DCT

1:18-cv-00758

Noven Pharma Inc v. Actavis Laboratories Ut Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00758, D. Del., 05/17/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) for a generic estradiol transdermal system constitutes an act of infringement of three patents covering Plaintiff's branded product, Minivelle®.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns transdermal patches for hormone replacement therapy, specifically formulations that allow for smaller patch sizes while maintaining therapeutic delivery rates of estradiol.
  • Key Procedural History: This action follows prior litigation between the same parties involving the parent patent to the patents-in-suit (U.S. Patent No. 8,231,906). In that earlier case, the court found that the defendant, Actavis, had not proven the parent patent's claims were invalid. The current lawsuit was triggered by Actavis's submission of Paragraph IV certifications for its generic products, asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-07-10 Earliest Priority Date for '900, '310, and '419 Patents
2012-10-29 FDA Approval of Minivelle® NDA (multiple dosage strengths)
2014-09-23 FDA Approval of Minivelle® NDA (0.025 mg/day dosage strength)
2017-08-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,724,310 Issued
2017-08-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,730,900 Issued
2017-12-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,833,419 Issued
2017-12-22 Court Order in related case finds parent patent not proven invalid
2018-02-27 Noven receives Paragraph IV notice letter from Actavis
2018-05-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,730,900 - “Transdermal Estrogen Device and Delivery,” issued August 15, 2017 (’900 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of developing transdermal drug delivery patches that are small and comfortable for patients without sacrificing the ability to deliver a therapeutic dose of a drug (’900 Patent, col. 1:41-54, col. 2:1-9). Historically, achieving a higher daily dose required a proportionally larger patch, which could be costly, aesthetically undesirable, and use more aggressive adhesives (’900 Patent, col. 1:55-2:9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is based on the discovery that increasing the "coat weight"—the amount of the drug-adhesive matrix per unit of surface area—could increase the drug delivery rate ("flux") per unit area (’900 Patent, col. 3:55-68). This allows for the creation of a smaller patch that can deliver the same total daily dose as a larger, conventional patch, breaking the direct link between patch size and dosage delivery.
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a new parameter for formulation design, enabling the development of smaller, more patient-friendly transdermal systems that could still achieve the drug delivery profiles of larger, existing products (’900 Patent, col. 3:47-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential steps:
    • Applying to the skin or mucosa of a subject a monolithic transdermal drug delivery system.
    • The system consists of a backing layer and a single adhesive polymer matrix layer.
    • The matrix layer comprises estradiol as the only drug.
    • The matrix has a coat weight of greater than about 10 mg/cm².
    • The matrix includes greater than 0.156 mg/cm² of estradiol.
    • The system achieves an estradiol flux of from about 0.0125 to about 0.05 mg/cm²/day.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,724,310 - “Transdermal Estrogen Device and Delivery,” issued August 8, 2017 (’310 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The technical problem is identical to that described for the ’900 Patent: the need for smaller, more efficient transdermal patches (’310 Patent, col. 1:41-54, col. 2:1-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is also identical: a formulation with a higher-than-conventional coat weight to achieve a higher flux, thereby enabling a smaller patch size for a given daily dose (’310 Patent, col. 3:55-68).
  • Technical Importance: The technical importance is the same as described for the ’900 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a system claim with the following essential elements:
    • A monolithic transdermal drug delivery system for estradiol.
    • The system consists of (i) a backing layer, (ii) a single adhesive polymer matrix layer, and optionally (iii) a release liner.
    • The matrix layer comprises an adhesive polymer matrix with estradiol as the only drug.
    • The matrix layer has a coat weight of greater than about 10 mg/cm².
    • The matrix includes greater than 0.156 mg/cm² of estradiol.
    • The system achieves an estradiol flux of from about 0.0125 to about 0.05 mg/cm²/day.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,833,419 - “Transdermal Estrogen Device and Delivery,” issued December 5, 2017 (’419 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’419 Patent relates to the same technology as the ’900 and ’310 patents, describing a monolithic transdermal patch for delivering estradiol. The invention uses a high coat weight formulation to achieve a high drug flux, which permits a smaller patch size for a given therapeutic dose (Compl. ¶37).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The accused feature is the Defendant's ANDA product itself, which is alleged to be a monolithic transdermal system with the claimed characteristics (Compl. ¶76).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Actavis’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 208893 and ANDA No. 206202 (collectively, "Actavis's ANDA Products") (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The ANDA Products seek FDA approval to market a generic version of Noven's Minivelle® product, which is an estradiol transdermal system (Compl. ¶5). Minivelle® is indicated for treating vasomotor symptoms ("hot flashes") associated with menopause and for preventing post-menopausal osteoporosis (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that Actavis's ANDA Products have the same use as Minivelle® and that their proposed labeling is substantially the same as the approved labeling for Minivelle® (Compl. ¶¶47-48). The act of infringement alleged is the filing of the ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) (Compl. ¶¶42-43).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’900 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for administering estradiol, comprising applying to the skin or mucosa of a subject in need thereof a monolithic transdermal drug delivery system... The proposed product labeling for Actavis's ANDA Product will allegedly instruct medical personnel and/or patients to perform the step of applying the patch. ¶54 col. 16:47-55
...consisting of (i) a backing layer and (ii) a single adhesive polymer matrix layer... Actavis's ANDA Product is alleged to be a system having this structure. ¶50 col. 6:50-54
...comprising estradiol as the only drug... The ANDA product is for an estradiol transdermal system, a generic copy of Minivelle®, which contains estradiol as the only active drug. ¶5, ¶28 col. 6:18-24
...wherein the polymer matrix has a coat weight of greater than about 10 mg/cm²... The ANDA product is alleged to be covered by the claim, which implies it has the claimed coat weight. ¶50 col. 2:45-48
...and includes greater than 0.156 mg/cm² estradiol... The ANDA product is alleged to be covered by the claim, which implies it has the claimed estradiol concentration. ¶50 col. 2:13-17
...and the system achieves an estradiol flux of from about 0.0125 to about 0.05 mg/cm²/day... The ANDA product is alleged to be covered by the claim, which implies it achieves the claimed flux rate. ¶50 col. 2:15-17

