DCT

1:22-cv-01431

Supernus Pharma Inc v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01431, D. Del., 10/28/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Delaware, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and/or continuously transacts business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market generic extended-release oxcarbazepine tablets constitutes an act of infringement of ten patents covering Plaintiff's Oxtellar XR® product.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns modified-release oral pharmaceutical formulations for oxcarbazepine, an antiepileptic drug, designed for once-a-day administration to improve patient compliance and reduce side effects.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was triggered by Defendant’s submission of ANDA No. 217659 with a Paragraph IV certification, asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid or will not be infringed by its proposed generic product. Plaintiff received a notice letter regarding this certification on or about September 19, 2022. All ten patents-in-suit are listed in the FDA’s “Orange Book” for Plaintiff’s Oxtellar XR®.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-04-26 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2010-05-25 U.S. Patent No. 7,722,898 Issues
2011-03-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,910,131 Issues
2013-12-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,617,600 Issues
2014-09-02 U.S. Patent No. 8,821,930 Issues
2015-09-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,119,791 Issues
2016-05-31 U.S. Patent No. 9,351,975 Issues
2016-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,370,525 Issues
2018-01-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,855,278 Issues
2019-03-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,220,042 Issues
2021-11-09 U.S. Patent No. 11,166,960 Issues
2022-09-19 Defendant sends Paragraph IV Notice Letter to Plaintiff
2022-10-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,722,898 - “Modified-Release Preparations Containing Oxcarbazepine and Derivatives Thereof”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes oxcarbazepine as poorly soluble in water, which poses a “serious challenge to the successful development of sustained-release dosage forms” (’898 Patent, col. 2:1-3). This poor solubility can result in incomplete drug release from the dosage form, leading to reduced bioavailability and therapeutic ineffectiveness for a once-a-day formulation (’898 Patent, col. 1:47-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a controlled-release oral formulation that combines the active drug in a matrix with both “solubility-enhancing excipients” and “release-promoting agents” (’898 Patent, col. 3:9-14). This combination is designed to create a tailored, sigmoidal release profile—a slow initial release, followed by a rapid release, then another slow release—which enhances bioavailability and allows for effective once-daily administration (’898 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-17).
  • Technical Importance: The formulation aims to improve patient compliance and reduce side effects associated with immediate-release versions by maintaining a steadier drug concentration in the blood over a 24-hour period (’898 Patent, col. 1:35-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 is asserted in the complaint (Compl. ¶35).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A pharmaceutical formulation for once-a-day administration of oxcarbazepine.
    • Comprising a homogeneous matrix.
    • The matrix includes: (a) oxcarbazepine, (b) a matrix-forming polymer, (c) at least one agent that enhances solubility, and (d) at least one release promoting agent comprising a polymer with pH-dependent solubility.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 2-20 of the ’898 patent (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 7,910,131 - “Method of Treating Seizures Using Modified Release Formulations of Oxcarbazepine”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the clinical need for an oxcarbazepine treatment that avoids the sharp peaks and troughs in plasma drug concentration seen with immediate-release formulations (’131 Patent, col. 1:29-34). Such fluctuations can lead to side effects at peak concentrations and loss of efficacy at trough concentrations, making multiple daily doses necessary (’131 Patent, col. 1:34-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method of treating seizures by administering, once a day, a controlled-release formulation of oxcarbazepine (’131 Patent, col. 1:49-53). The formulation itself, similar to that described in the ’898 patent, uses a combination of solubility enhancers and release promoters to achieve a sigmoidal release profile, thereby improving the drug’s bioavailability and maintaining a therapeutic level in the body over 24 hours (’131 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-19).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for a transition from twice-daily to once-daily dosing for an established antiepileptic drug, which can significantly improve patient adherence to the treatment regimen and provide a more stable therapeutic effect (’131 Patent, col. 1:39-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 is asserted in the complaint (Compl. ¶35).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A method of treating seizures.
    • Comprising administering to a subject in need thereof a pharmaceutical formulation.
    • The formulation comprises a homogeneous matrix containing: (a) oxcarbazepine, (b) a matrix-forming polymer, (c) a solubility-enhancing agent, and (d) a release-promoting agent with pH-dependent solubility.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 2-24 of the ’131 patent (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 8,617,600 - “Modified Release Preparations Containing Oxcarbazepine and Derivatives Thereof”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses controlled-release formulations of oxcarbazepine for once-a-day administration. The technology focuses on using solubility-enhancing and release-promoting agents to create tailored drug release profiles, particularly sigmoidal profiles, to improve bioavailability and maintain therapeutic blood levels (’600 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The generic oxcarbazepine extended-release tablets that are the subject of ANDA No. 217659 are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 56-58).

