{"id":40040,"date":"2026-11-03T11:25:00","date_gmt":"2026-11-03T15:25:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=40040"},"modified":"2026-10-28T11:35:07","modified_gmt":"2026-10-28T15:35:07","slug":"why-diversified-pipeline-doesnt-mean-diversified-patent-risk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/why-diversified-pipeline-doesnt-mean-diversified-patent-risk\/","title":{"rendered":"Why &#8220;Diversified Pipeline&#8221; Doesn&#8217;t Mean Diversified Patent Risk"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"572\" src=\"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/image-35.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-40041\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/image-35.png 1024w, https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/image-35-300x168.png 300w, https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/image-35-768x429.png 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Merck sold $29.5 billion of Keytruda in 2024. That is 45.9% of the company&#8217;s $64.2 billion in worldwide sales (analysis of reported figures). [1] Merck has other products. It has a large vaccine business and a large oncology and cardiometabolic portfolio. But a product count does not tell you how many separate patent events can hit revenue. A brand name is a marketing and regulatory unit. A patent is a legal unit. The two do not map one to one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This article tests that gap with documented cases. It looks at semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus), sitagliptin (Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR), pembrolizumab (Keytruda and Keytruda Qlex), apixaban (Eliquis), adalimumab (Humira) and the Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi. It then proposes a five-channel framework that explains why patent risk travels between products. DrugPatentWatch tracks the underlying patent and exclusivity records that make this kind of mapping possible, and the audit steps near the end show how to use them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>The Short Answer<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A pipeline is diversified for patent purposes only when its products depend on different molecules, different patent families, different expiry dates and different legal theories. A pipeline with many brand names can fail that test. Brands that share an active ingredient, a platform technology, a delivery system or a calendar date can lose protection together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>The Five Findings That Matter<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Finding 1. Keytruda was 45.9% of Merck&#8217;s 2024 worldwide sales and 51.4% of its pharmaceutical segment sales (analysis of reported figures). [1]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Finding 2. Merck&#8217;s disclosures describe one sitagliptin salt patent, US 7,326,708, covering Januvia, Janumet and Janumet XR. [8]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Finding 3. Medicare&#8217;s 2027 negotiation list names &#8220;Ozempic or Rybelsus or Wegovy&#8221; as one entry, so three brands count as one of the 15 selected drugs. [7]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Finding 4. Ten licensed Humira biosimilar developers had US entry dates inside one calendar year, 2023, after a patent estate that I-MAK counted at 247 applications. [11]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Finding 5. Subcutaneous Keytruda Qlex, a lifecycle move meant to lower the 2028 patent risk, now has its own third-party patent dispute with Halozyme. [3]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Does &#8220;Diversified Pipeline&#8221; Mean, and What Does It Miss?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Definition: Pipeline Diversification vs. Patent-Risk Diversification<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pipeline diversification means a company has products in several indications, several drug classes or several development stages. Patent-risk diversification means the loss of one patent, one court ruling or one policy rule does not cut revenue from several products at the same time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The two ideas can move apart. A company can have six brands and one molecule. A company can have two brands and two molecules with different expiry dates. The second company has more patent diversification than the first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Why Does a Brand Count Overstate Independence?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A brand is a product name with its own label, price and sales line. FDA approves a new drug application or biologics license application for it. The legal protection often sits one level deeper, on the molecule, the salt, the formulation or the manufacturing method. Several brands can sit on top of one layer of protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This article treats the brand count as a starting point only. It then asks which patents and which rules link the brands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Key Terms Used in This Article<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Active ingredient: the part of the drug that causes the therapeutic effect.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Compound patent (also called composition-of-matter patent): a patent that claims the molecule itself.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Method-of-use patent: a patent that claims a way to treat a condition with the drug.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Formulation patent: a patent that claims a specific mixture, salt form or dosage form.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Loss of exclusivity (LOE): the date when generic or biosimilar competition can start.