Ha Kung Wong discusses how manufacturers now approach the “patent dance” in light of Sandoz v. Amgen as part of a video series for the Center for Biosimilars.




Have drug makers decided whether is it better for a biosimilar manufacturer to disclose more information upfront, or to abstain from the “patent dance” entirely?

I don’t think we can say that there has been any one consolidated or consistent decision among biosimilar manufacturers as a whole, as far as whether to engage in the patent dance or how far to proceed into it, as there are so many factors that go into the equation making each situation really unique.

However, we can use the data we have collected for BiologicsHQ to look at what has happened particularly since the Sandoz v. Amgen decision last June though. Out of all the complaints filed related to proposed biosimilars of CDER-listed reference products, all but 2 of them have stated that the parties at least began the patent dance.

Only 2 of these complaints alleged that the biosimilar manufacturer refused to participate in the patent dance all together, and 1 of those noted that while the biosimilar manufacturer refused to participate in the patent dance, it did later provide access to its [Abbreviated Biologics License Application, aBLA] pursuant to an agreement, although not the patent dance provisions.

Therefore, we are seeing that overall biosimilar manufacturers, generally speaking, have been choosing to disclose at least some information up front. There have been a number of disputes over providing “other” information besides the aBLA and over how quickly and how completely biosimilar manufacturers have given over their aBLAs though.

In fact while most biosimilar manufacturers are providing their aBLAs, few have been willing to turn over all the “other” information about manufacturing the innovators have requested.


Ha Kung Wong has extensive experience litigating a wide variety of pharmaceutical cases, including those concerning biologics used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune disorders. He also has extensive experience consulting, conducting due diligence and licensing pharmaceutical portfolios. Ha Kung has a B.S. in Biochemistry and a B.S. in Chemistry.


    Information contained in the Venable BiologicsHQ database relates to FDA-approved drug products listed in the CDER Purple Book or on the FDA website ( Information relating to FDA licensed products, FDA-approved indications, and aBLA and 505(b)(2) applications is obtained from public sources including the U.S. FDA website ( Information relating to litigations is given only for cases active from January 31, 2010 onward. Information relating to foreign biosimilar / biologics follow-on products approved in Australia, Canada, the E.U., Japan and South Korea is from public sources. Statistics graphics are compiled from information contained in the Venable BiologicsHQ database.


    The individuals who maintain this site work for Venable LLP. The information, comments and links posted on this site do not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship has been or will be formed by any communication(s) to, from or with the site and/or the author. For legal advice, contact an attorney at Venable LLP or an attorney actively practicing in your jurisdiction. Do not send any confidential or privileged information to the author; neither Venable LLP nor the author will assume any liability or responsibility for it. If you send any information, documents or materials to the site, you give permission for the author to include them on or in the site. No information, documents or materials you send to the site will be considered confidential or privileged by Venable LLP or its lawyers. Also, no such information, documents or materials will be returned to you. All decisions relating to the content belong to the author.

    Subscribe for Future Updates