DCT

3:22-cv-07148

FibroGen Inc v. Hangzhou Andao Pharmaceutical Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-07148, N.D. Cal., 11/14/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there, including the defendants' former employment with the plaintiff in San Francisco and San Mateo County, and acts related to the prosecution of the patent-in-suit.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that its former employees misappropriated confidential information related to proprietary chemical compounds, wrongfully filed for and obtained a patent in their own company's name, and seeks correction of inventorship and a declaration of ownership for the resulting patent.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves small molecule inhibitors of hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase (HIF-PHIs), which are developed as therapeutics for treating anemia, particularly in patients with chronic kidney disease.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that defendants Dr. Liu and Dr. Deng, while employed as scientists at FibroGen, gained access to confidential information regarding FibroGen's HIF-PHI compounds. It is alleged that Dr. Liu founded a competing company, Kind, while still employed at FibroGen, and that both he and Dr. Deng later used FibroGen’s proprietary information to develop Kind’s business and file patent applications, including the patent-in-suit, which allegedly claim inventions made by FibroGen scientists.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-XX-XX FibroGen scientists allegedly identified potential HIF-PHI compounds
2013-XX-XX Defendant Liu allegedly founded Kind USA while employed by FibroGen
2014-XX-XX Defendant Liu allegedly founded Hangzhou Kind while employed by FibroGen
2015-05-26 Defendant Liu resigned from FibroGen
2017-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 11,021,478 Priority Date (Chinese Application filing)
2018-05-08 Defendant Kind filed PCT Application WO/2018/205928
2019-02-XX Defendant Kind initiated a clinical trial for its HIF-PHI compound AND017
2019-04-22 Defendant Deng resigned from FibroGen
2019-11-07 Defendant Kind filed U.S. Application 16/611,838 (leading to the '478 patent)
2021-04-23 Defendant Kind filed related U.S. Application 17/239,362
2021-06-01 U.S. Patent No. 11,021,478 Issue Date
2022-11-14 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,021,478 - "Indolizine Derivatives and Their Application in Medicine"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,021,478 ("Indolizine Derivatives and Their Application in Medicine"), issued June 1, 2021 (the "’478 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the ongoing need for novel small molecule drugs that can treat anemia by inhibiting HIF prolyl hydroxylase, an enzyme involved in the body's response to low oxygen levels (’478 Patent, col. 2:16-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a new class of chemical compounds, described as indolizine derivatives, that function as HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors. By inhibiting this enzyme, the compounds are designed to stabilize the HIF protein, which in turn promotes the body's natural production of red blood cells to treat anemia (’478 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-42).
  • Technical Importance: Developing orally-available small molecule drugs to stimulate red blood cell production offers a therapeutic alternative to injectable biologics for managing anemia, a widespread and serious condition associated with chronic kidney disease and other illnesses (Compl. ¶¶4, 23-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts that the subject matter of the ’478 patent was developed by FibroGen scientists and specifically references contributions to compounds disclosed in a redacted claim number (Compl. ¶¶82-85). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A compound of Formula I, or an isotopically labeled compound, optical isomer, geometric isomer, tautomer, or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
    • The compound possesses a core indolizine structure.
    • The structure is defined by a series of substituent groups (R¹ through R⁸ and X) attached at various positions, where these groups can be selected from a list of chemical moieties such as alkyl, aryl, cyano, and others.
    • Critically, substituents R¹ and R² may be taken together to form a spirocyclic ring structure attached to the core.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The primary subjects of the dispute are U.S. Patent No. 11,021,478 and related patent applications, collectively referred to as the "Kind Patents" (Compl. ¶91).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the ’478 patent improperly claims chemical compounds that were conceived, developed, and reduced to practice by FibroGen scientists, namely Defendant Deng and Wen-Bin Ho (Compl. ¶¶68, 81). These patented compounds are HIF-PHI inhibitors intended for the treatment of anemia (Compl. ¶4). Plaintiff alleges that Kind’s leading drug candidate, AND017, is an oral, small molecule HIF-PHI compound and that Kind has publicly stated it holds the global patent rights to AND017, which Plaintiff contends belong to FibroGen (Compl. ¶¶59, 77).

IV. Analysis of Inventorship Allegations

As this is a complaint for correction of inventorship, not patent infringement, the following table summarizes the allegations regarding the true inventors' contributions to the patented subject matter.

