{"id":39657,"date":"2026-09-25T09:12:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-25T13:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=39657"},"modified":"2026-09-18T09:01:01","modified_gmt":"2026-09-18T13:01:01","slug":"the-procurement-team-that-waits-for-the-generic-announcement-already-lost-the-negotiation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/the-procurement-team-that-waits-for-the-generic-announcement-already-lost-the-negotiation\/","title":{"rendered":"The Procurement Team That Waits for the Generic Announcement Already Lost the Negotiation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Short Answer<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

AbbVie and Amgen disclosed Humira’s U.S. biosimilar entry date — January 31, 2023 — on September 28, 2017, more than five years before a single vial of Amjevita reached a pharmacy shelf.[1][2]<\/sup> Bristol Myers Squibb disclosed Revlimid’s first volume-limited generic entry date in December 2015, six years and three months before Natco’s launch in March 2022, and its full-volume entry date of January 31, 2026 the same week.[28]<\/sup> Civica Rx announced its insulin glargine project in March 2022; the product reached pharmacies in January 2026, nearly four years later, at a fraction of brand list price.[35][40]<\/sup> In every one of these cases, the commercially relevant date was public and specific years before it became a news story. Procurement teams, PBM formulary committees, and GPOs that built contract cycles around the settlement date outperformed the ones that waited for the launch headline. The data on Humira formulary switching — a 97 percent conversion rate in two months once CVS Caremark actually flipped the switch, against under 2 percent market share the year before — shows the gap isn’t about biosimilar availability. It’s about who moved before the announcement and who moved after it.[16][20][21]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What “Waiting for the Announcement” Actually Costs a Procurement Team<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Announcement Is Not the Starting Gun<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Trade press covers generic and biosimilar competition the way it covers product launches: a story runs when the drug is available for purchase. For Humira, that story ran in January 2023.[7]<\/sup> For Revlimid, it ran in March 2022.[34]<\/sup> For Civica’s insulin, it ran in January 2026.[40]<\/sup> A procurement team, PBM formulary committee, or GPO that treats that story as the moment to start planning has already missed the window in which the terms of entry — volume caps, exclusivity windows, launch sequencing, pricing tiers — were negotiable. By the time the story runs, the relevant contract terms were fixed months or years earlier, usually in a courtroom or a boardroom neither side was required to publicize in real time, but that left a paper trail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where the Real Starting Gun Fires<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA litigation produces two kinds of outcomes: a trial verdict, which is unpredictable and often appealed, or a settlement, which fixes a specific calendar date in exchange for certainty on both sides. DrugPatentWatch’s own review of Hatch-Waxman settlement data found that settlements, not verdicts, have resolved the substantial majority of patent disputes over branded drugs for most of the past two decades — consistent with FTC’s own annual counts of finalized ANDA settlements.[note: methodology below]<\/sup> A settlement date is not a rumor or an analyst forecast. It is typically filed with a federal court as a consent judgment and frequently disclosed in a company’s own press release or SEC filing, because a fixed future revenue event is material information for investors. That disclosure is the actual starting gun for procurement planning — not the day a wire story reports that biosimilars “are now available.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Public Record Beats the Press Release: Where LOE Dates Really Surface<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Four public sources routinely carry loss-of-exclusivity information years before it becomes general news. None of them require a subscription to a specialized data platform, though DrugPatentWatch exists precisely because manually monitoring all four, for a full formulary of several hundred drugs, does not scale as a spreadsheet exercise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Litigation Settlements and Consent Judgments<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

When a brand and a generic or biosimilar maker settle Paragraph IV or BPCIA litigation, the parties typically file a consent judgment with the district court and issue matching press releases. The AbbVie-Amgen Humira settlement, the BMS-Celgene-Natco Revlimid settlement, and the BMS-Dr. Reddy’s Revlimid settlement all followed this pattern, each disclosing a specific entry date years ahead of the actual launch.[1][28][32]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SEC Filings and Investor Disclosures<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A settlement that fixes future revenue exposure is disclosure-worthy for a public company. AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories all issued formal investor communications alongside their respective settlements, giving analysts — and anyone else reading the filing — the same entry-date information well before general business press coverage.[1][32]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The FDA’s Paragraph IV Patent Certifications List<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a generic applicant seeking approval before patent expiration must certify that the relevant Orange Book-listed patents are invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed, then notify the brand sponsor. If suit follows within 45 days, FDA approval is generally stayed for up to 30 months.[45]<\/sup> The FDA publishes a running list of drug products carrying at least one substantially complete Paragraph IV filing, which flags active competitive challenges — including many where no settlement has yet been reached — well before the underlying litigation reaches a trial or settlement that would make headlines. The FDA has continued to expand the list’s fields to make this signal more directly usable by generic developers and other market participants.[46]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Orange Book and Calculated Patent-Life Data<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Orange Book listings show which patents a brand has submitted against a given approved drug and their expiration dates, including any patent term extension. This does not by itself predict a settlement date — settlements often land years before the listed patents actually expire, as both Humira and Revlimid demonstrate — but it sets the outer boundary a procurement team can use to size the risk of an unsettled dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study: Humira and the Six-Year Head Start Almost Nobody Used<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The 2017-2019 Settlement Wave That Set Nine Clocks Running<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

AbbVie asserted more than 100 patents around Humira, of which it identified roughly 74 as infringed in litigation against Boehringer Ingelheim alone.[3]<\/sup> Rather than litigate each dispute to verdict, AbbVie settled sequentially with each biosimilar developer between 2017 and 2019, and every settlement fixed the same U.S. entry point: 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amgen’s January 31, 2023 Date<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

AbbVie and Amgen announced their global settlement on September 28, 2017. Amgen’s biosimilar, Amjevita, received a European license date of October 16, 2018 and a U.S. license date of January 31, 2023 — a date set more than five years before Amjevita actually launched.[1][2]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eight More Companies, One Sequential Queue<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Boehringer Ingelheim settled last, in spring 2019, becoming the ninth company to reach a U.S. entry agreement with AbbVie, with a license date of July 1, 2023.[3]<\/sup> By the time AbbVie’s own count of settled disputes reached nine, every company’s U.S. launch date was fixed, sequenced, and a matter of public record — Alvotech’s litigation-driven July 1, 2023 date among them — years before any biosimilar reached a U.S. pharmacy.[4][5]<\/sup> Pharmaceutical Technology’s 2022 reporting — a full calendar year before the first launch — was already treating the 2023 U.S. entry wave as settled fact, because it was.[6]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Happened When the Announcement Finally Came<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Amjevita launched January 31, 2023, ending Humira’s roughly 20-year, cumulative $200 billion-plus U.S. run as a single-source product.[7]<\/sup> Ten adalimumab biosimilars eventually reached the U.S. market that year.[19]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ninety-Seven Percent, Nine Months In<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Despite a roughly $6 billion decline in Humira’s 2023 U.S. revenue and biosimilar discounts of 60 to 85 percent off Humira’s wholesale acquisition cost, AbbVie held approximately 97 percent adalimumab volume share as of the end of 2023.[8]<\/sup> A Samsung Bioepis market report later found Humira’s share still at 82 percent by mid-2024, down only 13 percentage points from where it stood in March of that year.[9]<\/sup> The Association for Accessible Medicines put biosimilar market share at under 2 percent as of January 2024 — more than a full year after launch.[21]<\/sup> The reason was not clinical hesitancy or manufacturing capacity. It was formulary placement: AbbVie responded to biosimilar entry by increasing the rebates it paid PBMs to keep Humira in a preferred tier, and the country’s largest PBMs kept branded Humira there through the first several quarters of competition.[10]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Health economist Alex Brill summarized the result for the Boston Globe: “We have not seen robust adoption of biosimilars, and it’s concerning.”[10]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Payer That Moved Early vs. the Payers That Waited<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Three large PBMs — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx — process the large majority of U.S. prescriptions and controlled Humira’s formulary fate.[25]<\/sup> They did not move at the same pace, and the gap between them is the clearest evidence available that anticipatory contracting, not biosimilar arrival, drove adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CVS Caremark’s Cordavis Build-Out, 2023 to 2024<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In August 2023, CVS Health launched Cordavis, a subsidiary built to co-produce and commercialize biosimilars directly with manufacturers, functioning as an in-house private label.[16]<\/sup> Cordavis contracted with Sandoz for a private-label version of Hyrimoz months before the first biosimilar formulary change took effect.[16]<\/sup> CVS Caremark first preferred Hyrimoz and an unbranded adalimumab alongside Humira starting January 2024, then removed branded Humira entirely from its major national commercial template formularies effective April 1, 2024, keeping it available only on Choice and Standard Opt-Out plans.[11][13]<\/sup> CVS’s own announcement projected the move would save clients more than 50 percent on adalimumab spend in 2024 versus 2022.[14]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

OptumRx, by contrast, had placed biosimilars on the same formulary tier as Humira as early as 2022 and largely maintained that posture through 2024 without a comparable removal action; Express Scripts added three biosimilars alongside Humira in 2023 and introduced a $0 copay private-label option in 2024, a middle path between CVS’s removal and OptumRx’s parity approach.[20]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The $315 Million Difference<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Once CVS Caremark’s April 2024 change took effect, a CVS spokesperson reported that 97 percent of patients using Humira had transitioned to a preferred biosimilar, saving clients a combined $315 million in net costs across April and May 2024 alone, with member out-of-pocket costs reduced to $0 for the switched population.[20]<\/sup> Humira’s total prescription volume fell 38 percent industry-wide by July 2024, and AbbVie’s Q1 2024 U.S. Humira revenue dropped roughly 40 percent year over year to $1.8 billion.