DCT

1:20-cv-00332

Bioverativ Inc v. CSL Behring LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00332, D. Del., 03/04/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant CSL Behring LLC is a Delaware corporation and thus resides in the district. Venue over the foreign defendants is alleged based on their contacts with the forum.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Idelvion® product, a long-acting therapy for Hemophilia B, infringes three patents related to methods of treating the disorder with chimeric Factor IX polypeptides administered at specific dosages and intervals.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to extending the in-vivo half-life of coagulation Factor IX, a critical protein for blood clotting, thereby reducing the frequency of intravenous infusions required by hemophilia B patients.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology by actively monitoring Plaintiff's patent applications and having actual notice of the published applications from which the patents-in-suit later issued.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-07-09 Priority Date for ’954, ’714, and ’943 Patents
2014-03-28 FDA approval of Plaintiff's Alprolix® product
2016-03-XX FDA approval of Defendant's Idelvion® product
2017-04-18 Alleged date from which Idelvion® was used prophylactically
2020-02-04 U.S. Patent No. 10,548,954 Issues
2020-02-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,561,714 Issues
2020-02-25 U.S. Patent No. 10,568,943 Issues
2020-03-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,548,954 - "Factor IX Polypeptides and Methods of Use Thereof"

  • Issued: February 4, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that prior treatments for Hemophilia B, using either plasma-derived or recombinant Factor IX, have a short half-life that necessitates frequent and burdensome intravenous infusions, typically two to three times per week (’954 Patent, col. 2:14-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes creating chimeric polypeptides by fusing Factor IX to an "FcRn binding partner," such as human albumin or an Fc fragment of an antibody. This fusion leverages the body's natural neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) recycling pathway to delay the breakdown of the therapeutic protein, thereby extending its circulation time and allowing for less frequent dosing (’954 Patent, col. 2:41-52; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to prolong the protective effect of Factor IX therapy, which could reduce the significant treatment burden on patients and improve their quality of life (’954 Patent, col. 2:30-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • A method of treating hemophilia B.
    • Comprising intravenously administering to a human subject multiple doses of about 50 IU/kg to about 100 IU/kg of a chimeric factor IX polypeptide.
    • The polypeptide comprises human FIX and an FcRn binding partner, which is human albumin.
    • The administration occurs at a dosing interval of about 10 days to about 14 days between two doses.
    • The administration treats the subject by reducing the frequency of spontaneous bleeding.
  • Claim 9 includes the following essential elements:
    • A method of treating hemophilia B.
    • Comprising intravenously administering to a human subject multiple doses of about 50 IU/kg to about 100 IU/kg of a chimeric factor IX polypeptide.
    • The polypeptide comprises human FIX and an FcRn binding partner, which is human albumin.
    • The administration occurs at a dosing interval of about 10 days to about 14 days between two doses.
    • The administration treats the human subject by reducing the severity of a bleeding episode.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,561,714 - "Factor IX Polypeptides and Methods of Use Thereof"

  • Issued: February 18, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same technical problem as the ’954 Patent: conventional Factor IX replacement therapies have a short half-life, requiring frequent intravenous infusions that impose a significant burden on patients with Hemophilia B (’714 Patent, col. 2:14-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method of treatment using a chimeric protein formed by fusing Factor IX to an FcRn binding partner (e.g., human albumin). This approach is designed to extend the protein's half-life by utilizing the FcRn recycling pathway, which reduces the rate of clearance from the body and enables longer intervals between doses (’714 Patent, col. 2:40-51; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: By enabling less frequent dosing, the invention sought to improve quality of life and reduce the complications and burdens associated with frequent intravenous access for hemophilia B patients (’714 Patent, col. 2:30-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
  • Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • A method of treating hemophilia B.
    • Comprising intravenously administering to a human subject multiple doses of about 50 IU/kg to about 100 IU/kg of a chimeric Factor IX polypeptide.
    • The polypeptide comprises human FIX and an FcRn binding partner, which is human albumin.
    • The administration occurs at a dosing interval of 7 days between two doses.
    • The administration treats the human subject by reducing the frequency of spontaneous bleeding.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,568,943 - "Factor IX Polypeptides and Methods of Use Thereof"

  • Issued: February 25, 2020

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the technical problem of frequent dosing in hemophilia B therapy by claiming methods of treatment using chimeric Factor IX polypeptides fused to human albumin. The claimed solution leverages the FcRn recycling pathway to extend the half-life of Factor IX, with the claims specifying a lower dosage range (25-50 IU/kg) than the other asserted patents.

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1 and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶68).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the administration of Idelvion® according to its label, which recommends dosages of 25-40 IU/kg or 40-55 IU/kg every seven days, infringes the claims of the ’943 Patent (Compl. ¶73-74).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Idelvion® [Coagulation Factor IX (Recombinant), Albumin Fusion Protein] (Compl. ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Idelvion® is a therapy for Hemophilia B composed of a recombinant Factor IX molecule fused to albumin (Compl. ¶31). This fusion is alleged to use the same Fc recycling pathway as Plaintiff's Alprolix® product to achieve an extended half-life in the body (Compl. ¶31).
  • The product is administered intravenously for routine prophylaxis to reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes, as well as for on-demand treatment and perioperative management of bleeding (Compl. ¶28, ¶50).
  • The complaint notes that Idelvion® was approved by the FDA in March 2016, two years after Plaintiff's own extended half-life product, Alprolix®, received approval (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’954 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of treating hemophilia B comprising intravenously administering to a human subject in need thereof... Idelvion® is indicated for treating humans with hemophilia B and is administered intravenously. ¶49, ¶50 col. 2:53-61
...multiple doses of about 50 IU/kg to about 100 IU/kg... The Idelvion® label recommends that patients aged twelve or older may receive 50-75 IU/kg. ¶51 col. 3:54-58
...of a chimeric factor IX ("FIX") polypeptide comprising human FIX... and an FcRn binding partner ("FcRn BP")... wherein the FcRn BP is human albumin... Idelvion® is a chimeric Factor IX polypeptide where the human FIX amino acid sequence is fused to an FcRn binding partner, which comprises human albumin. ¶48 col. 2:41-52
...at a dosing interval of about 10 days to about 14 days between two doses... The Idelvion® label recommends a dosing interval of 14 days for certain patients. ¶51 col. 3:54-58
...wherein the administration treats the human subject by reducing the frequency of spontaneous bleeding. Administering multiple doses of Idelvion® at the specified interval and dosage is alleged to reduce the frequency of spontaneous bleeding. ¶52 col. 2:53-61

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The claims require a dosing interval of "about 10 days to about 14 days." The complaint points to the Idelvion® label's recommendation of a "14 days" interval for certain patients (Compl. ¶51). A potential point of contention may be whether the actual use of Idelvion® by patients and physicians consistently meets this limitation, particularly given the discretion to adjust regimens based on individual response.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that administering Idelvion® according to the claimed method reduces the frequency of spontaneous bleeding or the severity of a bleeding episode (Compl. ¶52, ¶53). This raises an evidentiary question regarding the proof required to demonstrate that this specific clinical outcome is achieved by direct infringers.

’714 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of treating hemophilia B, comprising intravenously administering to a human subject in need thereof... Idelvion® is indicated for treating hemophilia B and is administered intravenously. ¶60 col. 2:53-61
...multiple doses of about 50 IU/kg to about 100 IU/kg... The complaint alleges that physicians adjust the Idelvion® dosing regimen to "about 50 IU/kg to about 100 IU/kg" based on individual patient response, even though the label recommends lower initial doses. ¶64 col. 3:54-58
...of a chimeric Factor IX (FIX) polypeptide comprising human FIX... and a FcRn binding partner (FcRn BP)... wherein the FcRn BP is human albumin... Idelvion® is a chimeric Factor IX polypeptide where human FIX is fused to an FcRn binding partner comprising human albumin. ¶59 col. 2:40-51
...at a dosing interval of 7 days between two doses... The Idelvion® label recommends that patients receive the therapy "every seven days." ¶61, ¶62 col. 3:54-58
...wherein the administration treats the human subject by reducing the frequency of spontaneous bleeding. Administering multiple doses of Idelvion® at the specified interval is alleged to reduce the frequency of spontaneous bleeding. ¶63 col. 2:53-61

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A principal point of contention will be the dosage element. The asserted claim requires "about 50 IU/kg to about 100 IU/kg," while the Idelvion® label recommends lower doses (25-40 IU/kg or 40-55 IU/kg) (Compl. ¶61, ¶62). The complaint's infringement theory depends on the allegation that "at least a portion of the time," physicians adjust the dose upward into the claimed range (Compl. ¶64). This raises a key evidentiary question as to what proof exists that such dose adjustments occur and how frequently.
  • Scope Questions: What evidence will be required to demonstrate that a physician's act of "adjusting the dosing regimen based on individual response" (Compl. ¶64) constitutes the claimed step of "administering" a dose within the specified range?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "about [a number]" (e.g., "about 50 IU/kg," "about 10 days")

Context and Importance

This term is critical because the infringement theories for both the ’954 and ’714 Patents depend on whether the dosages and intervals recommended for Idelvion® fall within the scope of the claimed numerical limitations. For the ’714 Patent, where the recommended dose on the label is below the claimed range, the interpretation of "about" will be central to determining if there is a literal match, or if the alleged physician-adjusted doses fall within its scope.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’954 Patent uses ranges throughout its description of dosages and intervals, such as "about 25-180" or "about 20-180" IU/kg, suggesting that precise numerical limits were not intended and that some flexibility is contemplated (’954 Patent, col. 3:45-50).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents provide specific numerical values in the claims themselves (e.g., "7 days," "about 10 days to about 14 days"). A party may argue that the use of these specific values, rather than broader ranges, indicates an intent to limit the scope of "about" to a narrow degree of variance from the recited numbers.

The Term: "FcRn binding partner"

Context and Importance

This term defines the core technological mechanism for extending the half-life of the Factor IX polypeptide. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case rests on the allegation that the albumin portion of the accused Idelvion® product functions as the claimed "FcRn binding partner." While the claims narrow this term to "human albumin," its functional definition will be relevant.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’954 Patent broadly defines an "FcRn binding partner" as "any molecule that can be specifically bound by the FcRn receptor with consequent active transport" and provides examples including whole IgG, Fc fragments, and albumin (’954 Patent, col. 9:36-49).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The asserted independent claims explicitly state, "wherein the FcRn BP is human albumin." This language itself provides a specific, narrow definition for the purposes of these claims, limiting the broader definition found in the specification.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three asserted patents. The allegations are based on Defendants providing the Idelvion® label, which allegedly instructs and encourages physicians and patients to administer the drug in a manner that performs the steps of the claimed methods (Compl. ¶45, ¶57, ¶68). The complaint alleges Defendants possessed knowledge of the patents and intended to cause the infringing acts (Compl. ¶45, ¶57, ¶68).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The basis for this allegation is that Defendants knew or should have known their actions infringed, as they had "knowledge of the" patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶55, ¶66, ¶78). This is further supported by allegations that Defendants were "actively monitoring Bioverativ's patent applications and had actual notice of the... Published Application[s]" from which the patents issued (Compl. ¶35, ¶39, ¶42).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of infringing acts: for the method claims asserted, can Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that physicians and patients administer Idelvion® within the specific dosage and dosing interval parameters required by the claims? This issue is particularly acute for U.S. Patent No. 10,561,714, where the infringement theory relies on physicians adjusting the prescribed dose upward from the label's recommendation into the claimed range.
  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: the litigation will likely focus on the construction of the term "about" as applied to the claimed numerical dosage and interval limitations. The central question for the court will be whether the recommended or allegedly adjusted administration practices for Idelvion® are encompassed by the scope of the claims, or if there is a clear mismatch.