{"id":34702,"date":"2026-01-08T01:05:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T06:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=34702"},"modified":"2026-11-13T17:00:03","modified_gmt":"2026-11-13T22:00:03","slug":"mastering-the-dance-a-strategic-guide-to-the-bpcia-biosimilar-patent-timeline-and-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/mastering-the-dance-a-strategic-guide-to-the-bpcia-biosimilar-patent-timeline-and-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"BPCIA Patent Dance Timeline: What 54 Biosimilar Lawsuits Show"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Congress wrote the BPCIA patent dance as a fixed sequence of 20-, 60-, 60-, 60-, 15- and 30-day steps. The sum of those windows is 245 days. [1] Then the Supreme Court ruled that a biosimilar maker can skip the whole sequence. [3] The docket since then shows what happens when a statute has a calendar but no enforcement tool: sponsors assert more patents, courts decide timing through injunctions, and most disputes end with a dated license.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article follows the BPCIA timeline from the day FDA accepts a biosimilar application to the day a product launches. It adds original calculations from public sources, six case studies (Eylea, Humira, Stelara, Prolia\/Xgeva, Perjeta and Keytruda) and a reconciliation of the biosimilar counts that different sources report. DrugPatentWatch tracks patents, exclusivities and litigation for biologics and small molecules, and I refer to it where its type of data helps a reader build the same timeline. It is a starting point. The Purple Book, the docket and the patent record stay the primary evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Short Answer: How Does the BPCIA Patent Timeline Work?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The BPCIA timeline has four clocks. The reference product has a 4-year bar on filing and a 12-year bar on approval. [7] The patent dance has six fixed windows that add up to 245 days. [1] The biosimilar maker must give the reference product sponsor at least 180 days of notice before commercial marketing. [1] Litigation then runs on court schedules that the statute does not set.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dance itself is optional. In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., decided on June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court held that a federal court cannot order a biosimilar maker to complete the information exchange, and that the 180-day notice can be given before FDA approval. [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Reference product sponsors asserted an average of 24 patents per complaint in BPCIA suits filed from 2020 to 2024, up from 13 in suits filed from 2014 to 2019. [2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Source: Goodwin Procter, Big Molecule Watch analysis of 54 BPCIA litigations (December 2024).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What the Data Shows: Nine Findings You Can Cite<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Each finding below is stated so that it can be quoted alone. Figures marked “calculated” are my own arithmetic on the cited data. They are not reported statistics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Big Molecule Watch tracked 54 BPCIA litigations through December 2024. The average case involved 17 patents. [2]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The average number of patents per complaint rose from 13 (31 complaints, 2014 to 2019) to 24 (23 complaints, 2020 to 2024). That is an 85% increase (calculated from [2]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. More than two-thirds of the asserted patents in the Big Molecule Watch set covered manufacturing. [2]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Of 179 patents asserted in BPCIA suits from 2010 to August 2020, 11 covered the active ingredient. That is 6% (calculated from [8]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. The six fixed dance windows total 245 days from FDA acceptance of the application to the last day to file first-wave suit (calculated from [1]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Regeneron’s Eylea case names six aflibercept sponsors in the litigation record, and a seventh settled before suit. Scheduled settlement entry dates run from the second half of 2026 to January 2027. Amgen’s Pavblu launched in the fourth quarter of 2024. [4][5][12]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. AbbVie reported 2025 U.S. Humira net revenue of $3,062 million, down 57.1% from 2024. That implies a 2024 figure of about $7.1 billion (calculated from [6]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Amgen’s denosumab dispute involved 11 defendant groups. Seven had settled by December 2025. [4][17]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. Keytruda was first licensed on September 4, 2014. Its 12-year reference product exclusivity ended on September 4, 2026 (calculated from the statute [7] and the Purple Book record [19]).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    What Is the BPCIA? A Plain Definition<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 created the abbreviated pathway for biosimilars under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 262(k). Section 262(l) sets the patent resolution procedure that practitioners call the patent dance. [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Biosimilar vs. Interchangeable Biologic: What Is the Difference?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    A biosimilar is a biologic that FDA finds highly similar to a licensed reference product with no clinically meaningful difference. An interchangeable product meets an added standard that lets a pharmacy substitute it without the prescriber. FDA now treats the two categories as close in practice. In October 2025, it proposed draft guidance that would remove the expectation of comparative efficacy studies for biosimilars. [20]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The 4-Year and 12-Year Exclusivity Clocks<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The statute bars a biosimilar applicant from filing until 4 years after the reference product was first licensed. FDA cannot make an approval effective until 12 years after first licensure. [7] These are regulatory clocks. They run apart from patents, and a biosimilar can face a patent that outlives both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Worked Example: Keytruda’s Exclusivity Dates<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    FDA’s record for BLA 125514 shows an initial approval date of September 4, 2014. [19] Adding 4 years gives a filing bar that ended on September 4, 2018. Adding 12 years gives September 4, 2026. This is a calculation under the statute. Orphan-drug or pediatric exclusivities for individual indications can add separate dates, so a team must check the Purple Book entry for each indication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Purple Book Patent List: What Changed in 2020?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The Purple Book Continuity Act of 2020 requires FDA to publish a list of patents that a reference product sponsor identifies during the dance. It also sets a duty to update the list. [10] The list gives a public starting point, but it reflects the patents a sponsor identifies. A sponsor can hold more patents than the list shows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    BPCIA Patent Dance Timeline: Step by Step<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The table below lists each step, the statute section and the time limit. The source for every row is the Big Molecule Watch patent dance guide. [1]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Step<\/th>Action<\/th>Statute<\/th>Time limit<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    1<\/td>Applicant gives its application and manufacturing information to the sponsor after FDA accepts the application<\/td>262(l)(2)(A)<\/td>20 days<\/td><\/tr>
    2<\/td>Sponsor lists patents it believes the product could infringe and patents it will license<\/td>262(l)(3)(A)<\/td>60 days<\/td><\/tr>
    3<\/td>Applicant answers each listed patent with a detailed statement, or states it will not market before expiry<\/td>262(l)(3)(B)<\/td>60 days<\/td><\/tr>
    4<\/td>Sponsor gives a detailed statement on validity, enforceability and infringement<\/td>262(l)(3)(C)<\/td>60 days<\/td><\/tr>
    5<\/td>Parties negotiate which patents to litigate<\/td>262(l)(4)<\/td>15 days<\/td><\/tr>
    6<\/td>Parties exchange lists of patents to litigate, then sponsor sues<\/td>262(l)(5), (l)(6)<\/td>30 days to sue<\/td><\/tr>
    7<\/td>Sponsor adds newly issued or licensed patents<\/td>262(l)(7)<\/td>30 days<\/td><\/tr>
    8<\/td>Applicant gives notice of commercial marketing<\/td>262(l)(8)(A)<\/td>At least 180 days before launch<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    The fixed windows in steps 1 through 6 add up to 245 days (20 + 60 + 60 + 60 + 15 + 30). This is a calculated maximum. The guide does not treat the sum as a deadline, because the parties can move faster and because the list exchange in step 6 has its own timing. [1]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Steps 1 to 4: The Information Exchange<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The exchange starts with the applicant’s disclosure. The applicant hands over its application and manufacturing description. The sponsor then reads that material and builds a patent list. Manufacturing information is the reason the exchange matters. It lets the sponsor see process details that a public label never shows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Why the Manufacturing Disclosure Drives the Patent Count<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    The Big Molecule Watch data shows that more than two-thirds of the asserted patents cover manufacturing. [2] A sponsor that receives the manufacturing file can match process claims to the applicant’s cell line, media and purification steps. An applicant that withholds the file removes that match, and the sponsor must then rely on public information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Steps 5 and 6: Negotiation and First-Wave Litigation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    If the parties agree on a list, they proceed under paragraph (l)(4)(A). If not, each side lists patents at the same time, and the sponsor’s list cannot be longer than the applicant’s list. If the applicant lists none, the sponsor may list one. [1] The sponsor must then sue within 30 days. A sponsor that misses that window can face a remedy limited to a reasonable royalty in a later suit. [1]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Steps 7 and 8: Second Wave and the 180-Day Notice<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Patents that issue or are licensed after the first list go to a second wave. The sponsor may seek a preliminary injunction on those patents before launch. [1] The 180-day notice gives the sponsor time to do that. In Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit held that the notice is required even when the applicant skipped the first disclosure. [1]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Is the Patent Dance Mandatory? What Sandoz v. Amgen Held<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    No. The dance is optional for the biosimilar applicant. A sponsor cannot obtain a federal injunction to force the first disclosure, and the applicant can give the 180-day notice before approval. [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Amgen v. Sandoz at the Federal Circuit (July 21, 2015)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The case concerned Sandoz’s filgrastim biosimilar, Zarxio. FDA approved Zarxio on March 6, 2015. The Federal Circuit ruled on July 21, 2015 that the application disclosure was not mandatory, but it also held that the 180-day notice could start only after licensure. [9] Under that rule, a notice given on the approval date would have set the earliest launch at September 2, 2015 (calculated: March 6 plus 180 days). [9]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Sandoz v. Amgen at the Supreme Court (June 12, 2017)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The Supreme Court agreed that the disclosure step cannot be enforced by a federal injunction. It disagreed on the notice. The Court held that an applicant can give the 180-day notice before FDA approval. [3] This second holding matters more for timing. An applicant can now start the 180-day clock while FDA is still reviewing the file.