Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Biologic Drug Patent Fight

Brendan Pierson  |  December 12, 2016

WASHINGTON (Reuters)—The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case over whether companies that make copycat versions of biologic drugs must wait six months after winning federal approval before bringing them to the market.

The justices opted not to take up Apotex Inc.’s appeal of a July federal appeals court ruling that could delay the Canadian generic drug maker’s launch of biosimilar versions of California-based Amgen Inc’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), used to fight infection in cancer patients.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2002, Neulasta is one of Amgen’s top-selling products, accounting for $4.7 billion of its nearly $21 billion in sales last year.

Biologic drugs, such as Neulasta, are made using living cells. Unlike traditional drugs, biologic drugs cannot be copied exactly to make generic versions. A 2010 federal law, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, allows companies to seek approval to sell near-copies, called biosimilars.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Novartis AG’s Sandoz unit also has applied to make biosimilar versions of Neulasta and of Amgen’s Neupogen (filgrastim), an older and less popular drug that works similarly but must be given more often. Neither application has yet been approved.

The biosimilars law gives the maker of a biologic drug 12 years of exclusive rights before the FDA can approve a biosimilar. It also states that a biosimilar maker must give the original biologic drug maker 180 days’ notice before launching its copycat version.

Amgen has argued that the 180-day period cannot begin until the biosimilar is approved. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed in July, barring Apotex from launching its biosimilar until 180 days after approval.

In its petition asking the Supreme Court to review that decision, Apotex says the Federal Circuit wrongly added an extra six months to the law’s 12-year exclusivity period.

It also argued that it should be exempt from the 180-day notice requirement entirely, because it voluntarily took part in a patent dispute resolution process under the biosimilars law.

A federal judge in Florida rejected patent infringement claims by Amgen over Apotex’s biosimilars in September.

The Obama administration’s solicitor general has weighed in on a Supreme Court petition from Sandoz unit in its similar dispute with Amgen, coming down against the 180-day wait.

Share: 

Filed under:Biologics/DMARDsDrug Updates Tagged with:Amgenbiologic drugsBiosimilarslawsuitLegal

Related Articles

    U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Dispute Over Biologic Drug Sales

    January 15, 2017

    NEW YORK (Reuters)—The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a dispute over whether companies that make copycat versions of biologic drugs must wait six months after winning federal approval to begin selling them. The justices will take up an appeal by Novartis AG of a 2015 federal appeals court decision that prevented the…

    Marching to the Biosimilar Beat: Questions on Rollout Remain

    September 7, 2023

    The availability of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with rheumatic diseases exploded in 2023. Here’s where we stand and what to expect going forward.

    Possible Impact of Biosimilar Infliximab on U.S. Market in Prescriptions, Pricing

    September 8, 2016

    paulista/shutterstock.com The use of biosimilars for rheuma­tology in the U.S. became a reality when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb), a biosimilar to Remicade (infliximab), in April. What this may mean is increased competition among drug companies with regard to pricing and, therefore, potentially lower costs for U.S. patients, according to…

    The Impact of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Medical Affairs, Healthcare Policy

    October 11, 2016

    The U.S. Supreme Court As America’s capital, Washington, D.C., maintains an outsized influence in our daily lives. Despite having a meager sliver of the New York City population, the daily political transactions that transpire in the District of Columbia impact our lives. The comings and goings in the corridors of Congress are likely to have a…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences