{"id":40010,"date":"2026-10-28T09:49:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-28T13:49:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=40010"},"modified":"2026-10-25T17:57:12","modified_gmt":"2026-10-25T21:57:12","slug":"stop-choosing-a-cdmo-on-price-per-batch-choose-one-on-how-fast-they-move-when-the-patent-cliff-hits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/stop-choosing-a-cdmo-on-price-per-batch-choose-one-on-how-fast-they-move-when-the-patent-cliff-hits\/","title":{"rendered":"Stop Choosing a CDMO on Price Per Batch: Choose One on How Fast They Move When the Patent Cliff Hits"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Between 2025 and 2030, more than $300 billion in prescription drug revenue loses exclusivity. [1] Most of the dates are known years in advance. The dates that decide who earns that revenue are not the patent dates. They are the dates when a court, FDA, or a settlement says a product can ship, and those dates often move with little warning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article looks at documented loss-of-exclusivity (LOE) events at Novartis, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer, and Regeneron. It adds original arithmetic on public figures. It then asks one question: if the entry date can move, what should a sponsor ask a contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) before it asks for a price per batch?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. The Short Answer: What Should You Buy From a CDMO Before an LOE Event?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Buy time-to-compliant-supply, not unit price. A CDMO that cuts the price of each batch but needs extra weeks for technology transfer, validation, inspection remediation, or slot allocation can cost a sponsor more than the discount saves. In my analysis, the cost rises when entry is tied to a fixed date, because a supplier that is not ready on that date misses the first weeks of share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Does ‘How Fast They Move’ Mean in a CDMO Contract?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In this article, ‘speed’ means the calendar time from a signed work order to a released, inspection-ready commercial lot. It has seven parts: technology transfer, slot availability, inspection record, change-control turnaround, surge and inventory capacity, alternate-site options, and geopolitical exposure. Section 10 defines each part. This is an original framework. It is not an industry standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Seven Findings That Matter<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Each finding below is a standalone statement. The section that supports it is named in brackets. Calculated figures are marked as analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. A court order on April 1, 2025 reset the earliest effective approval date for MSN’s generic Entresto to no earlier than July 16, 2025. [7] That gave suppliers 106 days of notice (analysis, section 3).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Novartis reported Entresto sales of $2.36 billion in Q2 2025 and $1.88 billion in Q3 2025. [8] That is a 20.3% quarter-on-quarter fall in the quarter when generics entered the market (analysis, section 3).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Humira sales fell from $21.2 billion in 2022 to $14.4 billion in 2023. [16] That is a 32.1% fall in one year (analysis, section 4).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Under the FDA’s description of the failure-to-market rule, a first applicant can lose 180-day exclusivity if it does not market by the later of two dates. One date is the earlier of 75 days after approval or 30 months after submission. [6] Launch readiness is therefore a legal condition, not only a commercial goal (section 6).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. One Indiana fill-finish site received a two-month decision delay in 2023, then an inspection in mid-July 2025, then an ‘official action indicated’ classification in early October 2025. [2][3] A single site drove delays for several Regeneron filings (section 7).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Thirteen companies have pembrolizumab biosimilar trials registered or announced. [13] Seven trials by six sponsors list a Phase 3 or Phase 1\/3 primary completion date between 2026 and 2028 (analysis, section 8).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. The BIOSECURE Act became law on December 18, 2025. [17] The Office of Management and Budget must publish its list of biotechnology companies of concern by December 18, 2026, which is 54 days after the date of this article (analysis, section 9).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    2. How Large Is the Patent Cliff and When Does It Hit?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Evaluate states that more than $300 billion in prescription drug revenue will lose exclusivity between 2025 and 2030. [1] The same page says the growth gap for large pharma companies will reach $94 billion by 2030. [1]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    ‘Between 2025 and 2030, over $300bn in prescription drug revenues will lose exclusivity.’ (Evaluate, Portfolio Tactics to Scale the $300bn Patent Cliff) [1]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Patent Cliff Timeline: Documented Dates for Six Products<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The table lists dated events from the sources cited in this article. ‘Status’ separates confirmed events from company expectations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Product<\/th>Company<\/th>Event<\/th>Date<\/th>Status<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Entresto (sacubitril\/valsartan)<\/td>Novartis<\/td>MSN generic launched in the US<\/td>Late July 2025<\/td>Confirmed<\/td>[8]<\/td><\/tr>
    Humira (adalimumab)<\/td>AbbVie<\/td>US biosimilar launches began; Cyltezo launched July 2023<\/td>2023<\/td>Confirmed<\/td>[16]<\/td><\/tr>
    Stelara (ustekinumab)<\/td>Johnson & Johnson<\/td>Amgen Wezlana launched; Teva Selarsdi followed<\/td>January 2025; February 2025<\/td>Confirmed<\/td>[15]<\/td><\/tr>
    Eliquis (apixaban)<\/td>Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer<\/td>US exclusivity expected to hold<\/td>April 1, 2028<\/td>Company expectation after the Federal Circuit ruling<\/td>[14]<\/td><\/tr>
    Keytruda (pembrolizumab), IV<\/td>Merck (MSD)<\/td>US exclusivity loss<\/td>2028<\/td>Reported date<\/td>[10][11]<\/td><\/tr>