U.S. Patent No. 8,821,930 - “Modified Release Preparations Containing Oxcarbazepine and Derivatives Thereof”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers controlled-release oxcarbazepine formulations designed for once-a-day use. The invention combines the drug with agents that enhance solubility and promote release to achieve specific release profiles that improve the drug's therapeutic performance over a 24-hour period (’930 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The generic oxcarbazepine extended-release tablets that are the subject of ANDA No. 217659 are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 63-65).

U.S. Patent No. 9,119,791 - “Modified Release Preparations Containing Oxcarbazepine and Derivatives Thereof”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes once-daily, controlled-release oxcarbazepine compositions. The technology utilizes solubility and/or release enhancing agents within a matrix formulation to create tailored, preferably sigmoidal, drug release profiles for improved treatment efficacy (’791 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The generic oxcarbazepine extended-release tablets that are the subject of ANDA No. 217659 are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 70-72).

U.S. Patent No. 9,351,975 - “Modified Release Preparations Containing Oxcarbazepine and Derivatives Thereof”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to once-a-day, controlled-release formulations of oxcarbazepine. The invention employs agents that enhance solubility and promote release to achieve specific dissolution profiles, thereby improving the drug's bioavailability and therapeutic window (’975 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The generic oxcarbazepine extended-release tablets that are the subject of ANDA No. 217659 are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 77-79).

U.S. Patent No. 9,370,525 - “Modified Release Preparations Containing Oxcarbazepine and Derivatives Thereof”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses controlled-release oxcarbazepine preparations for once-daily administration. The technology centers on formulations containing solubility and/or release enhancers to produce tailored release profiles, improving the drug's clinical performance and patient compliance (’525 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The generic oxcarbazepine extended-release tablets that are the subject of ANDA No. 217659 are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 84-86).

U.S. Patent No. 9,855,278 - “Modified Release Preparations Containing Oxcarbazepine and Derivatives Thereof”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to once-a-day controlled-release oxcarbazepine formulations. The core technology involves using solubility and release enhancing agents to achieve a sigmoidal release profile, which is intended to improve the bioavailability and therapeutic consistency of the drug (’278 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The generic oxcarbazepine extended-release tablets that are the subject of ANDA No. 217659 are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 91-93).

U.S. Patent No. 10,220,042 - “Modified Release Preparations Containing Oxcarbazepine and Derivatives Thereof”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers controlled-release preparations of oxcarbazepine suitable for once-daily administration. The technology combines solubility and/or release enhancing agents to tailor drug release, aiming for sigmoidal profiles that improve bioavailability and therapeutic outcomes (’042 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The generic oxcarbazepine extended-release tablets that are the subject of ANDA No. 217659 are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 98-100).

U.S. Patent No. 11,166,960 - “Modified Release Preparations Containing Oxcarbazepine and Derivatives Thereof”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses controlled-release formulations of oxcarbazepine for once-a-day use. The inventive compositions incorporate solubility and/or release enhancing agents to generate tailored drug release profiles, with a preference for sigmoidal profiles, to improve clinical performance (’960 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The generic oxcarbazepine extended-release tablets that are the subject of ANDA No. 217659 are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 105-107).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendant’s generic oxcarbazepine extended-release tablets in 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg dosages, for which Defendant seeks FDA approval via ANDA No. 217659 (“the Ajanta Products”) (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Ajanta Products are designed to be generic equivalents to Plaintiff’s Oxtellar XR® product, an antiepileptic drug used for treating partial seizures (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20). As extended-release tablets, they are intended to provide a therapeutic dose of oxcarbazepine over a 24-hour period, allowing for once-daily administration (Compl. ¶7). The complaint alleges that Defendant is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development and manufacture of generic products for the U.S. market (Compl. ¶¶ 4-6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit or sufficient technical detail regarding the accused product's formulation to construct a comparative claim chart. The infringement allegations are based on the act of filing the ANDA under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and the future manufacture, use, and sale of the Ajanta Products upon approval (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44).

