The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that state law claims made by Amgen against Sandoz in the Northern District of California were preempted by the BPCIA. The BPCIA provides an abbreviated pathway for regulatory approval of a biological product that is “highly similar” to a previously-approved product (“reference product”). It establishes a process for information exchange, between the biosimilar applicant and the reference product sponsor, under which the biosimilar applicant provides a copy of its application and its product manufacturing information to the reference product sponsor. Amgen markets filgrastim under the brand name NEUPOGEN®. Sandoz filed an application seeking FDA approval of a biosimilar filgrastim product, but it did not disclose its application or its product’s manufacturing information to Amgen. Amgen sued Sandoz, asserting unfair competition claims by engaging in unlawful business practices under California Business & Professions Code (UCL) and conversion. On remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit held that differences in remedies between the “federal scheme and state law claims” bar Amgen’s state law claims. Otherwise, according to the Court, application of the regulatory regime of the BPCIA would be conducted “in the shadow of the 50 States’ tort regimes,” and would “‘dramatically increase the burdens’ on biosimilar applicants beyond those contemplated by Congress in enacting the BPCIA.” Despite the fact that Sandoz did not present a defense of preemption before the district court, the Federal Circuit held that it had discretion to address the issue, relying on the Supreme Court’s “express” invitation to the Federal Circuit to address preemption and “to [assume] that a remedy under state law would exist if there were not preemption.” Noting that the preemption issue presents “‘a significant question of general impact or of great public concern’” that had been fully briefed, the Court determined that Sandoz had not waived its preemption defense. The Court stated that, “where, as here, ‘Congress made a deliberate choice not to impose’ certain penalties for noncompliance with federal law, state laws imposing those penalties ‘would interfere with the careful balance struck by Congress.’

Principals, Hamilton Brook Smith & Reynolds, Concord, MA. The authors are solely responsible for the views of this article, which do not necessarily represent those of their Firm, or any client or organization. Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds is devoted to the practice of intellectual property law. The firm specializes in patents, IP litigation, trademarks, copyrights, licensing, due diligence, opinions, and IP counseling. This advisory provides information only and no attorney-client relationship is created by presentation of it. The information provided herein does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for professional advice and may be considered advertising under the rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and the U.S.P.T.O. Recipients of the alert are expressly licensed to circulate the alert to others in substantially the same form. If you wish to republish the contents of this alert, please contact Judy White, Director of Marketing, at 978.341.0036.