    Eylea HD (aflibercept 8 mg)<\/td>Regeneron<\/td>Not an LOE event. Supply and approval delay tied to a CDMO site<\/td>August to November 2025<\/td>Confirmed<\/td>[2][3][4]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Why Is the Patent Expiration Date Not the Entry Date?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    The patent date is one input. Court rulings, pediatric exclusivity, regulatory exclusivity, and settlements also set the entry date. In Entresto, a pediatric exclusivity period tied to a separate patent blocked MSN until at least July 16, 2025. [7] In Eliquis, the companies stated that the Federal Circuit ruling moved expected generic entry to April 1, 2028, from an earlier expected range of 2026 to 2031. [14]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Is a Loss-of-Exclusivity Event?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    An LOE event is the date on which a brand product faces lawful competition from a generic or biosimilar. In this article, a ‘launch’ means the first commercial sale of a competing product, as reported by the sources cited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3. Case Study: How Did the Entresto Generic Launch Unfold, and What Did Suppliers Know?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    MSN launched generic Entresto in the US in late July 2025. [8] Novartis did not obtain an injunction before the key patent exclusivity expired. [8] Suppliers had more than three months of notice of the earliest legal date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Happened Between 2024 and July 2025?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    FDA approved MSN’s generic Entresto in summer 2024. [7] A trial on related patents took place in the Delaware federal court in December 2024. [7] In January 2025, the Federal Circuit ordered MSN to delay its launch while it reviewed Novartis’s arguments. [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Court Orders and Dates<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    On April 1, 2025, the Delaware court ruled for Novartis in the pediatric exclusivity patent case. It ordered FDA to reset MSN’s effective approval date to no earlier than July 16, 2025. [7] In early June 2025, Novartis asked the court to rule on a second patent, the ‘918 patent, before July 15, 2025. [7] The ‘918 patent covers the amorphous solid form of a compound used in Entresto. [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Analysis: the interval from April 1 to July 16, 2025 is 106 days, or about 15 weeks. This is a calculation from two documented dates. It is not a reported figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Did MSN Say About At-Risk Launch?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    MSN stated that it would launch at risk once approved and not enjoined. [7] An at-risk launch means a company sells before all litigation ends. It can owe damages if the brand later wins. The same source does not report the size of MSN’s inventory. This article makes no claim about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Happened to Entresto Sales After Generic Entry?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Entresto net sales were about $7.8 billion in 2024. [7] Q2 2025 sales were $2.36 billion. [8] Q3 2025 sales were $1.88 billion, and US sales were below $800 million, down 13% from a year earlier. [8]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Analysis: the move from $2.36 billion to $1.88 billion is a drop of $0.48 billion, or 20.3% of Q2 sales. Constant-currency year-on-year decline was only 1% in Q3. [8] The quarter-on-quarter figure is the better sign of speed, because Q2 had no generic competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    GlobalData forecasts Entresto full-year sales of $7.8 billion in 2025 and $5.8 billion in 2026. [9] That forecast implies a 25.6% fall from 2025 to 2026 (analysis). It is a forecast, not a reported result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What This Means for Generic Suppliers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The Entresto timeline had a known earliest date, a fixed legal gate, and a 106-day gap between the court order and that gate. A supply chain that needs four to six months to move a process, validate it, and build stock cannot use that gap. A supply chain that already holds validated lots and open slots can.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    4. How Fast Does Revenue Fall After Loss of Exclusivity? Humira and Stelara Compared<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Two biologic cases show different speeds. Humira fell by about one third in the first full year of biosimilar competition. Stelara is projected to fall by about three quarters over four years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Humira: Biosimilar Launches and the 2023 Revenue Drop<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Humira sales fell to $14.4 billion in 2023 from a record $21.2 billion in 2022. [16] Q1 2024 sales dropped 40%. [16] Ten biosimilars had launched since the start of 2023, as of July 2024. [16]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The launch count did not equal share loss. As of April 2024, Cyltezo had 1,487 prescriptions since its July 2023 launch, against almost 2.8 million for Humira over the same period. [16] A Samsung Bioepis report put Humira’s market share at 82% in Q3 2024. [16]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Why Did Prescription Volume Lag Launch Count?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    The source does not give a cause for the lag, so this article does not assert one. The data show a gap between availability and uptake. A CDMO cannot close that gap alone. It can control whether product is available when payer and pharmacy contracts open.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Stelara: US Biosimilars Arrive in 2025<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Stelara sales were almost $11 billion in 2023. [15] Amgen launched Wezlana in January 2025, and Teva launched Selarsdi in February 2025. [15] Zacks projects Stelara sales of about $2.9 billion by 2027. [15]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Analysis: the move from $11 billion to $2.9 billion is a projected fall of 73.6%. It is a third-party projection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Revenue Per Day: What Does Each Day of Exposure Represent?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The table converts reported brand revenue into revenue per day. The calculation divides reported revenue by the days in the reporting period. It measures brand revenue at risk. It does not measure generic or biosimilar profit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Product<\/th>Period<\/th>Reported revenue<\/th>Days<\/th>Revenue per day (analysis)<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Humira<\/td>2022<\/td>$21.2 billion<\/td>365<\/td>$58.1 million<\/td>[16]<\/td><\/tr>