The complaint’s narrative theory centers on challenging the assertions made by Defendant in its September 19, 2022 notice letter. Specifically, Plaintiff notes that the letter "does not include any description of the composition, formulation, ingredients, development, manufacture, or testing of the Ajanta Products beyond a vague and unsupported statement that the Ajanta Products do not contain a 'release promoting agent comprising a polymer having pH-dependent solubility' or at least one 'release promoting agent comprising an enteric polymer' required by certain claims of the patent in suit" (Compl. ¶38). This suggests the infringement dispute will focus on whether the excipients in the Ajanta Products meet these claim limitations, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the construction of key claim terms recited in the independent claims of the asserted patents, such as "release promoting agent comprising a polymer having pH-dependent solubility" (’898 Patent, cl. 1) and "agent that enhances the solubility of oxcarbazepine" (’898 Patent, cl. 1). The outcome of the case may depend on whether the definitions of these terms are broad enough to read on the specific excipients used in Defendant’s formulation.
    • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question is what specific ingredients comprise the Ajanta Products and how they function to control the release of oxcarbazepine. The complaint notes that Defendant has not produced its ANDA to Plaintiff, leaving the technical composition of the accused product unconfirmed from Plaintiff's perspective (Compl. ¶38). The case may turn on whether an excipient in the Ajanta product, even if not conventionally labeled as an "enteric polymer," performs a substantially similar function in a substantially similar way to achieve a substantially similar result as the claimed "release promoting agent."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "release promoting agent comprising a polymer having pH-dependent solubility" (from Claim 1 of the ’898 Patent and other asserted patents).
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the crux of the dispute, as Defendant’s notice letter allegedly relies on the absence of such an agent for its non-infringement position (Compl. ¶38). The definition of this term will be critical to determining infringement because it defines a specific mechanism for controlling drug release that Plaintiff alleges is a core inventive concept. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether Defendant’s formulation, which may use different but functionally similar excipients, falls within the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that useful polymers are those that "remain intact at pH value lower than about 4.0 and dissolve at pH values higher than 4.0, preferably higher than 5.0, most preferably about 6.0" (’898 Patent, col. 4:59-63). This functional definition could support an interpretation that covers any polymer meeting this pH-solubility profile, regardless of its specific chemical class.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a list of "preferable release promoting agents" that "are pH dependent polymers, also known as enteric polymers" and then lists specific examples, such as "pharmaceutically acceptable methacrylic acid copolymers," which are sold under the trade name Eudragit™ (’898 Patent, col. 4:36-38; col. 5:4-18). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these specific types of enteric polymers disclosed as preferred embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s future offering for sale and sale of the Ajanta Products will induce and/or contribute to third-party infringement by prescribers and patients (e.g., Compl. ¶45). These allegations are prospective, contingent on FDA approval and commercial launch.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge of each patent, evidenced by its Paragraph IV certification and the notice letter sent on or about September 19, 2022 (e.g., Compl. ¶47). Plaintiff alleges Defendant "acted without a reasonable basis for believing that it would not be liable for infringement," which also forms the basis for its claim that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (e.g., Compl. ¶47).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court construe the term "release promoting agent comprising a polymer having pH-dependent solubility"? Will the definition be limited to the specific classes of enteric polymers disclosed in the patents, or will it be a broader, functional definition that could encompass a wider range of excipients?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical composition and function: once the formulation of the Ajanta Products is disclosed, does it contain an ingredient that literally meets the court's construction of the key claim terms? If not, does an ingredient in the accused product perform a substantially similar function in a substantially similar way to achieve the claimed sigmoidal release profile, raising an issue of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents?