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 to Hear Dispute Over Biologic Drug Sales

Andrew Chung  |  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 Swiss pharmaceutical company from selling its biosimilar version of California-based Amgen Inc.’s $1-billion-a-year Neupogen until six months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved it. The case could determine how quickly patients have access to biosimilar medicines at potentially cheaper prices.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Unlike traditional drugs, biologic drugs cannot be copied exactly to make generic versions. A 2010 federal law allows companies to seek approval to sell near-copies, called biosimilars.

Biologic drugs are complex chemicals made inside living cells. Insurers expect biosimilars, like generics, to be cheaper than original brands.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Novartis unit Sandoz in September 2015 began selling Zarxio, the first biosimilar to win regulatory approval in the U.S. Neupogen and Zarxio boost white blood cell counts in cancer patients to help fight infections.

Zarxio, which costs 15% less than Neupogen at list prices, has since exceeded $100 million in sales, according to Novartis.

The dispute arose when Amgen sued Sandoz in 2014 in San Francisco federal court alleging patent infringement and violations of the law governing biosimilars. The companies disagreed on how to apply the law’s requirement that a biosimilar drug maker give the brand-name manufacturer 180 days notice before launching its copycat version.

In July 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled that the 180-day notice must be given after FDA approval.

Novartis last February appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, saying the Federal Circuit’s ruling improperly gave the brand-name manufacturer an extra six months of exclusivity on top of the 12 years already provided for under the law, driving up health care costs.

“If not reversed, (it) will delay access by patients to all biosimilars for six months longer than Congress intended,” Novartis said in its petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the case.

In opposing Novartis’ appeal, Amgen told the Supreme Court that the statute was meant to foster innovation and clearly states that the 180-day period cannot begin until the biosimilar is approved.

The Supreme Court in December declined to hear a similar case involving Canadian generic drug maker Apotex Inc. and Amgen.

Page: 1 2 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Biologics/DMARDsDrug UpdatesLegal Updates Tagged with:BiologicsBiologics & BiosimilarsBiosimilarslawsuitLegalSupreme Court

Related Articles

    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.

    Rheumatology Drug Updates

    February 1, 2014

    Information on new approvals and medication safety that rheumatologists need to know

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

    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…

    U.S. Supreme Court Speeds Copycat Biologic Drugs to Market

    June 13, 2017

    WASHINGTON (Reuters)—The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cut the time it will take for copycat versions of biologic drugs to get to the market in a pivotal ruling about an expensive class of medicines that can yield billions of dollars in sales for drug companies. The justices, in a 9–0 ruling, overturned a lower court…

  • 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