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Remedies Remain for a Sponsor?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    If an applicant skips the disclosure, the sponsor may bring a declaratory judgment action on any patent that claims the product or its use. [1] Courts have also left open whether state law supplies a separate remedy. The Supreme Court sent that question back to the lower court. [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Happens If the Applicant Skips the Dance?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    The sponsor does not get the manufacturing file. The sponsor then sues on patents it chooses, under the general infringement statute. The Eylea cases show how fast this can move. the court issued injunction rulings against four defendants within a 17-day span in June 2024 (calculated from [5]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How Many Patents Do Reference Product Sponsors Assert in BPCIA Litigation?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Sponsors asserted an average of 17 patents per case across 54 litigations tracked through December 2024, and the average per complaint grew from 13 to 24 between two time periods. [2] The number is large because sponsors add process, formulation and method patents to the few that cover the molecule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Data Finding: Patents Per Complaint, 2014 to 2024<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    Period<\/th>Complaints<\/th>Average patents per complaint<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    2014 to 2019<\/td>31<\/td>13<\/td>[2]<\/td><\/tr>
    2020 to 2024<\/td>23<\/td>24<\/td>[2]<\/td><\/tr>
    Change<\/td>-8 complaints<\/td>+11 patents (+85%, calculated)<\/td>Calculated from [2]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Fewer complaints carried more patents each. That pattern fits a market where sponsors file fewer, larger cases against the same group of challengers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Which Patent Types Does the Dance Produce?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Van de Wiele and co-authors reviewed 179 patents asserted in BPCIA suits from 2010 to August 2020. Their categories overlap, because one patent can claim a process and a formulation. [8]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Patent category<\/th>Patents<\/th>Share of 179 (calculated)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Manufacturing process<\/td>76<\/td>42%<\/td><\/tr>
    Method of use<\/td>63<\/td>35%<\/td><\/tr>
    Formulation<\/td>43<\/td>24%<\/td><\/tr>
    Active ingredient<\/td>11<\/td>6%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Source: Van de Wiele et al., reported by AJMC. [8] Shares are my calculation and sum to more than 100% because of overlap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Why Only 6% of Asserted Patents Cover the Molecule<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    The core molecule patent usually issues early. By the time a biosimilar reaches FDA, that patent is often close to expiry or already expired. The later patents are the ones that remain in force, and a sponsor files them over the product’s life. The same study found that patents filed more than a decade after approval account for most of the asserted set. [8]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Original Framework: Four Paths Through BPCIA Litigation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    This framework is my own classification. It is not an industry standard. I built it from the cases in this article and sorted each by how the dispute ended in terms of entry timing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Path 1: Litigation, Then Dated License<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The parties litigate or negotiate over a set of patents and settle with a license that sets an entry date. The Humira and Stelara disputes follow this path. [13][15]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Path 2: Broad Complaint and Injunction Motions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The sponsor sues on a large set of patents and moves for preliminary injunctions. Eylea is the main example in this article. [4][5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Path 3: Injunction Denied, Launch While the Case Continues<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The court finds a substantial question on infringement or validity, denies the injunction and the applicant launches. Amgen’s Pavblu followed this path after the Federal Circuit affirmed a denial on March 14, 2025. [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Path 4: Pre-Suit Settlement<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The parties settle before a complaint. Alvotech and Teva settled with Regeneron on aflibercept in December 2025 without prior litigation. [4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Path<\/th>Trigger<\/th>Typical outcome on entry<\/th>Case in this article<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    1. Litigation, then dated license<\/td>Litigation or negotiation over a patent set<\/td>Entry on a negotiated date<\/td>Humira, Stelara<\/td><\/tr>
    2. Broad complaint, injunction motions<\/td>Sponsor sues on many patents<\/td>Injunction, then settlement<\/td>Eylea<\/td><\/tr>
    3. Injunction denied<\/td>Substantial question of non-infringement<\/td>Launch during litigation<\/td>Pavblu<\/td><\/tr>