    Keytruda<\/td>2024<\/td>$29.5 billion<\/td>366<\/td>$80.6 million<\/td>[10]<\/td><\/tr>
    Keytruda<\/td>Q3 2025<\/td>$8.14 billion<\/td>92<\/td>$88.5 million<\/td>[11]<\/td><\/tr>
    Entresto<\/td>2024 (net sales, approximate)<\/td>$7.8 billion<\/td>366<\/td>$21.3 million<\/td>[7]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    5. Why Does Price Per Batch Fail as a CDMO Selection Metric?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Price per batch measures cost at steady state. A patent cliff is not steady state. The costs that matter are the cost of a late validation, the cost of a failed inspection, and the cost of a missed entry date. None of them appears on a batch quote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Does a Per-Batch Quote Leave Out?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    A per-batch quote normally does not state four things: the weeks needed to transfer a process, the weeks until a slot opens, the inspection record of the site, and the options if the site fails. Each one changes the date on which the first commercial lot ships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Scenario Analysis: When Does a Cheaper Batch Cost More?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    This scenario uses invented numbers. They are not data. They show the method, and a reader can replace each input with its own figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Assumptions<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    • Sponsor A selects CDMO A, which charges $40,000 less per batch than CDMO B.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • The program needs 50 batches in the first year. The batch discount is therefore $2.0 million.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Missing a fixed entry date costs $1.0 million of gross profit for each week of delay.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • CDMO B reaches inspection-ready commercial supply on time. CDMO A is late by the number of weeks shown.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      Results<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
      Delay at CDMO A (weeks)<\/th>Batch savings<\/th>Cost of delay<\/th>Net result for Sponsor A<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
      0<\/td>$2.0 million<\/td>$0<\/td>+$2.0 million<\/td><\/tr>
      2<\/td>$2.0 million<\/td>$2.0 million<\/td>$0<\/td><\/tr>
      4<\/td>$2.0 million<\/td>$4.0 million<\/td>-$2.0 million<\/td><\/tr>
      8<\/td>$2.0 million<\/td>$8.0 million<\/td>-$6.0 million<\/td><\/tr>
      12<\/td>$2.0 million<\/td>$12.0 million<\/td>-$10.0 million<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

      In this scenario, the discount pays for itself only if the delay is under two weeks. A change to the inputs moves the break-even point, but the structure stays the same. A discount is fixed. A delay grows each week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Why a Fixed Entry Date Makes Delay Worse<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      When several generics enter on one date, a late supplier does not only defer its profit. It enters a market where competitors have already placed product with wholesalers and pharmacies. This is analysis. The sources cited here do not measure share loss from late entry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      6. What Do the ANDA and 180-Day Exclusivity Clocks Require of a Supplier?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      The Hatch-Waxman rules put a time limit on launch readiness. A first generic applicant that holds 180-day exclusivity can lose it if it does not market in time. The supplier behind that applicant must therefore be ready on a legal schedule, not only a commercial one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What Is the 180-Day Exclusivity Failure-to-Market Rule?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      A first ANDA applicant can lose 180-day exclusivity if it does not begin marketing by the later of two dates. [6] The statutory citation is section 505(j)(5)(D)(i)(I) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. [6]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The first date is the earlier of two events: 75 days after final approval of the first applicant’s ANDA, or 30 months after the ANDA was submitted. [6] The second date is 75 days after a qualifying patent event. That event can be a final court decision of invalidity or non-infringement with no further appeal, a settlement order or consent decree with that finding, or withdrawal of the relevant patent information by the brand. [6]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      How Does the Tentative Approval Condition Work?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      The second date applies only when the relevant other applicant has received tentative approval. [6] FDA’s draft guidance says the same other applicant must hold both the tentative approval and the favorable court decision. Events from different applicants cannot be combined. [6] If the court decision comes before tentative approval, the 75-day clock starts at tentative approval. [6]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      How Long Does FDA Take to Review an Original ANDA?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      FDA’s GDUFA goal for a standard original ANDA is 10 months. [5] The goal for a priority original ANDA is 8 months when pre-submission facility correspondence requirements are met, and 10 months when they are not. [5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Analysis: if a first-cycle approval arrives at the 10-month goal, and the first date above is the binding one, the 75-day marketing window ends about 12.5 months after submission. This arithmetic is a simple sum of 10 months and 75 days. Actual timing varies with the second date, with review cycles, and with court events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What Happens If an Applicant Misses the Marketing Deadline?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      The applicant forfeits the 180-day exclusivity period. [6] The FDA Law Blog summary notes that, where a court decision precedes a tentative approval, the forfeiture analysis can apply retroactively if the first applicant has not marketed. [6] A supplier with no validated commercial lots at that point cannot repair the problem by shipping faster later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What Does This Mean for CDMO Contract Terms?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      It means three terms matter: a committed date for the first inspection-ready commercial lot, a committed date for launch quantities, and a remedy if either date is missed. A per-batch price does not address any of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      7. Case Study: What Did the Catalent Bloomington Site Cost Regeneron?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      One fill-finish site in Bloomington, Indiana held up several Regeneron regulatory decisions in 2025. The site is not a theoretical risk. It is a documented case of a CDMO site setting a brand company’s regulatory calendar. [2][3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Timeline of the Bloomington Site Events<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
