Stay ahead of developments in federal and state health care law, regulation and transactions with timely, expert news and analysis.
Dec. 8 — The Supreme Court is more likely to clarify biosimilar law as a result of a Dec. 7 brief by the acting solicitor general encouraging it to review a lower court decision ( Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc. , U.S., No. 15-1039, brief filed 12/7/16 ).
The acting solicitor general advised the court that the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning Sandoz’s Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), a biosimilar of Amgen’s chemotherapy-related biologic Neupogen (filgrastim), was incorrect in providing a six-month delay before biosimilars can come to market.
“This is a really significant development because it means the Supreme Court is likely to grant certiorari [review] and provide clarity about key provisions of the [biosimilar statute] that will impact nearly every biosimilars patent case,” Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, a partner in Goodwin Procter LLP’s intellectual property litigation group, told Bloomberg BNA in a Dec. 7 e-mail.
The justices will consider the review petition in a private conference on Jan. 6. If the court decides to review the Federal Circuit decision, it would hear arguments in April and could issue a decision by the end of June.
Biologics are used to treat such diseases as cancer and hepatitis C. A biosimilar is a biologic drug product that is highly similar to a Food and Drug Administration-approved biologic. The Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) provides an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilars that partly relies on data submitted for FDA approval of the original biologic, also known as a reference product (RP).
The abbreviated pathway allows lower development costs for the biosimilar than for the RP. The cost to consumers for most biosimilars is expected to be at least 15 percent less than the RP.
In exchange for the ability to use the RP’s data, the BPCIA provides that the biosimilar applicant will give the RP sponsor its abbreviated biologics license application (aBLA) for the biosimilar and jointly develop with the RP sponsor a list of the sponsor’s patents that the biosimilar might infringe. This exchange has been called “the patent dance.”
The BPCIA also provides for the biosimilar applicant to give the RP sponsor a 180-day notice of the date that it intends to commercially market the biosimilar.
In its Amgen decision, the Federal Circuit held that the patent dance was not mandatory, as Sandoz argued, and that the 180-day notice couldn’t be issued until the FDA approved the biosimilar, as Amgen argued ( 9 LSLR, 7/24/15 ).
Sandoz, which is part of Novartis, petitioned for certiorari, and Amgen cross-petitioned.
The acting solicitor general’s brief indicates that the text of Section 262(l)(8)(A) of the BPCIA directly addresses the requisite timing of the 180-day notice of commercial marketing when it states that notice must be given “not later than 180 days before the date of the first commercial marketing.” According to the acting solicitor general, “That restriction places the only limit on the appropriate timing. Nothing in Section 262(l)(8)(A) additionally restricts how soon the applicant may provide notice after the applicant submits its aBLA to FDA.”
The Federal Circuit inferred a temporal restriction from the phrase “the date of the first commercial marketing of the biological product licensed under Section 262(k), because, it concluded, the word “licensed” indicates that the notice “must be given only after the product is licensed,” the brief said.
“But ‘licensed’ there is most naturally read as describing the biological product at ‘the date of [its] first commercial marketing.’ And Section 262(l)(8)(A) simply requires notice be given ‘not later than 180 days before th[at] date,’ a time at which the product may not yet be licensed,” the acting solicitor general wrote.
Under the Federal Circuit’s reading, the owner of a biosimilar with an effective license could be forced to wait 180 days after FDA has authorized it to commence marketing, even if the sponsor had no arguably valid infringement claim to warrant such delay, the brief said.
“The timing of biosimilars’ entry onto the market was a significant issue addressed by the BPCIA, which prohibits FDA from making its approval of an aBLA effective before 12 years after the reference product’s first licensure. Given the expressly granted exclusivity periods, it is particularly unlikely that Congress would have further delayed biosimilars’ marketing in such an indirect manner.”
The acting solicitor general also indicated that the Federal Circuit had correctly interpreted the other aspects of the BPCIA that it considered.
The acting solicitor general urged the court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision, explaining the issues presented are sufficiently important to merit the court’s review because biologic medicines are among the most important and expensive drugs available today.
“Although petitioner is no longer enjoined from marketing Zarxio for allegedly violating Section 262(l)(8)(A), petitioner explains that this case is not moot because the dispute is capable of repetition, yet evading review,” the brief said.
The brief was signed by Ian Heath Gershengorn, acting solicitor general; Benjamin C. Mizer, principal deputy assistant attorney general; Edwin S. Kneedler, deputy solicitor general; Anthony A. Yang, assistant to the solicitor general; and Scott R. McIntosh and Lowell V. Sturgill Jr., attorneys.
To contact the reporter on this story: John T. Aquino in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Brian Broderick at firstname.lastname@example.org
The brief is at http://src.bna.com/kBT.
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)