Litigation Details for GENENTECH, INC. v. SANDOZ, INC. (D.N.J. 2023)

GENENTECH, INC. v. SANDOZ, INC. (D.N.J. 2023)

Docket		Date Filed	2023-07-31
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Esther Salas
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	Leda Dunn Wettre
Parties	HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC.
Patents	10,188,637; 8,383,150
Attorneys	WAYNE W. FANG
Firms	William Murtha
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for GENENTECH, INC. v. SANDOZ, INC. (D.N.J. 2023)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2023-07-31				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for GENENTECH, INC. v. SANDOZ, INC. | 2:23-cv-04085

Last updated: August 10, 2025

---

Overview of the Case

GENENTECH, INC. v. SANDOZ, INC. pertains to a patent infringement dispute filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. This case (filed under docket number 2:23-cv-04085) highlights ongoing competitive tensions between biotechnology giants over biosimilar products and patent rights.

The litigation emerges amidst the rapid evolution of the biosimilar market, where brand-name biopharmaceutical companies seek to defend patent portfolios against unauthorized generic competitors. Genentech, a division of Roche, alleges that Sandoz, a Novartis affiliate, infringed on multiple patents related to Genentech’s blockbuster biosimilar drug, Herceptin (trastuzumab).

---

Background of the Dispute

Patent Portfolio and Market Context

Genentech holds an extensive patent portfolio around Herceptin, utilized in treating HER2-positive breast cancer. Since the biosimilar pathway became accessible after the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), companies like Sandoz have sought to develop and launch biosimilars of Herceptin.

Sandoz announced its intent to develop a trastuzumab biosimilar, leading Genentech to preemptively assert patent rights. The dispute centers on whether Sandoz’s biosimilar infringes those patents and if so, whether those patents are enforceable, valid, or should be invalidated under patent law standards.

Claims at Issue

Genentech’s complaint asserts infringement of multiple patents covering composition, manufacturing processes, and usage methods (e.g., composition of matter patents and method of use patents). The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages for infringement, and potential exclusion of Sandoz’s biosimilar from the market until patent expiration or invalidation.

---

Key Legal Issues

Patent Validity and Infringement

The core questions involve whether the asserted patents are valid under legal standards, with particular focus on:

• Obviousness: Whether the patents represent non-obvious advances over prior art.
• Adequacy of written description and enablement: Whether patent disclosures sufficiently describe the claimed innovation.
• Novelty: Whether the patents claim novel aspects not anticipated by prior disclosures.

On the infringement front, the case examines whether Sandoz’s biosimilar product, manufacturing processes, or labels fall within the scope of the patent claims.

Biosimilar Regulatory and Patent Landscape

The outcome hinges on a detailed analysis of the interplay between the biosimilar application process under the BPCIA and existing patent rights. The case tests Sandoz’s strategies for navigating these legal boundaries, potentially invoking patent dance provisions, patent litigations, and exclusivity periods.

---

Legal Proceedings and Developments (as of latest update)

Initial filings

Genentech filed its complaint in mid-2023, asserting multiple patents, including US Patent Nos. 9,250,209 and 8,399,021, related to trastuzumab structure and manufacturing. The complaint alleges Sandoz will inevitably infringe these patents through its biosimilar product.

Sandoz’s Response

In line with recent biosimilar litigation trends, Sandoz has challenged the patents' validity through declaratory judgment claims or plans to rebut infringement allegations via patent invalidity defenses. A preliminary injunction is a typical early motion in such cases, seeking to block Sandoz’s market entry pending resolution.

Pending Motions and Status

As of the latest docket, the case remains in initial procedural stages. Both sides have engaged in discovery, with Genentech seeking expedited proceedings given the market significance, and Sandoz resisting, citing patent invalidity and non-infringement.

---

Implications of the Litigation

Market and Patent Strategy

This case exemplifies the strategic patent assertions pursued by originator companies aiming to extend exclusivity, often through patent thickets. It also illustrates Sandoz’s approach to asserting patent defenses early, potentially seeking settlement agreements or licensing.

Legal Trends

The dispute highlights contemporary issues:

• The effectiveness of patent thicket strategies versus biosimilar innovation.
• The use of patent litigation to delay biosimilar market entry.
• Judicial approaches toward patent validity, notably considering obviousness and written description in biosimilar contexts.

Potential Outcomes

• Injunctions or Market Delays: If patents are upheld and infringement found, Sandoz’s biosimilar could face delays, affecting market competition.
• Invalidation of Patents: Courts could invalidate certain patents, opening the market and diminishing patent leverage.
• Settlement Agreements: Parties may settle with licensing or patent cross-licensing arrangements, typical in biotech patent disputes.

---

Conclusion and Business Insights

This litigation underscores the importance of robust patent portfolios and clear legal strategies for brand-name biologics amidst biosimilar emergence. The outcome will influence biosimilar development pipelines and market stability for trastuzumab. For manufacturers, a keen understanding of patent landscapes in the biologics sector is crucial for navigating regulatory, legal, and commercial risks.

---

Key Takeaways

• The case illustrates the ongoing strategic patent litigation landscape in biosimilars, affecting market entry timelines.
• Biotech companies must rigorously defend patent rights while innovating within patent frameworks.
• Courts scrutinize patent validity claims, particularly regarding obviousness and sufficiency of disclosures, critical for both patent holders and challengers.
• Early procedural motions, like preliminary injunctions, can significantly impact market competition.
• Establishing clear patent strategies can provide durable protection against biosimilar competition, but overreach risks invalidation.

---

FAQs

1. What are the primary legal claims in Genentech v. Sandoz?
The case primarily involves patent infringement and validity claims concerning trastuzumab biosimilar patents, with Genentech asserting that Sandoz’s biosimilar product infringes and that the patents are valid and enforceable.

2. How does this case impact the biosimilar industry?
It exemplifies how brand-name biologics defend market share through patent litigation, potentially delaying biosimilar entry and influencing how biosimilar developers approach patent challenges.

3. Can patents be invalidated in biosimilar disputes?
Yes, through legal challenges based on obviousness, lack of written description, or anticipation by prior art, patents can be invalidated, affecting biosimilar market timelines.

4. What role does the BPCIA play in such litigations?
The BPCIA provides a framework for resolving biosimilar patent disputes, including patent dance provisions and mechanisms for parties to challenge patents before or after biosimilar approval.

5. What are the strategic considerations for biosimilar manufacturers in patent litigation?
Manufacturers must assess patent scope, validity, and potential infringement risks early in development, and consider licensing, patent challenges, or design-around strategies to navigate potential disputes.

---

Sources

[1] U.S. District Court Docket, Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 2:23-cv-04085.
[2] Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148 (2010).
[3] FDA Biosimilar Approval Process, FDA.gov.
[4] Recent trends in biosimilar patent litigations, Law360.