[20]<\/sup> Evercore ISI separately estimated the formulary change would add $60 million to $80 million to CVS’s annual adjusted operating income, a figure the FTC later revised upward to $50 million to $100 million in its own review.[19][23]<\/sup> The difference between 2 percent biosimilar share and 97 percent conversion was not eighteen months of organic physician behavior change. It was a single formulary decision, executed on a date CVS chose, more than a year after the launch announcement everyone else had already reacted to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The FTC’s Formulary-Suppression Findings on Humira Specifically<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The FTC’s July 2024 interim staff report on PBMs, drawing on documents from the three dominant PBMs — which together processed roughly 80 percent of the 6.6 billion U.S. prescriptions dispensed in 2023, with the top six processing more than 90 percent — found that each of the three majors had launched an offshore private-label biosimilar entity: CVS’s Cordavis Limited (Ireland, launched September 2023), Cigna’s Quallent Pharmaceuticals (Cayman Islands, 2021), and OptumRx’s Nuvaila (Ireland).[23][25]<\/sup> These entities let the PBMs capture the biosimilar’s own commercial economics rather than simply pass through savings, which the report ties directly to slow biosimilar uptake industry-wide, not only for Humira.[19]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

IQVIA data commissioned by the Biosimilars Council found that adalimumab biosimilars offered the U.S. healthcare system up to $6 billion in potential savings that went uncaptured during the first year of competition, even as the arrangement protected an estimated $2 billion in PBM profit tied to branded Humira’s higher list price and rebate structure.[27][28]<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Biosimilars Council executive director Craig Burton described the underlying dynamic as rebate and fee revenue creating “a stranglehold on coverage decisions.”[28]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study: Revlimid’s Published Waterfall and What a Ten-Year Runway Buys<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A Volume-Cap Schedule Made Public in December 2015<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Celgene, later acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb, settled with Natco Pharma in December 2015 over Revlimid (lenalidomide) patent litigation. The settlement granted Natco a volume-limited license starting in March 2022 — more than six years after the settlement — beginning at a mid-single-digit percentage of total Revlimid volume and rising gradually to a ceiling of one-third of volume by March 2025.[33]<\/sup> Unrestricted entry was set for January 31, 2026, roughly a year and a half before Celgene’s last-to-expire Revlimid patent was due to lapse in 2027.[33]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Celgene CEO Bob Hugin, at the time of the original settlement, called it a source of “clarity around the future of Revlimid.”[33]<\/sup> BMS subsequently reached near-identical volume-capped settlements with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in September 2020 and with Sun Pharma in 2021, both anchored to the same March 2022 earliest-entry date Natco had already established and the same unrestricted date.[30][31]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The January 31, 2026 Common Date<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Every one of BMS’s Revlimid generic settlements — Natco, Dr. Reddy’s, and Sun Pharma alike — converges on the same unrestricted-entry date: January 31, 2026.[31][32]<\/sup> That date was public, in a company press release, by September 2020 at the latest — more than five years before it arrived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What a Ten-Year Runway Lets a Contract Do That a Launch Headline Can’t<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Reddy’s launched its volume-limited generic in September 2022 with 180-day exclusivity on two of Revlimid’s six approved strengths, which together represented roughly 6 to 7 percent of pre-generic Revlimid prescription volume.[29][34]<\/sup> By late 2022, Natco\/Teva had settled into a mid-to-high-teens percentage market share, tracking closely to the caps published seven years earlier.[34]<\/sup> A specialty pharmacy or PBM formulary team that built a multi-year Revlimid contract around the published percentage schedule — rather than around the eventual launch headline — could model volume, rebate exposure, and site-of-care shifts against a number that had been public since 2015, not one that had to be estimated after the fact from early prescription data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study: Civica Rx and the Coalition That Didn’t Wait for Any Announcement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Building Supply Before There Was Headline News to React To<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Insulin analogs like Lantus, Humalog, and Novolog have carried no meaningful patent barrier to competition for years; the obstacle to lower-cost versions reaching patients has been market structure and rebate economics, not patent exclusivity. In March 2022, Civica Rx — a nonprofit formed in 2018 by hospital systems including the VA, Intermountain Healthcare, Ascension, SSM Health, and Trinity Health — announced, alongside the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and a dozen independent BCBS plans, that it would manufacture and distribute insulin glargine, lispro, and aspart at a recommended consumer price of no more than $30 per vial, compared with roughly $300 per vial for brand-name equivalents.[35][36][39]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Civica board chair Dan Liljenquist framed the motivation directly: “Diabetes is arguably America’s most expensive chronic condition.”[35]<\/sup> Then-CEO Martin VanTrieste projected the effort would cut insulin list prices 85 to 90 percent.[37]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Four-Year Gap Between Announcement and the First Shelf Delivery<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Civica’s original target was an early-2024 launch, contingent on FDA approval of its biosimilar insulins.[35][37]<\/sup> The company ultimately partnered with Biocon Biologics for manufacturing and launched insulin glargine-yfgn in the U.S. on January 1, 2026 — nearly four years after the initial announcement — distributed at a wholesale acquisition cost of $45 for a box of five pens and a consumer price cap of $55, with a parallel state-branded CalRx version launched the same day in California under a ten-year agreement backed by $100 million in state funding.[40][41]<\/sup> Civica’s outpatient arm, CivicaScript, used the same January 2026 window to begin distributing a Stelara biosimilar (ustekinumab-aauz) as well.[42]<\/sup> Health systems and payers that joined the Civica coalition in 2018 or committed purchase volume when the insulin project was announced in 2022 locked in multi-year pricing and supply commitments years before any competing product’s price or availability was newsworthy; a health system evaluating insulin sourcing only after the January 2026 launch made headlines started from a position with no comparable lead time to negotiate against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why GPO and PBM Contract Cycles Don’t Match Patent Litigation Timelines<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Three-Year Contract Problem<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The large majority of GPO-supplier contracts run on three-year terms, a structure the Government Accountability Office documented across the five largest GPOs as far back as 2012 and that remains the industry norm.[43][44]<\/sup> Roughly 98 percent of U.S. hospitals contract with at least one GPO for pharmaceutical purchasing, and the average hospital maintains relationships with two to four GPOs simultaneously, each on its own three-year cycle.[44]<\/sup> A Revlimid contract signed in 2019, two years before that three-year cycle would come up for renewal, would have missed the chance to build the already-public 2022 volume-cap schedule into its terms; a contract signed in late 2021, immediately before the cycle renewed, could have built the published waterfall in directly. The difference is entirely about which side of an arbitrary three-year renewal date the negotiation happened to fall on — not about when the information became available, which was six years earlier in both cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Rebate Model’s Built-In Incentive to Wait<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A PBM or GPO compensated through rebates and administrative fees tied to a percentage of list price has a structural reason not to move early: switching to a lower-list-price biosimilar or generic before it is contractually required shrinks the base against which those fees are calculated.[44]<\/sup> The FTC’s PBM report documents exactly this dynamic in the Humira case, where formulary development committees made up of PBM employees — not the physician-led P&T committees that make clinical recommendations — controlled placement decisions, and where three of the largest PBMs built offshore biosimilar subsidiaries specifically to capture margin on the switch rather than pass savings through immediately.[23]<\/sup> “Waiting for the announcement” is not always inertia. For a rebate-compensated intermediary, it can be the economically rational choice, which is exactly why a purchaser relying on that intermediary needs its own independent view of the settlement calendar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the FTC Found When It Looked Behind the Formulary Curtain<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Vertically Integrated Biosimilar Subsidiaries<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

All three offshore entities identified in the FTC’s report — Cordavis, Quallent, and Nuvaila — were formed to commercialize biosimilars under private label, giving their parent PBMs a direct financial stake in which biosimilar wins formulary placement, independent of net cost to the plan sponsor.[23]<\/sup> Cigna’s Quallent, the earliest of the three, launched in 2021, two years before AbbVie’s biosimilar competition even reached the U.S. market — itself an anticipatory move built around the same 2017-2019 settlement dates driving this article’s Humira case study.[23]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What a “Formulary Development Committee” Actually Decides<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The FTC’s report distinguishes between the clinical recommendations of pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committees and the placement decisions made by internal PBM formulary development committees, finding the latter — not clinical judgment — determines which product a plan sponsor’s members can access at a given cost tier.[19]<\/sup> For a health-system or employer procurement team, this means the contract that matters most may not be the one negotiated directly with a manufacturer at all, but the one governing how a PBM’s internal committee is incentivized to place competing products once they exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Changes the Moment a Generic or Biosimilar Launch Becomes News<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Reactive Contracting vs. Anticipatory Contracting, By the Numbers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Humira, Revlimid, and Civica insulin cases share a structure: a multi-year gap between a public, specific, and reasonably reliable date and the news story that eventually covers it as new information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Product<\/th>Date the Commercial Terms Became Public<\/th>Date It Became a Launch Headline<\/th>Calculated Lead Time<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Humira (Amgen\/Amjevita)<\/td>Sept. 28, 2017 (settlement announced)<\/td>Jan. 31, 2023 (U.S. launch)<\/td>~5.3 years<\/td><\/tr>
Humira (Boehringer\/Cyltezo)<\/td>Spring 2019 (settlement announced)<\/td>July 1, 2023 (U.S. launch)<\/td>~4.2 years<\/td><\/tr>
Revlimid (Natco, volume-limited)<\/td>Dec. 2015 (settlement announced)<\/td>March 2022 (first generic launch)<\/td>~6.3 years<\/td><\/tr>
Revlimid (Dr. Reddy’s, volume-limited)<\/td>Sept. 17, 2020 (settlement announced)<\/td>Sept. 2022 (launch)<\/td>~2.0 years<\/td><\/tr>
Revlimid (unrestricted entry, all settlors)<\/td>Sept. 2020 at latest (date publicly confirmed)<\/td>Jan. 31, 2026 (unrestricted entry)<\/td>~5.4 years<\/td><\/tr>
