United States: Sandoz v. Amgen Supreme Court Oral Argument

On April 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195, concerning Sandoz's petition and Amgen's cross-petition from the Federal Circuit's July 2015 decision. Both parties' briefs focused on the proper interpretation and effects of two provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA): (1) the timing of the notice of commercial marketing from biosimilar applicants; and (2) the disclosure requirements from the biosimilar applicant to the reference product sponsor. Amgen was represented by Seth P. Waxman of Wilmer, Cutler Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP, and Sandoz was represented by Deanne E. Maynard of Morrison & Foerster, LLP. In addition, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Anthony A. Yang, was given time to argue the United States Government's position. Of the nine Justices present at the argument, Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Breyer, Roberts, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Gorsuch asked questions and interacted with counsel. At the outset of the case, the Court provided each side with an additional five minutes of argument time. A copy of the oral argument transcript can be found here.

Based on their questioning, the Justices who actively participated during oral argument seemed skeptical that the 180-day notice of commercial marketing could be provided prior to FDA licensure of the biosimilar product. At least some of the Justices expressed doubt that sufficient immediacy and certainty would exist prior to licensure, thereby hindering a reference product sponsor from presenting sufficient evidence to secure a preliminary injunction to prevent the launch of a biosimilar product. Questions concerning whether a biosimilar applicant was required to provide a copy of its biosimilar application and other manufacturing information during pre-suit exchanges indicated a willingness by the Justices to interpret "shall," in the context of this provision, to indicate a mandatory requirement. The Court, however, spent significant time exploring the issue of appropriate remedies where a failure to comply with the disclosure provision occurred. In Amgen's original complaint, its claims alleging that Sandoz had violated the disclosure requirements of the BPCIA were based on California state law. Given that neither party substantively raised the issue of the state law claims in their petitions or briefing before the Court, the Court may interpret "shall" as mandatory, and not address the issue of the appropriate remedy for a failure to comply with this disclosure provision. A more detailed discussion of the oral argument is provided below.

Question 1: Whether notice of commercial marketing given before FDA approval can be effective and whether, in any event, treating Section 262(l)(8)(A) as a stand-alone requirement and creating an injunctive remedy that delays all biosimilars by 180 days after approval is improper.

A majority of the oral argument was spent answering questions about the timing of the notice of commercial marketing provided by the biosimilar applicant. Below, the Federal Circuit held that the 180-day notice of commercial marketing could not be given by the biosimilar applicant until after the biosimilar is licensed by the FDA. Sandoz argued that this requirement essentially adds an additional six months of exclusivity to the statutory exclusivity period of twelve years already held by the reference product sponsor.

Questions from the Court focused on certainty surrounding any subsequent preliminary injunction motions filed after the 180-day notice was provided. Justice Breyer asked pointedly how a biosimilar applicant can give effective notice to the reference product sponsor if the license hasn't yet issued. Building on Justice Breyer's queries, Chief Justice Roberts also inquired how a party could bring a preliminary injunction action in good faith without fully knowing the specifics of the contents, manufacture, and therapeutic uses of the licensed product. Amgen agreed that the notice must issue before any preliminary injunction could be filed, and highlighted the differences between the Hatch-Waxman Act, which requires an "identical" small molecule, and the BPCIA, which only requires a "highly similar" product—countering Sandoz's assertion that the two Acts share many similarities and should be interpreted as such. In the BPCIA, Amgen argued, the notice allows reference product sponsors to seek a preliminary injunction for the approved product and the approved therapeutic uses, and without these specifics, reference product sponsors would lack the immanency and specifics needed to bring suit. Following on this issue of certainty, Justice Sotomayor asked counsel for Sandoz to clarify whether the FDA can provide a biosimilar applicant notice that it will be licensed, but hold that final licensure until after the expiration of the twelve year period of reference product sponsor exclusivity, thereby allowing for the biosimilar applicant to give its 180-day notice. Counsel for Sandoz reiterated that under the statute, licensure can only come after twelve years and thus a biosimilar applicant, following the Federal Circuit's prior decision, would have to wait until the twelve year period expired.

In addition to these questions, Justice Breyer indicated skepticism about the meaning of the term "notice" in this context. In his opinion, the term "notice" is ambiguous to a lay person, and as such, the experts in the agency—here, the FDA—have broad authority under the direction of Congress to interpret the term. Justice Breyer further opined that before any litigation is brought, the FDA should first issue regulations following a notice and comment rulemaking period to determine the proper meaning of "notice." Only after this regulation is promulgated should parties be free to bring any claims concerning the interpretation of this part of the statute. In addition, Justice Kennedy noted that the FDA is already "intimately" involved in the review process of the biosimilar application, and might have the authority to delay the review until the applicant complies with the BPCIA requirements.

Question 2: Is an Applicant required by 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2)(A) to provide the Sponsor with a copy of its biologics license application and related manufacturing information, which the statute says the Applicant "shall provide," and, where an Applicant fails to provide that required information, is the Sponsor's sole recourse to commence a declaratory-judgment action under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(9)(C) and/or a patent-infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(ii)?

The Court also spent time probing the meaning and consequences of the term "shall provide" in the BPCIA. Several Justices appeared to agree with Amgen's position that "shall" means "shall" and accept it as a mandate that the biosimilar applicant provide the sponsor a copy of its application and manufacturing information. That, however, did not resolve the issue for several of the Justices. For instance, Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor asked hypotheticals about the pragmatic effect if the Court accepted Amgen's proposed interpretation of the statute, "shall means shall," and questioned counsel for Amgen as to whether the result is, as Sandoz suggests, to simply file a declaratory judgment action for patent infringement as outlined in the BPCIA. Justice Sotomayor asked whether a reference product sponsor could have a good faith basis to file a declaratory judgment action for patent infringement when it did not have the information relating to the biosimilar product or its indications. In response, Sandoz's counsel indicated that the statute itself provided a good faith basis to sue by creating an artificial act of infringement, much like Hatch-Waxman, and also that the product has to be "highly similar" to the reference product. Despite this back-and-forth, the Court was less forthcoming about the consequences of this mandatory approach, with Justice Gorsuch noting that it is "hard to divorce the right from the remedy." 

The Justices also spent a considerable amount of time inquiring about the possibility of state law claims serving as a remedy for failure to abide by the information exchange. In the District Court, Amgen argued that a California state statute creates a state cause of action for any violation of a federal mandate. Here, Sandoz's decision not to provide their biosimilar application and manufacturing information violated the "shall" mandate in the federal BPCIA. This claim was rejected by both the District Court and the Federal Circuit, and both Sandoz and the Government argued that the Supreme Court could not adjudicate the claim because this appeal was based on an interpretation of federal law. However, continued questioning by Justices Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts arguably indicates the Court's belief that the remedy issue is intertwined with issues related to the application of state law that were not substantively argued in either party's petition or in their briefing before the Court.

The Government spent much of its argument discussing the application disclosure provision in the BPCIA. It argued that the text of the statute provides a clear set of procedures for reference product sponsors and biosimilar applicants to follow, or not, and that courts should not police each of these steps. Instead, the Government argued, both parties recognize that there are no mandates at any point in the pre-suit process, and that each party understands the consequences if they decide to depart from the pre-suit statutory information exchange provisions and enter into litigation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions