DCT

1:22-cv-01291

Neurocrine Biosciences Inc v. Zydus Pharma USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01291, D. Del., 09/30/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Zydus Healthcare is a Delaware corporation, Defendants Zydus Worldwide and Zydus Lifesciences are foreign corporations that may be sued in any judicial district, and Defendant Zydus Pharmaceuticals purposefully conducts business in Delaware, which is a likely destination for its generic products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for generic Valbenazine capsules infringes a patent covering high-dosage pharmaceutical formulations of the drug.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns pharmaceutical formulation science, specifically creating high-drug-load oral capsules for valbenazine, a treatment for neurological disorders such as tardive dyskinesia.
  • Key Procedural History: This lawsuit is the fourth action filed by Neurocrine against Zydus related to the same ANDA. The complaint details three prior waves of litigation involving different sets of patents ("First Suit Patents," "Second Suit Patents," and "Third Suit Patents"), all initiated in response to a series of Paragraph IV notice letters from Zydus. This extensive litigation history suggests a protracted and multifaceted dispute over Zydus's efforts to market a generic version of Neurocrine's INGREZZA® product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-04-11 FDA approves Neurocrine's NDA for INGREZZA® Capsules
2017-09-21 Earliest Priority Date for the ’532 Patent
2021-06-15 Date of Zydus' First Notice Letter
2021-07-30 Neurocrine files "First Suits" against Zydus
2021-09-16 Date of Zydus' Second Notice Letter
2021-10-29 Neurocrine files "Second Suits" against Zydus
2022-02-18 Date of Zydus' Third Notice Letter
2022-04-01 Neurocrine files "Third Suits" against Zydus
2022-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,311,532 Issues
2022-08-17 Date of Zydus' Fourth Notice Letter
2022-09-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,311,532 - High Dosage Valbenazine Formulation and Compositions, Methods, and Kits Related Thereto

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the technical difficulties in creating a high-dosage oral form of valbenazine ditosylate. The high molecular weight of the active ingredient's salt form makes it challenging to formulate a powder with the necessary flow properties for efficient capsule manufacturing, particularly for doses above 30% by weight. (’532 Patent, col. 1:60 - col. 2:2). This section also notes the general problem of patient difficulty in swallowing large capsules, which can lead to noncompliance. (’532 Patent, col. 2:4-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a solid pharmaceutical composition that enables a high drug load of valbenazine ditosylate in a standard-sized capsule by using a specific combination of excipients. The formulation comprises the active ingredient along with silicified microcrystalline cellulose, isomalt, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, partially pregelatinized maize starch, and magnesium stearate, which collectively provide the necessary properties for manufacturability and oral dosing. (’532 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:59-64). The patent's process flow diagram illustrates the manufacturing steps, including blending, roller compaction, and lubrication, used to produce the final formulation. (’532 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This formulation technology enables the manufacture of a high-dose (e.g., 80 mg) unit of valbenazine in a capsule small enough for patient acceptance, addressing a significant challenge in delivering effective therapies for chronic neurological conditions. (’532 Patent, col. 2:35-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim; independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention. (Compl. ¶61).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A solid pharmaceutical composition comprising:
    • a ditosylate salt of valbenazine;
    • at least one water-insoluble filler;
    • at least one water-soluble diluent;
    • at least one binder;
    • at least one disintegrant;
    • at least one lubricant;
    • wherein the valbenazine ditosylate is present at a level of at least 30% by weight of the solid pharmaceutical composition. (’532 Patent, col. 23:37-col. 24:1).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," thereby reserving the right to assert additional independent and dependent claims. (Compl. ¶63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Zydus' generic products," which are Valbenazine Capsules in 40 mg, 60 mg, and 80 mg dosage strengths for which Zydus seeks FDA approval via ANDA No. 216137. (Compl. ¶¶1, 53).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Zydus's products are generic versions of Neurocrine’s INGREZZA® Capsules and that Zydus has represented to the FDA that its products are "pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent" to INGREZZA®. (Compl. ¶¶53, 59). The act of infringement alleged is the submission of the ANDA itself, which seeks approval to manufacture and sell a product that, if marketed, would allegedly infringe the ’532 Patent. (Compl. ¶61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Claim Chart Summary: The complaint does not include a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the product described in ANDA No. 216137 is a generic equivalent of Neurocrine’s INGREZZA® product and therefore contains all the elements of the asserted patent claims.

