Amgen, Sandoz Argue Biosim Issues at Supreme Court

Share

In more than an hour of oral arguments 4/26, representatives of Amgen and Sandoz highlighted their differing interpretations of the requirements in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act before the Supreme Court. Media accounts indicate that the principal issues argued included whether FDA can approve a biosimilar before a 12-year exclusivity period expires, whether it would be possible for a reference product sponsor to file a complaint in good faith before FDA confirms the parameters of a final product licensure, and what is considered a violation of the “patent dance” and information disclosure provisions, and how state law requirements affect the outcome of those provisions.

Amgen, which makes the reference product Neupogen, argued that the notice to market a biosimilar can’t start until FDA approval. However, Sandoz, which will produce a biosimilar called Zarxio, said that such an interpretation would mean an additional six months of exclusivity for the reference product that Congress didn’t intent to provide.

Several of the justices appeared to side with Amgen, the Associated Press reports. “We are being asked to interpret very technical provisions that I find somewhat ambiguous and I’m operating in a field I know nothing about,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. “But it’s going to have huge implications for the future.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy said it seemed that time has to start running from the date a biosimilar is licensed. And Chief Justice John Roberts said the original drug maker would have difficulty bringing a patent infringement case without knowing the biosimilar’s specifics.

Court watchers say a ruling is expected by the end of June.

 

Read more