Failure To Comply With BPCIA Mandates Precludes A Declaratory Judgment Suit

Dec 2, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

In a slip opinion, the Southern District of New York Court recognized that the BPCIA statutory framework governs the dispute resolution process for disputes relating to the manufacture and marketing of biosimilar products (e.g., biologic drugs which are “highly similar” to an already FDA approved “reference product”). While a reference product enjoys exclusivity for a period of twelve years, the BPCIA provides for a relatively quick and inexpensive methodology for biosimilar manufacturers to gain FDA approval for their drugs which have ‘“no clinically meaningful differences’” from the reference product. The BPCIA includes a dispute resolution mechanism that is designed to ensure that patent disputes are resolved before the reference product’s exclusivity period terminates. The dispute resolution process mandated by the BPCIA includes the exchange of information and various notices to the parties. The court noted that, even had it not already found that the matter involved no actual case or controversy, the failure to adhere to the dispute resolution process set forth in the BPCIA will preclude the manufacturer of a biosimilar product from seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity against a reference product sponsor.

Celltrion Healthcare Co., Ltd. V. Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research, 2014 WL 6765996 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2014).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 13, 2026

In a precedential and sua sponte Director Review decision, USPTO Director Squires recently vacated three related institution decisions nearly six months after institution where a district court later found the challenged claims invalid. Because the fourteen-day deadline to request Director Review of the institution decisions had passed, the Director used this opportunity to formally extend the deadline in two ways. First, he extended the fourteen-day deadline under 37 C.F.R. § 42.75(c)(1) to thirty days, which “puts requests for Director Review of decisions to institute trial on equal footing to requests for Director Review of final decisions or decisions not to institute trial.” Second, he outlined certain “exceptional circumstances” that warrant a further extension of the deadline to account for changes in the case that “surface after the deadline.” In the case at hand, the Director found the district court’s invalidity finding to be such an “exceptional circumstance” and ultimately initiated review and vacated the institution decisions on that basis.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.