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Patent thicket: many patents that cover different aspects of one product. The term comes from critics of the practice, and courts do not use it as a legal category. [12]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Methodology: How This Analysis Was Built<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Data Did I Use?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I used company financial disclosures filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, company press releases, court-decision summaries from law firms, trade press reports of court and agency events, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) selection list as republished by a pharmacy trade body. I did not run a bulk query of the FDA Orange Book. This article therefore does not claim a count of all patents that are listed under more than one product. DrugPatentWatch and the Orange Book itself let you run that count yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How Were Cases Selected?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I chose cases where public documents show at least two products, or two patent groups, that share a legal or commercial dependency. I did not draw a random sample. The cases show that the pattern exists. They do not show how often it occurs across the whole market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How Were Calculations Done?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Every percentage in this article is a division of two figures that a source reports. I label each one as analysis. Dates are as stated in the cited documents on the stated publication date. Where a later event could have changed a status, the text says so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Are the Limits?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Four limits apply. First, patent expiry dates change with term extensions, terminal disclaimers, litigation and settlements. Second, settlement terms are often confidential. Third, I did not verify that every scheduled launch happened on its scheduled date. Fourth, sales figures are company-reported and cover different years in different cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>A Taxonomy: Five Channels That Link Patent Risk Across Products<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The following classification is an original framework for this article. It is not an established industry standard. Each channel describes one way that a legal or commercial event can reach several products at once.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Channel<\/th><th>What is shared<\/th><th>Example in this article<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Molecule<\/td><td>Active ingredient and its compound protection<\/td><td>Semaglutide: Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus [5]<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2. Platform or class claim<\/td><td>A technology or a broad claim that supports many products<\/td><td>Amgen&#8217;s antibody claims in Amgen v. Sanofi [14]<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>3. Delivery or formulation<\/td><td>A salt, a dosage form or a delivery enzyme<\/td><td>Sitagliptin salt patent; Keytruda Qlex enzyme [8][3]<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>4. Policy<\/td><td>A rule that treats several brands as one drug<\/td><td>CMS selection list [7]<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>5. Calendar<\/td><td>Settlements or rulings that set one date for many entrants<\/td><td>Eliquis, April 1, 2028 [9]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Channel 1: Molecule-Level Dependency<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A compound patent claims the molecule. Every product that contains the molecule benefits from that patent. Every product also loses that benefit when the patent expires or falls. Add a new brand with the same molecule and you add sales. You do not add a new compound patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Channel 2: Platform and Class-Claim Dependency<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Some patents claim a whole class, such as every antibody that binds a certain target. If a court finds the class claim invalid, every product that relies on that claim is exposed. Amgen v. Sanofi is the clearest recent example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Channel 3: Delivery and Formulation Dependency<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A company can move patients to a new salt, a new dosage form or a new route of administration. The new product gets new patents. It can also need a third party&#8217;s technology. The new product then replaces one risk with another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Channel 4: Policy Dependency<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Government rules can group products by ingredient. The Medicare negotiation selection list for 2027 shows this. A company cannot diversify away from a rule that sees only the ingredient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Channel 5: Calendar Dependency<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Settlements and court rulings can put many generic or biosimilar entrants on the same date. A company may hold many patents and still face a single date on which competition starts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Case Study: Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Do Three Semaglutide Brands Share?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">They share the molecule. A patent analysis by Markman Advisors reports that the US &#8216;343 patent covers the semaglutide compound and expires in December 2031 after patent term extension. [5] The same analysis says the patent comes from a March 2005 provisional application and would otherwise have expired closer to 2025. [5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A second compound patent, the &#8216;122 patent, expires in 2026. [5] A law-firm review gives a slightly different framing. It says patent term extensions are expected to keep protection in place until &#8220;at least 2032.