    4. Pre-suit settlement<\/td>Settlement before complaint<\/td>Entry on a negotiated date<\/td>Alvotech\/Teva aflibercept<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Eylea (Aflibercept) Biosimilar Litigation Breakdown<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The Eylea case is a single-product test of the whole system. Regeneron sued multiple biosimilar sponsors in the Northern District of West Virginia. The Federal Circuit affirmed preliminary injunctions against Samsung Bioepis and Formycon on January 29, 2025 and against Celltrion on March 5, 2025. It affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against Amgen on March 14, 2025. [4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Did the Federal Circuit Decide About Amgen’s Pavblu?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The court held that Amgen raised at least a substantial question of non-infringement. Regeneron’s claim recited a “VEGF antagonist” and a “buffer” as separate components. Amgen’s formulation has no separate buffer, because the aflibercept itself gives buffering capacity. Regeneron therefore did not show a likelihood of success on the merits. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Lourie and Stark heard the appeal, and Judge Lourie wrote the opinion. The patent was U.S. 11,084,865 and the appeal was No. 24-2351. [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Eylea Biosimilar Settlement and Launch Calendar<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    Sponsor (product)<\/th>Event<\/th>Documented date or window<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Amgen (Pavblu)<\/td>Launched after injunction denial<\/td>Q4 2024 (sources say October or November 2024)<\/td>[5][12]<\/td><\/tr>
    Mylan and Biocon (Yesafili)<\/td>Settled; launch in second half of 2026 or earlier<\/td>April 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Sandoz (Enzeevu)<\/td>Settled; launch in Q4 2026 or earlier<\/td>September 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Formycon (Ahzantive)<\/td>Settled; launch in Q4 2026 or earlier<\/td>September 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Celltrion (Eydenzelt)<\/td>Settled; launch on December 31, 2026<\/td>October 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Alvotech and Teva (AVT06)<\/td>Settled before suit; launch in Q4 2026 or earlier<\/td>December 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Samsung Bioepis (Opuviz)<\/td>Settled; U.S. launch in 2027<\/td>February 2026<\/td>[12]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Calculation: How Long Did Pavblu Run Alone?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Pavblu launched in the fourth quarter of 2024. The first settlement-based entry window opens in the second half of 2026, and the latest dated entry among the listed sponsors falls in 2027. On that basis, Pavblu had at least about 20 months before the first settlement window opened (November 2024 to July 2026, calculated from [4][5]). Several settlements allow entry “or earlier,” so this is a ceiling on the head start, not a measured gap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Why Is Amgen Still in Court?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Regeneron sued Amgen in June 2025 on U.S. Patent No. 12,331,099, which issued after Pavblu launched. Amgen counterclaimed for patent misuse, antitrust violations and unfair competition. Regeneron moved to strike or dismiss some of those counterclaims. A Markman hearing was set for November 23, 2026. [4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Humira (Adalimumab) Biosimilar Timeline: Seven Settlements and a 2023 Launch<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Humira shows Path 1 at scale. AbbVie settled with biosimilar makers one by one and fixed entry dates. By December 2018, AbbVie had signed a seventh settlement, and Pfizer’s entry was set for 2023. [13] Amgen’s Amjevita launched in the United States in January 2023. [14]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How Much Revenue Did Humira Lose After Biosimilar Entry?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    AbbVie reported 2025 Humira net revenues of $3,062 million in the United States, $1,478 million internationally and $4,540 million worldwide. The year-over-year changes were -57.1% in the United States, -20.2% internationally and -49.5% worldwide. [6]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Measure<\/th>2025 reported ($M)<\/th>Change vs. 2024 (reported)<\/th>Implied 2024 ($M, calculated)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    United States<\/td>3,062<\/td>-57.1%<\/td>about 7,140<\/td><\/tr>
    International<\/td>1,478<\/td>-20.2%<\/td>about 1,850<\/td><\/tr>
    Worldwide<\/td>4,540<\/td>-49.5%<\/td>about 8,990<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Source: AbbVie fourth-quarter 2025 results. [6] The implied 2024 column divides the 2025 figure by one minus the reported decline. It is analysis, not a figure that AbbVie reports in the cited table. The implied worldwide decline is about $4.45 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Humira Market Share: What Did Biosimilars Capture?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    BioSpace reported, from a Samsung Bioepis market report, that Humira held 82% of the U.S. adalimumab market and that Hyrimoz held 13%. [14] That report came about 18 months after the January 2023 launch. Share loss in that first period was slow, and the 2025 revenue data above shows the larger drop came later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Stelara (Ustekinumab) Biosimilar Launch Timeline<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Four ustekinumab biosimilars launched within 54 days in early 2025. Amgen’s Wezlana launched on January 1, 2025. Selarsdi launched on February 21, 2025, and Pyzchiva and Yesintek launched on February 24, 2025 (the 54 days are calculated from January 1 to February 24). [15]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Product<\/th>U.S. launch date<\/th>Reported discount to Stelara list price<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Wezlana<\/td>January 1, 2025<\/td>81%<\/td>[15]<\/td><\/tr>
    Selarsdi<\/td>February 21, 2025<\/td>85%<\/td>[15]<\/td><\/tr>
    Pyzchiva<\/td>February 24, 2025<\/td>80%<\/td>[15]<\/td><\/tr>
