This morning, in the district court action in Janssen v. Celltrion, Judge Wolf issued an oral order denying the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083 (“the ’083 patent”) as it relates to Celltrion, but ordered further briefing to the extent the motion concerns…
The Federal Circuit, over Celltrion’s opposition, has granted Janssen’s motion for a 30-day extension of time to file its opening appeal brief. Janssen’s opening brief is now due on January 26, 2017. Continue following Big Molecule Watch for more updates.
Below is our Fall 2016 update on the U.S. patent litigations concerning proposed or approved biosimilar products. For additional details, please consult our BPCIA Litigation Summary Chart or our previous quarterly update (Summer 2016).
On this blog, we have been following two Celltrion biosimilars: CT-P10 (rituximab) and CT-P13 (infliximab, the subject of the Janssen v. Celltrion litigation). According to a Celltrion press release, new data released today at the 2016 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Annual Meeting show that the efficacy and safety profile…
The appeal from Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co. (D. Mass. No. 15-10698) has been docketed at the Federal Circuit with the number 17-1120. Janssen’s opening brief is due on December 27, 2016. We have posted extensively on the district court case, most recently here, and will continue to post on…
As we previously reported, on September 26, 2016, the district court in Janssen v. Celltrion entered partial final judgment that the ’471 patent, asserted by Janssen, was invalid. Today, Janssen filed a notice that they are appealing the district court’s judgment to the Federal Circuit. Meanwhile, Celltrion’s partner Pfizer announced last week that it will begin shipping…
As we previously reported, Celltrion has moved to dismiss Janssen’s claim of infringement of the ’083 patent, the sole remaining patent in the case since the district court entered partial final judgment with respect to the ’471 patent. On October 7, 2016, Judge Wolf issued an order instructing the parties,…
As we previously reported, after the district court found that all the asserted claims of the ’471 patent were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting, Celltrion moved for entry of final judgment on that patent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), even though Janssen’s infringement claims regarding the ’083 patent…
As we posted previously, the District Court in Janssen v. Celltrion has ruled that the ‘471 patent is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting on the two grounds raised in the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on that patent. The defendants last week moved for an entry of final judgment on the plaintiffs’ infringement allegations for the…
In a stipulation filed yesterday in Janssen v. Celltrion, Celltrion has agreed not to sell its Remicade biosimilar in the U.S. for use by doctors or patients before October 3, 2016, and the parties have agreed to dismiss all claims and defenses related to Defendants’ alleged violation of the BPCIA’s 180-day notice of commercial marketing provision (42…