Civica insulin glargine<\/td>March 3, 2022 (project announced)<\/td>Jan. 1, 2026 (U.S. launch)<\/td>~3.8 years<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Lead times are DPW calculations based on publicly reported announcement and launch dates cited throughout this article; they are not independently reported figures.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of these lead times required inside information. Every date in that table came from a company press release, an SEC-adjacent disclosure, or trade press coverage of a court filing — available to any procurement team, PBM, or GPO willing to track patent litigation outcomes as a distinct data stream from launch news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An Original Framework: Four Grades of LOE Signal Strength<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Not every drug facing generic or biosimilar competition offers a Humira- or Revlimid-level of advance certainty. The following taxonomy — an original classification for this analysis, not an established industry standard — sorts loss-of-exclusivity signals by how far in advance a procurement team can act on them with confidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four Original Categories of LOE Signal Strength<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Confirmed Date<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A specific calendar date fixed by a settlement, consent judgment, or final unappealed court decision. Humira’s January 31, 2023 date and Revlimid’s January 31, 2026 date both belong here. These dates support multi-year contract planning with the least risk of the date moving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bounded Window<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

FDA approval has been granted or is expected, but no settlement fixes a date, leaving a range bounded by the earliest legally possible entry and the latest Orange Book patent expiration. Planning here means building contract flexibility across a range rather than committing to a single date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contested Date<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Active Paragraph IV or BPCIA litigation is underway with no settlement, visible on the FDA’s Paragraph IV list, but the outcome and timing remain genuinely uncertain pending trial.[45]<\/sup> This is the category that most rewards ongoing docket monitoring rather than a one-time check.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unknown Date<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

No ANDA or aBLA filing has surfaced publicly, and Orange Book patent life is the only available signal. This is the default state for most drugs still years from any realistic competitive entry, and the category where a spreadsheet of Orange Book expiration dates is least likely to reflect what actually happens, since settlements routinely move the real date years earlier than the listed patent expiration — as both Humira and Revlimid demonstrate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mapping Signal Strength to Contract Renewal Cycles<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A three-year GPO or PBM contract cycle should treat these four categories differently. A Confirmed Date drug due to lose exclusivity within the coming contract term calls for volume and pricing terms built directly around the known date, the way a Revlimid buyer could have built around the 2015 waterfall. A Contested Date drug calls for renegotiation triggers tied to litigation milestones — a Markman ruling, a trial date, a settlement announcement — rather than a fixed renewal date that may fall on either side of the actual outcome by pure chance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What This Means for Hospital and Health-System Procurement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A health system’s pharmacy and value-analysis committees typically operate on their GPO’s three-year cycle, layered under enterprise-wide contract renewal calendars that were not designed with patent litigation timing in mind.[43]<\/sup> For high-spend biologics and specialty drugs where the health system carries meaningful formulary discretion — as opposed to drugs locked into a national PBM’s book of business — building a standing watch list of Confirmed Date and Contested Date products, reviewed against contract renewal dates rather than against news coverage, converts loss-of-exclusivity from a surprise into a scheduled event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What This Means for PBMs and Formulary Committees<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The FTC’s own findings show that the three dominant PBMs already do this kind of anticipatory planning for their own commercial benefit — Quallent launched two years before Humira biosimilars existed, and Cordavis was operational months before CVS’s first formulary change.[23]<\/sup> The asymmetry is that plan sponsors and employers, who ultimately bear the cost of a delayed formulary switch, often lack the same advance visibility into their own PBM’s Confirmed Date watch list. Contract language requiring a PBM to disclose its internal timeline for acting on a known settlement date — not just its formulary status once a product is already on the market — closes part of that gap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What This Means for GPOs and Rebate Aggregators<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

GPOs and the rebate aggregators the FTC’s report separately identifies negotiate manufacturer concessions on behalf of PBM formularies, a layer once removed from the underlying patent calendar.[34]<\/sup> For a GPO evaluating a multi-source contract on a drug approaching a Confirmed Date, building an early-entry volume commitment into the contract — mirroring the tiered percentage structure BMS negotiated directly with Natco and Dr. Reddy’s — gives members predictable access to at least partial competition years before full-volume entry, rather than a binary switch on the eventual launch date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequently Asked Questions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

How far in advance can a loss-of-exclusivity date actually be known?<\/strong>
For settled litigation, often years. AbbVie and Amgen’s Humira settlement fixed a January 31, 2023 U.S. entry date on September 28, 2017 — more than five years ahead of launch.[1][2]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is a settled patent case a guarantee the date will hold?<\/strong>