    Yesintek<\/td>February 24, 2025<\/td>90%<\/td>[15]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Calculation: How Wide Was the Stelara Entry Window?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Four launches in 54 days means one new competitor about every 18 days on average (calculated: 54 days across three gaps between four launches). Two of the four launched on the same day. [15]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    By the Samsung Bioepis third-quarter 2026 report, ustekinumab biosimilars held 42% of the U.S. market. [16] The compressed launch window is a direct product of settlement design. Several sponsors received entry dates in the same period, so they entered together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Did Stelara Teach About Settlement Timing?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    One reference product can face many sponsors on one date. Humira’s settlements spread entry across 2023. Stelara’s settlements clustered entry in early 2025. A forecast model should treat the entry window, not a single date, as the unit of analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Denosumab (Prolia and Xgeva) BPCIA Litigation: 11 Defendant Groups<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Amgen’s denosumab dispute involved 11 defendant groups (calculated from [4]). Seven had settled by December 2025 and four remained: Alkem, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s with Alvotech, and Shanghai Henlius. [4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Defendant group<\/th>Status<\/th>Date<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Sandoz<\/td>Resolved<\/td>April 2024<\/td>[17]<\/td><\/tr>
    Celltrion<\/td>Settled; launch barred until June 2025<\/td>January 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Fresenius Kabi<\/td>Settled<\/td>March 2025<\/td>[4][17]<\/td><\/tr>
    Accord<\/td>Settled<\/td>July 24, 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Samsung Bioepis<\/td>Settled<\/td>October 6, 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Biocon<\/td>Settled<\/td>October 14, 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Hikma and Gedeon<\/td>Settled<\/td>December 4, 2025<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
    Alkem, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s\/Alvotech, Henlius<\/td>Pending<\/td>As of January 2026<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Which Denosumab Defendants Remain in Court?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    As of January 2026, the pending defendants were Alkem, Amneal, Dr. Reddy’s with Alvotech, and Shanghai Henlius. [4] Readers should check the New Jersey docket for later settlements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How Many Patents Did Amgen Assert?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Amgen’s complaint against Fresenius alleged infringement of 33 U.S. patents relating to denosumab. [17] That figure is larger than the 24-patent average that Big Molecule Watch reports for 2020 to 2024. [2] The comparison is a rough one, since the two datasets cover different units.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Why Did the Cases Move to One Court?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the active cases in the District of New Jersey in February 2025, citing shared patent and claim issues. [4][17] One judge now decides common claim construction for many defendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pertuzumab (Perjeta): The First BPCIA Complaint With 24 Patents<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Genentech filed the first pertuzumab BPCIA complaint in August 2025 in the District of New Jersey against Henlius and Organon over Poherdy. The complaint alleged infringement of 24 patents. FDA gave Poherdy interchangeable approval in November 2025. [4] The same count of 24 patents matches the 2020 to 2024 average in the Big Molecule Watch data. [2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Keytruda (Pembrolizumab) Biosimilar Timeline: What Happens Next?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Keytruda’s 12-year reference product exclusivity ended on September 4, 2026 (calculated from [7] and [19]). Formycon’s FYB206 pembrolizumab application was reported as accepted by FDA on October 13, 2026. [18] The same report cites a December 2028 U.S. expiry for the key patent, based on Merck’s disclosures. [18]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Scenario Analysis: Three Entry Paths for Pembrolizumab<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The scenarios below are analysis. Each rests on stated assumptions and none is a forecast of a confirmed event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Scenario<\/th>Assumption<\/th>Implied earliest entry<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    A. Wait for patent expiry<\/td>Key U.S. patent expires December 2028 [18]; no other patent blocks entry<\/td>After December 2028, about 26 months from the application acceptance date<\/td><\/tr>
    B. Early notice, injunction fight<\/td>Applicant gives the 180-day notice on the acceptance date, as Sandoz v. Amgen allows [3]; sponsor asserts a broad set of patents<\/td>Notice clock alone ends April 11, 2027 (calculated); patents and FDA review set the real date<\/td><\/tr>
    C. Negotiated entry<\/td>Parties settle, as in Humira and Stelara [13][15]<\/td>A dated license; the date cannot be estimated from public data<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Why the 180-Day Notice Rarely Sets the Launch Date<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Scenario B shows a limit of the 180-day notice. The notice rarely sets the launch date. FDA review time and patents do. A sponsor that can show only a few patents with later expiry will find a court reluctant to extend the delay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Interchangeability, FDA Guidance and Congress: What Changed Between 2024 and 2026?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Two policy tracks affect the timeline: FDA’s evidence rules and proposed legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Did FDA Propose in October 2025?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    FDA released draft guidance that would remove the expectation of comparative efficacy studies for most biosimilars. [20] A smaller data package lowers the cost of a filing and can increase the number of applicants for a given reference product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Bills Are Pending in Congress?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    In June 2026, the Senate HELP Committee approved the Biosimilar Red Tape Elimination Act unanimously. The bill would remove FDA’s separate interchangeability designation. The committee also advanced the Medication Affordability and Patent Integrity Act, which would increase FDA and USPTO coordination on overlapping or serial patents. Neither bill has become law. [21]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How Often Does the PTAB Institute Biologic Challenges?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Morgan Lewis reported a 57% institution rate for biologics in its August 2026 review. [22] A challenger can use inter partes review to attack a patent that a sponsor asserts, and the institution decision often comes before a court rules on a preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How Many Biosimilars Has FDA Approved? Why Three Sources Give Three Numbers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Three sources give three different counts. The difference comes from what each source counts and when it counts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Source<\/th>Date<\/th>Count reported<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Morgan Lewis, Blockbuster Biologics Review<\/td>August 2026<\/td>89 approved U.S. biosimilars<\/td>[22]<\/td><\/tr>
