DCT

1:22-cv-00299

Novo Nordisk v. Alvogen Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00299, D. Del., 03/04/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware as Defendant Alvogen, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and, on information and belief, intends to market and sell its accused product throughout the United States, including within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of the diabetes drug Ozempic® (semaglutide) constitutes an act of infringement of ten U.S. patents covering the drug compound, methods of its use, and the drug delivery pen device.
  • Technical Context: The dispute involves long-acting GLP-1 peptide analogues for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, a major pharmaceutical market, and the mechanics of multi-dose injection pen devices designed for patient self-administration.
  • Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was initiated in response to a Notice Letter dated February 7, 2022, in which Alvogen provided a Paragraph IV Certification against the patents-in-suit. By filing the complaint within the 45-day statutory window, Novo Nordisk has triggered an automatic 30-month stay on the FDA’s final approval of Alvogen’s generic product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-03-18 ’343 Patent Priority Date
2005-07-27 ’383, ’155, and ’063 Patents Priority Date
2012-03-06 ’343 Patent Issue Date
2012-07-01 ’462 Patent Priority Date
2014-12-30 ’383 Patent Issue Date
2015-09-15 ’239 Patent Issue Date
2016-10-04 ’154 Patent Issue Date
2017-04-11 ’363 Patent (Reissue) Issue Date
2017-06-27 ’611 Patent Issue Date
2017-10-03 ’953 Patent Issue Date
2019-03-05 ’155 Patent Issue Date
2019-07-02 ’462 Patent Issue Date
2021-08-24 ’063 Patent Issue Date
2022-02-07 Alvogen sends Paragraph IV Notice Letter
2022-03-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,129,343 - “Acylated GLP-1 Compounds”

  • Issued: March 6, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The therapeutic potential of naturally occurring GLP-1 is limited by its very short in vivo half-life, which necessitates frequent injections (U.S. Patent No. 8,129,343, col. 1:25-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes novel GLP-1 analogues chemically modified by acylation, where a specific chemical moiety containing at least two acidic groups is attached to a lysine residue. This modification allows the compound to bind to albumin in the bloodstream, which acts as a carrier and protects the compound from rapid degradation, thereby extending its duration of action (U.S. Patent No. 8,129,343, Abstract; col. 5:17-29).
  • Technical Importance: This chemical modification strategy enabled the development of a GLP-1 analogue with a sufficiently long half-life to be suitable for once-weekly administration, a significant improvement in convenience for patients with type 2 diabetes (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 (Compl. ¶27).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A compound which is a GLP-1 analog.
    • The analog is acylated with a specific moiety (B-U'-) at the lysine residue in position 26.
    • The moiety comprises at least two acidic groups.
    • One of the acidic groups is attached terminally.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,920,383 - “Dose Mechanism for an Injection Device for Limiting a Dose Setting Corresponding to the Amount of Medicament Left”

  • Issued: December 30, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In multi-dose injection pens, a user might attempt to set a dose that exceeds the amount of medication remaining in the drug reservoir, leading to an incomplete injection and improper treatment (’383 Patent, col. 1:26-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical "end-of-content" mechanism for an injection device. It uses a system of interacting components—a threaded piston rod, a "limiter," and a "driver"—that track the amount of dispensed medication. As the user sets a dose, relative rotation between the driver and piston rod causes the limiter to move toward a stopping position that corresponds to the remaining volume of medicament, physically preventing the user from dialing a dose larger than what is left in the reservoir (’383 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-17).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provides a patient-safety feature that ensures dose accuracy by mechanically preventing the setting of an "air shot" or an incomplete dose from a nearly empty cartridge.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-13 (Compl. ¶34).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A mechanism for preventing the setting of a dose that exceeds the amount of medicament left.
    • A piston rod having a threaded outer surface.
    • A limiter defining a passage for the piston rod and having a threaded outer surface.
    • A driver defining a passage for the limiter and having a threaded inner surface to engage the limiter.
    • Relative rotation between the driver and the piston rod during dose setting causes the limiter to move towards a stopping position.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,132,239 - “Dial-Down Mechanism for Wind-Up Pen”

