Biosimilars in the United States: Emerging Issues in Litigation

Abstract

Many first-generation biologics will lose their patent protection by 2020. The biosimilars market is not only attractive but also competitive and tough. The United States (US) is the world’s largest pharmaceutical market and is critical to the success of most drugs. However, unclear regulatory requirements and confusing patent resolution procedures create hurdles to market entry of biosimilars. Trade secret exposure and scant exclusivity and adoption also limit the market access of biosimilars. Both biologics and biosimilar developers should closely follow the regulatory and litigation landscape to successfully navigate through the challenges. Focusing on the US landscape, this article provides a brief review of the regulatory framework for biosimilar products, market exclusivities, and patent issues under the Biologics Price Control and Innovation Act (BPCIA), analyzes emerging issues in the biosimilar litigation landscape, and provides recommendations for companies entering the biosimilars market.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Food and Drug Administration. Licensed biological products with supporting documents. 2015. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ucm133705.htm. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  2. 2.

    Khanam R. Biosimilars are here. Now what? 2015. http://inmygroup.com/06/26/2016/biosimilars-are-here-now-what.html Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  3. 3.

    Blackstone EA, Joseph PF. The economics of biosimilars. Am Health Drug Benef. 2013;6:469–78.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Parker GE, Witwer S, Bowker GM. Regulatory approval of biosimilars: a global Queryperspective. Regul Focus. 2014:1–11.

  5. 5.

    European Medicines Agency. Similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: quality issues. 2006. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003953.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2017.

  6. 6.

    World Health Organization. Guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs), Annex 2, Technical Report Series No. 977. 2009. http://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/trs/areas/biological_therapeutics/TRS_977_Annex_2.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  7. 7.

    Krishnan A, Mody R, Malhotra H. Global regulatory landscape of biosimilars: emerging and established market perspectives. Biosimilars. 2015;5:19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Blank T, Netzer T, Hildebrandt W, Vogt-Eisele A, Kaszkin-Bettag M. Safety and toxicity of biosimilars—EU versus US regulation. Generics Biosimilars Init J. 2013;2:144–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. 2010. P.L. No. 111–148, §7001(b), 124 Stat. 119, 604.

  10. 10.

    21st Century Cures Act. 2016. P.L. No: 114–255. December 13, 2016.

  11. 11.

    FD&C Act §505, codified as 21 U.S.C. §355.

  12. 12.

    21 U.S.C. §355(a).

  13. 13.

    PHS Act §351, codified as 42 U.S.C. §262.

  14. 14.

    42 U.S.C. §262(a).

  15. 15.

    42 U.S.C. §262(i)(1).

  16. 16.

    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry—biosimilars: questions and answers regarding implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. 2015. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM273001.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  17. 17.

    42 U.S.C. §262(i)(2).

  18. 18.

    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry—Scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product. 2015. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM291128.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  19. 19.

    Panesar K. Biosimilars: Current approvals and pipeline agents. US Pharm. 2016; 41(10):26–29. https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/biosimilars-current-approvals-and-pipeline-agents. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  20. 20.

    Christl L. Comments by CDER Associate Director for Therapeutic Biologics, at the June 20, 2016, Alliance for Health Reform briefing, “The Emerging Biosimilars Market,” webcast at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZvhLYZ_TZg. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  21. 21.

    42 U.S.C. §262(k)(4).

  22. 22.

    42 U.S.C. §262(i)(3).

  23. 23.

    35 U.S.C. §156.

  24. 24.

    PHS Act §351(k)(7)(A).

  25. 25.

    PHS Act §351(k)(7)(B).

  26. 26.

    PHS Act §351(k)(7)(C).

  27. 27.

    PHS Act §351(k)(6).

  28. 28.

    21 U.S.C. §355a.

  29. 29.

    PHS Act §351(m).

  30. 30.

    21 U.S.C. §360bb.

  31. 31.

    21 U.S.C. §360cc.

  32. 32.

    Food and Drug Administration, Purple Book: Lists of licensed biological products with reference product exclusivity and biosimilarity or interchangeability evaluations. 2016. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugsaredevelopedandapproved/approvalapplications/therapeuticbiologicapplications/biosimilars/ucm411418.htm Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  33. 33.

    42 U.S.C. §262(k).

  34. 34.

    Food and Drug Administration. Information for industry (Biosimilars). 2015. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/TherapeuticBiologicApplications/Biosimilars/ucm241720.htm. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  35. 35.

    Food and Drug Administration. Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability with a Reference Product. Guidance for Industry. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM537135.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  36. 36.

    35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1)–(2).

  37. 37.

    PHS Act §351(l).

  38. 38.

    Hatch–Waxman Act. 1984. P.L. 98–417.

  39. 39.