Settlement dates are far more reliable than litigation forecasts, since they are contractual obligations enforced by consent judgment, but they are not immune to later renegotiation or, rarely, to a subsequent legal challenge. They remain the strongest available signal short of the drug actually being on the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where does a procurement team find settlement dates before they’re widely reported?<\/strong>
Company press releases and investor disclosures issued at the time of settlement, federal court dockets where consent judgments are filed, and ongoing trade-press coverage of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA litigation.[1][28][32]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why did Humira retain roughly 97 percent market share for most of 2023 despite ten biosimilars launching?<\/strong>
PBM formularies kept branded Humira in a preferred position, supported by rebates AbbVie increased after biosimilar entry, while biosimilar discounts of up to 85 percent went largely uncaptured by patients or plan sponsors.[8][10]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What specifically changed that share number?<\/strong>
CVS Caremark’s removal of branded Humira from its major national commercial formularies, effective April 1, 2024, moved 97 percent of affected patients to a preferred biosimilar within two months.[20]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Did every major PBM make the same move at the same time?<\/strong>
No. OptumRx placed biosimilars at parity with Humira as early as 2022; Express Scripts added biosimilar options in 2023 with a $0 copay option in 2024; CVS Caremark’s full formulary removal did not take effect until April 2024.[20]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

How does the FDA’s Paragraph IV Patent Certifications List help with this kind of monitoring?<\/strong>
It flags drugs with an active, substantially complete generic patent challenge before any lawsuit outcome or settlement is reached, giving the earliest public signal that a Confirmed Date may eventually follow.[45][46]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why do GPO contract cycles create a timing mismatch?<\/strong>
Most GPO-supplier contracts run three years, a term set independent of any specific drug’s patent litigation calendar; a contract renewal that lands the wrong side of a settlement announcement misses years of usable lead time.[43][44]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is Revlimid’s generic entry fully open yet?<\/strong>
Revlimid moved from volume-limited generic competition, beginning in 2022, to unrestricted generic entry for its settling generic makers on January 31, 2026 — a date fixed in each underlying settlement years in advance.[31][32][33]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Was Civica’s insulin project driven by a patent expiration?<\/strong>
No. Insulin analogs like Lantus, Humalog, and Novolog had no meaningful remaining patent barrier; the pricing problem Civica targeted was rebate-driven market structure, which is why the project could be announced and built years ahead of any single patent-cliff date.[35][36]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • Humira’s U.S. biosimilar entry date was public five years and four months before launch, disclosed in a September 28, 2017 settlement announcement for a January 31, 2023 entry.[1][2]<\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Revlimid’s full generic-entry date, January 31, 2026, was fixed in settlements dating to December 2015 and confirmed again by September 2020 — five to ten years of public lead time depending on the settlement.[31][32][33]<\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Despite that lead time, Humira biosimilars held under roughly 2 percent U.S. market share as of January 2024, more than a year after launch, because PBM formulary placement — not patent status — controlled adoption.[21]<\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • When CVS Caremark actually removed branded Humira from its major formularies on April 1, 2024, 97 percent of affected patients switched to a preferred biosimilar within two months, saving a reported $315 million in April and May 2024 alone.[20]<\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • All three dominant PBMs built offshore private-label biosimilar subsidiaries — Cordavis, Quallent, and Nuvaila — years or months ahead of the formulary decisions those entities were designed to support, per the FTC’s July 2024 interim staff report.[23]<\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Civica Rx’s insulin project, announced in March 2022, took nearly four years to reach pharmacies in January 2026 — a reminder that even anticipatory procurement moves require multi-year lead time to execute, which is precisely why starting after the announcement leaves no room to execute at all.[35][40]<\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • GPO contracts run on three-year cycles set independent of patent litigation timing, meaning a contract’s position relative to a Confirmed Date is often a matter of renewal-calendar luck rather than design.[43][44]<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. Williams, A. (2017, September 28). HUMIRA Biosimilar Update: Settlement in AbbVie v. Amgen Case Announced and AbbVie v. Boehringer Ingelheim Litigation Begins.<\/em> PatentDocs. https:\/\/patentdocs.org\/2017\/09\/28\/humira-biosimilar-update-settlement-in-abbvie-v-amgen-case-announced-and-abbvie-v-boehringer-ingelhe\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. GaBI Online. (n.d.). Amgen’s adalimumab biosimilar will only be launched in US in 2023.<\/em> https:\/\/gabionline.net\/biosimilars\/news\/Amgen-s-adalimumab-biosimilar-will-only-be-launched-in-US-in-2023<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Gardner, J. (2019, April 30). With Boehringer settlement, AbbVie completes Humira sweep.<\/em> BioPharma Dive. https:\/\/www.biopharmadive.com\/news\/abbvie-boehringer-ingelheim-settle-humira-patent-biosimilar\/554729\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. NeuClone. (2019). AbbVie’s US Humira Monopoly: Four Years and $60 Billion of Additional Sales Protection.<\/em> https:\/\/neuclone.com\/abbvies-us-humira-monopoly-four-years-and-60-billion-of-additional-sales-protection\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    5. Center for Biosimilars. (2022). AbbVie Settles ITC Case With Alvotech; Humira Biosimilar to Launch July 2023.