      Date<\/th>Event<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
      2023<\/td>An earlier Eylea HD decision was delayed two months over cleaning and procedural issues at the site<\/td>[2]<\/td><\/tr>
      December 2024<\/td>Novo Holdings completed its $16.5 billion acquisition of Catalent<\/td>[2]<\/td><\/tr>
      April 2025<\/td>Regeneron signed a $3 billion, 10-year bulk drug production deal with Fujifilm<\/td>[3]<\/td><\/tr>
      Mid-July 2025<\/td>FDA inspected the Bloomington site; Novo called it ‘general, routine and unannounced’ and said FDA issued a Form 483<\/td>[2]<\/td><\/tr>
      August 2025<\/td>Two Eylea HD decisions due that month were delayed<\/td>[2]<\/td><\/tr>
      Early October 2025<\/td>Novo told Regeneron and other partners that FDA gave the site an ‘official action indicated’ label<\/td>[3]<\/td><\/tr>
      October 28, 2025<\/td>Regeneron disclosed a complete response letter for the Eylea HD prefilled syringe, tied to unresolved issues at the filler<\/td>[3]<\/td><\/tr>
      By November 20, 2025<\/td>Reports state FDA approved Eylea HD for retinal vein occlusion and a monthly dosing option; the prefilled syringe sBLA had been declined<\/td>[4]<\/td><\/tr>
      January 2026 (planned)<\/td>Regeneron planned a new submission using an alternate prefilled syringe filler<\/td>[3][4]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

      Regeneron’s CEO described the problems as ‘procedural’ and said Regeneron expected ‘an expeditious resolution of our filling issues for Eylea HD.’ [2] The source reports that the CEO also said he would not be surprised if FDA rejected other products made at the site that were due for approval soon. [2] A third complete response letter for odronextamab was attributed to the plant. [2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Analysis: the same site appears in a two-month delay in 2023 and in a series of delays in 2025. That is two documented regulatory events in about two years. The sources do not state how many other customers were affected, so this article does not estimate it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What Did Regeneron Do to Reduce Single-Site Risk?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Alternate Fill-Finish Sources<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      Regeneron said it worked with an alternate vial filler and had asked FDA to add that filler to the retinal vein occlusion supplement. [3] It also planned a submission for an alternate prefilled syringe filler at another third-party manufacturer. [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Bulk Supply Contract and In-House Filling<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      Regeneron’s $3 billion, 10-year Fujifilm agreement covers bulk drug production. [3] Regeneron also said its own filling plant in Rensselaer, New York, was expected to come online ‘in the coming year.’ [3] This article did not verify whether the prefilled syringe filings from 2026 were approved. Readers should check FDA and Regeneron records for current status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What This Case Means for CDMO Due Diligence<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      The case shows that the most important question is not the quality of the CDMO’s last audit by the sponsor. It is the status of the site with FDA, and what the CDMO will do if that status changes. A sponsor should ask for the site’s inspection history, the number of Form 483 observations at the last two inspections, and the committed time to move work to a second site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      8. Keytruda 2028: How Are Biosimilar Developers Preparing for Launch?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Merck reported Keytruda sales of $29.5 billion in 2024, which was nearly half of its total sales. [10] Intravenous Keytruda loses US exclusivity in 2028. [10][11] The subcutaneous version, Keytruda Qlex, has its own patents that extend protection beyond that date. [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What Happens When Keytruda Loses Exclusivity?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Merck’s CEO Robert Davis described the period from 2028 to the early 2030s as more of a ‘hill than a cliff,’ according to a summary of the Q2 2026 earnings call. [12] Merck said it still aimed to grow through the period, citing more than 20 new products and a $70 billion commercial opportunity. [12]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Keytruda family sales rose 4% to $8.4 billion in Q2 2026. [12] Keytruda Qlex sales were $463 million in that quarter, and adoption rose after a permanent J-code took effect in April. [12] Merck forecast that 30% to 40% of patients would be prescribed the subcutaneous form instead of the intravenous form within two years of its approval. [10]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Analysis: as of the date of this article (October 25, 2026), the time to 2028 is between about 14 months (January 2028) and 26 months (December 2028). The source gives the year only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Pembrolizumab Biosimilar Pipeline: Who Is in Clinical Trials?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      A May 2026 review by Pearce IP lists 13 companies with pembrolizumab biosimilar trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or announced in press releases. [13] The table summarizes the trials with a stated Phase 3 or Phase 1\/3 primary completion date from 2026 to 2028.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Developer (product)<\/th>Trial<\/th>Primary completion (as listed)<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
      Samsung Bioepis (SB27)<\/td>Phase 3 (started April 2024)<\/td>March 2026 (revised); no results yet<\/td>[13]<\/td><\/tr>
      mAbxience (MB12)<\/td>Phase 3 (started December 2024)<\/td>June 2026<\/td>[13]<\/td><\/tr>
      Amgen (ABP 234)<\/td>Phase 3, adjuvant non-squamous NSCLC<\/td>December 2026 (revised)<\/td>[13]<\/td><\/tr>
      Qilu Pharmaceutical (QL2107)<\/td>Phase 3 (started January 2025)<\/td>December 2026<\/td>[13]<\/td><\/tr>
      Celltrion (CT-P51)<\/td>Phase 3 (started January 2025)<\/td>February 2027<\/td>[13]<\/td><\/tr>
