Why was the Humira “patent thicket” antitrust case against AbbVie dismissed?

When does a pile of sand become a heap? When is a portfolio of patents too many patents? Can using too many patents to compel generics to take a later entry date turn into monopolistic conduct? These questions lurk the heart of the antitrust litigation brought by buyers of the blockbuster drug, Humira®, against its manufacturer, AbbVie ($ABBV). The case is currently pending within the Northern District of Illinois (In Re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, No. 19-cv-1873 (N.D. Ill.)). We previously blogged about related allegations before the case was filed when Boehringer Ingelheim raised them within its biosimilar litigation against AbbVie. On June 8, 2020, the Illinois federal court dismissed the antitrust action pursuant to AbbVie’s motion to dismiss. What are the takeaways from the case?

Markman AdvisorsJune 10, 2020AbbVie, ABBV, $ABBV, Samsung Bioepis, Amgen, $AMGN, Sandoz, Novartis, $NVS, Humira, adalimumab, patent thicket, thicket, patent, motion to dismiss, Boehringer Ingelheim, antitrust, IPR, Noerr-Pennington, BPCIA, biosimilar, biologic, patent dance, FDA, Scott GottliebComment

Sandoz’s aBLA for HUMIRA® has been accepted by FDA -- what happens next?

Sandoz, the generic arm of Novartis, has announced that its abbreviated Biologic License Application (aBLA) for a Humira® biosimilar has been accepted by FDA. Now that Sandoz’s aBLA has been accepted for review by FDA, what happens next on the patent front?

Markman AdvisorsJanuary 17, 2018Sandoz, Novartis, AbbVie, Humira, FDA, aBLA, BPCIA, Coherus, Coherus Biosicences, Boehringer-Ingelheim, patent dance, Enbrel, Neupogen, IPR, inter partes review, patent, biosimilar

Blog

home | team | valuation | consulting | monetization | news | blog