DCT

1:23-cv-00383

Actelion Pharma US Inc v. Alembic Pharma Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00383, D. Del., 04/04/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant Alembic Inc. because it is a Delaware corporation. Venue over foreign parent Alembic Ltd. is based on its alleged control over its Delaware subsidiary, its systematic contacts with the district, and its previous consent to jurisdiction by initiating and defending other litigation in the District of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of the drug Selexipag constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering heterocyclic compound derivatives.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves small molecule chemical compounds designed as stable, orally-active PGI₂ receptor agonists for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).
  • Key Procedural History: This action was triggered by Defendant Alembic Ltd.’s submission of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification, asserting that U.S. Patent No. 7,205,302 is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of its proposed generic product. The complaint alleges that Alembic was aware of a consent judgment in a separate litigation against a third party in which the '302 patent was admitted to be valid and enforceable.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-04-26 '302 Patent Priority Date
2007-04-17 '302 Patent Issue Date
2015-12-21 FDA approval for UPTRAVI® (selexipag)
2020-02-28 Date by which Alembic allegedly became aware of the '302 patent
2023-02-20 Date by which Alembic allegedly became aware of a prior Consent Judgment
2023-02-20 Date of Alembic's Paragraph IV Certification Notice Letter
2023-04-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,205,302 - "Heterocyclic Compound Derivatives and Medicines"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,205,302, "Heterocyclic Compound Derivatives and Medicines", issued April 17, 2007. (Compl. ¶12, ¶29; '302 Patent, cover).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that while Prostaglandin I₂ (PGI₂) has potent and beneficial pharmacological effects for treating vascular diseases, it is chemically unstable and has a very short biological half-life, making it unsuitable for use as a practical medicine. ('302 Patent, col. 1:27-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a class of novel heterocyclic compounds that act as PGI₂ receptor agonists. Unlike PGI₂, these compounds are non-prostanoid and are designed to have greater chemical stability, allowing them to serve as effective therapeutic agents for various conditions, including pulmonary hypertension. ('302 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:41-48). The general structure of these compounds is represented by formula [1]. ('302 Patent, col. 1:55-65).
  • Technical Importance: The development of a stable, orally available PGI₂ receptor agonist represented a significant goal in treating PAH and other vascular diseases, as it could overcome the significant delivery and stability challenges associated with administering PGI₂ itself. ('302 Patent, col. 23:45-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims of the '302 patent and notes that the defendant's Paragraph IV certification notice letter did not allege noninfringement of claims 1-6 and 10-15. (Compl. ¶38, ¶43). The independent claims in this range are Claim 1 and Claim 10.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A pharmaceutical composition comprising a heterocyclic compound represented by the general formula (1), or a salt thereof, as an active ingredient;
    • Wherein formula (1) defines a specific Markush structure with a central heterocyclic core and various substituent groups denoted as R¹, R², Y, Z, A, D, E, G, and Q; and
    • A pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
  • Independent Claim 10:
    • A heterocyclic compound represented by the general formula (1z), or a salt thereof;
    • Wherein formula (1z) defines a more specific Markush structure that is a subset of the compounds of formula (1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Alembic's ANDA Product, identified as generic Selexipag oral tablets in strengths of 0.2 mg, 0.4 mg, 0.6 mg, 0.8 mg, 1.4 mg, and 1.6 mg. (Compl. ¶13, ¶37). The application is identified as ANDA No. 214414. (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a proposed generic version of Plaintiffs’ UPTRAVI® brand tablets, which contain the active ingredient selexipag. (Compl. ¶13, ¶27, ¶30).
  • Selexipag is a drug indicated for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) to delay disease progression and reduce the risk of hospitalization. (Compl. ¶27). The act of infringement alleged in the complaint is the filing of the ANDA itself under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), which seeks FDA approval to market this generic drug before the expiration of the '302 patent. (Compl. ¶13, ¶43).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart or a technical breakdown of how the accused Selexipag product meets the limitations of the asserted claims. The infringement allegation is statutory, based on the act of filing ANDA No. 214414 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A). (Compl. ¶43). The complaint asserts on information and belief that Alembic's ANDA Product "meets or embodies all elements of one or more claims of the '302 patent." (Compl. ¶44). The central, unarticulated theory is that the chemical structure of selexipag, the active ingredient in the ANDA product, falls within the scope of the Markush structure defined in the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary dispute will concern claim construction. A court will have to determine whether the chemical structure of Selexipag is encompassed by the definition of the compounds in the asserted claims of the ’302 patent. The analysis will turn on the interpretation of the terms defining the various chemical moieties in the claimed Markush structure, such as "optionally substituted aryl."
    • Technical Questions: The key technical question is one of structural chemistry: does the specific molecular structure of selexipag map to the generic formula recited in an asserted claim? The complaint does not present the evidence for this mapping, which will be a central focus of discovery and expert testimony.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "optionally substituted aryl" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the R¹ and R² groups, which form a significant part of the core molecular scaffold. The definition of what constitutes an "aryl" and what substitutions are permitted is critical for determining the breadth of the claim and whether the corresponding parts of the selexipag molecule fall within its scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a definition for "aryl" as "a aryl having 6 to 10 carbon atoms, for example, phenyl, 1-naphthyl, and 2-naphthyl." (’302 Patent, col. 13:30-32). The claim itself allows for "1 to 3 substituents" from a lengthy list of chemical groups, suggesting considerable structural variation is contemplated. (’302 Patent, col. 67:53-59).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower construction might point to the specific embodiments and working examples, which predominantly feature phenyl and p-tolyl groups, to argue that the true scope of the invention is more limited than the generic language might suggest. (’302 Patent, col. 3:35-65; col. 37-39).

  • The Term: "alkylene" (Claim 1, defining group "D")

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the "D" linker component of the claimed molecule, which connects the nitrogen-containing group "A" to the "E" group. The length and structure of this linker are fundamental to the overall chemical identity of the compound.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "alkylene" as a "straight or branched alkylene having 1 to 8 carbon atoms," providing a wide range of possible structures. (’302 Patent, col. 13:35-38).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states that "alkylene having 3 to 6 carbon atoms is preferable, and alkylene having 4 carbon atoms is more preferable," which could be used to argue that structures outside this preferred range are less central to the invention or potentially excluded from the patentably distinct scope. (’302 Patent, col. 13:40-42).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads that should Alembic’s ANDA be approved, its commercial activities will induce infringement by others (e.g., physicians and patients) and contribute to infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c). (Compl. ¶46, ¶49).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges facts that may support a future claim for willful infringement. It asserts that Alembic had "actual and constructive notice" of the '302 patent prior to filing its ANDA. (Compl. ¶47). Specifically, it alleges Alembic was aware of the patent before February 28, 2020, and was also aware of a consent judgment in a prior case where third parties admitted the '302 patent's claims were valid and enforceable. (Compl. ¶34, ¶36). These allegations suggest that Alembic may have proceeded with its ANDA filing despite knowing of the patent and a high risk of infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the precise chemical structure of selexipag, the active ingredient in the accused ANDA product, fall within the scope of the Markush groups recited in the asserted claims of the '302 patent? The case will likely depend on the judicial interpretation of terms defining the compound’s core and substituent moieties.
  • A second key question will relate to patent validity: assuming the complaint is amended to reflect the defendant’s invalidity contentions, the court will have to determine whether the asserted claims are invalid as anticipated or obvious in light of prior art existing at the time of the invention.
  • A final question will concern willful infringement: if infringement is found, the court may consider whether Alembic’s alleged pre-suit knowledge of the '302 patent and a prior consent judgment affirming its validity rises to the level of egregious conduct required to support a finding of willfulness and an award of enhanced damages or attorneys’ fees.