DCT

1:19-cv-01118

Novartis Pharma Corp v. Mylan Pharma Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01118, D. Del., 06/17/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 for a declaratory judgment action regarding patent infringement and validity, as distinct from a direct infringement action governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Personal jurisdiction is alleged based on Defendant’s regular business activities and frequent litigation history within the District of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s planned generic version of the multiple sclerosis drug GILENYA® will infringe a patent covering a specific daily dosing regimen.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on a method of using fingolimod, an S1P receptor modulator, to treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) by administering a specific low daily dose without an initial higher "loading dose."
  • Key Procedural History: The action arises from Defendant Mylan’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with a Paragraph IV certification, asserting that the patent-in-suit is invalid and/or not infringed. The complaint notes that the patent’s claims survived an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, resulting in a Final Written Decision upholding their validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-27 '405 Patent Priority Date
2015-11-17 '405 Patent Issue Date
2016-04-06 Mylan's Paragraph IV Notice Letter
2018-12-13 Mylan's Invalidity Contentions (in related case)
2019-06-17 Complaint Filing Date
2020-02-10 '405 Patent IPR Certificate Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 - “S1P Receptor Modulators for Treating Relasping[sic]-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405, “S1P Receptor Modulators for Treating Relasping[sic]-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis,” issued November 17, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for effective treatments for demyelinating diseases like multiple sclerosis (MS), noting that existing therapies are often only partially effective and may only delay disease progression ('405 Patent, col. 6:61-66, col. 9:1-5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific method for treating Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS). It claims the oral administration of the compound fingolimod (2-amino-2-[2-(4-octylphenyl)ethyl]propane-1,3-diol) at a precise daily dosage of 0.5 mg, with the explicit condition that this regimen is not preceded by a "loading dose," or a higher initial dose ('405 Patent, Claim 1, col. 12:50-57). The patent's detailed description discusses S1P receptor modulators generally and their role in sequestering lymphocytes away from the circulation, as well as a clinical trial evaluating the 0.5 mg daily dose ('405 Patent, col. 3:17-26, col. 11:5-16).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed invention defined a specific, low-dose daily treatment regimen for RRMS that was found to be therapeutically effective, potentially offering a favorable balance of efficacy and safety by avoiding higher initial doses.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," with a specific focus on at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A method for reducing, preventing, or alleviating relapses in a subject with Relapsing-Remitting multiple sclerosis
    • comprising orally administering the compound 2-amino-2-[2-(4-octylphenyl)ethyl]propane-1,3-diol (or a salt thereof)
    • at a daily dosage of 0.5 mg
    • absent an immediately preceding loading dose regimen

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is Mylan’s generic fingolimod 0.5 mg capsules, the subject of ANDA No. 208005 ("Mylan's ANDA Product") (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Mylan's ANDA Product is intended as a generic substitute for Novartis’s branded drug, GILENYA® (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that Mylan has represented to the FDA that its product contains the same active ingredient, dosage form, dosage amount, and method of administration as GILENYA®, and that it will be bioequivalent (Compl. ¶32).
  • The core of the infringement allegation is that the proposed labeling for Mylan’s product will instruct physicians and patients to use the drug in a manner that practices the patented method, specifically for the treatment of MS at the claimed 0.5 mg daily dose (Compl. ¶34, ¶36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for reducing or preventing or alleviating relapses in Relapsing-Remitting multiple sclerosis in a subject in need thereof The proposed label for Mylan's ANDA Product will direct its use for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, consistent with the indication for the reference listed drug, GILENYA®. ¶34 col. 9:1-10
comprising orally administering to said subject 2-amino-2-[2-(4-octylphenyl)ethyl]propane-1,3-diol, in free form or in a pharmaceutically acceptable salt form Mylan's ANDA Product is an oral capsule containing 0.5 mg of fingolimod, the same active ingredient recited in the claim. ¶32 col. 8:17-27
at a daily dosage of 0.5 mg Mylan's product is a 0.5 mg capsule, and its proposed label is alleged to direct daily administration for the treatment of MS. ¶32, ¶34 col. 12:56
absent an immediately preceding loading dose regimen The complaint alleges that Mylan's proposed label will be substantially identical to the GILENYA® label, which instructs a 0.5 mg daily dose from the outset without a higher initial loading dose. ¶34 col. 12:57

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Question: The infringement analysis depends entirely on the content of Mylan's proposed (and ultimately approved) product label. A central question will be whether the label instructs or encourages physicians to prescribe the drug in a manner that meets all limitations of the asserted claim. The complaint proceeds on the belief that Mylan's label will be "substantially identical" to the GILENYA® label (Compl. ¶34).
  • Scope Questions: The case raises the question of whether Mylan could avoid inducement by attempting to "carve out" the patented method of use from its label. Further, the interpretation of the negative limitation "absent an immediately preceding loading dose regimen" could become a point of dispute if Mylan's label contains any introductory instructions that it argues constitute a "regimen."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "loading dose regimen"
  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is dispositive for infringement; the accused method must lack this feature. The definition of what constitutes a "loading dose regimen" is therefore critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the boundary between infringing and non-infringing initial treatment protocols.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A party could argue that any initial dosing protocol that differs from the steady-state maintenance protocol, regardless of dose amount, constitutes a "regimen," potentially broadening the scope of what is excluded from the claim.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a clinical trial in which different patient cohorts received daily doses of 0.5 mg, 1.25 mg, or 2.5 mg from the start of treatment ('405 Patent, col. 11:5-9). By claiming the 0.5 mg dose as "absent an immediately preceding loading dose regimen," the patent implicitly frames the higher doses (1.25 mg and 2.5 mg) as alternative regimens. This context suggests a "loading dose regimen" is one that initiates treatment with a dose higher than the 0.5 mg maintenance dose.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Mylan's proposed product labeling will intentionally instruct and encourage medical professionals and patients to perform the patented method (Compl. ¶37). It further alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c), stating that Mylan's product is especially adapted for infringing use and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶38).
  • Willful Infringement: While not using the word "willful," the complaint alleges Mylan "acted without a reasonable basis for believing that it would not be liable for infringing" the '405 patent (Compl. ¶40). This allegation, combined with the prayer for relief under 35 U.S.C. § 285, lays the groundwork for a claim of enhanced damages based on Mylan's alleged knowledge of the patent from its Paragraph IV certification (Compl. ¶9).

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

  • A core issue will be one of induced infringement based on labeling: Will the final, FDA-approved label for Mylan’s generic product inevitably instruct users to practice every step of the claimed method, or can Mylan successfully "carve out" the patented use to create a substantial non-infringing use and avoid inducement?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of intent: Can Novartis prove that Mylan, by seeking approval for a 0.5 mg fingolimod capsule with knowledge of the '405 patent and its indication for RRMS, possessed the specific intent to encourage infringement, particularly in light of the patent surviving an IPR challenge?