’532 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A solid pharmaceutical composition comprising: a ditosylate salt of (S)-2-amino-3-methyl-butyric acid (2R,3R,11bR)-3-isobutyl-9,10-dimethoxy-1,3,4,6,7,11b-hexahydro-2H-pyrido[2,1-a]isoquinolin-2-yl ester; The complaint alleges that Zydus's ANDA No. 216137 seeks approval for a generic valbenazine product that is pharmaceutically equivalent to INGREZZA® and will therefore comprise this claimed composition upon manufacture. ¶59, ¶61 col. 23:38-46
at least one water-insoluble filler; The accused generic product, as described in the ANDA, is alleged to contain at least one water-insoluble filler. ¶59, ¶61 col. 23:47
at least one water-soluble diluent; The accused generic product, as described in the ANDA, is alleged to contain at least one water-soluble diluent. ¶59, ¶61 col. 23:48
at least one binder; The accused generic product, as described in the ANDA, is alleged to contain at least one binder. ¶59, ¶61 col. 23:49
at least one disintegrant; and The accused generic product, as described in the ANDA, is alleged to contain at least one disintegrant. ¶59, ¶61 col. 23:50
at least one lubricant, The accused generic product, as described in the ANDA, is alleged to contain at least one lubricant. ¶59, ¶61 col. 23:51
wherein the ditosylate salt is present in the solid pharmaceutical composition at a level of at least 30% by weight of the solid pharmaceutical composition. The accused generic product, as described in the ANDA, is alleged to contain the active ingredient at a concentration of at least 30% by weight. ¶59, ¶61 col. 23:52 - col. 24:1
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are based on the legal conclusion of "pharmaceutical equivalence" rather than on specific, publicly available technical facts about the composition of Zydus's proposed product. (Compl. ¶59). A primary point of contention will be factual: does the precise formulation disclosed in Zydus's confidential ANDA filing contain every element required by the asserted claims? The defense may argue that its formulation uses different excipients, different concentrations, or a different manufacturing process that falls outside the literal scope of the claims.
    • Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the scope of the functional terms for excipients, such as "water-insoluble filler" and "binder." The analysis will depend on whether the excipients in Zydus’s formulation, if different from those in the patent’s examples, can be properly classified under the claimed categories.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "solid pharmaceutical composition"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the invention's subject matter. While seemingly broad, its construction could be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because Zydus could argue its product, particularly as defined by its manufacturing process, is distinct from the "composition" taught and claimed in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims and specification refer to the invention broadly as a "solid pharmaceutical composition" and a "solid drug form," which could support a construction covering any solid oral dosage form with the listed ingredients. (’532 Patent, col. 12:45-49, col. 23:38).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily emphasizes a composition produced via a specific multi-step process involving screening, blending, and roller compaction to achieve desired properties like flowability and density. (’532 Patent, Fig. 1; Abstract). This could support an argument that the term is implicitly limited to compositions possessing the specific physical characteristics that result from this disclosed process.

  • The Term: "water-insoluble filler"

    • Context and Importance: The classification of excipients is a potential point of dispute. A compound can have multiple functions, and its primary role in a formulation may be debatable. The infringement analysis depends on whether an excipient in the Zydus product meets the definition of a "water-insoluble filler" as used in the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-limiting list of potential water-insoluble fillers, including "microcrystalline cellulose, starch, dicalcium phosphate dihydrate, and calcium carbonate." (’532 Patent, col. 21:1-4). This language suggests the term is meant to be exemplary, not exhaustive.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment and abstract specifically identify "silicified microcrystalline cellulose" as the filler. (’532 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:42-46). A party could argue the term should be construed more narrowly to encompass only those fillers that, like the preferred example, solve the specific high-drug-load and flowability problem addressed by the invention.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). (Compl. ¶63). The factual basis for this allegation is that Zydus's proposed package insert for its generic products will allegedly "recommend, suggest, encourage and/or instruct" physicians and patients to administer the claimed composition, thereby inducing direct infringement. (Compl. ¶¶65-66).
  • Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint lays the groundwork for a willfulness claim by alleging that Zydus has "actual knowledge of the '532 patent, as evidenced by at least Zydus' Fourth Notice Letter," which establishes pre-suit knowledge. (Compl. ¶60). The prayer for relief further seeks a finding of an "exceptional case" and an award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl., Request for Relief ¶F).

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

  • A central issue will be one of factual correspondence: does the specific chemical formulation disclosed in Zydus’s confidential ANDA submission literally meet every limitation of the asserted claims of the ’532 patent? The case will likely depend less on claim construction and more on a direct comparison between the accused product's recipe and the patent's claims, turning on the evidence revealed from the ANDA during discovery.
  • A key legal question will concern patentability: given the extensive patent portfolio and litigation history surrounding Neurocrine’s valbenazine product, the court will likely need to assess whether the specific formulation of the ’532 patent constitutes a non-obvious improvement over prior art, including Neurocrine's own earlier patents and formulations.