    21 U.S.C. §355(b)(1)(G).

  40. 40.

    42 U.S.C. §262(l)(8).

  41. 41.

    Lucio SD, Stevenson JG, Hoffman JM. Biosimilars: a primer for the health system pharmacist. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013;70:2004–17.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Wiatr C. US Biosimilar pathway unlikely to be used. Biodrugs. 2011;1:63–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Serafini AT, Kabler K, Yee G. Monoclonal antibody patents: Evolving law & strategies. 2012. https://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/monoclonal-antibody-patents-evolving-law-and-strategies.aspx. Accessed 11 Jan 2017.

  44. 44.

    Wong HK, McMahon DJ. Preparing for uncertainties in biosimilars litigation. Financier Worldwide. 2011. http://www.financierworldwide.com. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  45. 45.

    Long G, Mulhern C. Recently released FDA guidance and biosimilar development: implications for the litigation environment. FDLI Update. In: FDLI’s 55th annual conference, March/April 2012. pp. 19–21.

  46. 46.

    Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 14-cv-04741, 2015 WL 1264756 (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2015).

  47. 47.

    Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015).

  48. 48.

    Blais EH, Lu A. Legal insights on the regulation of biosimilars. Pharm Purch Prod. 2015;68:70–1.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 15-1039 (S. Ct. filed February 16, 2016).

  50. 50.

    Amicus Brief in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 15-1039 and No. 15-1195 (filed December 7, 2016)

  51. 51.

    Fischer A, Monroe-Yavneh N. Sandoz Seeks Cert on 180-Day Issue in Amgen v. Sandoz. 2016. Available from: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/sandoz-seeks-cert-on-180-day-issue-in-57097/. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  52. 52.

    Bologicsblog. Supreme Court Grants Cert in Amgen v. Sandoz. 2017. https://www.biologicsblog.com/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-amgen-v-sandoz/. Accessed 9 Mar 2017.

  53. 53.

    Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 2:16cv1118 (D. N. J. filed February 26, 2016).

  54. 54.

    Janssen Biotech Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. No. 1:15-cv-10698 (D. Mass. March 6, 2015).

  55. 55.

    Janssen Biotech Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. No. 17-1120 (Fed. Cir. October 24, 2016).

  56. 56.

    Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. No. 15-cv-61631 (S.D. Fla. filed August 6, 2015).

  57. 57.

    Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. No. 15-cv-61631, Order (S.D. Fla. December 9, 2015).

  58. 58.

    Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. No. 16-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016).

  59. 59.

    Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. No. 17-1010 (Fed. Cir. filed October 3, 2016).

  60. 60.

    Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. No. 16-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016)., cert. denied, No. 16-332 (S. Ct. December 12, 2016).

  61. 61.

    Amgen Inc. v. Hospira Inc. No. 1:15-cv-00839 (D. Del. filed September18, 2015).

  62. 62.

    Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 3:16cv2581 (N.D. Cal. filed May 12, 2016).

  63. 63.

    AbbVie Inc., v. Amgen Inc., No. 1:16-cv-666 (D. Del., filed November 1, 2016).

  64. 64.

    Rosenthal M. Biosimilar arena still littered with litigation. Pharm Pract News. 2015;42:6.

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Citizen Petition from AbbVie, Inc. FDA-2015-P-2000-0001. June 2, 2015.

  66. 66.

    Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc. 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013).

  67. 67.

    Borkoski K. Details: FTC v. Actavis. SCOTUS Blog, 2013. http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/details-ftc-v-actavis/. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  68. 68.

    Robert Burt v. Genentech Inc. No. 2015-CI-05771 (Tx. October 30, 2015).

  69. 69.

    Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. No. 1:11-cv-11681-NMG (D. Mass. October 28, 2011).

  70. 70.

    Liu ZQ. Biosimilar makers turn to IPRs before litigation under the BPCIA, May 15, 2015. http://www.biologicsblog.com/blog/biosimilar-makers-turn-to-iprs-before-litigation-under-bpcia/. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.

  71. 71.

    42 U.S.C. §262(l)(1).

  72. 72.

    Marquardt JL, Auten SR. Strategic considerations under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2013;8:915–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    18 U.S.C. §1836.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AYTW and MMR made substantial contribution to the conception of this study, and drafted and critically reviewed the manuscript. AWKC critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Yuen-Ting Wong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Alice Yuen-Ting Wong, Martha M. Rumore and Albert Wai-Kit Chan declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 185 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wong, A.YT., Rumore, M.M. & Chan, A.WK. Biosimilars in the United States: Emerging Issues in Litigation. BioDrugs 31, 189–205 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-017-0216-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Patent Infringement
  • Market Exclusivity
  • Biosimilar Product
  • Patent Litigation
  • Patent Thicket