The BPCIA’s 180-Day Commercial Marketing Notice Provision is Mandatory for Applicants Exchanging Patent Information Under § 262(l)(2)(A).

Author: Yieyie Yang, Ph.D.
Editor: Aaron Gleaton Clay

The BPCIA’s 180-Day Commercial Marketing Notice Provision is Mandatory for Applicants Exchanging Patent Information Under § 262(l)(2)(A).

In its recent decision, Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016), the Federal Circuit further interpreted the commercial marketing notice provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) and held that the 180-day commercial marketing notice provision under § 262(l)(8)(A) is mandatory even where the applicant exchanges patent information under § 262(l)(2)(A), affirming the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against Apotex.

The Federal Circuit reinforced its previous holding in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015), that the word “shall” in § 262(l)(8)(A) was mandatory and expanded its application to circumstances in which (l)(2)(A) patent information is exchanged. To the Court, the mandatory nature of the notice provision is supported by the statutory language throughout the BPCIA. The Court also reasoned that market entry 180 days after the afforded 12-year exclusivity period was not inconsistent with § 262(k)(7), which only establishes the earliest date for approval, and that such “delay” would be rare since newer biosimilar applicants would seek approval long before the 12-year exclusivity period expires. The Court further emphasized that the legislative history confirmed that the aim of the 180-day notice period is to avoid uncertainties and deficiencies associated with the two-stage litigation contemplated by § 262(l). Finally, rejecting Apotex’s argument to the contrary, the Court concluded that the 180-day notice provision did not conflict with § 262(l)(9), as a declaratory judgment action under § 262(l)(9) is not the sole remedy for violating § 262(l)(8)(A).

 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: