Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1039_1b8e.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

18 

SANDOZ INC. v. AMGEN INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

Sandoz  Inc.  39–42,  56;  Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus 
Curiae 28–29.  The plausibility of the contentions on both
sides  illustrates  why  such  disputes  are  appropriately 
addressed  to  Congress,  not  the  courts.    Even  if  we  were 
persuaded  that  Amgen  had  the  better  of  the  policy  argu-
ments,  those  arguments  could  not  overcome  the  statute’s
plain language, which is our “primary guide” to Congress’ 
preferred  policy.    McFarland  v.  Scott,  512  U. S.  849,  865 
(1994) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). 
sum,  because  Sandoz 

complied  with 
§262(l)(8)(A) when it first gave notice (before licensure) in
July  2014,  the  Federal  Circuit  erred  in  issuing  a  federal
injunction prohibiting Sandoz from marketing Zarxio until 
180  days  after  licensure.  Furthermore,  because  Amgen’s
request  for  state-law  relief  is  predicated  on  its  argument 
that  the  BPCIA  forbids  prelicensure  notice,  its  claim
under  California’s  unfair  competition  law  also  fails.  We 
accordingly  reverse  the  Federal  Circuit’s  judgment  as  to
the notice provision. 

fully 

In 

* 

* 
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of
Appeals  is  vacated  in  part  and  reversed  in  part,  and  the 
cases  are  remanded  for  further  proceedings  consistent
with this opinion. 

* 

It is so ordered.