  • Issued: September 15, 2015
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent is directed to a "dial-down mechanism for an injection device" (Compl. ¶40). This type of mechanism allows a user to decrease a dose that has been set too high without expelling medication.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-3 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: The dial-down mechanism of Alvogen's prefilled pen product (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 9,457,154 - “Injection Device with an End of Dose Feedback Mechanism”

  • Issued: October 4, 2016
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent is directed to a dose delivery mechanism that provides an "audible feedback signal to a user at the end of injection of a set dose" (Compl. ¶46). This feature provides non-visual confirmation that the full dose has been delivered.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: The end-of-dose feedback mechanism of Alvogen's prefilled pen product (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 9,687,611 - “Injection Device with Torsion Spring and Rotatable Display”

  • Issued: June 27, 2017
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent is directed to an injection device featuring a "torsion spring operatively connected to a dose setting member and a rotatably mounted display member," with certain claims directed to a dose indicator barrel having a helical scale (Compl. ¶52). This allows for a dose display that can rotate more than 360 degrees, potentially enabling finer dose increments.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-15 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The dose setting and display mechanism of Alvogen's prefilled pen product (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 9,775,953 - “Dose Mechanism for an Injection Device for Limiting a Dose Setting Corresponding to the Amount of Medicament Left”

  • Issued: October 3, 2017
  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’383 patent, the complaint alleges this patent is directed to a mechanism that prevents a user from setting a dose that "exceeds the amount of medicament left in a reservoir" (Compl. ¶58).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-25 (Compl. ¶58).
  • Accused Features: The end-of-content dose-limiting mechanism of Alvogen's prefilled pen product (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 10,220,155 - “Syringe Device with a Dose Limiting Mechanism and an Additional Safety Mechanism”

  • Issued: March 5, 2019
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention addresses the problem of mechanical failure in dose-limiting mechanisms for syringe devices. It provides a redundant system with both a primary "dose limiting mechanism" and a secondary "safety mechanism," such that if the primary mechanism fails, the safety mechanism independently prevents the ejection of a dose exceeding the set dose (U.S. Patent No. 10,220,155, Abstract; col. 1:37-46).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-8 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The dose limiting and safety mechanisms of Alvogen's prefilled pen product (Compl. ¶64).

U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462 - “Use of Long-Acting GLP-1 Peptides”

  • Issued: July 2, 2019
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention addresses the need for improved therapeutic regimens for type 2 diabetes. It discloses methods of treatment using specific dosage amounts of semaglutide (at least 0.7 mg per week) administered once weekly or less often, which are asserted to provide improved reduction of HbA1c and body weight (U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462, col. 2:36-55; Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-10 (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: Alvogen's proposed use of its semaglutide product for treating type 2 diabetes, which would allegedly follow the claimed method (Compl. ¶70).

U.S. Patent No. 11,097,063 - “Syringe Device with a Dose Limiting Mechanism and an Additional Safety Mechanism”

  • Issued: August 24, 2021
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’155 patent and similarly describes a syringe device with both a primary dose limiting mechanism and a redundant safety mechanism to prevent the injection of a dose exceeding the one set by the user (U.S. Patent No. 11,097,063, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-7 (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The dose limiting and safety mechanisms of Alvogen's prefilled pen product (Compl. ¶77).

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,363 - “Dial-Down Mechanism for Wind-Up Pen”

  • Issued: April 11, 2017
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent, like the '239 patent, is directed to a "dial-down mechanism for an injection device" (Compl. ¶83). This mechanism allows a user to correct an erroneously set dose downwards.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: The dial-down mechanism of Alvogen's prefilled pen product (Compl. ¶83).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Alvogen’s generic semaglutide subcutaneous solution in prefilled pens, as identified in ANDA No. 215920 (“Alvogen’s Product”) (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Alvogen’s Product is a generic version of Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic® product and that Alvogen’s ANDA relies on the Ozempic® New Drug Application to demonstrate bioequivalence (Compl. ¶¶22-23). This implies that Alvogen’s Product contains the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, semaglutide, and is intended for the same therapeutic use (treatment of type 2 diabetes) via a prefilled pen injection device (Compl. ¶¶19, 27, 70). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the internal mechanics of Alvogen's pen device but alleges that its manufacture, use, or sale would infringe claims directed to various mechanical features of an injection device (Compl. ¶¶34, 40, 46, 52, 58, 64, 77, 83).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides notice of infringement but does not include detailed, element-by-element infringement contentions or reference any claim chart exhibits. The following summaries are based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 8,129,343 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A compound which is a GLP-1 analog... which is acylated with a moiety of B-U' to the lysine residue in position 26... wherein said moiety comprises at least two acidic groups... The complaint alleges Alvogen's Product contains semaglutide and that this compound is encompassed by the claims. ¶27 col. 9:1-20