      Shanghai Henlius (HLX17)<\/td>Integrated Phase 1\/3 (started April 2025)<\/td>April 2027<\/td>[13]<\/td><\/tr>
      Amgen (ABP 234)<\/td>Phase 3, advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC<\/td>January 2028<\/td>[13]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

      Analysis: this table has seven trials from six sponsors. I selected rows from the source table that carry a Phase 3 or Phase 1\/3 label and a stated primary completion date from 2026 to 2028. I excluded Formycon, Bio-Thera, and Sandoz, whose Phase 3 programs the source lists as terminated or scaled back. [13] I excluded BioNTech’s Phase 2\/3 master protocol and the entries with ‘unknown’ status. [13] Registry dates change often, and the source is dated May 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The source also states that Alvotech, with Dr. Reddy’s, and Amneal have pembrolizumab biosimilars in development. Alvotech expects to file a marketing authorization application in 2028. [13] This article does not state any patent expiry date for Keytruda beyond the 2028 date in the cited news sources, because the cited sources do not list individual patent numbers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What Did FDA’s October 2025 Draft Guidance Change for Biosimilar Timelines?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      On October 29, 2025, RAPS reported that FDA issued draft guidance proposing that manufacturers could often skip a comparative efficacy study and use comparative analytical assessments instead. [20] A comparative efficacy study may not be needed when the product comes from clonal cell lines, is highly purified and well characterized analytically, has an understood link between quality attributes and clinical efficacy, and allows a feasible and relevant human pharmacokinetic similarity study. [20] A BioPharm International report from August 2026 says the recommendations remain in draft form. [22]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Analysis: if a sponsor drops a comparative efficacy study, the analytical and manufacturing work carries more of the schedule. That raises the value of a CDMO that can supply representative lots, run analytical comparability, and respond to FDA questions quickly. This is an inference. The sources cited do not measure the effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      9. Who Owns the Capacity, and How Does BIOSECURE Change Supplier Risk?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Capacity changes owners. Rules about which suppliers a sponsor can use for US government business are also changing. A CDMO contract that was safe on the signing date may carry new risk by the entry date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      How Have CDMO Ownership Changes Moved Capacity?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Novo Holdings completed its $16.5 billion acquisition of Catalent in December 2024. It then sold three Catalent plants, including Bloomington, to Novo Nordisk for $11 billion. [2] Lonza completed its $1.2 billion acquisition of the Vacaville, California biologics site from Roche on October 1, 2024. [18] Lonza says the site has about 330,000 liters of bioreactor capacity. [18]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Lonza stated that products previously made at Vacaville will be supplied to Roche under committed minimum volumes, and that this supply phases out as the site serves other customers. [18] Lonza also plans to spend roughly CHF 500 million on upgrades. [18]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Why Ownership Matters to a Contract<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      When a site changes hands, its customer mix and priorities can change. A sponsor should ask for change-of-control terms that protect slots and timelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What Does the BIOSECURE Act Require, and When?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      The BIOSECURE Act was signed on December 18, 2025, as part of the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. [17] The law limits federal procurement from, and federal grants to, ‘biotechnology companies of concern.’ [17] Federal agencies cannot buy biotechnology equipment or services from such a company, and cannot spend loan or grant funds on them. [17]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      How Are Companies of Concern Designated?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      The law names no companies. [17] Any company on the Department of Defense 1260H list of Chinese military companies is automatically a company of concern. [17] By December 18, 2026, the OMB Director must publish a full list of such companies. [17] Analysis: that is 54 days after October 25, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What Is the Grandfathering Period?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      Existing contracts with companies later designated get five years to finish, move suppliers, or wind down. The clock starts when the Federal Acquisition Regulation is updated to implement the Act. [17] The safe harbor does not cover companies already on the 1260H list as of December 18, 2025. [17] For pharmaceutical manufacturers, the restrictions can reach Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule contracts. A deeming provision preserves Medicaid and Medicare Part B eligibility if the VA finds the manufacturer would otherwise comply. [17]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      As of the Latham and Watkins review in December 2025, WuXi AppTec, WuXi Biologics, and WuXi XDC were not designated, but lawmakers had recommended adding them to the 1260H list. [17] This status may have changed since that review. Check the current OMB and DoD lists before relying on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Is the Industry Really Short of Capacity?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      A Samsung Biologics executive wrote in GEN that facility expansion takes ‘approximately two to three years, and often longer,’ and that sites able to make antibody-drug conjugates or multispecific antibodies are ‘booked months or even years in advance.’ [19] The article says global CDMOs operate ‘at close to full capacity’ and gives no percentage. [19]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The author works for a CDMO, and the piece is promotional. This article treats it as a stated view from a supplier, not as independent data. It supports a narrow point: lead times for slot access are a negotiated term, and sponsors should ask for them in writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      10. The Launch-Velocity Framework: Seven Questions to Ask a CDMO Before You Ask for a Price<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      This framework is an original classification. It is not an industry standard and no source cited here uses it. It organizes the evidence in this article into seven supplier attributes that a sponsor can ask about before an LOE event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Definitions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      • Technology transfer time: calendar weeks from kickoff to a successful engineering or demonstration batch at the CDMO.