&#8221; [6] The December 2031 date and the &#8220;at least 2032&#8221; statement differ. The Orange Book entry for each product is the place to settle that difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Did the Mylan IPR Against the &#8216;343 Patent Show?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Mylan filed an inter partes review (IPR) against the &#8216;343 patent in 2023. The review failed. [5] The result matters for diversification. A single failed challenge left the shared compound protection intact for all three brands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Where Do the Three Brands Differ?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">They differ in secondary patents. The table shows what the Markman analysis reports. [5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Brand<\/th><th>Other patents reported<\/th><th>Reported expiry<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Ozempic<\/td><td>&#8216;462 method-of-use patent for type 2 diabetes; device patents<\/td><td>&#8216;462: June 2033; device patents expire before &#8216;343 and &#8216;462<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Wegovy<\/td><td>Several patents<\/td><td>Late 2030s (individual numbers and dates not given in the source)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Rybelsus<\/td><td>Oral formulation patents including &#8216;248<\/td><td>&#8216;248: 2039; most others early 2030s<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The gap between the December 2031 compound date and the June 2033 Ozempic method-of-use date is 18 months (analysis). The gap between December 2031 and the Rybelsus &#8216;248 patent in 2039 is roughly seven years (analysis).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Happened in the Generic Litigation?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy&#8217;s and Apotex filed IPRs against the &#8216;462 patent, and the review was instituted. [5] In fall 2024, Novo Nordisk settled with several generic companies, including Mylan, Dr. Reddy&#8217;s, Apotex and Sun. The terms are confidential. [5] At the date of the Markman analysis, litigation over Wegovy and Rybelsus patents was pending with Mylan and Sun, and with Apotex for Rybelsus. [5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How Does Semaglutide Look Outside the United States?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The foundational semaglutide patents in China and India expired on 20 March 2026, according to a law-firm review. [6] The same review says a Canadian patent was allowed to lapse. [6] It reports that generic launches began in India within 24 hours of expiry and that more than 40 companies had launched or were close to launching. [6] The review cites news reports dated before the stated expiry, so check the exact dates against the national patent registers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How Much of Novo Nordisk&#8217;s Revenue Sits in the GLP-1 Group?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Novo Nordisk reported 2024 sales of DKK 290.4 billion. [16] Its GLP-1 diabetes segment was DKK 149.1 billion, which is 51.3% of the total (analysis). [16] Its obesity care sales were DKK 65.1 billion, which is 22.4% of the total (analysis). [16] These segments include liraglutide products as well as semaglutide products, so the figures show concentration in a drug class and not in one molecule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How Did Medicare Count the Three Brands?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">CMS issued its selected-drug list for initial price applicability year 2027 on January 17, 2025. [7] The list has 15 entries. One entry reads &#8220;Ozempic or Rybelsus or Wegovy.&#8221; [7] Policy treated three brands as one drug. A company that counted three products in its pipeline saw one line on the government list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Case Study: Sitagliptin (Januvia, Janumet and Janumet XR)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>One Salt Patent, Three Brands<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Merck&#8217;s September 22, 2022 release states that US Patent 7,326,708 covers the dihydrogen phosphate salt of sitagliptin. The patent expires on November 24, 2026. Pediatric exclusivity extends it to May 24, 2027. The release lists Januvia, Janumet and Janumet XR as the products involved. [8]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Did the Court Decide?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruled for Merck. Judge Irene Keeley presided. Merck&#8217;s release says: &#8220;The Court found that both Merck patents at issue were valid and infringed.&#8221; [8] The suit was against Viatris. The ruling was subject to appeal, and a separate appeal of a Patent Office decision on the salt patent was pending at the Federal Circuit when Merck wrote the release. [8]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Dates Did Settlements Set?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Merck said its settlement agreements allow generic Januvia and Janumet in the US in May 2026, or earlier under certain circumstances. They allow generic Janumet XR in July 2026, or earlier under certain circumstances. [8]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">May 2026 is 12 months before the May 24, 2027 date that includes pediatric exclusivity (analysis). It is about six months before the November 24, 2026 base expiry (analysis). Janumet XR follows Januvia and Janumet by two months (analysis). Three brands therefore faced one cluster of dates inside a two-month window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How Much Revenue Was in This Cluster?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Merck reported 2024 sales of $1.334 billion for Januvia and $0.935 billion for Janumet. [1] Together that is $2.27 billion, or 3.5% of Merck&#8217;s $64.2 billion in worldwide sales (analysis). [1] The Januvia family is a small share of Merck&#8217;s revenue. The example is useful because it shows the structure at small scale. Three brands, one salt patent, one cluster of dates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Did Medicare Group Them?