There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held...more
Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more
On February 29, Biocon Biologics Ltd announced that it signed a settlement and license agreement with Janssen Biotech Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) regarding Bmab 1200, Biocon’s proposed biosimilar to STELARA....more
On August 7, 2023, Formycon AG and Fresenius Kabi announced that they have reached a settlement with Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) in the United States relating to FYB202, a proposed ustekinumab biosimilar to STELARA®, marketed...more
We previously reported on Janssen’s complaint alleging that Amgen’s filing of an aBLA for ustekinumab, a biosimilar of STELARA, infringes Amgen patents, and about Janssen seeking a preliminary injunction to block Amgen from...more
As we previously reported, on March 1, 2023, Janssen filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., C.A. No. 22-1549-MN, seeking to enjoin Amgen from the commercial manufacturing, sale, and...more
On March 1, 2023, Janssen filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., C.A. No. 22-1549-MN, seeking to enjoin Amgen from the commercial manufacturing, sale, and offer for sale of ABP 654,...more
On November 29, 2022, Janssen filed a BPCIA complaint in the District of Delaware against Amgen related to Amgen’s ustekinumb biosimilar ABP 654 of Janssen’s STELARA. This is Janssen’s first BPCIA case filed with...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court found Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422 (“422 patent”) – which relates to treatment of prostate cancer in humans by co-administration of abiraterone acetate (marketed by Janssen...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court found Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422 (the 422 patent) invalid on the basis of obviousness and dismissed its actions against Apotex, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, and...more
In a public decision dated July 6, 2022 in an action under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, Justice Pallotta of the Federal Court found that Apotex would infringe Janssen’s patent relating to...more
Patenting antibodies has long been challenging. Although most inventions can be patented based on their functionality, assuming the functionality is new and non-obvious, for antibodies and other biomolecules there is a higher...more
As previously reported, in the final decision released under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), the Federal Court granted a prohibition order relating to Canadian Patent No....more
Originating tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Date: March 12, 2021 - Panel: Judges Newman, Moore, and Stoll, with Judge Moore writing the precedential order - Result: Appeal dismissed, and mandamus...more
UPDATE: UPDATE: On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Pfizer’s application for leave to appeal (Docket No. 39150) (see article here). Pfizer seeks leave in pregabalin section 8 case As previously...more
On May 5, 2020, Manson J. of the Federal Court issued the second decision on the merits under the amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance Regulations). The Court upheld the validity of Janssen’s patent for...more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: We will periodically report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Abbott Laboratories v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. PTAB Petition: IPR2020-00480; filed January...more
About Life Sciences Court Report: We will periodically report on recently filed biotech and pharma litigation. Allergan USA, Inc. v. Prollenium US Inc. 1-20-cv-00104; filed January 23, 2020 in the District Court of...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court granted Teva’s claim for compensation under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations relating to Teva’s bortezomib product (Janssen markets bortezomib as...more
On October 29, 2019, the Federal Court issued its final decision under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: Janssen Inc v Apotex Inc, 2019 FC 1355. Justice Phelan granted Janssen’s...more
Orders of prohibition relating to polymorphic form patent for PRISTIQ upheld on appeal - As previously reported, the Federal Court, in a pair of decisions, granted orders prohibiting Apotex and Teva from marketing their...more
In 2018 we reported on a number of developments in life sciences IP and regulatory law. Our most-read articles were: #1 a June update on biosimilars (authored by Urszula Wojtyra); #2 a “live” summary chart of Vanessa’s Law...more
Today, Judge Wolf found in favor of Celltrion, granting its motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the sole remaining patent-in-suit based on an application of the ensnarement doctrine to Janssen’s infringement...more
As we reported here, in the patent dispute between Janssen and Defendants Celltrion and Hospira relating to Inflectra® (infliximab-dyyb), a biosimilar of Remicade®, there are multiple motions for summary judgment pending...more
In In re: Janssen Biotech, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) holding that, for the purposes of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 121, a patent owner of a...more