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Slot lead time: calendar weeks from a signed order to the first available production slot.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Inspection record: the outcome and date of each FDA inspection at the site, including Form 483 observations and any official action indicated classification.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Change-control turnaround: calendar days for the CDMO to produce documents for a regulatory supplement after a change request.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Surge and inventory capacity: the number of lots the site can add on notice, and how it will hold pre-launch stock.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Alternate-site option: a validated or validation-ready second site, with a stated time to qualify it.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Geopolitical exposure: whether the CDMO or its parent could appear on a list that restricts government business.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        Comparison Table: Price-Per-Batch Selection vs. Launch-Velocity Selection<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
        Attribute<\/th>What a price-per-batch review checks<\/th>What a launch-velocity review checks<\/th>Evidence in this article<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
        Cost<\/td>Fee per batch<\/td>Fee per batch plus cost of delay per week<\/td>Section 5 scenario (hypothetical inputs)<\/td><\/tr>
        Timing<\/td>Not stated<\/td>Committed dates for first commercial lot and launch quantities<\/td>[5][6]<\/td><\/tr>
        Inspection record<\/td>Not stated<\/td>FDA inspection history and remediation plan<\/td>[2][3]<\/td><\/tr>
        Site resilience<\/td>Single named site<\/td>Second site and time to qualify it<\/td>[3]<\/td><\/tr>
        Ownership<\/td>Not stated<\/td>Change-of-control protection for slots<\/td>[2][18]<\/td><\/tr>
        Policy exposure<\/td>Not stated<\/td>BIOSECURE designation status of CDMO and parent<\/td>[17]<\/td><\/tr>
        Capacity access<\/td>Not stated<\/td>Written slot lead time and surge terms<\/td>[19]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Contract Terms for Technology Transfer<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        Ask for a dated plan with milestones and a credit or exit right if the milestone slips. A plan without a remedy is a forecast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Contract Terms for Inspection Events<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        Ask what the CDMO will do within a set number of days of a Form 483, a warning letter, or an official action indicated classification. Ask who pays for the move to a second site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Contract Terms for Launch Inventory<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        Ask how many lots the CDMO will hold for you before the entry date, and where. Ask what happens to that stock if a court order changes the date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        11. What This Means for Generic Makers, Biosimilar Developers, and Brand Manufacturers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        What This Means for Generic Entry<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        For a first applicant, the rules in section 6 convert a supplier delay into a legal risk. The Entresto record shows that a court can set an earliest date with about 15 weeks of notice. [7] Generic makers should choose suppliers that can show validated lots and a quick path to launch quantities before the date is fixed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What This Means for Biosimilar Launches<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        For biosimilar developers, the Humira data show that a launch does not equal uptake. [16] The Keytruda pipeline shows that several developers expect trial results in 2026 and 2027. [13] If FDA finalizes the October 2025 draft guidance, more of the time pressure will fall on manufacturing and analytics. [20] A CDMO that can run comparability work and respond to FDA queries quickly is worth more than one that quotes a lower fee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What This Means for Brand Manufacturers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        Brand companies face the reverse problem. They must keep supply steady for the product that earns the revenue until the date it loses exclusivity. The Eylea HD case shows that a third-party filler can hold up approvals for a product that is still growing. [2][3] Brand sponsors should keep a second fill-finish source and treat a CDMO’s inspection status as a reportable supply risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        12. How Can DrugPatentWatch Help You Track the Dates That Drive CDMO Timelines?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        DrugPatentWatch is a business intelligence platform for small-molecule and biologic drugs. It describes itself as ‘Business Intelligence on Biologic and Small Molecule Drugs.’ [21] Its guide on tentative approvals says that FDA’s Orange Book, Drugs@FDA, and Paragraph IV list are free but fragmented, and that commercial platforms add value by linking them to litigation data and past launch outcomes. [21] That is the publisher’s own description of its value. Readers should confirm any date against the primary source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Which Dates Should a Sponsor Monitor?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        Monitor five types of date: patent expiry, regulatory exclusivity expiry, tentative approval, court decision and appeal dates, and settlement entry dates. Use each one to set an internal supply date. For each date, record the source document, because several dates in this article moved after court action. [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        How Should a Team Use Tentative Approval Data?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        A tentative approval means FDA has found the application otherwise ready and the application is blocked by patents or exclusivities. [21] The number of tentative approval holders for a product tells a sponsor how many competitors may be ready on the same day. DrugPatentWatch is a secondary source. Check the FDA letter for any decision that carries legal weight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