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The CMS 2027 list includes the entry &#8220;Janumet or Janumet XR.&#8221; [7] Two brands again count as one selected drug.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Confirm Current Status Before You Rely on These Dates<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The settlement dates are from a 2022 release. The dates have now passed. I did not verify that generic launches happened on the scheduled dates. Check the current Orange Book listing and generic launch announcements before you use this case in a forecast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Case Study: Keytruda and Merck&#8217;s Revenue Concentration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Share of Merck&#8217;s Revenue Is Keytruda?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Product (2024)<\/th><th>Sales ($ millions)<\/th><th>Share of worldwide sales (analysis)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Keytruda<\/td><td>29,482<\/td><td>45.9%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gardasil \/ Gardasil 9<\/td><td>8,583<\/td><td>13.4%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Januvia<\/td><td>1,334<\/td><td>2.1%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Janumet<\/td><td>935<\/td><td>1.5%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Merck worldwide total<\/td><td>64,168<\/td><td>100%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Source for all sales figures: Merck, Exhibit 99.1 to its February 2025 filing. [1] Keytruda was 51.4% of the $57.4 billion pharmaceutical segment (analysis). [1] I do not analyze Gardasil&#8217;s patent position in this article. Its sales appear for scale only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>When Does Keytruda Lose Patent Protection?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Fierce Pharma reported in September 2025 that infused Keytruda is slated to lose patent protection in 2028 and that Merck expects Keytruda erosion to begin in 2029. [3] BioSpace reported the same 2028 timing for key protections. [2] I treat the 2028 date as a company-reported expectation and not as a confirmed generic launch date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Does Subcutaneous Keytruda Qlex Diversify Patent Risk?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Merck&#8217;s 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2025 states that FDA approved Keytruda Qlex (pembrolizumab and berahyaluronidase alfa-pmph) in September 2025. [4] Qlex uses Alteogen&#8217;s berahyaluronidase alfa enzyme to allow subcutaneous delivery. [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Is the Halozyme Dispute?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Fierce Pharma reported that Halozyme alleges Alteogen&#8217;s enzyme infringes its portfolio of modified hyaluronidase (MDASE) patents. It also reported that the US Patent and Trademark Office had instituted a post-grant review on Merck&#8217;s challenge to some of Halozyme&#8217;s patents, and that Merck planned to launch despite the litigation. [3] This is the status as reported in September 2025. Check the PTAB and court dockets for later events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Did Merck Do on Price and Scope?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A Merck spokesperson told Endpoints News that Qlex would be priced at parity with the intravenous version. [2] The approval covers solid tumor indications that the intravenous product already has. Blood cancer indications are not yet covered, and Merck is running a separate pivotal study for them. [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Does This Mean for the Diversification Argument?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Qlex shares the pembrolizumab molecule with Keytruda IV. It adds a dependency on a third party&#8217;s enzyme technology. It is a good lifecycle move, and it also moves some of the risk from one patent set to another. In my framework, Qlex lowers calendar dependency and raises delivery dependency (analysis).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Analyst Cristian Marulanda of BioPharmCatalyst said Keytruda&#8217;s lifecycle management measures suggest it &#8220;will retain significant market share.&#8221; [2] That is an analyst opinion. It is not a patent finding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Case Study: Eliquis, Two Patents and One Date<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Did the Federal Circuit Decide?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware decision that two Eliquis (apixaban) patents were valid and infringed. The patents are US 6,967,208 (composition of matter) and US 9,326,945 (formulation). [9] The opinion was filed on September 3, 2021. [10] Sigmapharm, Sunshine Lake Pharma, Hec Pharm and Unichem challenged the patents in court. Other generic companies settled. [10]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>When Can Generic Eliquis Launch?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer alliance said that &#8220;the earliest that generic manufacturers are permitted to launch their apixaban products is April 1, 2028, subject to additional appeals and challenges.&#8221; [9] Before the ruling, the companies had expected entry between 2026 and 2031. [10] Eliquis generated $9.17 billion in 2020. [10]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Is the Lesson?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Two patents, one molecule and one date. The court result and the settlements gave the whole franchise a single calendar event. The ruling helped the brand owners because it narrowed an uncertain range of five years to one date (analysis). The same structure also means the cliff arrives all at once.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Case Study: Humira, When Many Patents Protect One Product<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How Many Patents Surrounded Humira?