DCT

1:15-cv-00362

Vanda Pharma Inc v. Inventia Healthcare Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-00362, D. Del., 05/05/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Vanda is a Delaware corporation, and Defendant Inventia allegedly directed its infringing activities (filing an ANDA and sending a Paragraph IV certification notice) to Delaware. The complaint also alleges Inventia sells other generic drugs in Delaware and that it was foreseeable it would be sued in the district due to related, pending ANDA litigation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of iloperidone infringes a patent covering a method of administering the drug based on a patient's genetic profile.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit operates in the field of pharmacogenomics, where treatment protocols are customized based on a patient's genetic makeup to improve safety and efficacy.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that at the time of Defendant’s Paragraph IV certification, related ANDA litigation concerning generic iloperidone and the same patent-in-suit was already pending in the District of Delaware, suggesting Defendant was on notice of the patent and the likelihood of suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-09-30 '610' Patent Priority Date
2009-05-06 FDA approves Vanda's New Drug Application for FANAPT® (iloperidone)
2013-11-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 issues
2015-01-15 FDA lists the '610 Patent in the Orange Book for FANAPT®
2015-04-03 Vanda receives Inventia's Paragraph IV Notice Letter
2015-05-05 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 - "Methods for the Administration of Iloperidone"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that the drug iloperidone, used to treat schizophrenia, is metabolized by a specific enzyme, CYP2D6. Genetic variations (polymorphisms) cause some individuals to be "poor metabolizers," leading to increased drug concentrations in their blood. This elevated concentration is associated with a dangerous side effect: prolongation of the electrocardiographic QT interval, which can lead to serious cardiac arrhythmias ('610 Patent, col. 3:21-28, 49-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method of personalized medicine. It proposes first determining a patient's genetic status for the CYP2D6 gene via a genotyping test. Based on the result, the physician administers either a standard dose to normal metabolizers or a reduced dose to "poor metabolizers" to maintain a safe and effective drug level, thereby avoiding the cardiac risks ('610 Patent, col. 3:46-52; Abstract). The patent explicitly links specific genotypes, such as CYP2D6G1846A, to the "poor metabolizer" phenotype ('610 Patent, col. 5:7-20).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for the safer administration of iloperidone by proactively identifying and adjusting dosage for a genetically susceptible sub-population, a key principle of pharmacogenomics ('610 Patent, col. 3:16-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶5). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Independent Claim 1: A method for treating a patient with schizophrenia, comprising the steps of:
    • Determining whether the patient is a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer by performing a genotyping assay on a biological sample from the patient.
    • If the patient has a "CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype," then internally administering iloperidone in an amount of 12 mg/day or less.
    • If the patient does not have a "CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype," then internally administering iloperidone in an amount greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" preserves this option (Compl. ¶5).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The act of filing Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 207231 to obtain FDA approval for generic iloperidone tablets in various strengths (1 mg, 2 mg, 4 mg, 6 mg, 8mg, 10 mg, and 12 mg) for the treatment of schizophrenia (Compl. ¶4). This filing is a statutory act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the proposed label for Inventia's generic drug "essentially copies the FANAPT® Label" (Compl. ¶26). This label allegedly instructs physicians to first determine a patient's CYP2D6 metabolizer status using laboratory tests and then to administer a "halved dosage" if the patient is a poor metabolizer (Compl. ¶19, ¶26). The infringement allegation is therefore based on the instructions for use that would accompany the generic drug if approved, which would allegedly induce physicians to perform the patented method.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for representative Claim 1 based on the complaint's narrative.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
determining whether the patient is a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer by ... performing or having performed a genotyping assay on the biological sample to determine if the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype The proposed label for Inventia's generic drug allegedly instructs physicians to determine whether a patient is a poor CYP2D6 metabolizer using available laboratory tests. ¶26 col. 17:6-12
if the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of 12 mg/day or less The proposed label allegedly instructs physicians to administer a "halved dosage" to patients identified as poor CYP2D6 metabolizers. ¶19, ¶26 col. 17:13-15
if the patient does not have a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount that is greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day The proposed label allegedly instructs physicians to administer the "target dose" to patients identified as normal CYP2D6 metabolizers. ¶19 col. 17:17-20

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the instructions in Inventia’s proposed product label are specific enough to meet every limitation of the asserted claims. For example, does the label's instruction to test for "poor CYP2D6 metabolizer" status necessarily require the specific "genotyping assay" recited in the claim, as opposed to other forms of testing?
  • Technical Questions: A key question will be whether Inventia's proposed label directs physicians to administer dosages that fall within the specific ranges recited in the claims for both "poor" and "normal" metabolizers. The complaint's allegation that the label instructs a "halved dosage" for poor metabolizers will need to be substantiated by the actual text of the proposed label (Compl. ¶19).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific patient sub-population that triggers the dose-reduction step of the method. The scope of this definition is critical; a narrow construction could allow the defendant to argue its proposed drug label does not instruct testing for the specific genotypes covered by the claim, while a broad construction would favor the plaintiff's infringement theory. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine which specific genetic variations fall within the claim's ambit.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the concept functionally, referring to patients who have "lower CYP2D6 activity than a normal person" and genotypes that "result in decreased activity of the CYP2D6 protein" ('610 Patent, col. 3:17-18; col. 11:36-38). This language may support a construction that is not limited to an exhaustive list of specific genetic mutations.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of polymorphisms, such as CYP2D6G1846A and CYP2D6C100T ('610 Patent, col. 5:7-20). A defendant could argue that these examples define and limit the scope of the term "poor metabolizer genotype" to only those alleles explicitly identified and studied in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The core of the complaint is a claim for induced infringement. Vanda alleges that Inventia's filing of its ANDA with a proposed product label that instructs physicians to perform the patented method constitutes inducement (Compl. ¶26, ¶28). The act of infringement is seeking FDA approval to market a drug with a label that will cause direct infringement by others (physicians) upon launch.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Inventia was aware of the '610 patent because it was listed in the FDA's Orange Book and because Inventia submitted a Paragraph IV certification referencing the patent (Compl. ¶33). Vanda further alleges that Inventia's stated basis for noninfringement and invalidity "is devoid of an objective good faith basis," which forms the foundation for the willfulness claim (Compl. ¶33).

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

  1. Definitional Scope: A central issue will be the construction of the claim term "CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype." Will the court define it functionally to encompass any genotype that leads to reduced enzyme activity, or will it be limited to the specific genetic alleles explicitly disclosed in the patent's specification?
  2. Sufficiency of Inducement: A key evidentiary question will be whether the language in Inventia's proposed generic label meets the legal standard for inducing infringement. Does the label's text actively instruct and encourage physicians to perform every step of the claimed method, or does it merely provide information that leaves the ultimate decision to the physician's discretion in a way that might not rise to the level of inducement?