Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:


Biologic patent challenges under the America Invents Act

Administrative patent review procedures are an effective way of correcting erroneously granted biologic patents and may help promote timely drug competition for the benefit of patients and the US healthcare system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Number of asserted patents in inter partes review and post grant review proceedings per biologic drug (total patents = 102).
Fig. 2: AIA proceeding outcomes for all patents (n = 102).


  1. RAND Corporation. Biosimilar drugs could generate $38.4 billion in savings over five years. (10 January 2022).

  2. Committee on Oversight and Reform, US House of Representatives. Drug Pricing Investigation: Majority Staff Report (2021).

  3. Goode, R. & Chao, B. H. J. Law Biosci. 9, 1–24 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rai, A. K. et al. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 37, 101–130 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Van de Wiele, V. L., Kesselheim, A. S. & Sarpatwari, A. Health Aff. (Millwood) 40, 1198–1205 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van de Wiele, V. L., Beall, R. F., Kesselheim, A. S. & Sarpatwari, A. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 22–25 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Leahy–Smith America Invents Act. Public Law 112-29, 112th Congress. (2011).

  8. Phillips v. AWH Corp. 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

  9. Darrow, J. J., Beall, R. F. & Kesselheim, A. S. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1139–1141 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Darrow, J. J., Sarpatwari, A. & Curfman, G. Yale J. Health Policy Law Ethics 19, 250–256 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rai, A. K. et al. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 37, 139–169 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hovenkamp, E., Lemus, J., Rai, A. & Vishnubhakat, S. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 1569–1572 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. US Patent & Trademark Office. PTAB Orange Book Patent/Biologic Patent Study FY21 Q3 (2021).

  14. Tu, S. S. & Lemley, M. A. Wash. Univ. Law Rev. 99, 1673–1731 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Duan, C. Am. Univ. Law Rev. 72, 1133–1178 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


National Institutes of Health Care Management (NIHCM). A.S.K. and S.S.T. also receive support from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund. The funders had no role in the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Sean Tu.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1 and Tables 1–4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van de Wiele, V.L., Kesselheim, A.S. & Tu, S.S. Biologic patent challenges under the America Invents Act. Nat Biotechnol 42, 374–377 (2024).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research