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">AbbVie filed 247 patent applications related to Humira, and more than 100 were granted, according to the advocacy group I-MAK. Humira earned AbbVie $20.7 billion in 2021. (BioPharma Dive, March 9, 2022) [11]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiffs in an antitrust case gave different counts. Their complaint alleged more than 130 patents from about 250 applications. They said AbbVie asserted about 60 to 80 of them against would-be biosimilar makers. [12] The counts differ because the sources count different things: applications, grants and asserted patents. When you cite a thicket number, state which one it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Did the Antitrust Court Say About the Thicket?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In June 2020, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the buyers&#8217; complaint without prejudice. The court applied the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. It cited AbbVie&#8217;s 53.4% success rate on its applications as support for the finding that the applications were not objectively baseless. [12] The &#8220;thicket&#8221; label came from the buyers&#8217; complaint and not from the court. [12] Oral argument at the Seventh Circuit took place on February 25, 2021. [12] This article does not rely on the appeal result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>When Did Biosimilars Enter?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Humira&#8217;s main patent expired in 2016. [11] AbbVie then licensed its patents to biosimilar developers. As of March 2022, BioPharma Dive listed these expected US launch dates. [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Company<\/th><th>Expected US launch (as of March 2022)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Amgen<\/td><td>Jan. 31, 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Samsung Bioepis \/ Organon<\/td><td>June 30, 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Boehringer Ingelheim<\/td><td>July 1, 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Alvotech \/ Teva<\/td><td>July 1, 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Coherus<\/td><td>July 1, 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Viatris<\/td><td>July 31, 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Pfizer<\/td><td>As early as July 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Fresenius Kabi<\/td><td>Sept. 30, 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Novartis<\/td><td>Sept. 30, 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Momenta<\/td><td>Nov. 20, 2023 (per settlement)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Does the Calendar Show?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From the first date (January 31) to the last (November 20), the span is 293 days (analysis). Seven of the ten companies have firm dates between June 30 and September 30, 2023. That is a window of 92 days (analysis). A large patent estate did not spread entry across many years. It produced a cluster in one year. I did not verify the actual launch date for each product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Happened to Humira Revenue?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Humira global revenue was $20.7 billion in 2021 [11] and $8.993 billion in 2024. [13] That is a decline of 56.6% (analysis). US Humira revenue was about $17 billion in 2021 [11] and $7.142 billion in 2024. [13] That is a decline of about 58% (analysis), and the 2021 figure is rounded in the source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Case Study: Amgen v. Sanofi and the Class-Claim Risk<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Did the Supreme Court Decide?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court decided Amgen v. Sanofi. [14] The Court held that &#8220;if a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent&#8217;s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire class.&#8221; [14] The decision affirmed that Amgen&#8217;s antibody patents were invalid for lack of enablement. [15] Mintz reported that the Court affirmed unanimously. [15]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Why Does This Matter for Pipeline Diversification?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Amgen had patents from 2011 and 2014. [14] They claimed a class of antibodies defined by function. The Court&#8217;s reasoning applies to the claim and not to one product. Any company with several antibody products under one broad functional claim holds the same type of exposure (analysis).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Which Channel Is This?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This is Channel 2 in my taxonomy. The risk does not depend on the brand. It depends on the breadth of the claim and on what the specification enables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Does Real Patent Diversification Look Like? AbbVie After Humira<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Revenue Mix in 2024<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Product (2024, global)<\/th><th>Net revenue ($ billions)<\/th><th>Share of AbbVie total (analysis)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Skyrizi<\/td><td>11.718<\/td><td>20.8%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Humira<\/td><td>8.993<\/td><td>16.0%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Rinvoq<\/td><td>5.971<\/td><td>10.6%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>AbbVie total<\/td><td>56.334<\/td><td>100%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Source: AbbVie, January 31, 2025. [13] Skyrizi and Rinvoq together were $17.689 billion, or 31.4% of total revenue (analysis). That is 1.97 times the Humira figure (analysis).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Does This Show, and What Does It Not Show?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Skyrizi and Rinvoq are different molecules, so they cannot share a compound patent. That is a structural difference from the semaglutide and sitagliptin cases. I did not map their patent estates for this article, so I make no claim about their expiry dates or their litigation risk. A revenue mix is evidence of commercial diversification. Patent diversification needs a separate check.