Following up on our previous coverage of Immunex’s patent infringement suit against Sanofi related to Immunex’s Dupixent® (dupilumab) biologic, Judge Otero recently denied Sanofi’s motion for summary judgement of invalidity based on indefiniteness of the claim terms “competes” and “binding affinity (Ka).” Sanofi criticized Immunex’s ’487 patent for failing to…
Today, in the Immunex v. Sandoz patent litigation under the BPCIA concerning Sandoz’s Erelzi™ (etanercept-szzs) biosimilar, New Jersey District Judge Claire C. Cecchi issued an order that trial will commence on September 11, 2018. (Trial had originally been slated to begin this month.) The Court also ordered the parties to…
Pegfilgrastim litigation We had previously covered Judge Stark’s grant of Coherus’s motion to dismiss Amgen’s complaint alleging infringement of the ‘707 patent in Amgen v. Coherus. Today, Judge Stark entered judgment against Amgen and dismissed the case. In the Amgen v. Mylan litigation earlier covered here, Mylan recently filed a…
In the ongoing Immunex v. Sanofi patent litigation regarding Immunex’s claims of infringement against Sanofi and Regeneron’s Dupixent® (dupilumab) product, Immunex has filed a reply brief in support of its motion to stay the litigation pending Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 (“the ‘487 patent”), which Sanofi has opposed. Sanofi filed three IPR petitions on…
Last week, in the ongoing Immunex v. Sanofi patent litigation regarding Immunex’s claims of infringement against Sanofi and Regeneron’s Dupixent® (dupilumab) product, Immunex moved to stay the litigation pending resolution of two IPR proceedings the PTAB instituted on February 15, 2018 (IPR2017-01879 and IPR2017-01884) regarding the sole asserted patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487….
Last week, in the ongoing Immunex v. Sanofi patent litigation regarding Immunex’s claims of infringement against Sanofi and Regeneron’s Dupixent® (dupilumab) product, the Defendants moved for summary judgment of invalidity of the sole patent-in-suit, the ‘487 patent, on the ground that the patent’s claims are indefinite. According to Defendants’ brief,…