Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the biosimilars statute and the value of certainty

Subjects

The Supreme Court's decision in Sandoz v. Amgen introduces uncertainty into provisions that many viewed as necessary and enforceable, but its impact may ultimately be modest.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

References

  1. Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 582 US (June 12, 2017), No. 15–1039, slip op.

  2. 42 USC § 262(k)(7)(A).

  3. 42 USC § 262(k)(7)(B).

  4. 42 USC § 262(k)(2).

  5. 42 USC § 262(l)(2)(A).

  6. 42 USC § 262(l)(3)(A).

  7. 42 USC § 262(l)(3)(B).

  8. 42 USC § 262(l)(3)(C).

  9. 42 USC § 262(l)(4)(A).

  10. 42 USC § 262(l)(5)(A).

  11. 42 USC § 262(l)(5)(B).

  12. 42 USC § 262(l)(6).

  13. 42 USC §§ 262(l)(8)(B), (l)(9)(A).

  14. 42 USC § 262(l)(8)(A).

  15. Sandoz, slip op. at 8.

  16. Id.

  17. Id.

  18. Amgen, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 14-cv-04741-RS, 2015 US Dist. LEXIS 34537 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015).

  19. Amgen, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 794 F.3d 1347, 1351 n.1, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

  20. Id. at 1359.

  21. Sandoz, slip op. at 13 n.2, 14–15.

  22. Id. at 10, 13.

  23. Id. at 15.

  24. Id. at 10–13.

  25. Id. at 12.

  26. Id. at 12–13.

  27. 42 USC § 262(l)(8)(A).

  28. Amgen, 794 F.3d at 1360.

  29. Id. at 1358.

  30. Id. at 1359–60.

  31. Sandoz, slip op. at 16.

  32. Amgen, 794 F.3d at 1358.

  33. Sandoz, slip op. at 18.

  34. See Complaint at 6, AbbVie, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., No, 16-cv-666 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2016), ECF No. 1.

  35. Amgen Inc. v. Hospira Inc., No. 16–2179, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irena Royzman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Royzman, I., Monroe-Yavneh, N. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the biosimilars statute and the value of certainty. Nat Biotechnol 35, 916–919 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3977

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3977

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research