U.S. Patent No. 8,920,383 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A mechanism for preventing setting of a dose which exceeds the amount of a medicament in a reservoir... comprising: a piston rod having a threaded outer surface; a limiter...; a driver... The complaint alleges Alvogen’s Product is a prefilled pen that infringes claims directed to this dose-limiting mechanism. ¶34 col. 3:6-25
wherein relative rotation between the driver and the piston rod during dose setting causes the limiter to move towards a stopping position wherein the limiter prevents setting of a dose... The complaint's allegation of infringement implies that Alvogen's pen device contains components that operate in this claimed manner. ¶34 col. 3:39-46

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the '343 and '462 patents, a primary dispute will concern whether Alvogen’s specific semaglutide formulation falls within the scope of the asserted claims. For the device patents (e.g., ’383, ’155, ’063), a central question will be whether the mechanical components of Alvogen's pen can be properly characterized as the "limiter," "driver," "ratchet mechanism," or other structures required by the claims.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the device patents will be how Alvogen's pen actually operates. The analysis will require a technical comparison between the physical structure and function of Alvogen's device and the specific requirements of each asserted claim limitation.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "limiter" (from '383 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed end-of-content mechanism. Infringement will depend on whether a component in Alvogen's device performs the functions and has the structure of the claimed "limiter." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether Alvogen can design around the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "limiter" should be construed functionally to cover any component that prevents dose setting, pointing to the patent's overall objective of limiting the set dose (’383 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue for a narrower construction based on the specific embodiment, where the "limiter" (10) is a distinct structural element with a threaded outer surface that engages a driver and is rotationally locked to the piston rod (’383 Patent, col. 3:13-20; Fig. 1).

The Term: "safety mechanism structure" (from '155 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the claim requires both a "dose limiting mechanism" and a separate "safety mechanism structure." The dispute may turn on whether Alvogen’s device has two distinct structures that meet these definitions or a single mechanism that performs both functions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be defined functionally by its purpose: to "prevent ejection of a dose exceeding the set dose" if the primary dose limiting mechanism fails (’155 Patent, col. 6:28-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the dose limiting and safety mechanisms as "two independent mechanisms working independently from each other" (’155 Patent, col. 4:1-3). This language may support an interpretation requiring two physically and operationally distinct structures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the method-of-use claims in the '343, '462, and '363 patents. The allegations are based on the premise that Alvogen's sale, offer for sale, or commercial marketing of its product, with knowledge of the patents, would intentionally induce healthcare providers and patients to use the product in the claimed therapeutic methods (Compl. ¶¶28, 71, 84).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement" but alleges for each patent that "Alvogen was aware of the [asserted] patent when it submitted its ANDA" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶31, 37, 43). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge, based on Alvogen's Paragraph IV certification, serves as a basis for a potential claim of enhanced damages and a finding that the case is "exceptional" for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope versus prior art: For the '343 and '462 patents covering the semaglutide compound and its use, the case will likely center on the validity of the claims in light of prior art concerning GLP-1 analogues and their therapeutic use, a common battleground in pharmaceutical patent litigation.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional equivalence: For the eight asserted device patents, the dispute will turn on a highly technical, fact-intensive comparison. The central question will be whether the specific mechanical components and operational sequences of Alvogen's undisclosed pen design are the same as or equivalent to the structures and functions recited in the patent claims.
  • A central strategic question will be the viability of the "patent thicket": Novo Nordisk has asserted ten patents covering the drug, its use, and multiple mechanical features of the delivery device. A key question is whether Alvogen can successfully establish non-infringement or invalidity for all asserted claims across all ten patents, as infringement of even a single valid claim would be sufficient to block generic entry until that patent's expiration.