Biosimilar Litigations include litigations relating to biosimilar/follow-on products of CDER-listed reference products. Litigations between biosimilar applicants/manufacturers and reference product sponsors as well as...more
On February 14, 2025, the FDA approved Sanofi’s Merilog™ / Merilog SoloStar® (insulin aspart-szjj), the first biosimilar of Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog® (insulin aspart). Merilog™ is packaged in a multi-dose vial, and Merilog...more
To date, 2024 has not yet seen the type of mega-merger (Pfizer/Seagen) or level of agency enforcement (Sanofi/Maze or Amgen/Horizon) as 2023. But two notable investigations — one still active — show the Federal Trade...more
Be careful when you sell intellectual property (“IP”) in return for future royalty payments. You may think your contract is airtight, guaranteeing you a future annuity on the sales of product relating to your IP, but that...more
There now is increased interest about the written description and enablement requirements for patent applications claiming antibodies. This may stem from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, finding lack...more
PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC. - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
In an appeal from a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the result-effective variable doctrine can apply even when there is no overlap between a claimed...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down its opinion in Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) determination that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,492,559 challenged in...more
Despite increasingly aggressive rhetoric from the agencies, 2022 was largely characterized as “business as usual” in the antitrust world. In contrast, 2023 featured a significant step up in enforcement activity, including...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated yet another set of antibody genus claims, finding the case “materially indistinguishable” from those in the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States case, Amgen v....more
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened its doors on June 1, 2023. Nineteen actions were initiated during the first six weeks, across a range of subject areas and case values. It had been widely assumed that large companies...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down broad patent claims covering a “genus” of antibodies, reaffirming in a 9-0 decision that a patent must “enable” the full scope of its claims (Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi). Amgen, Inc.,...more
This month, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the closely watched case involving the enablement standard for patent claims, particularly as applied to functionally defined genus claims. Genus...more
In May, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, which addressed the statutory enablement requirement for patents. The decision is consistent with ongoing efforts to strike a...more
On May 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in the much-anticipated Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi case. See 598 U.S. ___, No. 21-757, 2023 WL 3511533 (May 18, 2023). In so doing, the Court maintained the...more
Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., No. 22-157 (U.S. 2023) - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision invalidating Amgen’s patent claims covering a genus of antibodies...more
The case of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, U.S., No. 21-757 dealt with patent law’s “enablement” requirement. Essentially, the Court affirmed 150 years of precedent requiring the invention to be described “‘in such full, clear,...more
The Court held in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. __ (2023) that the "full scope" of the invention defined by the claims must be enabled by the specification. "The more one claims, the more one must enable." Id., at p 13....more
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a closely watched case regarding patent law’s enablement requirement, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi. The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision that Amgen’s patent claims were invalid,...more
The legal standard for enablement – the statutory requirement under 35 USC § 112 that a patent must enable those skilled in the art to “make and use” the claimed invention – remains unchanged after the US Supreme Court...more
Summary - In Amgen v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the District of Delaware and Federal Circuit findings that Amgen’s functionally defined patent claims to a class of therapeutic antibodies are invalid as...more
Executive Summary - In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,829,165 (“the ’165 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,859,741 (“the...more
The Supreme Court issued no fewer than six opinions on Thursday, May 18, addressing questions including whether an internet platform might be held liable as an aider and abettor of terrorist activity, and whether Andy...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (referred to as the Amgen decision) likely makes it more difficult for life sciences companies to obtain broad patents claiming an entire genus of antibodies...more
On May 18, the Supreme Court sided with Sanofi in Amgen v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. ____ (2023), a dispute concerning broad functional genus claims for antibodies. The ruling affirmed the Federal Circuit’s reading of the Patent Act’s...more