DCT

1:17-cv-01154

Cephalon Inc v. Slayback Pharma Ltd Liability Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01154, D. Del., 08/16/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of the cancer drug BENDEKA® constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering specific pharmaceutical formulations of bendamustine.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns stable, lyophilized (freeze-dried) formulations of bendamustine hydrochloride, an alkylating drug used to treat certain leukemias and lymphomas.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendant’s submission of ANDA No. 210617 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As part of that submission, Defendant provided a "Paragraph IV Certification" asserting that U.S. Patent No. 8,791,270 is invalid or will not be infringed by its proposed generic product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-01-14 ’270 Patent Priority Date
2014-07-29 ’270 Patent Issue Date
2017-07-06 Defendant's Paragraph IV Notice Letter to Plaintiffs
2017-08-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,791,270, "Bendamustine Pharmaceutical Compositions," issued July 29, 2014.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section explains that bendamustine, a nitrogen mustard drug, is highly reactive and degrades in aqueous solutions. The then-current commercial formulation was a lyophilized powder that was difficult and slow to reconstitute (requiring 15-30 minutes), creating an inconvenient process for healthcare providers and increasing the risk of drug degradation and impurity formation due to prolonged exposure to water. (’270 Patent, col. 2:8-53).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes improved pharmaceutical formulations of bendamustine that are lyophilized from a solution containing both water and a stabilizing organic co-solvent, such as tertiary-butyl alcohol (TBA). This process is designed to yield a final lyophilized product that has a better impurity profile (e.g., lower levels of the hydrolysis degradant "HP1") and is easier for medical personnel to reconstitute. (’270 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:15-32).
    • Technical Importance: The claimed invention addresses practical administration challenges for an existing chemotherapy agent, aiming to provide a formulation with improved stability, a more favorable impurity profile, and faster reconstitution times. (’270 Patent, col. 2:40-53).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶29). The independent claims of the ’270 Patent are 1, 7, and 20.
    • Independent Claim 1: A pharmaceutical composition comprising:
      • Reconstituted from a lyophilized preparation of bendamustine or bendamustine hydrochloride.
      • Containing not more than about 0.9% (area percent of bendamustine) of HP1.
    • Independent Claim 7: A pharmaceutical composition of bendamustine hydrochloride comprising:
      • Containing less than or equal to 4.0% (area percent of bendamustine) of bendamustine degradants.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is "Slayback's ANDA Product," identified as a generic version of BENDEKA® (bendamustine hydrochloride) Injection, 100 mg/4 mL (25 mg/mL), for which Slayback submitted ANDA No. 210617 to the FDA (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the ANDA product is a generic equivalent to BENDEKA®, containing the same active ingredient, bendamustine hydrochloride, as well as the same or equivalent amounts of propylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, and monothioglycerol (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 19, 21). The product’s proposed labeling allegedly recommends its use for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia and indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the same indications as the brand-name drug (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23). The act of infringement alleged is the submission of the ANDA seeking approval to market this product prior to the expiration of the ’270 Patent (Compl. ¶28). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed infringement analysis or claim chart. The allegations are made on "information and belief" based on the Defendant's filing of an ANDA for a generic version of BENDEKA®. The following table summarizes the infringement theory that can be inferred from the complaint's general allegations.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A pharmaceutical composition that has been reconstituted from a lyophilized preparation of bendamustine or bendamustine hydrochloride... The ANDA product is alleged to be a generic bendamustine hydrochloride injection, which is supplied as a lyophilized product intended for reconstitution prior to administration. ¶¶ 1, 15, 19 col. 2:11-16
...said composition containing not more than about 0.9% (area percent of bendamustine) of HP1. The complaint alleges on information and belief that the ANDA product will infringe. To be a generic equivalent, it may be inferred that Plaintiffs believe the accused product must necessarily have the same or similar chemical characteristics, including the impurity profile, as the patented composition. ¶¶ 15, 29 col. 4:26-35
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: A central question will be whether Slayback’s ANDA product, when manufactured as described in its ANDA, actually meets the quantitative impurity limitations of the asserted claims (e.g., "not more than about 0.9%... of HP1"). The complaint does not provide specific data on the accused product's chemical composition, and this will be a primary focus of discovery.
    • Scope Question: The dispute may raise the question of whether the process used to manufacture Slayback's product results in a composition that falls within the scope of the claims, which are directed to a product "reconstituted from a lyophilized preparation."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "about 0.9% (area percent of bendamustine) of HP1" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement hinges on a quantitative chemical measurement. The scope of "about" will define the boundary for literal infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because if Slayback’s product contains an HP1 level just outside a strict 0.9% limit, the construction of "about" could be dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the term "about" liberally in various contexts (e.g., "about 2-80 mg/mL," "about 5° C. to about 25° C."), which may suggest the patentee did not intend for the numerical values to be rigid and exact limits, but rather to encompass minor variations inherent in manufacturing and measurement (’270 Patent, col. 17:5-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides tables with specific, measured purity and impurity percentages to two decimal places (e.g., "0.60%", "0.86%"). A party could argue that this precision implies that "about" is meant to cover only minor rounding or instrumental error, not a significant expansion of the claimed range (’270 Patent, col. 21, Table 3).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on the assertion that Slayback's proposed product labeling will instruct medical professionals to reconstitute and administer the drug, thereby directly infringing the patented composition and method claims (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32). The basis for contributory infringement is the allegation that the ANDA product is "especially made or adapted for use in infringing the '270 patent" and is "not suitable for substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶33).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that Slayback acted with "full knowledge of the '270 patent and without a reasonable basis for believing that it would not be liable for infringing" (Compl. ¶35). This allegation is based on Slayback having sent a Paragraph IV notice letter, which demonstrates knowledge of the patent prior to the lawsuit's filing (Compl. ¶15).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Will discovery show that Slayback's proposed generic product, when manufactured according to its ANDA, possesses the specific chemical impurity profile defined by the ’270 Patent's claims? The outcome will likely depend on detailed chemical analysis of the accused product.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction: How broadly will the court interpret the term "about" as it modifies the quantitative limits on impurities? This determination will set the precise boundary for literal infringement and may be dispositive if the accused product's impurity level is close to the numbers recited in the claims.