Posts Tagged: "BPCIA"

For patent practitioners, this year packed in a lot of activity: Fractured Federal Circuit en banc decisions resolving who bears the burden of proof on motions to amend in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding and wading into the Apple-Samsung wars, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions on patent exhaustion, design patent damages, the fairly untested Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), and venue. And there’s still more coming, with outstanding opinions from the Federal Circuit on the reviewability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) time bar decisions and from the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of IPRs and the PTAB’s authority to institute proceedings partially. Coming off such a blockbuster year, what comes next? Here are six predictions.

Originally filed in October 2014, the long-running and high-stakes battle between two powerhouse companies, Amgen and Sandoz, continues to lay out the ground rules for a growing biosimilar industry. State law claims are preempted by the BPCIA on both field and conflict grounds, which means only remedy available against biosimilar applicants refusing to engage in the patent dance is filing for a declaration of infringement, validity, or enforceability of a patent that claims the biological product or its use. Notably, this must be done before receiving manufacturing information from the biosimilar company. Patent lawsuits are notoriously costly so, in the short term, the decision will have the greatest impact on innovator start-ups with limited financial resources. In the long term, relying on costly litigations to keep biosimilar drugs off the market will likely increase the consumer price for any biologic drug.

In a patent infringement case governed by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), the Federal Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to compel discovery in the district court. The Court also found that Amgen failed to meet the requirements for mandamus relief. Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2017) (Before Dyk, Bryson, and Chen, J.) (Opinion for the court, Dyk, J.)… When filing a BPCIA paragraph (l)(3) list of patents that could potentially be infringed by a biosimilar, all patents that could reasonably be infringed, based on available knowledge without discovery, should be included on that list. In an interlocutory appeal, the Federal Circuit lacks “collateral order” jurisdiction to compel a district court to order discovery concerning non-listed patents, nor is mandamus warranted, because relief is available on appeal from a final judgment.

42 U.S.C. § 262(l) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) regulates “biosimilars,” biological products that are highly similar to FDA-approved biological products. Section 262(l) has two notification requirements that are important to this case… The second question addressed by the Court was whether the applicant must provide notice after the FDA licenses its biosimilar, or if it may provide notice before the FDA licenses its biosimilar. The Court concluded that an applicant might, but does not have to, provide notice to the manufacturer of the biologic before obtaining a license from the FDA.

The Court’s Sandoz v. Amgen decision gutted a statute that had been carefully crafted to facilitate timely resolution of patent disputes and avoid delaying market entry of biosimilar products. In holding that a biosimilar applicant cannot be compelled through federal law to engage in the patent dance, the Court effectively gave biosimilar applicants a license to hide the ball. Given the complexity of biologics and biosimilars, it can be very difficult for an innovator company to reasonably determine which of its patents might be infringed by the biosimilar. Now, potentially meritorious patent infringement questions could be kicked far down the road. This could lead to delayed launch of the biosimilar product, possibly through a decision not to launch at risk or possibly by way of injunctive relief outside the BPCIA.

Modeled after the Hatch-Waxman Act, the BPCIA seeks not only to encourage competition in the field of biologics but also to promote innovation by, among other things, providing twelve years of market exclusivity to pioneer biologics… Like the Hatch-Waxman Act, the BPCIA also sets out a process for identifying disputes over patent infringement and managing any ensuing litigation once an applicant seeks a biosimilar license… To streamline the first wave of litigation, the BPCIA mandates that following the biosimilar applicant’s receipt of the RPS’s detailed statement on infringement, the parties negotiate in good faith to select patents for litigation from the lists initially provided by the RPS and the biosimilar applicant. [§ 262(l)(4)].

Two recent Federal Circuit opinions provide some answers to the issues presented by complaints alleging non-compliance with the BPCIA. In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that an aBLA filer’s participation in the patent dance is not mandatory under the BPCIA. 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Where an aBLA filer elects to forego the patent dance by failing to provide the aBLA and the biosimilar manufacturing information to the RPS, the only remedy available to the RPS lies in a declaratory judgment action for patent infringement, as expressly contemplated by § 262(1)(9)(C). In addition, the court concluded that an aBLA filer who did not engage in the patent dance was required to provide a notice of commercial marketing and that such notice could be effectively given only after the FDA had approved the aBLA. The court’s ruling left open the question whether an aBLA filer who participated in the patent dance was required to provide a notice of commercial manufacturing. This decision is on appeal to the Supreme Court, which has yet to decide whether it will hear the issue.

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to review Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit’s first decision regarding the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Although the Federal Circuit does not technically have any input into the Supreme Court’s grant or denial of certiorari, it nonetheless took the opportunity last week to bolster one of the challenged holdings: that a biosimilar applicant cannot provide its biologic competitor with 180 days’ notice of intent to commercially market a biosimilar product until that product is licensed. Specifically, in the course of ruling in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. that a biosimilar applicant must provide such notice even if it participated in the BPCIA’s so-called “patent dance,” the Federal Circuit addressed a primary criticism of its earlier decision, namely, that permitting only post-licensure notice effectively extends by 180 days the twelve-year exclusivity term of the biologic product. The solution suggested by the panel, however, is far from a legal certainty.

This statute tried to mirror the Hatch-Waxman statute for small molecules, including both an abbreviated drug approval process and a mechanism to address any patent claims during drug approval. However, because of the differences between these two types of drugs, stemming from the increased complexity in manufacturing and patent protection, unique provisions were included in the BPCIA. Unfortunately, as Judge Lourie of the Federal Circuit put it, the BPCIA could win a “Pulitzer prize for complexity or uncertainty.” And, it is these new provisions that could prove the downfall of the BPCIA, at least as it currently exists.