DCT

1:14-cv-01451

Indivior Inc v. DR Reddy's Laboratories SA

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:14-cv-01451, D. Del., 12/02/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and its continuous business operations, including the marketing and sales of pharmaceutical products, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application for a generic version of Suboxone® sublingual film constitutes an act of patent infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act for three patents related to the film's chemical composition and therapeutic properties.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns orally dissolving films for the treatment of opioid dependence, a market where formulations are designed to provide therapeutic benefit while deterring potential abuse.
  • Key Procedural History: The action arises from Defendant’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) and its associated Paragraph IV certification, which asserts that Plaintiffs' patents are invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed. The complaint was filed within the 45-day statutory window, triggering a 30-month stay of FDA approval for the generic product. U.S. Patent 8,475,832 was later subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR2014-00325), resulting in the cancellation of claims 15-19 in 2018.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-10-12 ’514 Patent Priority Date
2002-04-11 ’150 Patent Priority Date
2009-08-07 ’832 Patent Priority Date
2010-08-30 FDA approves NDA for Suboxone® sublingual film
2011-09-13 ’150 Patent Issue Date
2013-07-02 ’832 Patent Issue Date
2013-12-10 ’514 Patent Issue Date
2014-10-17 Defendant sends Paragraph IV Notification Letter
2014-12-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,475,832 - "Sublingual and Buccal Film Compositions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,475,832, "Sublingual and Buccal Film Compositions," issued July 2, 2013 (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of co-administering buprenorphine (an opioid agonist for treating dependence) and naloxone (an antagonist intended to deter abuse) in an oral dosage form. The goal is to maximize buccal absorption of the therapeutic agonist while minimizing buccal absorption of the antagonist, which would otherwise counteract the agonist's effect. (Compl., Ex. A, ’832 Patent, col. 1:21-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-supporting film that contains a buffer system. Upon dissolution in the mouth, this system is designed to create a specific local pH environment (claimed as about 3.0 to 3.5). This acidic pH is disclosed to optimize the absorption of buprenorphine while keeping the naloxone in a charged (ionized) state, thereby inhibiting its absorption through the oral mucosa. (’832 Patent, col. 2:6-14, col. 11:5-24).
  • Technical Importance: This pH-control mechanism provides a method for delivering a combination therapy for opioid dependence in a single dosage form that includes a built-in chemical deterrent against parenteral abuse of the agonist. (’832 Patent, col. 1:47-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A film dosage composition comprising: a polymeric carrier matrix;
    • a therapeutically effective amount of buprenorphine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof;
    • a therapeutically effective amount of naloxone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and
    • a buffer in an amount to provide a local pH for said composition of a value sufficient to optimize absorption of said buprenorphine, wherein said local pH is from about 3 to about 3.5 in the presence of saliva. (’832 Patent, col. 24:1-12).