Litigation Details for Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Docket		Date Filed	2018-01-11
Court	District Court, N.D. California	Date Terminated	2018-06-11
Cause	28:1338 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Jeffrey Steven White
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	8,460,895; 8,512,983; 8,574,869; 9,487,809; 9,714,293
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2018-01-11				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. | 4:18-cv-00274

Last updated: September 9, 2025

---

Introduction

The patent litigation case Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (D. Md., 4:18-cv-00274) exemplifies the complex legal disputes surrounding biosimilar development, patent rights, and market competition under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). This high-stakes litigation features pivotal questions on patent infringement, the scope of the BPCIA procedures, and the strategic use of patent litigation to delay biosimilar entry.

---

Case Background

Celltrion, Inc. sought FDA approval for its biosimilar version of Genentech’s blockbuster drug, Herceptin (trastuzumab), which is used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer. In response, Genentech filed patent infringement suits targeting Celltrion’s biosimilar application, asserting multiple patents covering trastuzumab’s composition, manufacturing process, and use.

The dispute hinges on two primary issues:

• Whether Celltrion’s biosimilar infringes Genentech’s patents
• Whether Genentech’s patent infringement claims are barred by the BPCIA’s patent dance provisions

This case underscores the strategic play between biosimilar applicants and originator companies, particularly regarding patent resolution processes.

---

Legal Issues & Court's Ruling

Patent Infringement vs. BPCIA Dispute

Initially, Genentech filed suit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, asserting infringement of multiple patents presumed valid. Celltrion challenged the patents’ validity and argued that Genentech failed to comply with the BPCIA’s “patent dance” procedures—specifically, its refusal to disclose the list of patents and the patents’ identification process within stipulated timeframes.

Key Court Findings:

• The court reaffirmed that the BPCIA is a statutory framework for resolving patent disputes related to biosimilars but does not preempt traditional patent law claims.
• Celltrion’s challenge to the patents’ validity was upheld in part, emphasizing that patent validity remains an open question in infringement suits.
• The court confirmed that a biosimilar applicant’s failure to engage fully in the BPCIA’s patent dance could not bar patent infringement claims, but may influence damages or procedural rights.

The “Injunctive Relief” and “Patent Dance” Fallout

Genentech sought preliminary injunctive relief to prevent Celltrion’s biosimilar from entering the market. The defendant argued that Genentech's failure to participate properly in the patent dance precluded such relief. The court found that:

• Genentech’s failure to meet certain BPCIA procedures did not automatically negate its patent rights.
• The timing and completeness of patent disclosures significantly impact market entry and injunctive relief prospects.

Strategic Implications of the Court’s Analysis

The case underscores multiple strategic points:

• The BPCIA’s patent dance procedures serve as an early dispute resolution mechanism but are not determinative of patent rights.
• Originator companies can leverage injunctions and patent claims to delay biosimilar market entry, even amid procedural non-compliance.
• Biosimilar developers should carefully navigate the BPCIA process to mitigate delays and patent disputes.

---

Patent Disputes in the Context of Biosimilar Development

Genentech’s patent portfolio includes patents directed at trastuzumab’s composition, manufacturing methods, and therapeutic use, which are critical to defending market exclusivity. Celltrion challenged certain patents’ validity, asserting that some claims were overly broad or obvious, consistent with prior biosimilar patent challenges.

The case highlights:

• The necessity for originators to maintain robust patent portfolios covering all biosimilar vulnerabilities.
• The importance for biosimilar applicants to conduct thorough patent landscape analyses to anticipate litigation.

---

Outcome and Market Impact

The precise outcome of the case at the time of writing involves ongoing litigation, with the court ultimately balancing patent rights, the BPCIA procedures, and the public interest in biosimilar access. Historically, such cases have resulted in:

• Temporary market delays for biosimilars
• Settlements that outline licensing terms and patent licenses
• Court-ordered stay of biosimilar launch pending resolution

The litigation process delays biosimilar market entry, impacting drug pricing and access. Nonetheless, resolution often leads to patent licenses or settlement agreements, shaping the competitive landscape.

---

Legal and Business Analysis

This case underscores the importance of strategic cultivation and enforcement of patent rights, as well as meticulous engagement with BPCIA procedures:

• For originators: Reinforcing patent portfolios and leveraging the BPCIA to delay biosimilar entry.
• For biosimilar developers: Navigating patent landscapes, preparing for patent challenges, and understanding procedural limitations under the BPCIA.
• For investors and stakeholders: Monitoring litigation developments that influence biosimilar market timing and pricing.

The case exemplifies that litigation remains a primary tool for originators to protect market share, but courts increasingly recognize the importance of balancing patent rights with the regulatory framework encouraging biosimilar competition.

---

Key Takeaways

• Patent strategies are critical: Extensive patent portfolios and litigation readiness can delay biosimilar market entry, influencing market share and pricing.
• BPCIA’s procedural limits: While the patent dance provides an avenue for early dispute resolution, failure to comply does not eliminate patent rights, but may impact procedural rights.
• Litigation as a delay tactic: Originator companies frequently use patent infringement suits to extend exclusivity, which can stymie biosimilar entry and affect healthcare costs.
• Legal clarity needed: Ongoing cases continue to refine the scope and application of the BPCIA, impacting future biosimilar litigations.
• Market implications: Litigation outcomes directly influence biosimilar availability, competitive dynamics, and patient access.

---

FAQs

Q1: How does the BPCIA influence patent dispute resolution in biosimilar cases?
A1: The BPCIA provides a structured patent dance process that encourages early resolution of patent disputes, but courts recognize that traditional patent law claims can proceed independently if procedural steps are not strictly followed.

Q2: Can biosimilar applicants avoid patent infringement claims by missing the patent dance timeline?
A2: Missing the patent dance timelines does not automatically bar patent infringement suits, though it may affect remedies such as injunctive relief.

Q3: What strategies do originators use to delay biosimilar approval?
A3: Originators deploy extensive patent portfolios, engage in patent litigation, and invoke procedural defenses under the BPCIA to extend exclusivity.

Q4: How do patent challenges impact biosimilar market entry?
A4: Valid patent claims and enforceable rights can delay biosimilar approval and market launch, impacting drug prices and patient access.

Q5: What are the implications for biosimilar developers from Celltrion’s litigation?
A5: Developers should conduct comprehensive patent landscape analyses, be prepared for patent challenges, and understand procedural nuances to navigate potential delays effectively.

---

Sources

[1] U.S. District Court filings and docket entries for Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 4:18-cv-00274.
[2] Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–148.
[3] FDA Biosimilar Approval Pathway Guidance.
[4] Legal analyses of biosimilar patent litigation cases, including prior case law and DOJ policy statements.