Biosimilars pathway safe after US Supreme Court upholds Obama healthcare

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Biosimilars pathway safe after US Supreme Court upholds Obama healthcare

The US Supreme Court has upheld so-called Obamacare, ensuring that the pathway for biosimilars included with the law will remain intact

The nation’s highest court today ruled critical parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) constitutional, and with it the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) giving the FDA authority to approve biosimilars.

Had the PPACA been stricken in part or in its entirety, it would have presented obstacles to the BPCIA surviving in its present form. In particular, the US government has been critical of the 12-year data exclusivity period for innovators, calling for it to be shortened to seven years.

“We’ve avoided a protracted fight over new legislation in this area,” said Gerald Flattmann of Paul Hastings. “There could have been a multiyear delay in biosimilar approval.”

This was the best case scenario for the biologics industry, which feared that even had the BPCIA stayed intact while other provisions were deemed unconstitutional, it would have been difficult for it to have survived.

Still in question, however, is what the regulatory framework will ultimately look like.

“The FDA has provided very few tangibles or nuts and bolts considering what the approval process is going to look like and whether it will be much less onerous than the approval process already in place for innovator biologics,” Flattmann said.

But, he added: “We’re in better shape than we would have been had this portion of the law been stricken.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article