Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. and Hoffman-La Roche Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1693

December 5, 2014

Brief Summary: DC decision of no Article III case or controversy affirmed because Sandoz had not yet filed for approval of its biosimilar to Amgen’s Enbrel®.

Summary: Sandoz appealed DC dismissal of its DJ action related to a “biosimilar” to Amgen’s Enbrel® because “Sandoz had not (as it still has not) filed an application for approval” by the FDA under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) (i.e., no Article III controversy). The DC decided “that, because Sandoz planned to enter the market by the biosimilarity route, it had to follow the BPCIA’s patent-related procedures applicable to biosimilarity applicants-which it had not done.” In its opinion, the FC considered the “justiciability problem[s]” addressed by MedImmune (US 2007) (“sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment”; “standing and ripeness, as well as mootness, serve as ‘helpful guides in applying the all-circumstances test’”). The FC panel concluded there was no Article III case or controversy at this point (citing Telectronics, FC 1992 (no case or controversy where product “had only recently begun clinical trials, and was years away from potential FDA approval”)) and did “not address distinct questions that may arise as Sandoz continues its efforts to develop and obtain approval”. Thus, the DC decision was affirmed.

This entry was posted in Biosimilars, Generics / ANDA. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.