ARTICLE
11 February 2016

Remicade Biosimilar Closer To Approval, But Patent Dance Goes On

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
Celltrion's biosimilar version of Janssen's Remicade® product cleared a significant regulatory hurdle on February 9, 2016, when the Food and Drug Administration's Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 21-3 in favor of approval.
United States Intellectual Property

Celltrion's biosimilar version of Janssen's Remicade® (infliximab) product cleared a significant regulatory hurdle on February 9, 2016, when the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 21-3 in favor of approval. While the FDA is not bound by the Advisory Committee's decision, it is expected to follow the recommendation and approve the product. However, other requirements of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) and Janssen's patents may keep Celltrion's product off the market for a while longer.

Pending BPCIA Litigation

As summarized in this article, after Celltrion filed its biosimilar application, Janssen sued Celltrion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging violations of the BPCIA and infringement of six patents. One of the BPCIA claims alleged that Celltrion's "notice of commercial marketing" was premature and ineffective under 42 USC § 262(l)(8) since it was given before the biosimilar product was approved by the FDA.

In Amgen v. Sandoz the Federal Circuit determined that § 262(l)(8) is a "standalone" provision, and that the pre-marketing notice required by that provision cannot be given until the FDA has approved the biosimilar product. However, in Amgen v. Apotex, which is on appeal at the Federal Circuit, Apotex has argued that § 262(l)(8) does not apply when the biosimilar applicant has participated in the patent dance provisions of the BPCIA.

Depending on whether § 262(l)(8) is found to be a true "standalone" provision or to apply only if there are unasserted patents to be litigated, if and when the FDA approves Celltrion's biosimilar product, Celltrion may have to give Janssen 180 days' notice before it can market its product.

The Patent Claims

As noted above, Janssen originally asserted six patents against Celltrion. It has since dismissed its claim relating to one patent and sought to stay its claim regarding another patent that is undergoing reexamination. Thus, at least four patents remain in dispute. Janssen may seek a preliminary injunction to prevent Celltrion from entering the market until this patent litigation is resolved, and/or Celltrion may decide against a launch at risk.

Thus, even after the regulatory and pre-marketing notice hurdles of the BPCIA are cleared, Janssen's patents may keep Celltrion's biosimilar product off the market.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More