DCT

1:23-cv-00272

Allergan Inc v. Mankind Pharma Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00272, D. Del., 03/13/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation not residing in any U.S. judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of the ophthalmic solution LUMIGAN® 0.01% constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering the drug's formulation.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns pharmaceutical formulations for treating open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension, a market characterized by competition between branded drugs and their generic equivalents.
  • Key Procedural History: This action arises from Defendant's Paragraph IV certification, a declaration that its generic product will not infringe a listed patent or that the patent is invalid. The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was previously litigated against another generic manufacturer (Sandoz), where it was found valid and infringed, a decision affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This prior ruling may create a high bar for the defendant's invalidity or non-infringement arguments.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-03-16 ’504 Patent Priority Date
2010-08-31 FDA approval of LUMIGAN® 0.01%
2010-12-14 ’504 Patent Issue Date
2014-01-13 Prior E.D. Tex. court decision finding ’504 Patent valid and infringed
2015-01-01 Prior Federal Circuit decision affirming E.D. Tex. ruling (approximate date)
2023-01-27 Mankind sends first Notice Letter to Plaintiffs
2023-03-07 Mankind sends second Notice Letter to Plaintiffs
2023-03-13 Complaint Filing Date
2027-06-13 ’504 Patent Expiration Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,851,504, "Enhanced bimatoprost ophthalmic solution," issued December 14, 2010 (’504 Patent).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for an effective and stable ophthalmic formulation for treating glaucoma. The background notes that existing prostaglandin-based treatments required significant amounts of the preservative benzalkonium chloride (BAK), from 150-200 parts per million (ppm), to meet antimicrobial standards (’504 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific aqueous formulation of bimatoprost that is designed for enhanced ocular absorption. The patent describes experiments showing that a formulation with a higher concentration of BAK (200 ppm) resulted in significantly higher absorption of bimatoprost's active acid form into the eye's aqueous humor compared to a control with a lower BAK concentration (50 ppm) (’504 Patent, col. 4:46-52; FIG. 1). The claimed solution specifies a narrow set of ingredients and concentrations to achieve this enhanced effect (’504 Patent, col. 6:16-20).
    • Technical Importance: The invention provides a formulation that purports to increase the bioavailability of the active drug, potentially enhancing its therapeutic effect in treating glaucoma, by precisely controlling the concentration of the preservative BAK, which also acts as a penetration enhancer (’504 Patent, col. 4:52-60).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims of the ’504 Patent (Compl. ¶34). The patent contains one independent claim, Claim 1.
    • Independent Claim 1:
      • A composition having a pH of about 7.3
      • which consists essentially of
      • about 0.01% bimatoprost,
      • about 200 ppm benzalkonium chloride,
      • a phosphate buffer,
      • NaCl, and water,
      • wherein said composition is an aqueous liquid which is formulated for ophthalmic administration.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is "Mankind's ANDA Product," a proposed generic version of Plaintiffs' LUMIGAN® 0.01% ophthalmic solution, identified by ANDA No. 218196 (Compl. ¶1-2).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The product is an ophthalmic solution for reducing intraocular pressure in patients with open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension (Compl. ¶3-4). As a generic drug submitted via an ANDA, it is intended to be a therapeutic equivalent to the branded LUMIGAN® 0.01% product (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges that Mankind intends to commercially manufacture, use, and sell this product in the United States upon receiving FDA approval (Compl. ¶29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the product described in Mankind's ANDA will infringe the ’504 Patent, but does not provide a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis (Compl. ¶34). The infringement theory is predicated on the regulatory requirement that a generic drug product must have the same active ingredient, dosage form, and strength as the branded reference product it copies. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • ’504 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A composition having a pH of about 7.3 The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. ¶34 col. 6:16
which consists essentially of The ANDA Product is alleged to be a generic version of LUMIGAN® 0.01%, and its formulation is therefore alleged to contain only the claimed components or other components that do not materially affect the invention's properties. ¶34, ¶35 col. 6:17
about 0.01% bimatoprost, Mankind's ANDA Product is described as a generic version of LUMIGAN® 0.01%, necessarily containing the active ingredient bimatoprost at a 0.01% concentration. ¶1, ¶28 col. 6:17
about 200 ppm benzalkonium chloride, The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific excipient concentration. ¶34 col. 6:18
a phosphate buffer, The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. ¶34 col. 6:18
NaCl, and water, The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. ¶34 col. 6:19
wherein said composition is an aqueous liquid which is formulated for ophthalmic administration. The ANDA Product is an ophthalmic solution for treating glaucoma. ¶1, ¶4 col. 6:19-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary point of contention will likely be the interpretation of "consists essentially of." The dispute may center on whether any excipients in Mankind's proposed generic formulation, not explicitly listed in Claim 1, materially alter the "basic and novel properties"—such as the specific absorption profile—of the claimed invention.
    • Scope Questions: A second point of contention may arise from the term "about," which modifies the concentrations of both bimatoprost and BAK. The parties may dispute the permissible range of deviation from the specified "0.01%" and "200 ppm" values.
    • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question for the court will be a direct comparison of the formulation described in Mankind's confidential ANDA filing with the limitations of Claim 1. The outcome will depend on whether the concentrations and excipients in the ANDA product fall within the scope of the claim as construed by the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "consists essentially of"

    • Context and Importance: This transitional phrase is critical because it defines the universe of allowed components in the accused formulation. Unlike the more restrictive "consisting of," it allows for the presence of unlisted ingredients so long as they do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the core of the infringement defense could be that an excipient in Mankind's formulation, while not an active ingredient, alters the drug's properties in a way that takes it outside the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of this term, rather than "consisting of," signals the patentee's intent to not exclude all other components.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes a very specific combination of ingredients to achieve enhanced absorption, suggesting the "basic and novel properties" are narrowly tied to the disclosed formulation. The patent describes a specific embodiment with precise ingredients and a pH of 7.3, which could be argued to limit the scope of permissible additions (’504 Patent, col. 2:63-68).

  • The Term: "about" (as in "about 0.01%" and "about 200 ppm")

    • Context and Importance: The scope of this term will determine whether minor variations in the concentration of bimatoprost or BAK in Mankind's product can avoid infringement. Its construction is key to defining the literal boundaries of the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses various formulations with different concentrations, such as 0.03% bimatoprost and 50 ppm BAK, which could be used to argue that "about" should be interpreted broadly to cover a range of values (’504 Patent, col. 4:50-52).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves recite specific values ("0.01%" and "200 ppm"), and the patent provides experimental data tied to these specific concentrations. A party could argue "about" is only meant to encompass standard manufacturing tolerances and not to extend to numerically different formulations that might have different properties (’504 Patent, col. 6:17-18).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Mankind's future importation, sale, or offer for sale of its ANDA Product would induce infringement by end-users who administer the drug (Compl. ¶36).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful infringement" but does request a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees, which is the remedy for such conduct (Prayer for Relief (h)). The basis for this is the allegation that Mankind had "actual and constructive notice" of the ’504 Patent before filing its ANDA, in part due to the patent's listing in the FDA's Orange Book and its successful defense in prior litigation (Compl. ¶9, ¶37).

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

  • A primary question, though not detailed in the complaint, will concern patent validity: given that the ’504 Patent has already survived a validity challenge that was affirmed on appeal, can the Defendant present a new, substantial question of invalidity based on different prior art or a different legal theory that overcomes the precedent set in the Sandoz case?
  • A core infringement issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "consists essentially of" permit the inclusion of any additional excipients present in Mankind's ANDA formulation, or do those unlisted components materially alter the claimed invention's properties, thereby placing the generic product outside the claim's scope?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of chemical composition: does the precise formulation disclosed in Mankind's confidential ANDA—specifically the concentrations of bimatoprost and benzalkonium chloride—fall within a reasonable interpretation of "about 0.01%" and "about 200 ppm" as required by Claim 1?