As we previously reported, yesterday the Federal Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Florida’s finding of non-infringement in Amgen v. Apotex. In that case, Amgen asserted the ’138 patent against Apotex based on Apotex’s aBLAs for biosimilar versions of Amgen’s Grastofil™ (filgrastim) and Lapelga™ (pegfilgrastim) products. Claim 1, the only independent claim,…
As we previously reported, Amgen appealed the Southern District of Florida’s judgment of non-infringement in favor of Apotex in litigation regarding Apotex’s proposed filgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars. Today the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court’s finding of non-infringement. We will post a summary of the opinion later today.
This week, six Federal Circuit panels will hear oral argument on at various venues in New York City. Two of today’s oral arguments are in biosimilar cases that we have been closely following on this blog. First, at 10:00 AM, a panel will hear oral argument at the U.S. Court…
A few BPCIA litigation updates to wrap up the week for our readers, looking ahead to next week: The Federal Circuit issued its formal mandate in Amgen v. Apotex yesterday. With the issuance of the formal mandate, the Federal Circuit has officially ordered that its July opinion in the case must now be…
Apotex has filed its reply brief in Amgen v. Apotex, which is currently on appeal before the Federal Circuit. The brief is available here. As we covered previously, the district court granted Amgen a preliminary injunction to prevent Apotex from marketing its biosimilar pegfilgrastim product until 180 days after Apotex provides a…