’310 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A monolithic transdermal drug delivery system for estradiol... Actavis's ANDA Product is alleged to be, or be covered by, a system satisfying the claim. ¶64 col. 6:50-54
...consisting of (i) a backing layer, (ii) a single adhesive polymer matrix layer...and, optionally, (iii) a release liner... The ANDA product is alleged to have this structure. ¶64 col. 6:40-44
...wherein the single adhesive polymer matrix layer comprises an adhesive polymer matrix comprising estradiol as the only drug... The ANDA product is for a generic estradiol transdermal system. ¶64, ¶33 col. 6:18-24
...wherein the adhesive polymer matrix layer has a coat weight of greater than about 10 mg/cm²... The ANDA product is alleged to be covered by the claim, which implies it has the claimed coat weight. ¶64, ¶33 col. 2:45-48
...and includes greater than 0.156 mg/cm² estradiol... The ANDA product is alleged to be covered by the claim, which implies it has the claimed estradiol concentration. ¶64, ¶33 col. 2:13-17
...and the system achieves an estradiol flux of from about 0.0125 to about 0.05 mg/cm²/day... The ANDA product is alleged to be covered by the claim, which implies it achieves the claimed flux rate. ¶64, ¶33 col. 2:15-17

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary scope question will revolve around the term "about" as it applies to the three quantitative limitations: coat weight (> about 10 mg/cm²), estradiol concentration (> 0.156 mg/cm²), and flux (0.0125 to 0.05 mg/cm²/day). The dispute may focus on whether the specific values of the Actavis product, even if not identical to the reference product, fall within a reasonable interpretation of "about."
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether Actavis's proposed generic product, which must be bioequivalent to Noven's Minivelle®, will in fact be shown through discovery to possess the specific physical and performance characteristics (coat weight, estradiol concentration) required by the claims. The complaint makes conclusory allegations of infringement, but does not provide specific data on the accused product's formulation (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 64).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "coat weight of greater than about 10 mg/cm²"

  • Context and Importance: This term is a cornerstone of the asserted patents, defining the novel formulation that allegedly enables a smaller patch size. Practitioners may focus on this term because the scope of "about" will be critical in determining whether Actavis's formulation, which may not be identical to Noven's, still infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in terms of the general principle of increasing coat weight to increase flux, which may support an interpretation where "about 10 mg/cm²" is not rigidly fixed and can encompass a range of values that achieve the inventive purpose (’900 Patent, col. 3:55-68).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's sole example describes specific embodiments with coat weights of 12.5 mg/cm² and 15 mg/cm² (’900 Patent, col. 15:19-21, Example 1). A party could argue that the term "about 10 mg/cm²" should be construed in light of these specific, successfully tested embodiments, limiting its scope to values proximal to those disclosed.

The Term: "monolithic"

  • Context and Importance: This structural term defines the patch as having a "single adhesive polymer matrix layer" and is present in the preamble of the asserted claims. Its construction is important because if the accused product were found to have a different structure, such as a multi-layer design or a rate-controlling membrane, it might fall outside the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is defined in the specification as comprising "a single polymer matrix layer comprising a pressure-sensitive adhesive or bioadhesive with drug dissolved or dispersed therein, and no rate-controlling membrane" (’900 Patent, col. 6:50-54). This definition appears to be the primary guide for interpretation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with other types of transdermal systems. A party might attempt to argue for a narrower construction by focusing on the specific polymer blend components described in the preferred embodiments to argue that a different type of single-layer matrix does not qualify as "monolithic" in the context of the patent (’900 Patent, col. 12:26-65).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges induced infringement on the basis that Actavis's proposed product labeling will instruct medical personnel and patients to apply the patch, thereby directly infringing the method steps of claim 1 of the ’900 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 54-56). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the ANDA Product is specifically adapted for infringing use and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 57-58).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on Actavis's knowledge of the patents prior to or at the time of its ANDA submission and Paragraph IV certification (Compl. ¶61). The complaint asserts that Actavis "acted without a reasonable basis for a good faith belief that it would not be liable for infringing" the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶61, ¶73, ¶85).

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

  • A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: how broadly will the court construe the term "about" as it applies to the quantitative claim limitations for coat weight, drug concentration, and flux? The outcome of this construction will likely determine whether the specific formulation of the accused generic product falls within the literal scope of the patents.
  • A key evidentiary question will be whether discovery reveals that Actavis’s proposed generic product, designed to be bioequivalent, actually possesses the physical and performance characteristics recited in the asserted claims. The case will turn on the factual comparison of the accused product's measured properties against the court's interpretation of the claim boundaries.