        What Data Was Analyzed?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        This article uses public documents and news reports on events from 2021 to October 2026. I included an event only if a cited source gave a date or a figure. I did not use private data. I did not have CDMO price lists, contract terms, or batch records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

        Percentage changes use the formula (earlier value minus later value) divided by the earlier value. Revenue per day divides reported revenue by the number of days in the period. Date intervals count calendar days. Every calculated figure in this article is marked as analysis, and none is an independently reported statistic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What Are the Limits of This Analysis?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
          \n
        • Brand revenue figures measure brand exposure. They do not measure generic or biosimilar profit.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • The scenario in section 5 uses invented inputs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Several sources are trade press summaries of earnings calls or court events, not the primary filings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Some dates came from article text that did not state them directly, for example the Eliquis ruling month.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Court status, BIOSECURE designations, and trial dates can change after the date of this article.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • The article did not verify the outcome of Regeneron’s 2026 prefilled syringe filings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
            \n
          • More than $300 billion in prescription revenue loses exclusivity between 2025 and 2030. [1]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • The Entresto court order left 106 days between the April 1, 2025 ruling and the July 16, 2025 earliest date (analysis based on [7]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Entresto sales fell 20.3% from Q2 to Q3 2025 (analysis based on [8]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Humira sales fell 32.1% from 2022 to 2023 (analysis based on [16]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • A first ANDA applicant can lose 180-day exclusivity if it does not market in time. [6]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • One CDMO site held up several Regeneron filings in 2025. [2][3]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Seven Phase 3 or Phase 1\/3 pembrolizumab biosimilar trials from six sponsors list primary completion dates from 2026 to 2028 (analysis based on [13]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • The BIOSECURE Act requires an OMB list by December 18, 2026. [17]<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • In the hypothetical scenario, a $2 million batch discount breaks even at a two-week delay.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

            FAQ<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

            Why is price per batch a poor way to choose a CDMO?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            It measures steady-state cost and ignores the time to first compliant lot. A fixed discount can be wiped out by a delay of a few weeks, as the scenario in section 5 shows with invented inputs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            How much notice do suppliers get before a generic launch date?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            It varies. In Entresto, the court order on April 1, 2025 set an earliest date of July 16, 2025. That is 106 days. [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            What is the 75-day rule for 180-day exclusivity?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            It is part of the failure-to-market rule. A first applicant must market by the later of two dates, and one of them depends on 75 days after approval or a qualifying patent event. [6]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            How long does FDA take to review a standard original ANDA?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            The GDUFA goal is 10 months. Priority applications have an 8-month goal when pre-submission facility correspondence requirements are met. [5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            What happened to Entresto sales after the MSN launch?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            Q3 2025 sales were $1.88 billion, down from $2.36 billion in Q2 2025. US sales were below $800 million, down 13% from a year earlier. [8]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            When does Keytruda lose US exclusivity?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            Reports give 2028 for the intravenous product. [10][11] Keytruda Qlex has its own patents that extend protection beyond that date. [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Which companies are developing pembrolizumab biosimilars?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            A May 2026 review lists 13 companies with trials registered or announced, including Samsung Bioepis, Amgen, Celltrion, mAbxience, Qilu, and Shanghai Henlius. [13]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Did the Catalent Bloomington site problems affect only Eylea HD?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            No. A third complete response letter for odronextamab was also attributed to the plant. [2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            What does the BIOSECURE Act do?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            It limits federal procurement and grants involving biotechnology companies of concern. It names no companies and requires an OMB list by December 18, 2026. [17]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Has FDA finalized its guidance on skipping comparative efficacy studies for biosimilars?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            No, according to an August 2026 report. The recommendations remain in draft form. [22] The October 2025 draft said these studies may often be unnecessary. [20]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            References<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
              \n
