Dancing Doesn’t Matter – Federal Circuit Said Biosimilar Companies Must Wait 180 Days
Client Alert | 2 min read | 07.11.16
Last Tuesday, the Federal Circuit unanimously held that all biosimilar companies – even companies that participate in the so called “patent dance” – must notify brand-name rivals of their intent to sell a biosimilar drug 180 days before marketing the drug. The case, Amgen Inc., v. Apotex Inc. could have major implications for the timing of when biosimilar companies launch their drugs.
In this case, the Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling to preliminarily enjoin Apotex from putting its biosimilar version of Amgen’s white blood cell-boosting drug, Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim), on the market until the company received a license from the FDA and then gave Amgen 180 days pre-market notice.
Tuesday’s ruling is effectively an extension of the Court’s decision last year in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. As we previously reported, the Court in Sandoz held that biosimilar companies that do not participate in the BPCIA’s optional “patent dance” (exchange of product and patent information, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)) must give the 180-day post-licensure notice before commercial marketing. Here, the Court extended Sandoz by requiring biosimilar companies that do participate in the BPCIA “patent dance” to also give the brand-name rival the 180-day post-licensure notice. The Court relied mostly on the plain language of the statute, holding that “shall” as used in conjunction with “licensed” in the BPCIA means that the 180-day post-licensure notice is mandatory. With regard to timing of the notice, the Court stated “…and we read (8)(A) [42 USC § 262(l)(8)(A)] as allowing the 180-day notice of commercial marketing to be sent as soon as the license issues, even if it is not yet effective, because it is at the time of the license that the product, its therapeutic uses, and its manufacturing processes are fixed.”
Perhaps to quell biosimilar companies’ fears, the Court pushed back against arguments that would seek to extend brand-name rival exclusivity from 12 years to 12.5 years. Writing for the unanimous Court, Judge Taranto wrote, “we have been pointed to no reason that the FDA may not issue a license before the 11.5-year mark and deem the license to take effect on the 12-year date.” Whether the FDA will approve biosimilar drugs before the 12-year exclusivity period expires remains an open question.
As a result of this Federal Circuit decision, biosimilar manufacturers must give brand rivals 180 days’ notice of marketing, after obtaining a license from the FDA for a biosimilar. This means that biosimilar manufacturers will have to factor this 180-day notice period into their strategy as an additional step of the “patent dance” under the BPCIA.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26