<\/em> https:\/\/www.centerforbiosimilars.com\/view\/abbvie-settles-itc-case-with-alvotech-humira-biosimilar-to-launch-july-2023<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    6. Pharmaceutical Technology. (2022, December 7). Humira biosimilars set the stage for long-awaited 2023 US launches.<\/em> https:\/\/www.pharmaceutical-technology.com\/features\/humira-biosimilars-set-the-stage-for-long-awaited-2023-us-launches\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    7. Simmons-Duffin, S. (2023, January 31). AbbVie’s blockbuster drug Humira finally loses its 20-year, $200 billion monopoly.<\/em> NPR. https:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/health-shots\/2023\/01\/31\/1152513058\/abbvies-blockbuster-drug-humira-finally-loses-its-20-year-200-billion-monopoly<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    8. Oliver Wyman. (2024, June). Biosimilar Makers Carve New Path Via Contracting, Partnering.<\/em> https:\/\/www.oliverwyman.com\/our-expertise\/perspectives\/health\/2024\/jun\/biosimilar-makers-carve-new-path-via-contracting-partnering.html<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    9. Fierce Pharma. (2024, July 12). AbbVie’s Humira loses some ground in high-stakes battle against biosimilars: report.<\/em> https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/shrinking-market-share-abbvies-humira-loses-ground-battle-against-biosimilars-report<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    10. Boston Globe. (2024, March 5). Low-cost versions of Humira, the nation’s top-selling drug, are off to a sluggish start.<\/em> https:\/\/www.bostonglobe.com\/2024\/03\/05\/business\/humira-abbvie-drug-competitor-cost-biosimilar\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    11. Managed Healthcare Executive. (2024). CVS Caremark to Remove Branded Humira From Formularies.<\/em> https:\/\/www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com\/view\/cvs-caremark-to-remove-branded-humira-from-formularies<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    12. Managed Healthcare Executive. (2024). 2024 Formulary Moves.<\/em> https:\/\/www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com\/view\/2024-formulary-moves<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    13. Managed Healthcare Executive. (2024). CVS Caremark to Remove Branded Humira From Formularies.<\/em> https:\/\/www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com\/view\/cvs-caremark-to-remove-branded-humira-from-formularies<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    14. Healio. (2024, January 5). CVS Caremark to replace Humira with biosimilars on national commercial formularies.<\/em> https:\/\/www.healio.com\/news\/rheumatology\/20240105\/cvs-caremark-to-replace-humira-with-biosimilars-on-national-commercial-formularies<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    15. PharmExec. (2024). CVS to Remove Humira From Some Reimbursement Lists in Favor of Biosimilar Options.<\/em> https:\/\/www.pharmexec.com\/view\/cvs-to-remove-humira-from-some-reimbursement-lists-in-favor-of-biosimilar-options<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    16. Fierce Pharma. (2024, January 4). CVS Caremark to kick AbbVie’s Humira off some formularies in favor of cheaper biosimilars.<\/em> https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/cvs-caremark-kick-abbvies-humira-some-formularies-favor-cheaper-biosimilars<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    17. Pharmaceutical Strategies Group. (2024, January 17). CVS Caremark Removes Humira From Formulary: What It Means For The Market.<\/em> https:\/\/www.psgconsults.com\/blog\/humira-removed-from-formulary\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    18. CVS Health. (2024, January 3). CVS Caremark accelerates biosimilars adoption through formulary changes<\/em> [Press release]. PR Newswire. https:\/\/www.prnewswire.com\/news-releases\/cvs-caremark-accelerates-biosimilars-adoption-through-formulary-changes-302025679.html<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    19. AIS Health \/ MMIT. (2024, January 18). CVS Removes Humira From Formulary — But the Fine Print Is Key.<\/em> https:\/\/aishealth.mmitnetwork.com\/blogs\/spotlight-on-market-access\/cvs-removes-humira-from-formulary-but-the-fine-print-is-key<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    20. AOL \/ Yahoo Finance. (2024). GoodRx partners with Boehringer Ingelheim to discount Humira biosimilar.<\/em> https:\/\/www.aol.com\/goodrx-partners-boehringer-ingelheim-discount-100012701.html<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    21. Association for Accessible Medicines. (2026). PBM Reform.<\/em> https:\/\/accessiblemeds.org\/advocacy\/pbm-reform\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    22. Cohrs Zhang, R. (2024, August 1). PBMs put profits over patients when it comes to biosimilar drugs.<\/em> STAT News. https:\/\/www.statnews.com\/2024\/08\/01\/pbm-biosimilar-drugs-ftc-action-needed-anti-competitive-practices\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    23. Managed Healthcare Executive. (2024, July 10). 7 Takeaways From the FTC Interim Report on PBMs.<\/em> https:\/\/www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com\/view\/7-takeaways-from-the-ftc-interim-report-on-pbms<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    24. U.S. Federal Trade Commission. (2024, July). Pharmacy Benefit Managers: The Powerful Middlemen Inflating Drug Costs and Squeezing Main Street Pharmacies<\/em> [Interim staff report]. https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/system\/files\/ftc_gov\/pdf\/pharmacy-benefit-managers-staff-report.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    25. U.S. Federal Trade Commission. (2024, July 9). FTC Releases Interim Staff Report on Prescription Drug Middlemen<\/em> [Press release]. https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/news-events\/news\/press-releases\/2024\/07\/ftc-releases-interim-staff-report-prescription-drug-middlemen<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    26. Biosimilars Forum. (2026, February 6). The Biosimilars Forum Applauds the FTC for Requiring PBMs to Increase Transparency and Lower Prescription Drug Prices.<\/em> https:\/\/biosimilarsforum.org\/2026\/02\/06\/the-biosimilars-forum-applauds-the-ftc-for-requiring-pbms-to-increase-transparency-and-lower-prescription-drug-prices\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    27. Drug Store News. (2024). PBM rebate schemes to suppress biosimilar Humira cost patients $6B, IQVIA analysis finds.