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Scenario Analysis: What a Loss in One Franchise Does to Total Revenue<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The table uses Merck&#8217;s 2024 Keytruda sales as a fixed base. The Keytruda rows are illustrative arithmetic. They are not forecasts. Merck did not publish these scenarios, and the percentages are assumptions I chose. The Humira row is a documented outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Scenario<\/th><th>Franchise revenue lost ($ millions)<\/th><th>Share of company sales (analysis)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Keytruda down 10% (assumption)<\/td><td>2,948<\/td><td>4.6% of Merck 2024 sales<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Keytruda down 25% (assumption)<\/td><td>7,371<\/td><td>11.5% of Merck 2024 sales<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Keytruda down 50% (assumption)<\/td><td>14,741<\/td><td>23.0% of Merck 2024 sales<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Humira global, 2021 to 2024 (documented)<\/td><td>11,707<\/td><td>Decline of 56.6% in the product&#8217;s own sales<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sources: Merck [1]; BioPharma Dive [11]; AbbVie [13]. The last row compares Humira&#8217;s 2024 revenue with its own 2021 revenue and does not compare it with company sales. [11][13]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How to Audit Patent Concentration in a Portfolio<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>A Four-Step Method<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>List every marketed product and pipeline asset with its active ingredient and application number.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Map each listed patent to every product it covers. One patent can appear under several products.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Group products by the date at which a shared patent expires, or at which a settlement or ruling allows entry.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Calculate the share of revenue in each date group and flag any policy rule that groups products, such as the CMS list.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How Can DrugPatentWatch Help?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">DrugPatentWatch lets you search patents and exclusivity data by drug, ingredient and company. That supports steps 1 and 2 of the method. Use it to locate the records. Then check the Orange Book, patent documents and court dockets for the claims that matter, as DrugPatentWatch is not a substitute for primary evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Questions an Analyst Should Ask<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How Many Independent Patent Families Support Revenue?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Count families, not brands. Two brands that share one family are one exposure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Which Dates Are Settlement Dates?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Settlement dates act like patent expiry dates in a forecast. Ask which patents led to the dates and whether a different outcome could move them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Does a Lifecycle Product Add a New Dependency?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Check whether the new product needs a third party&#8217;s technology, as Keytruda Qlex does. [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Does Any Policy Rule Treat the Brands as One?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The CMS list does so for semaglutide and for Janumet products. [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What This Means for Different Readers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What This Means for Generic and Biosimilar Developers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One successful challenge to a shared patent can open several brands. In the sitagliptin case, a salt patent linked three brands. [8] Target the shared layer first, then the brand-specific layers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What This Means for Brand Manufacturers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A new brand with the same molecule adds revenue and keeps the same compound risk. A new molecule or a new patent family adds independent risk. Plan lifecycle moves with that distinction in mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What This Means for Investors and Business Development Teams<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ask for revenue by patent date, not revenue by brand. The Keytruda, Eliquis and Humira cases show that a company can hold many patents and still face one date. [3][9][11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What This Means for Medical Affairs and Med-Comms Teams<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Loss of exclusivity changes the competitive set that your product faces in the market. When one patent event affects several brands, the same messaging challenge reaches several teams at the same time. Plan for the shared date and not for each brand separately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Limits of This Analysis<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This article uses a small set of well-documented cases. It does not estimate how common shared-patent exposure is across all drugs. A full Orange Book count would do that. Several sources are trade press or law-firm summaries and not the original court opinions or filings. I flagged the key points where a primary document should be checked. Statuses can change after the dates cited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Keytruda was 45.9% of Merck&#8217;s 2024 worldwide sales (analysis of reported figures). [1]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>One