            1. Evaluate. (n.d.). Portfolio tactics to scale the $300bn patent cliff<\/em>. https:\/\/www.evaluate.com\/thought-leadership\/portfolio-tactics-to-scale-the-300bn-patent-cliff\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            2. Fierce Pharma. (2025, August 1). Regeneron says Novo plant problems caused another CRL and will delay 2 Eylea decisions<\/em>. https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/manufacturing\/regeneron-says-novo-plant-problems-caused-crl-and-will-delay-2-eylea-decisions<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            3. Fierce Pharma. (2025, October 28). Regeneron reports another manufacturing-related rejection for Eylea HD but says help is on the way<\/em>. https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/manufacturing\/regeneron-reports-another-manufacturing-related-crl-eylea-hd-says-help-way<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            4. Nasdaq (Zacks). (2025, November 20). FDA approves Regeneron’s Eylea HD for retinal vein occlusion and monthly dosing across indications<\/em>. https:\/\/www.nasdaq.com\/articles\/fda-approves-regenerons-eylea-hd-retinal-vein-occlusion-and-monthly-dosing-across<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Generic Drugs Program 2023 fiscal year web posting<\/em>. https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/industry\/generic-drug-user-fee-amendments\/generic-drugs-program-2023-fiscal-year-web-posting<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            6. The FDA Law Blog. (2017, February). FDA’s 180-day exclusivity Q&A guidance: Two items of note<\/em>. https:\/\/www.thefdalawblog.com\/2017\/02\/fdas-180-day-exclusivity-qa-guidance-two-items-of-note\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            7. Fierce Pharma. (2025). Novartis presses court for hasty decision in long-running Entresto patent feud with MSN<\/em>. https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/novartis-presses-court-hasty-decision-long-running-entresto-patent-feud-msn<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            8. Fierce Pharma. (2025). Newer drugs came to Novartis’ aid as 2 top-selling blockbusters stalled in Q3<\/em>. https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/newer-drugs-came-novartis-aid-2-top-selling-blockbusters-stalled<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            9. Pharmaceutical Technology. (2025). Novartis Q3: New drugs step up as generics squeeze Entresto<\/em>. https:\/\/www.pharmaceutical-technology.com\/news\/novartis-q3-new-drugs-step-up-as-generics-squeeze-entresto\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            10. Pharmaceutical Technology. (2025, September 22). MSD’s Keytruda Qlex subcutaneous FDA approval<\/em>. https:\/\/www.pharmaceutical-technology.com\/news\/msd-keytruda-qlex-subcutaenous-fda-approval\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            11. Zacks. (2025). Will Keytruda aid MRK’s growth in 2026 after a subdued Q3?<\/em> https:\/\/www.zacks.com\/stock\/news\/2788571\/will-keytruda-aid-mrk-s-growth-in-2026-after-a-subdued-q3<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            12. GuruFocus. (2026). Merck & Co Inc (MRK) Q2 2026 earnings call highlights<\/em>. https:\/\/www.gurufocus.com\/news\/9002942\/merck-co-inc-mrk-q2-2026-earnings-call-highlights-strong-revenue-growth-and-strategic-pipeline-advances-amid-onetime-charges<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            13. Pearce IP. (2026, May 11). Update on pembrolizumab biosimilar clinical trials<\/em>. https:\/\/www.pearceip.law\/2026\/05\/11\/update-on-pembrolizumab-biosimilar-clinical-trials-2\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            14. Fierce Pharma. (2021, September 7). Bristol Myers, Pfizer score another win in their Eliquis patent defense, protecting the blockbuster until 2028<\/em>. https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/bristol-myers-pfizer-score-another-win-their-eliquis-defense-protecting-blockbuster<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            15. Zacks. (2025). Can J&J’s innovative medicines unit sustain growth amid Stelara LOE?<\/em> https:\/\/www.zacks.com\/stock\/news\/2503216\/can-jjs-innovative-medicines-unit-sustain-growth-amid-stelara-loe<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            16. Fierce Pharma. (2024, July 12). AbbVie’s Humira loses some ground in 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
            17. Latham & Watkins. (2025, December). BIOSECURE Act becomes law, limiting grants with biotechnology companies of concern<\/em>. https:\/\/www.lw.com\/en\/insights\/2025\/12\/biosecure-act-becomes-law-limiting-grants-with-biotechnology-companies-of-concern<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            18. Lonza. (2024, October 1). Lonza completes acquisition of large-scale biologics site in Vacaville (US) from Roche<\/em>. https:\/\/lonza.com\/news\/2024-10-01-16-45<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            19. Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. (n.d.). The global capacity squeeze in biomanufacturing<\/em>. https:\/\/www.genengnews.com\/topics\/bioprocessing\/the-global-capacity-squeeze-in-biomanufacturing\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            20. Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. (2025, October 29). FDA proposes to cut comparative efficacy study requirement<\/em>. https:\/\/www.raps.org\/resource\/fda-proposes-to-cut-comparative-efficacy-study-req.html<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            21. DrugPatentWatch. (n.d.). Tentative drug approvals: The definitive generic entry forecasting playbook<\/em>. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/how-to-use-tentative-drug-approvals-to-anticipate-generic-entry\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            22. BioPharm International. (2026, August 26). FAQ: What FDA’s new approach to biosimilar interchangeability means for developers<\/em>. https:\/\/www.biopharminternational.com\/view\/faq-what-fda-s-new-approach-to-biosimilar-interchangeability-means-for-developers<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              Between 2025 and 2030, more than $300 billion in prescription drug revenue loses exclusivity. [1] Most of the dates are […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":40011,"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-40010","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\/40010","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=40010"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40010\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40012,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40010\/revisions\/40012"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40011"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}