U.S. Patent No. 11,021,478 Inventorship Allegations

Claimed Inventive Concept (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Contribution by True Inventors (per Complaint) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A compound of Formula I having a core indolizine structure The complaint alleges that the entire subject matter of the ’478 patent, including the inventions disclosed therein, was developed by FibroGen scientists. ¶82 col. 2:45-50
Specific substituents at positions R¹ and R², including where they are taken together to form a ring Deng, while at FibroGen, is alleged to have contributed to the conception, design, and synthesis of specific compounds claimed in the patent. Ho is alleged to have consulted with and supervised Deng on the conception and design. ¶¶83-84 col. 3:51-67
The application of such compounds for treating anemia by inhibiting HIF prolyl hydroxylase Deng’s work at FibroGen allegedly included the design and synthesis of novel HIF-PH inhibitors for treating anemia. Liu was allegedly aware of this work. ¶¶31, 45-46 col. 2:10-15
Specific enumerated compounds falling within the scope of the claims Deng and Ho are alleged to have jointly conceived of certain specific compounds disclosed in the claims. ¶85 col. 23:1 - 24:65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question is one of conception: what evidence exists to define the "definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention" as claimed, and does that evidence demonstrate that FibroGen's scientists, Deng and Ho, conceived of it rather than the named inventor, Liu?
    • Technical Questions: The case may turn on documentary evidence. The dispute raises the question of what laboratory notebooks, research reports, synthetic route diagrams, and internal communications can be produced to corroborate the complaint's allegations that Deng and Ho conceived of, designed, and synthesized the specific chemical structures claimed in the ’478 patent while employed at FibroGen.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While claim construction is less central than in an infringement case, the scope of certain terms is critical for defining what was conceived and by whom.

  • The Term: "indolizine derivatives"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core chemical scaffold of the claimed invention. The dispute centers on who first conceived of using this particular class of compounds as HIF-PHI inhibitors. Practitioners may focus on this term because inventorship requires conception of the specific claimed invention, and proving who first identified this chemical family for the claimed purpose will be a primary issue.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent specification broadly introduces the invention as disclosing "novel substituted indolizine derivatives of formula I" and their use in medicine, suggesting the entire class is the core inventive concept (’478 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-50).

  • The Term: "R¹ and R² are taken together to form an optionally substituted cycloalkane ring"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the spirocyclic nature of many of the patent's preferred embodiments and specific examples. Proving inventorship often requires demonstrating conception of specific, operative embodiments. Practitioners may focus on this structural feature because the conception of these complex, multi-ring structures, as opposed to simpler linear substituents, is a significant inventive step that will likely be a focal point of discovery.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 also allows R¹ and R² to be simple, non-ring structures like cyano or alkyl groups, suggesting the spirocycle is just one of several options (’478 Patent, col. 3:51-67).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The vast majority of the patent's working examples (e.g., Examples 1-30) describe the synthesis and testing of these spirocyclic compounds, suggesting they represent the core of the actual invention reduced to practice (’478 Patent, col. 23:1 - 54:12).

VI. Other Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not allege patent infringement. Instead, it includes several related counts based on the defendants' alleged conduct:

  • Declaration of Patent Ownership: Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it is the true and lawful owner of the Kind Patents, including the ’478 patent, based on its employment agreements with Liu and Deng, which allegedly required them to assign all inventions conceived during their employment to FibroGen (Compl. ¶¶92-94).
  • Breach of Contract: The complaint alleges that Liu and Deng breached their respective confidentiality and invention assignment agreements by failing to disclose their inventions to FibroGen, failing to assign the resulting patents, and using FibroGen’s confidential information to found and operate a competing company (Compl. ¶¶109, 131).
  • Inducing Breach of Contract: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kind, at the direction of Liu, actively induced both Liu and Deng to breach their contractual obligations to FibroGen (Compl. ¶¶147-148, 156-157).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's determination of the following key questions:

  • A core issue will be one of inventorship and conception: what evidence, particularly from laboratory notebooks and internal records from the relevant time period, can be presented to establish whether FibroGen scientists Deng and Ho, rather than the named inventor Liu, were the true and sole conceivers of the specific chemical structures claimed in the ’478 patent?
  • A key legal question will be one of ownership rights: assuming the court finds that Deng and Ho were the true inventors, do the terms of their employment agreements with FibroGen unequivocally obligate the assignment of all rights in the ’478 patent to FibroGen, thereby divesting Kind of its claimed ownership?
  • An ancillary evidentiary question will concern the misappropriation of information: to what extent can Plaintiff demonstrate that its proprietary and confidential information, beyond the conception of the claimed invention itself, was used by the defendants to "jumpstart Kind's business," as alleged in the complaint?