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,017,150 - "Polyethylene Oxide-Based Films and Drug Delivery Systems Made Therefrom"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,017,150, "Polyethylene Oxide-Based Films and Drug Delivery Systems Made Therefrom," issued September 13, 2011 (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes how conventional methods for producing drug-delivery films, such as high-temperature oven drying, can cause components to aggregate and form a non-uniform film. This non-uniformity prevents accurate and consistent dosing, which is a critical failure for a pharmaceutical product. (Compl., Ex. B, ’150 Patent, col. 1:56 - col. 2:44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a film composition comprising a specific water-soluble polymer blend based on polyethylene oxide (PEO), optionally combined with a hydrophilic cellulosic polymer. This formulation, when manufactured using a controlled and rapid drying process, results in a film with a "non-self-aggregating uniform heterogeneity," which ensures that the active ingredient is evenly distributed throughout the final film product. (’150 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:4-21).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables the reliable large-scale production of orally dissolving films with a high degree of dosage uniformity, a fundamental requirement for regulatory approval and patient safety. (’150 Patent, col. 2:35-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶33). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A mucosally-adhesive water-soluble film product comprising: an analgesic opiate pharmaceutical active; and
    • at least one water-soluble polymer component consisting of polyethylene oxide in combination with a hydrophilic cellulosic polymer;
    • wherein the polymer component comprises greater than 75% polyethylene oxide and up to 25% hydrophilic cellulosic polymer;
    • the polyethylene oxide comprises specific low molecular weight (100k-300k) and higher molecular weight (600k-900k) grades; and
    • the low molecular weight polyethylene oxide comprises about 60% or more of the total polymer component. (’150 Patent, col. 57:57 - col. 58:19).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,603,514 - "Uniform Films for Rapid Dissolve Dosage Form Incorporating Taste-Masking Compositions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,603,514, "Uniform Films for Rapid Dissolve Dosage Form Incorporating Taste-Masking Compositions," issued December 10, 2013 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical challenge of incorporating active ingredients that are coated for taste-masking or controlled-release into a rapidly dissolving film. The invention focuses on creating a uniform film matrix that embeds these coated particles without damaging them or allowing them to aggregate during the manufacturing process, thereby ensuring consistent dosing in the final product. (Compl., Ex. C, ’514 Patent, col. 3:1-12, col. 3:45-56).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶37). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Accused Features: The complaint's allegations suggest that Defendant's generic film, by seeking to be a bioequivalent substitute for Suboxone® film, necessarily incorporates a uniform distribution of active ingredients within a rapid-dissolve film matrix. (Compl. ¶¶26, 37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's generic "buprenorphine hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride sublingual film," which is the subject of Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 205806 filed with the FDA (Compl. ¶26).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused product is a generic version of Plaintiff RBP's Suboxone® sublingual film, which is used for the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence (Compl. ¶¶14, 26). The complaint further alleges that the ANDA purports to contain data showing the bioequivalence of the accused generic product with the branded Suboxone® film (Compl. ¶26). As a generic drug, the product is intended to be a lower-priced, therapeutically equivalent alternative to the branded product upon receiving FDA approval (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations detailing how the accused product infringes any patent claim. It alleges infringement based on Defendant's filing of an ANDA for a product that is purportedly bioequivalent to Plaintiffs' Suboxone® film, which is covered by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶26, 29, 33, 37). The following tables summarize the elements of representative independent claims, but the complaint provides no information mapping these elements to specific features of the accused product.