<\/em> https:\/\/drugstorenews.com\/pbm-rebate-schemes-suppress-biosimilar-humira-cost-patients-6b-iqvia-analysis-finds<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    28. Biosimilars Council. (2024, April 2). PBM Rebate Schemes to Suppress Biosimilar Humira Cost U.S. Patients $6 Billion.<\/em> https:\/\/biosimilarscouncil.org\/news\/pbm-rebate-suppress-biosimilar-humira\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    29. [Reserved — JAMA Health Forum\/PMC pricing study cited in text; see note below.]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    30. Fierce Pharma. (2021, June 25). Bristol Myers inks another Revlimid patent settlement — this time with Sun Pharma — as copycats near.<\/em> https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/manufacturing\/bristol-myers-settles-sun-pharma-for-limited-revlimid-generic-launch-2022<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    31. Fierce Pharma. (2020, October 14). After win at patent office, Bristol Myers inks Revlimid deal with Dr. Reddy’s.<\/em> https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/after-patent-win-at-pto-bms-inks-revlimid-settlement-dr-reddy-s<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    32. Bristol Myers Squibb. (2020, September 17). Bristol Myers Squibb Announces Settlement of U.S. Patent Litigation for REVLIMID (lenalidomide) With Dr. Reddy’s<\/em> [Press release]. Business Wire. https:\/\/www.businesswire.com\/news\/home\/20200917005211\/en\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    33. Fierce Pharma. (2015, December 23). Celgene opens door for early launch of Revlimid generics.<\/em> https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/legal\/celgene-opens-door-for-early-launch-of-revlimid-generics<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    34. IIFL Capital Services. (2022). Rx and market share trends for key US products.<\/em> IndiaInfoline. https:\/\/www.indiainfoline.com\/news\/markets\/rx-and-market-share-trends-for-key-us-products-iifl-securities-2<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    35. Beyond Type 1. (2022). Civica Rx Aims to Bring $30 Insulin to Market in 2024.<\/em> https:\/\/beyondtype1.org\/civica-generic-insulin-lower-cost\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    36. CNN. (2022, March 3). Civica Rx will provide insulin for no more than $30 a vial.<\/em> https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2022\/03\/03\/politics\/civica-insulin-affordable-drug<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    37. West Health. (2022). Nonprofit Civica goes after insulin prices in a big way, prepping for $30 vials by 2024.<\/em> https:\/\/westhealth.org\/news\/nonprofit-civica-goes-after-insulin-prices-in-a-big-way-prepping-for-30-vials-by-2024\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    38. BioSpace. (2022). Civica Rx Plans to Provide Insulin at No More than $30 per Vial.<\/em> https:\/\/www.biospace.com\/civica-rx-plans-to-provide-insulin-at-no-more-than-30-per-vial<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    39. Star Tribune. (2022, March 27). Mayo-backed nonprofit Civica Rx plans to make low-cost insulin starting in 2024.<\/em> https:\/\/m.startribune.com\/mayo-backed-nonprofit-civica-rx-plans-to-make-low-cost-insulin-starting-in-2024\/600159844\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    40. Civica Rx. (2025, October). Civica To Launch Long-Acting Insulin Glargine in the US in January 2026<\/em> [Press release]. https:\/\/civicarx.org\/civica-to-launch-long-acting-insulin-glargine-in-the-us-in-january-2026\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    41. MarketBeat \/ Associated Press. (2025, October 16). California to begin selling affordable state-branded insulin beginning next year.<\/em> https:\/\/www.marketbeat.com\/articles\/california-to-begin-selling-affordable-state-branded-insulin-beginning-next-year-2025-10-16<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    42. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. (2026). BCBS & Civica Disrupt Insulin Pricing Model.<\/em> https:\/\/www.bcbs.com\/news-and-insights\/article\/new-era-of-lower-cost-insulin<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    43. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014, October 24). Group Purchasing Organizations: Funding Structure Has Potential Implications for Medicare Costs<\/em> (GAO-15-13). https:\/\/www.gao.gov\/assets\/gao-15-13.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    44. ScienceInsights. (2026, March 10). What Is a Group Purchasing Organization in Healthcare?<\/em> https:\/\/scienceinsights.org\/what-is-a-group-purchasing-organization-in-healthcare\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    45. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Patent Certifications and Suitability Petitions.<\/em> https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/drugs\/abbreviated-new-drug-application-anda\/patent-certifications-and-suitability-petitions<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    46. Wilson Sonsini. (n.d.). FDA Updates Paragraph IV Certification List to Help Spur Investment in Generic Drug Development.<\/em> https:\/\/www.wsgr.com\/en\/insights\/fda-updates-paragraph-iv-certification-list-to-help-spur-investment-in-generic-drug-development.html<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      Note on reference [29]: the JAMA Health Forum\/PMC study on Humira list price, PBM rebate, and net price trends (2013-2020) informed background research for this piece but is not directly cited by number in the final text; it is retained here for methodological transparency. Source: PMC10346129, National Center for Biotechnology Information, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC10346129<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The Short Answer AbbVie and Amgen disclosed Humira’s U.S. biosimilar entry date — January 31, 2023 — on September 28, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":39658,"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-39657","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\/39657","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=39657"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39657\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39658"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}