    Samsung Bioepis market report<\/td>Third-quarter 2026 report<\/td>96 approved, 71 launched, 21 molecules<\/td>[16]<\/td><\/tr>
    FDA Biosimilar Product Information page<\/td>Updated October 28, 2026<\/td>About 90 entries, with some entries covering more than one product<\/td>[23]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    A writer who cites a biosimilar count should name the source and the date. A count of approved products, a count of launched products and a count of Purple Book entries are three different measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Methodology and Limitations<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    This article uses public sources only. It does not use docket data pulled directly from PACER, and it does not use any non-public settlement terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Data Was Analyzed and How Records Were Selected<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The article reports figures from the following sources: statute and statutory timing from the Big Molecule Watch patent dance guide [1] and the U.S. Code [7]; case counts and patent counts from Goodwin’s Big Molecule Watch [2] and from Van de Wiele et al. [8]; case events from law firm docket summaries [4][5][11][12][17]; revenue from AbbVie’s results [6]; and market data from Samsung Bioepis [16]. I included a case when a source documented its filing date, its patent count or its settlement date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How Calculations Were Performed<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Percentage changes divide a later figure by an earlier one. The implied 2024 Humira figures divide the 2025 figure by one minus the reported decline. Date arithmetic counts calendar days. The 245-day figure adds the fixed windows in the statute. All of these figures are labeled “calculated” where they appear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Limitations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Settlement terms are often confidential, and entry windows that say “or earlier” can hide actual dates. Datasets from different firms count cases and patents differently, so the 24-patent average and the 33-patent denosumab complaint are not like-for-like. Two sources disagree on Pavblu’s launch month and on the exact date of the Fresenius denosumab settlement, and the text gives both where it matters. Case status can change after the dates in this article. Readers should check the docket before they rely on a status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What This Means for Brand Manufacturers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The data shows that a patent count alone does not set a launch date. Courts decide timing on a few patents, and an injunction needs a likelihood of success on a specific claim. Pavblu launched because one claim term, “buffer,” did not fit the accused formulation. [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Claim Drafting Risk Is a Timeline Risk<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    A sponsor that lists a formulation patent with separate components accepts that a biosimilar can avoid it by combining those components. The Eylea ruling is a documented case. A later patent that issues after launch, such as the ‘099 patent that Regeneron asserted against Amgen, gives the sponsor a new claim set. It also drew counterclaims for patent misuse and antitrust violations. [4]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Plan for Entry Windows, Not Entry Dates<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Stelara’s four launches in 54 days [15] and Humira’s staggered 2023 entry [13] show two different shapes. A forecast should model the window and its width.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What This Means for Biosimilar Developers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The Supreme Court’s 2017 holding gives an applicant a choice of how to engage. [3] The choice affects what the sponsor knows and when. An applicant that gives the manufacturing file gives the sponsor a map of process patents. An applicant that withholds it must be ready for broad complaints that rest on public information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Use the 180-Day Notice Early<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The notice can start before approval. [3] Under scenario B above, a notice given on the day FDA accepts a pembrolizumab application would end on April 11, 2027, before FDA review would normally finish. The notice then costs the applicant nothing in time. It also gives the sponsor early warning, so the applicant should expect an injunction motion sooner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Count the Patents the Sponsor Can Still Add<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Patents that issue later can be added in a second wave. [1] The Eylea ‘099 patent shows that a patent can issue after launch and still start a new suit. [4] A freedom-to-operate review should list pending sponsor applications, not only issued patents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What This Means for Payers and Pharmacy Benefit Managers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Payers feel the timeline as a price event. Humira’s U.S. revenue fell 57.1% in 2025, the third calendar year after the first biosimilar launched. [6] Stelara biosimilars held 42% of the market in the third-quarter 2026 report, and list-price discounts of 80% to 90% were reported at launch. [15][16] A payer can plan for these changes only if it knows the entry window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Which Dates Should a Payer Track?