’832 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A film dosage composition comprising: a polymeric carrier matrix; The complaint alleges the accused product is covered by this claim but does not specify the features of its polymeric matrix. ¶29 col. 5:4-10
a therapeutically effective amount of buprenorphine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; The accused product is identified as a buprenorphine hydrochloride sublingual film. ¶26 col. 11:46-51
a therapeutically effective amount of naloxone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and The accused product is identified as a naloxone hydrochloride sublingual film. ¶26 col. 11:52-57
a buffer in an amount to provide a local pH for said composition of a value sufficient to optimize absorption of said buprenorphine, wherein said local pH is from about 3 to about 3.5 in the presence of saliva. The complaint alleges the accused product is covered by this claim but does not provide any details regarding its buffer system or the resulting local pH. ¶29 col. 12:1-10

’150 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A mucosally-adhesive water-soluble film product comprising: an analgesic opiate pharmaceutical active; and The accused product contains buprenorphine, an analgesic opiate. ¶26 col. 19:27-30
at least one water-soluble polymer component consisting of polyethylene oxide in combination with a hydrophilic cellulosic polymer; The complaint alleges the accused product is covered by this claim but does not specify the composition of its polymer component. ¶33 col. 17:26-31
wherein: the water-soluble polymer component comprises greater than 75% polyethylene oxide and up to 25% hydrophilic cellulosic polymer; The complaint alleges the accused product is covered by this claim but does not specify the ratios of polymers used. ¶33 col. 17:46-51
the polyethylene oxide comprises one or more low molecular weight polyethylene oxides and one or more higher molecular weight polyethylene oxides, the molecular weight of the low molecular weight polyethylene oxide being in the range 100,000 to 300,000 and the molecular weight of the higher molecular weight polyethylene oxide being in the range 600,000 to 900,000; and The complaint alleges the accused product is covered by this claim but does not specify the molecular weights of the polymers used. ¶33 col. 18:6-14
the polyethylene oxide of low molecular weight comprises about 60% or more in the polymer component. The complaint alleges the accused product is covered by this claim but does not specify the ratio of low-to-high molecular weight polymers. ¶33 col. 18:15-21
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’832 Patent, a central issue may be the construction of the functional limitation "sufficient to optimize absorption of said buprenorphine." The dispute could turn on whether achieving bioequivalence to the branded product is sufficient to meet this limitation, or if a more specific pharmacokinetic outcome is required.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’150 Patent, the analysis will raise the question of whether the accused product's specific polymer formulation meets the quantitative requirements of Claim 1, including the percentage of polyethylene oxide, the presence of specific molecular weight grades, and the ratio between them. The complaint provides no evidence on these points.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to identify specific claim construction disputes. However, based on the patent language, certain terms are likely to be central to the case.

  • The Term: "a buffer in an amount... sufficient to optimize absorption of said buprenorphine" (’832 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation that lies at the core of the ’832 patent's inventive concept. Infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product’s buffer performs this specific function. Practitioners may focus on whether "optimize" implies achieving a specific pharmacokinetic result disclosed in the patent or is met by a product that is simply bioequivalent to the reference drug.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "'optimum' absorption may be, for example, a level that provides a bioequivalent absorption as administration of the currently available Suboxone® tablet." (’832 Patent, col. 3:15-20). This language may support an argument that any formulation achieving bioequivalence necessarily "optimizes" absorption.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides specific Cmax and AUC values that define an "'optimum' Cmax of buprenorphine." (’832 Patent, col. 3:20-25). This may support an argument that "optimize" requires achieving a specific pharmacokinetic profile taught in the patent, not merely general bioequivalence.

  • The Term: "non-self-aggregating uniform heterogeneity" (’150 Patent, Abstract)

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the required physical state of the film product. Infringement of the ’150 patent may depend on whether the accused product achieves this specific structural quality. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is qualitative and its scope will depend on how it is defined relative to the prior art films the patent sought to improve upon.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background describes the problems of conventional drying as creating a "'ripple effect' which produces an uneven, and therefore non-uniform film." (’150 Patent, col. 3:49-54). This could support a view that any film lacking such visible defects meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states the invention relates to films that "demonstrate a non-self-aggregating uniform heterogeneity," and the background explicitly criticizes prior art films for suffering from "aggregation or conglomeration of particles." (’150 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-18). This suggests the term requires a specific, measurable level of microscopic component dispersion superior to that of conventional films.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement. The infringement claims are based solely on the statutory act of filing an ANDA under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) (Compl. ¶¶30, 34, 38).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request for attorneys' fees based on a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not plead the factual basis typically required for a willfulness claim (Compl. p. 9, ¶D).

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional scope: can the phrase "optimize absorption" in the ’832 patent be construed to cover any generic formulation that demonstrates bioequivalence to the branded Suboxone® product, or does it require proof that the accused product's buffer system operates by creating the specific local pH of 3.0-3.5 recited in the claim?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of compositional identity: what evidence will be required to prove that the accused generic film is formulated with the specific polymer blend—including the quantitative limitations on polyethylene oxide content and molecular weight ratios—recited in the asserted claims of the ’150 patent?
  • A central theme of the case will be the tension between bioequivalence and infringement: does the act of creating a product that is therapeutically equivalent to a branded drug, as required by the ANDA process, necessarily mean that the product also practices the specific, and potentially narrower, technical limitations recited in the patents that cover the branded drug?