The U.S. FDA issued a revised draft guidance, “Promotional labeling and advertising considerations for prescription biological reference and biosimilar products,” to help ensure promotional communications involving reference biologics or their follow-ons are accurate, truthful and not misleading.

With credit card fees taking a sizable bite of their billings, many U.S. health care providers are fighting back by offering patients cash discounts. But when a drug company covers card processing fees for its distributors to pass on to their provider clients so they can pay for so-called “buy-and-bill” Medicare Part B drugs with a credit card at cash prices, it’s fraud if those concessions aren’t figured into the drug’s average sales price – at least that’s what the U.S. Department of Justice is claiming in a complaint it released April 10 against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Yes, even a phase III protocol for a “failed” trial can constitute prior art, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told a lower court April 1 when it returned Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.’s patent squabble for a do-over.

The U.S. biopharma and med-tech industries are adding their voice to that of Gilead Sciences Inc. in urging the California Supreme Court to review the Gilead Tenofovir Cases, which seek to hold the drug company liable for how and when it developed its pipeline of HIV drugs.

While some states are beginning to double down on the prices they pay for prescription drugs, the state of Colorado is taking it to a whole new level with its Prescription Drug Affordability Review Board that was empowered to set maximum prices of prescription drugs it considers “unaffordable.”

Kevin Dills, who the U.S. SEC said secretly controlled Oncology Pharma Inc., consented to a final civil judgment in federal district court related to a fraudulent stock-selling scheme.

Real life economics, not functionality, is the standard for determining a relevant antitrust market for distinct versions of a prescription drug, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said as it schooled a lower court and handed Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. a win in its ongoing litigation with Novartis AG and Vetter Pharma International GmbH over the prefilled syringe market for eye drugs Eylea (aflibercept) and Lucentis (ranibizumab).

How long does it take for a U.S.-based biopharma company to complete a bankruptcy? In the case of privately held Purdue Pharma LP, the answer is likely five years or longer, depending on when the Supreme Court rules on the matter and whether it orders a do-over. The Supreme Court is the next chapter in the court saga that began in 2019 when the Stamford, Conn.-based company filed for bankruptcy in its first step toward reorganizing as a public benefit company.

Much of U.S. patent law jurisprudence still revolves around subject matter eligibility, but a new decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revisits the question of what constitutes obviousness in patent applications. The court remanded the case between Irvine, Calif.-based Axonics Inc. and Dublin-based Medtronic plc to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) after determining that the PTAB judge’s understanding of obviousness is “doubly infected by error” in a decision that seems to offer some much-needed clarity where obviousness is concerned.