sitagliptin salt patent, US 7,326,708, is reported to cover Januvia, Janumet and Janumet XR. Settlement dates for the three fall in a two-month window. [8]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>CMS listed Ozempic, Rybelsus and Wegovy as one entry on its 2027 negotiation list. [7]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Eliquis has two patents upheld in 2021 and one earliest generic date, April 1, 2028. [9]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ten Humira biosimilar developers had entry dates spread over 293 days in 2023 (analysis). [11]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Humira global revenue fell 56.6% from 2021 to 2024 (analysis). [11][13]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Keytruda Qlex adds a dependency on a third party&#8217;s enzyme technology and a dispute with Halozyme. [3]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Amgen v. Sanofi shows that a broad class claim can fail all at once. [14]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>FAQ<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Can two brands share the same patent?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Yes. Merck states that its sitagliptin salt patent covers Januvia, Janumet and Janumet XR. [8] Compound patents cover the molecule, so brands with the same molecule rely on the same protection. [5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Does a patent thicket delay competition for a long time?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Not always. Humira&#8217;s main patent expired in 2016, and the first US biosimilar entry was scheduled for January 31, 2023, which is between six and seven years later. [11] Ten licensed developers then had entry dates inside 2023. [11]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How many Humira patents were there?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It depends on what you count. I-MAK counted 247 applications with more than 100 granted. [11] A buyer complaint alleged more than 130 patents from about 250 applications. [12]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>When does Keytruda lose patent protection in the US?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Press reports say infused Keytruda is slated to lose patent protection in 2028, and Merck expects erosion to begin in 2029. [3] These are expectations and not confirmed launch dates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Does subcutaneous Keytruda extend protection?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It creates a separate product with its own technology. Halozyme alleges that the enzyme in Keytruda Qlex infringes its patents, and a post-grant review was instituted at the USPTO on Merck&#8217;s challenge. [3] The outcome was not known in the reports used here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>When can generic Eliquis launch?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The earliest permitted date is April 1, 2028, subject to additional appeals and challenges, according to the Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer alliance. [9]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How does Medicare negotiation treat brands with the same ingredient?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The CMS 2027 list names &#8220;Ozempic or Rybelsus or Wegovy&#8221; as one entry. [7] That shows policy can group brands by ingredient. Read the CMS fact sheet for the exact rule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What happened to semaglutide patents outside the US?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A law-firm review reports that foundational patents in China and India expired on 20 March 2026 and that a Canadian patent lapsed. [6] Verify the dates in national registers before you rely on them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What is the difference between a patent count and a patent family count?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A patent family is a group of patents that come from the same invention across filings and countries. A count of patents can include many members of one family. For concentration analysis, count families and map each to the products it covers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What metric measures patent concentration?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One simple metric is the share of company revenue that falls under each patent or settlement date group. It needs only reported sales and a patent map, and you can calculate it from public data. This is a method I propose, and it is not an industry standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>References<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Merck &amp; Co., Inc. (2025, February 4). <em>Merck announces fourth-quarter and full-year 2024 financial results<\/em> (Exhibit 99.1). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/0000310158\/000110465925008863\/tm255059d1_ex99-1.htm\">https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/0000310158\/000110465925008863\/tm255059d1_ex99-1.htm<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>BioSpace. (2025, September 22). <em>As exclusivity loss looms, Merck wins subcutaneous approval for Keytruda<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biospace.com\/fda\/as-exclusivity-loss-looms-merck-wins-subcutaneous-approval-for-keytruda\">https:\/\/www.biospace.com\/fda\/as-exclusivity-loss-looms-merck-wins-subcutaneous-approval-for-keytruda<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Fierce Pharma. (2025, September). <em>Merck scores FDA approval for subcutaneous Keytruda, securing potential blockbuster protection<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/merck-scores-fda-approval-subcutaneous-keytruda\">https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/merck-scores-fda-approval-subcutaneous-keytruda<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Merck &amp; Co., Inc. (2025). <em>Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025<\/em>. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/310158\/000031015825000059\/mrk-20250930.htm\">https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/310158\/000031015825000059\/mrk-20250930.htm<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Markman Advisors. (2025, February 7). <em>What is the patent landscape for Novo Nordisk&#8217;s semaglutide products Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus?<\/em> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.markmanadvisors.com\/blog\/2025\/2\/7\/what-is-the-patent-landscape-for-novo-nordisks-semaglutide-products-ozempic-wegovy-and-rybelsus\">https:\/\/www.markmanadvisors.com\/blog\/2025\/2\/7\/what-is-the-patent-landscape-for-novo-nordisks-semaglutide-products-ozempic-wegovy-and-rybelsus<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Abel + Imray. (n.d.). <em>Ozempic patent expiry: Have the scales finally tipped?<\/em> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.abelimray.com\/resources\/newsletters\/ozempic-patent-expiry-have-the-scales-finally-tipped\">https:\/\/www.abelimray.com\/resources\/newsletters\/ozempic-patent-expiry-have-the-scales-finally-tipped<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. (2025). <em>CMS issues the list of selected drugs for initial price applicability year 2027<\/em> (CMS list issued January 17, 2025). <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amcp.org\/node\/38096\">https:\/\/www.amcp.org\/node\/38096<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Merck &amp; Co., Inc. (2022, September 22). <em>U.S. District Court rules in favor of Merck in sitagliptin phosphate patent lawsuit<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.merck.com\/news\/u-s-district-court-rules-in-favor-of-merck-in-sitagliptin-phosphate-patent-lawsuit\/\">https:\/\/www.merck.com\/news\/u-s-district-court-rules-in-favor-of-merck-in-sitagliptin-phosphate-patent-lawsuit\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. (2021). <em>Press release on the Federal Circuit decision upholding the Eliquis patents<\/em> (Exhibit 99, Pfizer Form 8-K). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/78003\/000007800321000104\/pfe-10032021xex99.htm\">https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/78003\/000007800321000104\/pfe-10032021xex99.htm<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Fierce Pharma. (2021, September 7). <em>Bristol Myers, Pfizer score another win in their Eliquis patent defense, protecting the blockbuster until 2028<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/bristol-myers-pfizer-score-another-win-their-eliquis-defense-protecting-blockbuster\">https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/bristol-myers-pfizer-score-another-win-their-eliquis-defense-protecting-blockbuster<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>BioPharma Dive. (2022, March 9). <em>AbbVie, Alvotech settle Humira biosimilar dispute, with launch set for 2023<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biopharmadive.com\/news\/abbvie-alvotech-humira-biosimilar-settlement-launch\/620100\/\">https:\/\/www.biopharmadive.com\/news\/abbvie-alvotech-humira-biosimilar-settlement-launch\/620100\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>JD Supra. (n.d.). <em>7th Circuit hears oral arguments in Humira &#8220;patent thicket&#8221; antitrust case<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jdsupra.com\/legalnews\/7th-circuit-hears-oral-arguments-in-9057194\">https:\/\/www.jdsupra.com\/legalnews\/7th-circuit-hears-oral-arguments-in-9057194<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AbbVie Inc. (2025, January 31). <em>AbbVie reports full-year and fourth-quarter 2024 financial results<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/news.abbvie.com\/2025-01-31-AbbVie-Reports-Full-Year-and-Fourth-Quarter-2024-Financial-Results\">https:\/\/news.abbvie.com\/2025-01-31-AbbVie-Reports-Full-Year-and-Fourth-Quarter-2024-Financial-Results<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Wolf Greenfield. (2023, May). <em>Supreme Court issues decision in Amgen v. Sanofi<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/wolfgreenfield.com\/ip-alerts\/supreme-court-issues-decision-in-amgen-v.-sanofi\">https:\/\/wolfgreenfield.com\/ip-alerts\/supreme-court-issues-decision-in-amgen-v.-sanofi<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Mintz. (2023, May 25). <em>Supreme Court unanimously affirms Amgen Repatha patents invalid<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mintz.com\/insights-center\/viewpoints\/2231\/2023-05-25-supreme-court-unanimously-affirms-amgen-repathar\">https:\/\/www.mintz.com\/insights-center\/viewpoints\/2231\/2023-05-25-supreme-court-unanimously-affirms-amgen-repathar<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>BioSpectrum Asia. (2025). <em>Novo Nordisk delivers strong 2024 results with 26% revenue growth, fueled by GLP-1 success and obesity market expansion<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biospectrumasia.com\/company-results\/123\/25639\/novo-nordisk-delivers-strong-2024-results-with-26-revenue-growth-fueled-by-glp-1-success-and-obesity-market-expansion.html\">https:\/\/www.biospectrumasia.com\/company-results\/123\/25639\/novo-nordisk-delivers-strong-2024-results-with-26-revenue-growth-fueled-by-glp-1-success-and-obesity-market-expansion.html<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Merck sold $29.5 billion of Keytruda in 2024. That is 45.9% of the company&#8217;s $64.2 billion in worldwide sales (analysis [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":40041,"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-40040","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\/40040","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=40040"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40040\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40042,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40040\/revisions\/40042"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40041"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}