Federal Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing of Biosimilar Opinion in Amgen v. Sandoz

Oct 15, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

The original panel opinion interpreted two notice provisions in the Biologics Price Control and Innovation Act (BPCIA), a component of the ACA. At issue was Sandoz's decision not to comply with the first provision of the law, which states that the biosimilar applicant “shall” provide to the reference product sponsor a copy of its application and manufacturing information. Sandoz contended, and the court ultimately agreed, that despite using the word “shall,” Congress did not intend to make these disclosures mandatory, because the law also provided remedies for sponsors faced with non-disclosure from an applicant.

The panel also interpreted another provision of the law, requiring that the biosimilar applicant provide 180 day notice to the product sponsor that it intended to enter the marketplace. The panel held that biosimilar makers can only provide the BPCIA’s 180-day notice of commercial marketing after their product is licensed, and that this notice is mandatory when biosimilar makers do not participate in the so-called patent dance.

It is possible that Amgen and Sandoz will seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is not immediately clear whether either company will do so.

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc., Case No. 15-1499 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2015).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

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.