DCT

1:20-cv-00646

Sanofi Aventis US LLC v. MSN Pharma Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00646, D. Del., 05/14/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. being incorporated in Delaware, and on both defendants having previously consented to jurisdiction and venue in the district by participating in other ANDA-related lawsuits.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of the cancer drug JEVTANA® constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering methods of using cabazitaxel to treat certain prostate cancer patients.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to a second-line chemotherapy regimen for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, a late-stage disease that has progressed despite prior hormone therapy and chemotherapy.
  • Key Procedural History: The litigation was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendants’ submission of ANDA No. 210685 and a subsequent "Notice Letter" to Plaintiffs. This letter contained a Paragraph IV certification asserting that the patent-in-suit is invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the proposed generic product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-10-29 ’110 Patent Priority Date
2010-06-17 FDA Approval of JEVTANA® (NDA No. 201023)
2020-03-10 ’110 Patent Issue Date
2020-05-01 MSN sends Notice Letter to Plaintiffs
2020-05-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,583,110 - Novel Antitumoral Use of Cabazitaxel

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 10,583,110, issued March 10, 2020 (the "’110 Patent"). (Compl. ¶29).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of treating patients with advanced, castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer for whom standard first-line chemotherapy, specifically a docetaxel-based regimen, has already failed. (’110 Patent, col. 2:25-29). The patent characterizes this situation as an "unmet medical need," as cancer can become resistant to initial therapies, limiting further treatment options and impacting patient survival. (’110 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method of treatment that uses the taxane compound cabazitaxel in combination with a corticoid (e.g., prednisone) for this specific patient population. (’110 Patent, Abstract). The patent presents clinical trial data demonstrating that this regimen provides a statistically significant increase in overall patient survival compared to the then-existing reference treatments. (’110 Patent, col. 12:40-47, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a viable second-line treatment that extends survival for patients with an aggressive form of prostate cancer who have exhausted the standard first-line chemotherapeutic option. (’110 Patent, col. 12:40-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’110 Patent without specifying them; independent claim 1 is representative. (Compl. ¶31).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’110 Patent recites:
    • A method of increasing survival by administering to a patient
    • (1) cabazitaxel as a new cycle every three weeks, and
    • (2) a specific premedication regimen including dexchlorpheniramine, dexamethasone, and an H2 antagonist, administered prior to the cabazitaxel,
    • where the patient has castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer that has progressed after docetaxel treatment. (’110 Patent, col. 18:8-16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "MSN's Proposed ANDA Product," a generic cabazitaxel injection intended to be a substitute for Plaintiff's JEVTANA® KIT. (Compl. ¶1, 11). The act of infringement alleged is the submission of ANDA No. 210685 to the FDA for approval to market this product. (Compl. ¶10, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

The infringement theory is based on the proposed use of the generic product, which the complaint alleges will be dictated by a product label "substantially identical to the JEVTANA® label." (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges this label will instruct and encourage physicians to use the generic product in a manner that practices the claimed method. (Compl. ¶33). Specifically, the JEVTANA® label, which MSN's product will allegedly copy, identifies the approved indication as the "treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen" and provides dosing and premedication instructions that align with the elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶34-36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

The complaint’s allegations map the JEVTANA® label, which MSN's proposed label allegedly mirrors, onto the limitations of the ’110 Patent’s claims. The following chart summarizes the allegations for independent claim 1.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of increasing survival comprising administering to a patient in need thereof... The JEVTANA® label allegedly describes a clinical study showing that cabazitaxel prolongs overall survival and encourages its use for that purpose. ¶34 col. 12:40-44
(1) cabazitaxel, or a hydrate of solvate thereof, as a new cycle every three weeks The JEVTANA® label allegedly recommends a dose of cabazitaxel administered as an intravenous infusion "every three weeks." ¶35 col. 6:51-55
and (2) dexchlorpheniramine administered at a dose of 5 mg, dexamethasone administered at a dose of 8 mg, and an H2 antagonist, each administered prior to the administration of said cabazitaxel... The JEVTANA® label allegedly instructs physicians to premedicate prior to each dose with an antihistamine (dexchlorpheniramine 5 mg), a corticosteroid (dexamethasone 8 mg), and an H2 antagonist. ¶36 col. 7:1-6
wherein said patient has castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer that has progressed during or after treatment with docetaxel. The JEVTANA® label's stated indication is for the "treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen." ¶34 col. 2:25-29

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: In an ANDA case, the primary dispute often centers on whether the generic drug's proposed label successfully "carves out" the patented method of use to avoid inducing infringement. The complaint alleges MSN's Notice Letter asserts non-infringement (Compl. ¶11), which raises the question of whether MSN's proposed label omits or alters the instructions for indication, dosage, or premedication in a way that takes it outside the scope of the asserted claims. The key legal question will be whether the combination of instructions on MSN's final proposed label would inevitably lead physicians to practice the claimed method.
  • Technical Questions: The dispute is primarily legal (label-based inducement) rather than technical. However, a potential question could arise regarding the definition of claim terms. For example, if MSN's label recommended a premedication agent that Plaintiffs contend is not an "H2 antagonist" as required by the claim, a technical dispute over the drug's classification and function could emerge.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"increasing survival"

Context and Importance

This term appears in the preamble of independent claim 1. Its construction is critical because the infringement case hinges on whether MSN's product label instructs or encourages a "method of increasing survival." A defendant in an ANDA case will often argue that its label, by providing a general "treatment" indication, does not instruct the specific, patented therapeutic outcome, especially if the preamble is deemed a claim limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification consistently links the claimed method to the clinical trial results showing a survival benefit, suggesting that administering cabazitaxel according to the claimed protocol is inherently a method of "increasing survival." (’110 Patent, col. 12:40-47). A party could argue the term simply describes the result of the claimed process steps.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent lists "increase in overall survival" as one of several distinct therapeutic effects, separate from others like "reduction in tumor size" or "stable disease." (’110 Patent, col. 3:28-34). A party could argue this suggests "increasing survival" is a specific, intended outcome that must be encouraged by the label, not just an inevitable result of a "treatment."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). (Compl. ¶39). The factual basis for this claim is the allegation that MSN’s proposed product labeling "instructs and encourages physicians to practice the claimed methods" of the ’110 Patent. (Compl. ¶33).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of "willful infringement." It does allege that MSN has "actual knowledge of the '110 patent," citing the Notice Letter sent by MSN to Sanofi, as the basis for the active inducement claim. (Compl. ¶39, 51). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional," which is a related but distinct legal standard. (Compl. p. 13, ¶F).

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

  • A central issue will be one of induced infringement via labeling: will the court find that the instructions in MSN's proposed product label—which will likely be argued to have "carved out" the patented method—nevertheless encourage or direct physicians to perform all steps of the claimed method, particularly the specific combination of the patient population, the dosing schedule, and the full premedication regimen?
  • A key question of claim interpretation will be whether the preamble phrase "A method of increasing survival" constitutes a positive limitation of the claim. If it does, the case may turn on whether a product label that provides a general indication for "treatment" can be found to induce infringement of a method defined by a more specific therapeutic outcome.