Dance or Not, Biosimilar Applicants Must Provide 180-Day Notice of Commercial Marketing Under the BPCIA

Jul 8, 2016

Reading Time : 4 min

Enacted in 2009, the BPCIA establishes a process by which a biosimilar applicant can obtain regulatory approval for a biological product that is sufficiently similar to a previously approved reference product based on information provided to the FDA by the reference product sponsor. 42 U.S.C. § 262(k). In addition to providing a mechanism for abbreviated regulatory approval of biosimilars, the BPCIA also created a framework for the resolution of patent disputes that might arise between a biosimilar applicant and a reference product sponsor. 42 U.S.C. § 262(l). Pursuant to § 262(l), once a biosimilar applicant receives notice from the FDA that its application has been accepted, a series of exchanges, frequently referred to as the “patent dance,” are triggered between the applicant, here Apotex, and the reference product sponsor, here Amgen. First, the biosimilar applicant is to provide its application and manufacturing information to the reference product sponsor. Id. at § 262(l)(2)(A). Then the reference product sponsor is to provide a list of patents it could reasonably assert against the biosimilar applicant and identify any such patents it is willing to license. Id. at § 262(l)(3)(A). Next, the biosimilar applicant is to provide a substantive response addressing any defenses it may assert against the reference product sponsor’s patents, stating whether any patents will expire before it intends to commercially market its product, and optionally identifying any additional patents it believes may be asserted against its product. Id. at § 262(l)(3)(B)(i)-(iii). Shortly thereafter, the reference product sponsor is to provide a substantive reply addressing the biosimilar applicant’s non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability positions. Id. at § 262(l)(3)(C). The parties then engage in a series of negotiations through which the parties agree on any patents that will be asserted in litigation, and which culminates in litigation filed pursuant to § 262(l)(6)(A).

In addition to providing a procedure for litigation that allows the biosimilar applicant and reference product sponsor to resolve patent disputes during the period of regulatory approval, the BPCIA also provides for a second stage of litigation connected to the first commercial marketing of the biosimilar product. Under § 262(l)(8)(A), a biosimilar applicant is required to provide notice to the reference product sponsor at least 180 days prior to the first commercial marketing of the licensed biosimilar product. At this time, the reference product sponsor has 180 days to seek a preliminary injunction based on any patents that were identified during the patent dance exchanges, but not litigated under § 262(l)(6) and any patents that issued or were exclusively licensed after the reference product sponsor gave its notice of patents under § 262(l)(3)(A). In its Amgen v. Sandoz decision, the Federal Circuit held the 180-day clock cannot start ticking until after the FDA approves the applicant’s biosimilar product. 794 F.3d at 1357-58. In other words, a notice of commercial marketing that is provided prior to FDA-approval has no legal authority.

The issue raised in this case is whether the 180-day notice requirement of § 262(l)(8)(A) is mandatory and enforceable by injunction against a party who participates in the patent dance procedures and subsequent litigation provided for under §§ 262(l)(2) - 262(l)(6). In Amgen v. Sandoz, the Federal Circuit held the notice period under § 262(l)(8)(A) applied to a biosimilar applicant who refused to engage in the patent dance procedures and consequently never provided the reference product sponsor with the notice to launch required under § 262(l)(2)(A). In this case, after Apotex filed an application with the FDA, seeking permission to begin marketing a biosimilar version of Amgen’s FDA-approved Neulasta®, it complied with the requirements of § 262(l)(2)(A). Apotex also provided notice to Amgen that it would begin commercially marketing its biosimilar product following the expiration of two patents at issue and provided defenses as to a third. The parties then engaged in the patent dance, and Amgen subsequently filed suit for patent infringement under § 262(l)(6)(A).

Following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen v. Sandoz, Amgen filed a motion asking the District Court to enforce the 180-day notice provision of § 262(l)(8)(A) by way of a preliminary injunction, which the District Court granted. On appeal, Apotex argued the Amgen v. Sandoz decision was inapplicable to the present case because in that case, Sandoz opted to forego the patent dance. According to Apotex, its notice to launch under § 262(l)(2)(A) should suffice to provide adequate notice of commercial marketing, and as a result, Amgen should not be entitled to the 180-day post-licensure notice period provided for in § 262(l)(8)(A).

In affirming the decision of the District Court to enforce the 180-day notice requirement of § 262(l)(8)(A), the Federal Circuit held that the language of § 262(l)(8)(A) is a mandatory standalone provision that is triggered after FDA approval, that covers all applicants regardless of whether they file a (2)(A) notice, and that is properly enforceable though an injunction. In this way, the BPCIA provides all reference-product sponsors with time to review the final FDA-approved product and determine whether it should seek injunctive relief to prevent commercial marketing of a product while yet-to-be-litigated patents are adjudicated.   

Amgen Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., Case No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an
anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found
that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would
not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents....

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation
pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of
products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal
of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims
were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an
attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of
the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug
product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and
the related statutory context.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition
challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged
claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.
...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.