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    A payer should track four dates for each reference product: the 12-year exclusivity end, the last asserted patent expiry, each settlement entry window and any pending injunction ruling. DrugPatentWatch can help a team assemble the patent and exclusivity dates in one view, and the team should still confirm each date against the Purple Book and the docket.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    • The BPCIA has four clocks: a 4-year filing bar, a 12-year approval bar, six dance windows that total 245 days and a 180-day marketing notice. [1][7]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • The patent dance is optional, and the 180-day notice can start before approval. Sandoz v. Amgen, June 12, 2017. [3]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Average patents asserted per complaint rose from 13 to 24 between 2014 to 2019 and 2020 to 2024. [2]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Only 11 of 179 patents asserted from 2010 to August 2020 covered the active ingredient. [8]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Eylea shows how one claim term decided one launch. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of an injunction against Amgen on March 14, 2025. [11]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Humira’s U.S. net revenue fell 57.1% in 2025 to $3,062 million. [6]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Four Stelara biosimilars launched within 54 days. [15]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Amgen’s denosumab dispute had 11 defendant groups, and seven had settled by December 2025. [4]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Keytruda’s 12-year exclusivity ended on September 4, 2026 (calculated). [7][19]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      FAQ: BPCIA Patent Dance and Biosimilar Litigation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      1. What does BPCIA stand for?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      BPCIA stands for the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. It created the abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilars under 42 U.S.C. 262(k) and the patent resolution procedure in 262(l). [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      2. Is the patent dance required?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      No. The Supreme Court held in 2017 that a federal court cannot enforce the application disclosure step by injunction. [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      3. How long is the 180-day notice, and when can it start?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      The notice is at least 180 days before commercial marketing. It can start before FDA approval. [1][3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      4. How long does the reference product exclusivity last?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      The statute sets a 12-year approval bar from first licensure, and a 4-year bar on filing. [7] Keytruda’s dates are 2018 and 2026 (calculated from a September 4, 2014 approval). [19]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      5. What happens if the sponsor misses the 30-day deadline to sue?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      A sponsor that misses the first-wave deadline can face a remedy limited to a reasonable royalty in a later suit. [1]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      6. Can a sponsor add patents after the first list?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Yes. The sponsor must add newly issued or licensed patents within 30 days, and those patents go to a second wave. [1]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      7. Why did Amgen launch Pavblu while Regeneron’s case continued?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      A court denied the preliminary injunction because Amgen raised a substantial question of non-infringement on the ‘865 patent, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 14, 2025. [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      8. When can adalimumab biosimilars be expected to hold a larger share?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Share data from mid-2024 showed Humira at 82% of the U.S. adalimumab market. [14] The 2025 revenue drop shows the shift continued after that report. [6] A forecast for a future share should use a dated source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      9. What is the Purple Book Continuity Act?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      It is a 2020 law that requires FDA to publish patent information that a reference product sponsor identifies and to keep it updated. [10]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      10. Would the Biosimilar Red Tape Elimination Act change the patent timeline?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      The bill targets FDA’s separate interchangeability designation, not the 262(l) patent steps. The Senate HELP Committee approved it unanimously in June 2026, and it is not law. [21]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      References<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      1. Big Molecule Watch. (2022, December). BPCIA patent dance guide<\/em>. Goodwin Procter LLP. https:\/\/www.bigmoleculewatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2022\/12\/Patent-Dance-Guide-December-2022.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. Goodwin Procter LLP. (2024, December). Are reference product sponsors asserting more patents in BPCIA litigation?