In an earlier post, I discussed a recent district court decision holding that the “patent dance” provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act are not mandatory. Yesterday, there was a new development in this case. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit entered an injunction pending appeal preventing Sandoz “from marketing, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States its FDA approved ZARXIO® biosimilar product.” The oral argument in Amgen v. Sandoz on appeal is scheduled to be held on June 3.
Table of Contents
Spring ’16
Issue 94/Vol. 50/No. 2
From the Dean
Cover Story
Law of Democracy
In this feature, Stanford Law faculty weigh in on important legal questions raised in this election year, such as redistricting, the Voting Rights Act, the disenfranchisement of disabled Americans, campaign communications post-Citizens United, and how to improve the actual voting experience.
Rabia Belt Explores the History of Voter Disenfranchisement that Continues Today
Big Money, Campaigns, and Communication
Legal Matters
Voting in America
Benjamin Ginsberg and Robert Bauer co-chaired the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration, an investigation into voting in the United States. In this Q&A, the commission’s senior research director, Professor Nathaniel Persily, JD ’98, discusses with them this year’s election and the key findings of the commission’s report.
In Brief
Alumni and School News
SVLO Hosts Veterans Treatment Courts Conference
J. Paul Lomio Memorial Fellowship Established
First OUTLAW Conference at SLS
SLS Launches Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Clearinghouse
In Focus
Justice Cuéllar: At the California Supreme Court
Former Stanford Law Professor Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (MA ’96, PhD ’01) addresses the importance of diversity in legal institutions and his role as the only Latino justice on the California Supreme Court.
Applying Design Thinking to Law
Stanford Law students in this practicum apply “design thinking” to develop solutions to privacy concerns with online consumer contracts.
Ailsa Chang: Reporting from Washington
Award-winning journalist Ailsa Chang, JD ’01, discusses her career as a political reporter for NPR.
Jonathan Schwartz: From DOJ to Napster to Univision
Univision’s Chief Legal and Corporate Affairs Officer Jonathan Schwartz, JD ’86, on his career in criminal justice and media
Bridging the Law Firm Gender Gap
Women make up close to 50 percent of law graduates in the U.S., yet only 18 percent are law firm equity partners. In this practicum, Stanford Law students explore ways to bridge the gender gap in law firms.
Hilary Tompkins: Representing America’s Lands, Waters, and Wildlife
Hilary Tompkins, JD ’96, GC at the U.S. Department of the Interior, reflects on her career choices and the role her Native American heritage has played in her life’s work.
Point of View
Adultery: Infidelity and the Law
An excerpt from Professor Deborah L. Rhode’s new book
Scholarship
The End of Sex?
A report on Professor Hank Greely’s (BA ’74) new scholarship on reproduction technologies and the accompanying legal and ethical complexities of those advances
Clinic News
Organizations and Transactions Clinic
A report on the Organizations and Transactions Clinic and its work demystifying corporate practice
Faculty News
Stanford Law School faculty awards and highlights
Ablavsky Wins Cromwell Article Prize
Wald Honored by American Orthopsychiatric Association
Daines Named Associate Dean for Global Programs
Weisberg Appointed to California Judicial Council Advisory Committee
Magill Elected to American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Lemley Receives CLAY Award and Recognized in Top Lawyer Lists
Karlan Presented with John Marshall Award
Mello Appointed to National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee
Martinez Elected to American Law Institute
Persily Receives Carnegie Fellowship
Belt’s Papers Selected for Young Faculty Forum
Perspectives
Student essays
Comparative Civil Rights in Europe
The Regulation of Private Investments in Chile
Venture Capital China: Field Study
Remembrance
Last Word
The Law School Class of 1952
This piece highlights two prominent members of the Class of 1952, former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
5 Responses to “Update on the Patent Dance Case – Zarxio® Enjoined Pending Appeal”
Comments are closed.
Post Pagination
Hank Greely
Dmitry,
Is it unusual for the CAFC to issue an injunction pending appeal? I guess they couldn’t just stay the lower court decision because that wouldn’t necessarily stop Sandoz. Also, June 3 seems like an awfully fast hearing date – is that unusual? That gives practically no time for a briefing schedule – seems odd, especially with the injunction to hold the status quo in place.
I am assuming this all looks like it presages a quick and perhaps harsh reversal?
Dmitry Karshtedt
Hank,
Injunctions pending appeal are somewhat common in Hatch-Waxman cases. I think a part of the reason for this is that the harm to the brand company may be truly irreparable if a generic manufacturer launches its product and then the district court’s decision allowing the launch turns out to be in error on the merits. In contrast, the harm to the generic may be compensable by a bond. My sense is that the considerations in biosimilars cases should be pretty much the same. Indeed, and a part of the order issuing the injunction pending appeal in this case asks the parties to brief what the amount of the bond should be.
An injunction pending appeal against a generic – or here, a biosimilar – can certainly be a sign that the decision on the merits will go against the follow-on manufacturer. But not always. For example, in a recent Hatch-Waxman case, the Federal Circuit entered an injunction pending appeal but ultimately held for the generic and dissolved the injunction. See below:
http://cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/15-1335.Opinion.5-6-2015.1.PDF
In a case like this, where there could be a huge mess if the biosimilar launched but then later had to take its product “off the shelf,” I think the injunction pending appeal is the prudent course unless the case in favor of the generic is slam-dunk.
As for the date of the argument, the parties requested expedited briefing and hearing, and the case (which the district court decided back in March) has already been fully briefed on appeal. The merits briefing in this case proceeded pretty much in parallel to the temporary injunction briefing. So I think the parties and the judges will be fully ready.
We do know one thing for sure. Sandoz has talked about launching its biosimilar product on Monday May 11. Now, in view of the injunction, it cannot.
Dmitry
Alan
Hi Dmitry – great posts here; thanks for the work.
Any takeaways from today’s oral arguments? Given the expedited briefing, can we expect a decision fairly soon?
Regards,
Alan
dkarsh
Hi Alan,
Thank you for your interest! I attended the argument and it looked like a close case all the way, though maybe the appellant, Amgen, looked a little stronger based on the panel’s questions. One clue – Sandoz’s counsel asked the court to dissolve the injunction pending appeal immediately if the panel reached a decision favorable to Sandoz, and according to PACER as of 5PM east coast time today, the injunction has not been dissolved. Speaking of which, it is interesting that Amgen’s claim is under California unfair competition law and California common law, but the injunction pending appeal against Sandoz appears to be nationwide. And the court has not yet determined the amount of bond.
Dmitry
dkarsh
By the way, I plan to post a summary of the oral argument fairly soon.