DCT

1:17-cv-01554

iCeutica Pty Ltd v. Apotex Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01554, D. Del., 10/31/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the action arises under the patent laws and defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, with Apotex Corp. being a Delaware corporation and both defendants having engaged in systematic contacts with the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for generic meloxicam capsules constitutes an act of infringement of two patents covering Plaintiffs' VIVLODEX® brand low-dose meloxicam product.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves pharmaceutical formulations of meloxicam, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), engineered with nanoparticle technology to improve dissolution and absorption, thereby allowing for lower, potentially safer, effective doses for pain management.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was precipitated by Defendants’ submission of ANDA No. 210298 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a subsequent Paragraph IV certification letter to Plaintiffs. In the letter, Defendants assert that the patents-in-suit, which are listed in the FDA’s “Orange Book” for VIVLODEX®, are invalid and/or will not be infringed by their proposed generic product. The complaint notes that infringement is alleged based on information and belief, as Plaintiffs had not been provided access to the full ANDA at the time of filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-06-09 Priority Date for ’734 and ’318 Patents
2016-12-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,526,734 Issued
2017-05-16 U.S. Patent No. 9,649,318 Issued
2017-09-20 Apotex’s Paragraph IV Letter Dated
2017-10-31 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,526,734 - "Formulation of Meloxicam", issued December 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that meloxicam, a widely used NSAID, is "practically insoluble in water" ('734 Patent, col. 1:51-52). This poor solubility can lead to slow and incomplete absorption from the gastrointestinal tract, necessitating higher doses that are associated with significant, dose-related side effects, including gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events ('734 Patent, col. 1:36-42, 1:55-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this problem by creating a low-dose (e.g., 5 mg) formulation of meloxicam where the active ingredient exists as nanoparticles, produced via a dry milling process ('734 Patent, Abstract). By decreasing the particle size, the surface area of the drug is increased, which enhances its dissolution rate ('734 Patent, col. 1:64-67). This improved dissolution is designed to yield a specific pharmacokinetic profile (i.e., rate and extent of absorption) that provides effective pain relief at a lower systemic exposure compared to conventional, higher-dose products ('734 Patent, col. 7:42-53).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a means to deliver a therapeutically effective dose of meloxicam that is lower than what was previously available, which aligns with FDA guidance to use the lowest effective dose of NSAIDs for the shortest duration to minimize risk ('734 Patent, col. 1:42-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more unspecified claims ('Compl. ¶44). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A capsule form of a pharmaceutical composition comprising 5 mg of meloxicam.
    • The meloxicam has a median particle size on a volume basis between 100 nm and 500 nm.
    • The meloxicam has a particle size distribution (D(0.9)) between 1200 nm and 3000 nm.
    • A single capsule, when administered to a fasted population of healthy adults, provides a mean plasma AUC (0-∞) of 7500-20000 h*ng/ml and a mean plasma Cmax of 350-950 ng/ml.
    • The formulation has a dissolution rate where at least 80% of the meloxicam dissolves in 10 minutes or less under specified test conditions.
    • A single capsule is effective for treating osteoarthritis pain.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general allegation against "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 9,649,318 - "Formulation of Meloxicam", issued May 16, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’734 patent, the ’318 patent addresses the same technical problem: the poor water solubility of meloxicam and the associated risks of higher-dose NSAID therapy ('318 Patent, col. 1:26-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’318 patent also describes unit dosage forms of nanoparticulate meloxicam with specific physical and pharmacokinetic properties ('318 Patent, Abstract). The core technology—using dry-milled nanoparticles to achieve rapid dissolution and effective pain relief at low doses—is identical to that of the ’734 patent ('318 Patent, col. 7:51-67). The claims of the ’318 patent cover different dosage strengths and parameter ranges, such as a 10 mg capsule.
  • Technical Importance: This patent expands the proprietary protection around the low-dose, rapid-dissolution meloxicam platform, providing specific parameters for a 10 mg dosage form that offers similar benefits of efficacy at a lower systemic exposure compared to conventional higher-dose products ('318 Patent, col. 7:54-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶44). Independent claim 5, directed to a 10 mg dosage, is representative.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 5 include:
    • A capsule form comprising 10 mg of meloxicam.
    • The meloxicam has a median particle size on a volume basis between 100 nm and 1000 nm.
    • The meloxicam has a particle size distribution (D(0.9)) of less than 4000 nm and greater than 1200 nm.
    • A single dose provides a mean plasma AUC (0-∞) of 16000-44000 h*ng/ml and a mean plasma Cmax of 700-1900 ng/ml in a fasted population of healthy adults.
    • The formulation has a dissolution rate where at least 80% of the meloxicam dissolves in 15 minutes or less under specified test conditions.
  • The general allegation against "one or more claims" suggests dependent claims may be asserted later (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Apotex’s proposed generic Meloxicam capsules in 5 mg and 10 mg dosages, which are the subject of ANDA No. 210298 (Compl. ¶36).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Apotex seeks approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the VIVLODEX® product for the management of osteoarthritis pain (Compl. ¶1, ¶36).
  • Because Plaintiffs were not provided access to the ANDA, the complaint does not contain specific details about the formulation or performance of the accused product (Compl. ¶43-45). The infringement allegation rests on the premise that for the FDA to approve the product as a generic equivalent, it must exhibit the same physical and pharmacokinetic characteristics as VIVLODEX®, which Plaintiffs allege are defined by the claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶45).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement based on the act of filing the ANDA, asserting that the product described therein must necessarily meet the claim limitations to be approved as a generic.

’734 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A capsule form... comprising 5 mg of meloxicam The proposed product is a 5 mg meloxicam capsule, as identified in ANDA No. 210298. ¶36 col. 2:30-31
having a median particle size, on a volume basis, between 100 nm and 500 nm To be bioequivalent to VIVLODEX®, the ANDA product is alleged to have a particle size distribution falling within the claimed range. ¶44, ¶47 col. 20:6-8
and a D(0.9) that is between 1200 nm and 3000 nm The ANDA product is alleged to have a particle size distribution (D(0.9)) that meets this limitation to ensure bioequivalence. ¶44, ¶47 col. 20:8
...provides a mean plasma AUC (0-∞) of 7500-20000 h*ng/ml The ANDA product is alleged to exhibit this specific pharmacokinetic profile as part of its bioequivalence showing. ¶44, ¶48 col. 21, Table 3
and a mean plasma Cmax of 350-950 ng/ml The ANDA product is alleged to exhibit this peak plasma concentration as part of its bioequivalence showing. ¶44, ¶48 col. 21, Table 3
...at least 80% of the meloxicam dissolves in 10 minutes or less... The ANDA product is alleged to have a dissolution rate meeting this limitation to ensure bioequivalence. ¶44, ¶47 col. 20:55-58
...effective for treating osteoarthritis pain. The ANDA product's proposed label will allegedly instruct its use for osteoarthritis pain, the same indication as VIVLODEX®. ¶1, ¶66 col. 22:20-65

’318 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A capsule form comprising 10 mg of meloxicam The proposed product is a 10 mg meloxicam capsule, as identified in ANDA No. 210298. ¶36 col. 4:9-10
having a median particle size... between 100 nm and 1000 nm To be bioequivalent to VIVLODEX®, the 10 mg ANDA product is alleged to have a particle size distribution falling within the claimed range. ¶44, ¶75 col. 20:10-12
...the D(0.9) of the particles... is less than 4000 nm and greater than 1200 nm The 10 mg ANDA product is alleged to have a particle size distribution (D(0.9)) that meets this limitation. ¶44, ¶75 col. 20:13-14
...provides a mean plasma AUC (0-∞) of 16000-44000 h*ng/ml The 10 mg ANDA product is alleged to exhibit this specific pharmacokinetic profile as part of its bioequivalence showing. ¶44, ¶76 col. 21, Table 3
and a mean plasma Cmax of 700-1900 ng/ml The 10 mg ANDA product is alleged to exhibit this peak plasma concentration as part of its bioequivalence showing. ¶44, ¶76 col. 21, Table 3
...at least 80% of the meloxicam dissolves in 15 minutes or less... The 10 mg ANDA product is alleged to have a dissolution rate meeting this limitation to ensure bioequivalence. ¶44, ¶75 col. 20:61-63
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The central issue stems from the complaint's acknowledged lack of access to the ANDA (Compl. ¶43-45). The case will depend on whether discovery confirms that Apotex's product formulation and performance data, as submitted to the FDA, fall within the specific numerical ranges for all asserted claim limitations, including particle size, dissolution, and pharmacokinetics.
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise if Apotex's product is shown to be bioequivalent for regulatory purposes but does not meet every limitation of the asserted claims. For instance, a question could be raised whether Apotex achieves a similar pharmacokinetic profile through a formulation with a different particle size or excipient package that places it outside the literal scope of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a population of healthy adults in the fasted state" (’734 Patent, Claim 1; ’318 Patent, Claim 5).

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the subject group in which the claimed pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters (AUC and Cmax) must be observed. The definition of this "population" will dictate how Apotex's bioequivalence study data is compared to the claim limitations.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. A party might argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the context of pharmaceutical development, referring to a standard subject pool consistent with FDA guidance for bioequivalence studies.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes a detailed clinical study (Example 4) and provides specific PK data derived from a test population (Example 3, Table 3) ('734 Patent, col. 21-22). A party may argue that the term should be construed in light of these examples, requiring the "population" to have characteristics and size comparable to the one from which the patent's own supporting data was generated.

  • The Term: "median particle size, on a volume basis" (’734 Patent, Claim 1; ’318 Patent, Claim 5).

    • Context and Importance: Infringement of this limitation depends on both the numerical result and the methodology used to obtain it. The method of measurement is a potential point of dispute, as different techniques can produce different "size" values for the same particle population.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that a "wide range of techniques can be utilized to characterize the particle size of a material" ('734 Patent, col. 13:1-3). This could support a construction that is not limited to a single instrument or method.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s examples specify a particular instrument and methodology: a "Malvern Mastersizer 2000 fitted with a Malvern Hydro 2000S pump unit" under specific settings ('734 Patent, col. 19:46-55). A party could argue that the term should be limited by this explicit disclosure, as it provides the direct basis for the claimed particle size ranges.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Apotex will, upon approval, provide a product label with instructions that direct patients to use the generic capsules in an infringing manner (e.g., for treating osteoarthritis pain) (Compl. ¶66, ¶94). This act of providing instructions for an infringing use forms the basis of the inducement claim.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apotex had pre-suit knowledge of the patents "no later than when each patent was issued by the Patent Office and/or listed in the Orange Book" (Compl. ¶68, ¶96). It further alleges that Apotex "either actually knew of the potential for infringement... or was willfully blind" to it, directly tracking the legal standard for willfulness (Compl. ¶69, ¶97). The basis for this allegation is the statutory framework of the Hatch-Waxman Act itself, which requires an ANDA filer to address all Orange Book-listed patents.

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given that the lawsuit was initiated based on a Paragraph IV notice without access to the ANDA, will discovery confirm that Apotex's proposed generic product formulation and performance data in fact meet every quantitative limitation recited in the asserted claims, particularly the narrow ranges for particle size, dissolution, and pharmacokinetics?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope and interpretation: can the complex, multi-faceted claims, which define the product in terms of specific pharmacokinetic outcomes in a "population of healthy adults," be interpreted in a way that allows Apotex’s product to be deemed bioequivalent by the FDA, yet still fall outside the patents’ literal scope? The construction of terms defining the test conditions and populations will be dispositive.