Amgen Sees ‘Chaos’ in Biosimilars if Sandoz Prevails
Amgen’s Supreme Court opening and response brief in Sandoz v. Amgen cautions that there will be “chaos” in the biosimilar world if the court rules against Amgen’s positions on the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act’s (BPCIA) 180-day notice of biosimilar marketing and patent dance provisions. Attorney Sara Koblitz (Hyman, Phelps & McNamara) writes in her firm’s FDA Law Blog that Amgen’s brief does not raise any new arguments since the issues have been extensively litigated in lower courts.
It’s Amgen’s position that companies must participate in the patent dance if the BPCIA is to have its intended effect. And it says that 180-day notice of marketing can only come after FDA licensure to ensure time to efficiently enforce patents. Koblitz says Amgen reasons that the proper result is obvious, as it both reflects the law’s text and structure and it better promotes the law’s purpose.
“Amgen argues that Sandoz’ interpretation of the BPCIA would require reference product sponsors to sue on every conceivable relevant patent in order to protect its patent rights,” Koblitz concludes. “Without exchange of product information, the reference product sponsor has no way of knowing which patent is implicated. And if an applicant could choose not to provide required disclosures and refuse to provide 180 days’ notice of commercial marketing, the sponsor could only enforce its patent rights through emergency injunctive relief after licensure. Couched in its chaos theory, Amgen argues that Sandoz’ interpretation would negate the ‘process’ that the BPCIA was intended to introduce. Instead, Amgen believes that reference product sponsors will just have to close their eyes and sue without any knowledge of actual infringement.”