<\/em> Big Molecule Watch. https:\/\/www.goodwinlaw.com\/en\/insights\/blogs\/2024\/12\/are-reference-product-sponsors-asserting-more-patents-in-bpcia-litigation<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. McGuireWoods LLP. (2017, June). Supreme Court interprets BPCIA provisions on the patent dance<\/em> (summarizing Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 582 U.S. 1, decided June 12, 2017). https:\/\/mcguirewoods.com\/client-resources\/alerts\/2017\/6\/supreme-court-interprets-bpcia-provisions-patent-dance<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      4. Goodwin Procter LLP. (2026, January). Year in review: Top legal developments of 2025<\/em>. Big Molecule Watch. https:\/\/www.goodwinlaw.com\/en\/insights\/blogs\/2026\/01\/year-in-review-top-legal-developments-of-2025<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      5. Loeb & Loeb LLP. (2025, February). The landscape of Regeneron’s Eylea litigation after the Federal Circuit affirmed two preliminary injunctions<\/em>. https:\/\/www.loeb.com\/en\/insights\/passle\/2025\/02\/the-landscape-of-regenerons-eylea-litigation-after-the-federal-circuit-affirmed-two-preliminary-inju<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      6. AbbVie Inc. (2026). AbbVie reports full-year and fourth-quarter 2025 financial results<\/em>. https:\/\/investors.abbvie.com\/news-releases\/news-release-details\/abbvie-reports-full-year-and-fourth-quarter-2025-financial<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      7. Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, 42 U.S.C. 262. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/42\/262<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      8. Van de Wiele, V. L., et al. (study of suits from 2010 to August 2020, as reported by AJMC). Patents filed a decade after originator approval account for most biosimilar patent lawsuits. The American Journal of Managed Care<\/em>. https:\/\/www.ajmc.com\/view\/patents-filed-a-decade-post-originator-approval-account-for-most-biosimilar-patent-lawsuits<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      9. Arnold & Porter. (2015, July). Amgen v. Sandoz: Federal Circuit rules on the BPCIA<\/em> (Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015). https:\/\/www.arnoldporter.com\/en\/perspectives\/advisories\/2015\/07\/iamgen-v-sandozi-federal-circuit-rules-that-the-__<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      10. Foley & Lardner LLP. Purple Book Continuity Act of 2020<\/em>. https:\/\/www.foley.com\/?p=48171<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      11. Patent Docs. (2025, March 17). Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025)<\/em>. https:\/\/patentdocs.org\/2025\/03\/17\/regeneron-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-mylan-pharmaceuticals-inc-fed-cir-2025-1\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      12. Pearce IP. (2026, February 12). Samsung Bioepis biosimilar aflibercept U.S. launch set for 2027 following Regeneron settlement<\/em>. https:\/\/www.pearceip.law\/2026\/02\/12\/samsung-bioepis-biosimilar-aflibercept-us-launch-set-for-2027-following-regeneron-settlement\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      13. BioPharma Dive. (2018). AbbVie nets 7th Humira biosimilar deal, pushing Pfizer entry to 2023<\/em>. https:\/\/www.biopharmadive.com\/news\/abbvie-nets-7th-humira-biosimilar-deal-pushing-pfizer-entry-to-2023\/543459\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      14. BioSpace. (2024). AbbVie’s Humira continues to lose market share as biosimilars gain ground: Report<\/em>. https:\/\/www.biospace.com\/business\/abbvies-humira-continues-to-lose-market-share-as-biosimilars-gain-ground-report<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      15. JD Supra. (n.d.). Stelara biosimilars launch<\/em>. https:\/\/jdsupra.com\/legalnews\/stelara-r-biosimilars-launch-and-4555659<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      16. Pearce IP. (2026, July 23). Samsung Bioepis publishes Q3 2026 U.S. biosimilar market report: Ustekinumab market share at 42%<\/em>. https:\/\/www.pearceip.law\/2026\/07\/23\/samsung-bioepis-publishes-q3-2026-us-biosimilar-market-report-ustekinumab-market-share-at-42\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      17. Pearce IP. (2025, March 7). Amgen and Fresenius Kabi settle U.S. BPCIA denosumab litigation<\/em>. https:\/\/www.pearceip.law\/2025\/03\/07\/amgen-and-fresenius-kabi-settle-us-bpcia-denosumab-litigation\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      18. Targeted Oncology. (2026). FDA accepts BLA for pembrolizumab biosimilar FYB206<\/em>. https:\/\/www.targetedonc.com\/view\/fda-accepts-bla-pembrolizumab-biosimilar-fyb206<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      19. Assyro. Keytruda, BLA 125514<\/em> (FDA Purple Book data). https:\/\/www.assyro.com\/tools\/fda-purple-book\/product\/keytruda-125514<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      20. Jones Day. (2025, November). FDA proposes removing comparative efficacy studies for biosimilars<\/em>. https:\/\/www.jonesday.com\/en\/insights\/2025\/11\/fda-proposes-removing-comparative-efficacy-studies-for-biosimilars<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      21. RxAAP. (2026). Congress advances bills that could expand biosimilar access<\/em>. https:\/\/www.rxaap.com\/congress-advances-bills-that-could-expand-biosimilar-access\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      22. Morgan Lewis. (2026, August). Blockbuster Biologics Review, Issue 31<\/em>. https:\/\/www.morganlewis.com\/pubs\/2026\/08\/blockbuster-biologics-review-issue-31<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2026, October 28). Biosimilar product information<\/em>. https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/drugs\/biosimilars\/biosimilar-product-information<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Congress wrote the BPCIA patent dance as a fixed sequence of 20-, 60-, 60-, 60-, 15- and 30-day steps. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35931,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34702","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights"],"modified_by":"DrugPatentWatch","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34702","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34702"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34702\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40149,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34702\/revisions\/40149"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35931"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34702"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34702"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34702"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}