DCT

1:21-cv-00558

Shilpa Pharma Inc v. Novartis Pharma Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:21-cv-00558, D. Del., 04/21/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Novartis is incorporated in the State of Delaware and therefore "resides" in the district for purposes of patent venue.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GILENYA® drug, used for treating multiple sclerosis, infringes a patent claiming a specific crystalline polymorphic form of the active ingredient, fingolimod hydrochloride.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves pharmaceutical formulation, specifically the identification and characterization of polymorphs—different solid-state crystal structures of the same chemical compound—which can affect a drug's stability, manufacturability, and bioavailability.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit notice of the patent-in-suit and Plaintiff's infringement allegations since March 2016. The complaint also references extensive prior litigation initiated by Novartis over a now-expired patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,604,229) covering the fingolimod compound itself, which Novartis allegedly represented covered its GILENYA® products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-09-XX FDA approves GILENYA® 0.5 mg capsules
2010-11-25 '816 Patent priority date
2011-08-29 PCT application for '816 Patent filed
2013-09-17 U.S. application for '816 Patent filed
2016-02-23 '816 Patent issues
2016-03-XX Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of '816 Patent
2018-05-XX FDA approves GILENYA® 0.25 mg capsules
2021-04-21 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,266,816 - "Fingolimod Polymorphs and Their Processes," issued February 23, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background notes that while the compound fingolimod hydrochloride and some of its thermal transition forms were known, there was a need for "novel crystalline forms, which are not only stable as well as convenient to scale up but also their processes provides improved yields & quality" (’816 Patent, col. 1:58-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses and claims new, stable crystalline polymorphic forms of fingolimod hydrochloride, designated Form-α, Form-β, and Form-µ. These forms are defined by distinct analytical data, primarily their characteristic peaks in an X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) pattern and their thermal behavior as measured by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) (’816 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-44). The asserted claims are directed to Form-β.
  • Technical Importance: Identifying and isolating specific, stable polymorphs of an active pharmaceutical ingredient is critical for ensuring consistent product quality, shelf life, and therapeutic performance in a drug product (’816 Patent, col. 1:58-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 2-4, which rely on independent claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • Fingolimod hydrochloride crystalline Form-β
    • characterized by X-ray powder diffraction pattern comprising characteristic 20° peaks selected from the XRPD peak set of 3.54, 7.07, 10.66, 15.35, 20.52, 21.43 and 25.10±0.1 20°.
  • Dependent Claim 2 adds: The crystalline Form-β is further characterized by a DSC isotherm with four specific endothermic peak ranges.
  • The complaint states that its allegations are "exemplary and without prejudice" to future contentions (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant’s GILENYA® Capsules, in both 0.5 mg and 0.25 mg strengths (the "GILENYA® Products") (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • GILENYA® is a brand-name drug whose active pharmaceutical ingredient is fingolimod hydrochloride (Compl. ¶14). It is prescribed for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that the active ingredient in GILENYA® is a specific polymorphic form, "crystalline fingolimod hydrochloride Form-β," which is the subject of the ’816 Patent (Compl. ¶33, ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'816 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 2) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Claim 1: Fingolimod hydrochloride crystalline Form-β characterized by X-ray powder diffraction pattern comprising characteristic 20° peaks selected from the XRPD peak set of 3.54, 7.07, 10.66, 15.35, 20.52, 21.43 and 25.10±0.1 20°. On information and belief, the active ingredient in GILENYA® Products is crystalline fingolimod hydrochloride Form-β, having an XRPD pattern with characteristic peaks that fall within the claimed set and tolerance. This allegation is supported by a predictive analysis comparing public data for a polymorph called "Form I" to the claimed peaks of Form-β. (Compl. ¶43). ¶33, ¶35, ¶44 col. 9:20-23
Claim 2: ...further characterized by DSC isotherm comprising endothermic peaks ranging between— a. Peak-1—Between 40 to 45° C. b. Peak-2—Between 65 to 70° C. c. Peak-3—Between 107 to 115° C. d. Peak-4—Between 265 to 270° C. On information and belief, the active ingredient in GILENYA® Products has DSC curves with endothermic peaks that fall within the four temperature ranges claimed for Form-β. ¶34, ¶35 col. 9:24-31

The complaint includes a table comparing calculated XRPD peak positions for a published structure ("Form I") with the claimed peak positions for the patented "Form-β" to allege a match (Compl. ¶43).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint relies heavily on "information and belief" for its core infringement allegations and acknowledges that direct PXRD and DSC analysis of the finished drug product is difficult due to the low concentration of the active ingredient and interference from excipients (Compl. ¶30). A central question will be whether Plaintiff can produce direct, empirical data from the accused GILENYA® product that meets the claim limitations.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the assertion that a publicly described polymorph known as "Form I" is identical to the patented "Form-β" (Compl. ¶38-44). This raises the question of whether Novartis's product actually contains Form I, and if so, whether Form I is structurally and analytically identical to the claimed Form-β as defined by the patent. This could also introduce a validity challenge, as Defendant may argue that the prior public disclosure of "Form I" anticipates or renders obvious the claims to "Form-β."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "crystalline Form-β"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the patented substance. The outcome of the case depends on whether the fingolimod hydrochloride in GILENYA® can be properly characterized as the claimed "Form-β."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines Form-β by its analytical characteristics—specifically, its XRPD pattern and, in dependent claims, its DSC profile. A party may argue that any crystalline fingolimod hydrochloride that meets these specific analytical parameters is "Form-β," regardless of its method of manufacture or what it may be called in other contexts (’816 Patent, col. 9:20-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific processes for creating Form-β using particular organic solvents and co-solvents (’816 Patent, col. 5:32-48). A party could argue that the term "Form-β" should be construed as limited to the crystalline form that results from these disclosed processes.
  • The Term: "characteristic 20° peaks selected from the XRPD peak set"
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the claim does not specify a minimum number of peaks from the recited set that must be present. The construction will determine the threshold for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "comprising" and "selected from" could suggest that the presence of any one or more of the listed peaks is sufficient to meet the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, in the "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION" section, describes Form-β as being "characterized by X-ray powder diffraction pattern comprising at least 4 characteristic 20° peaks selected from the XRPD peak set" (’816 Patent, col. 2:31-35). This language provides a potential basis for requiring a minimum of four matching peaks.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s marketing, promotion, and product labeling encourage use of GILENYA® in a manner that directly infringes (Compl. ¶36, ¶47). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the fingolimod hydrochloride active ingredient is especially made or adapted for an infringing use and has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶37, ¶48).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of the ’816 Patent and Plaintiff's belief that GILENYA® infringes it since at least March 2016, following direct notification from Plaintiff's parent company (Compl. ¶28, ¶49).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of direct proof: can the plaintiff produce direct empirical data (PXRD and DSC) from the commercial GILENYA® product that unambiguously satisfies the specific peak and temperature range limitations of the asserted claims, given the analytical challenges acknowledged in the complaint?
  • The case will likely turn on a question of identity and validity: is the publicly known fingolimod polymorph "Form I," which the complaint alleges is in the accused product, the same as the patented "Form-β"? If they are identical, the court will have to address whether the prior public disclosure of "Form I" renders the claims to "Form-β" invalid.
  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: what is the threshold for infringement under the term "characteristic... peaks selected from the XRPD peak set"? The court's construction of this phrase, particularly whether it requires a minimum number of matching peaks as suggested by the specification, will be critical to the infringement analysis.