DCT

1:20-cv-01428

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01428, D. Del., 10/23/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant MSN Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and the foreign defendants (MSN Labs, MSN Life) may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market generic brexpiprazole tablets constitutes an act of infringement of a reissue patent covering the brexpiprazole compound.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to heterocyclic compounds used as antipsychotic drugs for treating mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and major depressive disorder.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE48,059, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,888,362. Plaintiffs previously initiated litigation against the same defendants based on the original '362 patent. The current action was filed within 45 days of Plaintiffs receiving a Paragraph IV certification notice from Defendants regarding the reissued patent. The patent's term has been extended under 35 U.S.C. § 156.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-04-14 RE'059 Patent Priority Date
2011-02-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,888,362 (the original patent) Issued
2015-07-10 FDA Approved NDA for REXULTI® (brexpiprazole)
2019-09-12 MSN's First Notice Letter sent to Otsuka regarding the '362 patent
2020-06-23 RE'059 Patent Reissued
2020-09-09 MSN's Second Notice Letter sent to Otsuka regarding the RE'059 patent
2020-10-06 Patent Term Extension for RE'059 Patent Granted
2020-10-23 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,059 - "Piperazine-Substituted Benzothiophenes for Treatment of Mental Disorders"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,059, "Piperazine-Substituted Benzothiophenes for Treatment of Mental Disorders," issued June 23, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for antipsychotic drugs that have a broad treatment spectrum for heterogeneous conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, while exhibiting fewer side effects and better safety and tolerability than existing treatments (RE'059 Patent, col. 6:20-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a new class of heterocyclic compounds, represented by general formula (1), that possess a unique combination of pharmacological activities. These compounds are described as having dopamine D₂ receptor partial agonist activity, serotonin 5-HT₂A receptor antagonist activity, adrenalin α₁ receptor antagonist activity, and a serotonin uptake inhibitory effect (RE'059 Patent, col. 6:27-33). This multi-faceted mechanism of action is purported to provide the desired wide treatment spectrum and enhanced safety profile.
  • Technical Importance: This "dopamine system stabilizer" approach represented a nuanced strategy for treating psychoses, aiming to modulate dopamine activity to a normal state rather than simply blocking it, which could mitigate the severe side effects associated with earlier antipsychotic medications (RE'059 Patent, col. 18:35-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶47). Independent claim 1 is the broadest composition of matter claim. The specific compound at issue, brexpiprazole, is covered by dependent claim 12.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A heterocyclic compound represented by the chemical structure of formula (1).
    • Wherein "ring Q" is a specific carbostyril (quinolin-2-one) structure which may have one or more substituents from a defined list.
    • Wherein "A" is a linker group, which can be an ether linkage (-O-A₁-) or an alkylene group.
    • Wherein "R₂" is a hydrogen or a lower alkyl group.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of any claims of the RE'059 patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendants' proposed generic brexpiprazole tablets in 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mg dosage forms, for which Defendants filed ANDA No. 213740 with the FDA (Compl. ¶35).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are generic versions of Plaintiffs' REXULTI® tablets (Compl. ¶35). The complaint alleges that in their ANDA, Defendants have represented that their generic products are "pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent" to REXULTI® (Compl. ¶45). The active ingredient, brexpiprazole, is approved for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder and the treatment of schizophrenia (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint's infringement theory is based on Defendants' filing of ANDA No. 213740, which seeks approval to market a generic version of brexpiprazole. Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), this filing is a statutory act of infringement if the product, once marketed, would infringe the patent. The core of the infringement allegation is that the brexpiprazole active ingredient in Defendants' proposed product is the same chemical compound claimed in the RE'059 patent.

RE'059 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A heterocyclic compound represented by the formula (1):... Defendants' ANDA product contains brexpiprazole, which the complaint alleges is a compound covered by the RE'059 patent and is therapeutically equivalent to the active ingredient in REXULTI®. ¶45, ¶47 col. 6:35-42
wherein ring Q represented by [a quinolin-2-one structure]... The brexpiprazole molecule contains a quinolin-2-one moiety, which corresponds to the "ring Q" structure required by the claim. ¶45 col. 8:15-19
A represents -O-A₁- (wherein A₁ represents an alkylene group...) The brexpiprazole molecule includes a butoxy linker (-O-(CH₂)₄-), which is an embodiment of the claimed "A" group. ¶45 col. 9:58-63
[The remainder of formula (1), including a piperazine ring bonded to a benzothiophene moiety] The remainder of the brexpiprazole molecule conforms to the structure of formula (1), containing a piperazine ring linking the "A" group to a benzothiophene moiety. ¶45 col. 6:35-42
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint notes that Defendants' Paragraph IV certification alleges non-infringement (Compl. ¶39). This raises the question of whether Defendants will argue for a narrow construction of a claim term that excludes their specific brexpiprazole product. Given that the product is an ANDA generic, a primary infringement dispute may focus on whether the specific salt or polymorphic form of brexpiprazole used by Defendants falls outside the scope of the asserted claims.
    • Technical Questions: The central technical question for infringement will be whether the active pharmaceutical ingredient described in ANDA No. 213740 is, in fact, the chemical compound claimed in the RE'059 patent. While the allegation of therapeutic equivalence suggests identity, the ultimate determination will depend on the evidence presented regarding the structure of Defendants' compound.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology, the following term may be a focus.

  • The Term: "a heterocyclic compound represented by the formula (1)"
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the definition of the "compound" itself is the foundation of a composition of matter claim. In pharmaceutical cases, non-infringement arguments can sometimes arise from assertions that the accused product is a different salt, stereoisomer, or crystalline polymorph that falls outside a narrowly construed claim, even if it is therapeutically equivalent. The construction of what is encompassed by "compound" will be critical to evaluating any such defense.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides numerous examples and lists of salts (RE'059 Patent, col. 16:32-58) and states that the invention "naturally encompasses isomers such as geometrical isomer, stereoisomer and enantiomer" (RE'059 Patent, col. 17:3-5). This language may support a construction that covers a wide range of forms of the molecule depicted in formula (1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower construction might argue that the specific depiction of the compound in formula (1) and in the examples, which do not specify particular salts or polymorphs, limits the claim scope to the neutral form or only those forms explicitly disclosed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that if the ANDA is approved, Defendants will actively induce infringement under § 271(b) and contribute to infringement under § 271(c) (Compl. ¶49). The factual basis for inducement would likely be Defendants' proposed product labeling, which would instruct physicians and patients to use the generic drug for the patented methods of treatment.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendants have had "actual knowledge" of the RE'059 patent since at least September 9, 2020, via a formal notice letter (Compl. ¶46). It also notes earlier knowledge of the parent '362 patent since September 2019 (Compl. ¶36). These allegations of pre-suit knowledge could form the basis for a later claim of willfulness.

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

  • A primary issue for the court will be validity: can Defendants prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims covering the brexpiprazole compound are invalid, likely for obviousness, as alleged in their Paragraph IV certification? The outcome of the prior litigation involving the parent patent may significantly inform this analysis.
  • A secondary issue will be one of infringement scope: can the term "heterocyclic compound" be construed narrowly enough to allow Defendants’ generic product to escape infringement? This will likely turn on whether the specific salt or crystalline form of brexpiprazole in the ANDA product falls within the scope of the patent claims as construed by the court.