Amgen gets early win in Regeneron lawsuit over Eylea biosimilar
Adds reponse from Regeneron to Sept 23 story in paragraph 4, corrects company locations in paragraphs 8 and 9
By Blake Brittain
Sept 23 (Reuters) -Regeneron REGN.O cannot immediately block U.S. sales of rival Amgen's AMGN.O proposed copy of its blockbuster eye-care drug Eylea, a federal judge in West Virginia said on Monday.
Regeneron has accused Amgen's biosimilar version of Eylea of infringing dozens of its patents. U.S. District Judge Thomas Kleeh on Monday rejected Regeneron's request for a preliminary injunction against Amgen as it pursues the patent lawsuit.
Eylea earned Regeneron $5.89 billion in U.S. sales in 2023. Regeneron stock was down 4.6% when markets closed on Monday afternoon.
Regeneron said in a statement on Tuesday that it was disappointed with the decision, and that it has no effect on the company's successes in similar cases against makers of other proposed Eylea biosimilars.The company said in a court filing on Monday that it had appealed.
An Amgen spokesperson said in a statement that the company was pleased with the decision and will announce its timeline for launching its biosimilar Pavblu "in due course."
The judge's decision explaining his denial was issued under seal.
Biosimilars are versions of biologic drugs that are comparable to generics of traditional pharmaceuticals. Unlike traditional drugs, complex biologic drugs are made from living cells and cannot be copied exactly.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Thousand Oaks, California-based Amgen's biosimilar of Eylea last month.
Tarrytown, N.Y.-based Regeneron's Eylea can be used to treat eye diseases like macular degeneration, macular edema and retinopathy. The FDA first approved the drug in 2011.
Regeneron has sued several other competitors over their proposed Eylea biosimilars, and brought its lawsuit against Amgen in California federal court in January. The case was moved to West Virginia in April.
The case is Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Amgen Inc, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, No. 1:24-cv-00039.
For Regeneron: David Berl, Ellen Oberwetter, Thomas Fletcher, Andrew Trask, Teagan Gregory, Shaun Mahaffy and Kathryn Kayali of Williams & Connolly; Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Anish Desai, Natalie Kennedy and Christopher Pepe of Weil Gotshal & Manges; Andrew Goldsmith, Evan Leo and Jacob Hartman of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick
For Amgen: Jeffrey Lamken of MoloLamken; John Labbe and Kevin Flowers of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun; Anthony Figg, Joseph Hynds, Jennifer Nock and Brett Postal of Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck
Read more:
Regeneron asks US court to block Amgen's Eylea biosimilar
Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
