DCT

1:23-cv-00008

Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00008, D. Del., 01/03/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper based on Defendant MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. being a Delaware corporation and Defendant MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. being subject to personal jurisdiction in the district. The complaint notes that Defendants did not contest venue in a related litigation in the same district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of the cancer drug Lonsurf® constitutes an act of infringement of a patent directed to a specific method of treating cancer patients who have severe renal impairment.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to pharmaceutical dosing methods for oncology drugs, specifically a combination of trifluridine and tipiracil, and tailoring the administration regimen for a specific patient subpopulation with compromised kidney function.
  • Key Procedural History: This Hatch-Waxman action was filed within 45 days of Plaintiff’s receipt of a Paragraph IV notice letter from Defendant, which asserted that the patent-in-suit is invalid or would not be infringed by the proposed generic product. The patent-in-suit is listed in the FDA's "Orange Book" for the brand-name drug Lonsurf®. The parties are also involved in separate, related litigation concerning a different ANDA.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-09-22 FDA Approval for Plaintiff's Lonsurf® NDA
2016-02-05 '004 Patent Priority Date
2021-03-30 '004 Patent Issue Date
2021-08-05 Alleged Pre-Suit Knowledge Date for Defendant
2022-12-01 Plaintiff Received Defendant's Paragraph IV Notice
2023-01-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,960,004 - Method for Treating Cancer Patients with Severe Renal Impairment

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,960,004, issued March 30, 2021. (Compl. ¶40).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of administering a combination cancer drug containing trifluridine (FTD) and tipiracil hydrochloride (TPI). Because TPI is a "renal excretory drug," its administration to patients with impaired kidney function can lead to increased exposure to the active ingredient FTD and a higher incidence of side effects. ('004 Patent, col. 4:51-56). The patent notes that for patients with "severe renal impairment" (defined as a creatinine clearance of 15 to 29 mL/min), there was previously "no information of safety and efficacy," making them ineligible for treatment. ('004 Patent, col. 4:5-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a specific dosing regimen to safely and effectively treat this patient population. The method involves administering a reduced daily dose of 30 to 50 mg/m²/day of the combination drug (measured as FTD-equivalent), divided into two to four daily doses, specifically to patients with a creatinine clearance between 15 and 29 mL/min. ('004 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:36-44). This tailored approach is described as providing a "remarkable anticancer effect" while "avoiding severe side effects." ('004 Patent, col. 4:42-44).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a therapeutic option for a vulnerable patient subgroup that was previously excluded from treatment due to safety concerns and a lack of clinical data. ('004 Patent, col. 4:5-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶49).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the '004 patent recites:
    • A method for treating gastrointestinal cancer, large bowel cancer, or breast cancer;
    • In a patient with a creatinine clearance of 15 mL/min-29 mL/min;
    • Comprising orally administering a drug containing FTD and TPI hydrochloride in a 1:0.5 molar ratio;
    • At a daily dose of 30 to 40 mg/m²/day as FTD-equivalent;
    • Administered in two to four doses a day.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant's proposed generic "tipiracil HCl/trifluridine oral tablets" described in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 214024. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 45).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused instrumentality is the filing of the ANDA itself, which seeks FDA approval to market a generic bioequivalent of Plaintiff's Lonsurf® cancer drug. (Compl. ¶14).
  • The core of the infringement allegation centers on the proposed product labeling for the Defendant's generic drug. (Compl. ¶54). The complaint alleges this label will be "substantially the same as the approved product labeling for Lonsurf®" and will instruct medical personnel to administer the drug in a manner that performs the patented method. (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 59).
  • The commercial context is a Hatch-Waxman dispute, where the act of filing an ANDA with a proposed label that would induce infringement upon launch is considered a statutory act of infringement. (Compl. ¶57).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Claim Chart Summary: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s ANDA filing infringes at least Claim 1 of the '004 patent. The theory is that the proposed product label for Defendant's generic drug will instruct medical professionals to perform each step of the claimed method.

U.S. Patent No. 10,960,004 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for treating gastrointestinal cancer, large bowel cancer or breast cancer... Defendant’s proposed product label will instruct the treatment of these cancers, as it is alleged to be substantially the same as the label for Lonsurf®, which is indicated for these uses. ¶59 col. 10:10-12
...in a patient with a creatinine clearance of 15 mL/min-29 mL/min... The proposed label will instruct use of the drug in patients with this specific level of severe renal impairment. ¶59 col. 10:12-14
...comprising: orally administering a drug comprising α,α,α-trifluorothymidine (FTD) and 5-chloro-6-[(2-iminopyrrolidine-1-yl)methyl]pyrimidine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione hydrochloride in a molar ratio of 1:0.5... Defendant's ANDA product is a generic drug comprising these active pharmaceutical ingredients in the specified molar ratio. ¶59 col. 10:15-21
...at a daily dose of 30 to 40 mg/m²/day as FTD-equivalent... The proposed label will instruct administration at a daily dose falling within this claimed range for the specified patient population. ¶59 col. 10:21-23
...in two to four doses a day to the patient... The proposed label will instruct the daily dose to be divided into two to four separate administrations. ¶59 col. 10:23-26
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether Defendant’s proposed product label necessarily instructs or encourages infringement. The dispute may focus on whether the label successfully "carves out" the patented method of use, or if following the label's instructions for treating patients with severe renal impairment would inevitably result in direct infringement by a physician.
    • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the specific instructions in Defendant's proposed label (e.g., recommended dosage and patient selection criteria) align with the numerical ranges required by Claim 1. The complaint alleges they will (Compl. ¶59), but this will depend on the actual text of the ANDA filing.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a patient with a creatinine clearance of 15 mL/min-29 mL/min"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific patient subgroup at the heart of the patent. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether Defendant’s proposed label instructs treatment for this group. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specifies a particular method for its calculation, creating a potential basis for a claim construction dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself presents a clear numerical range. A party could argue that this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, encompassing any standard medical method for determining if a patient falls within that range.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly states that "CLcr is calculated using Cockcroft-Gault equation." ('004 Patent, col. 6:49-51). A party could argue this statement defines the term for purposes of the patent, thus narrowing the claim scope to only cover patients whose creatinine clearance is determined to be within the 15-29 mL/min range by that specific formula.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Defendant’s proposed product labeling "will induce medical personnel and/or patients to infringe at least claim 1." (Compl. ¶63). The complaint further alleges that Defendant has specific intent to cause infringement, knowing that others will perform the patented acts. (Compl. ¶64).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the '004 patent prior to filing its ANDA, "at least as early as August 5, 2021." (Compl. ¶70). The complaint claims Defendant "acted without reasonable basis for a good faith belief that it would not be liable for infringing," which supports the request for enhanced damages and a finding of an exceptional case. (Compl. ¶70).

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

  • A core issue will be one of induced infringement: does the precise language of Defendant's proposed generic drug label, as filed with the FDA, actively encourage physicians to perform the patented dosing method for the specified patient population, or does it successfully "carve out" this patented use, thereby avoiding inducement?
  • A second central question will be one of invalidity: did the claimed method of adjusting the dosage for patients with severe renal impairment constitute an obvious modification of existing treatment protocols, or does it represent a non-obvious solution to the safety and efficacy problems described in the patent?
  • A potential third issue may be one of definitional scope: will the claim term "creatinine clearance" be construed broadly to include any standard calculation, or will it be narrowly limited to the specific "Cockcroft-Gault equation" disclosed in the patent's specification, potentially creating a non-infringement argument if other calculation methods are viable?