “patent dance”—that is intended to apprise the brand of the biosimilar’s manufacturing process and narrow down the number of patents to be be asserted. But the district court, and now the Federal Circuit on appeal, have held that the biosimilar can lawfully refuse to participate in the patent dance.
Of course, Amgen, the brand owner in this case, can still pursue patent infringement claims against Sandoz, the biolisimilar maker, on remand at the district court. But it appears that, given its eagerness to skip the patent dance in this case, Sandoz is confident it can win the patent infringement battle and is poised to launch its competing product as soon as possible.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.