DCT

1:23-cv-00459

Bristol Myers Squibb Co v. AstraZeneca Pharma LP

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00459, D. Del., 04/25/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is a Delaware entity, and Defendant AstraZeneca UK Limited allegedly conducts business in the district through its U.S. subsidiary and agent.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s cancer immunotherapy drug IMFINZI (durvalumab) infringes a patent covering methods of treating cancer by administering an antibody that blocks the PD-L1 immune checkpoint pathway.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy, a field of oncology focused on using a patient’s own immune system to fight cancer by blocking signals that cancer cells use to evade immune attack.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a prior lawsuit filed by some of the current plaintiffs against AstraZeneca in 2017 involving the same patent, which was dismissed without prejudice in 2019. It also references a separate, successful inventorship action concerning the patent-in-suit, which added Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. as an owner of the patent rights and is a predicate for its inclusion as a plaintiff in the current action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-03 Earliest Priority Date for '899 Patent
2016-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,402,899 Issues
2017-05-01 AstraZeneca begins marketing IMFINZI for urothelial carcinoma
2017-07-26 Prior infringement action filed against AstraZeneca
2018-02-16 AstraZeneca begins marketing IMFINZI for non-small cell lung cancer
2020-03-27 AstraZeneca begins marketing IMFINZI for small cell lung cancer
2022-09-02 AstraZeneca begins marketing IMFINZI for biliary tract cancer
2022-10-21 AstraZeneca begins marketing IMFINZI for hepatocellular carcinoma
2022-11-10 AstraZeneca begins marketing IMFINZI for metastatic NSCLC
2023-04-25 Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,402,899, "Immunopotentiative Composition," issued August 2, 2016.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The human immune system has the ability to eliminate cancerous cells, but some cancer cells evade this response by exploiting natural "checkpoints" that regulate immune activity (Compl. ¶¶5-6). Specifically, cancer cells can express a protein called Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1), which binds to the Programmed Death-1 (PD-1) receptor on T-cells, effectively "turning off" the T-cell's ability to attack the cancer ('899 Patent, col. 2:41-55).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method of treatment that counteracts this immune suppression. By administering a substance, such as a monoclonal antibody, that specifically blocks the interaction between PD-L1 and PD-1, the "brakes" are taken off the T-cells, restoring their ability to recognize and destroy cancer cells ('899 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:23-28). This process is described as "immunopotentiation," or the enhancement of the immune response.
    • Technical Importance: This discovery, for which co-inventor Dr. Tasuku Honjo was awarded a Nobel Prize, established a new paradigm for cancer therapy by targeting the immune regulatory pathway rather than the tumor itself (Compl. ¶1).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 19, and 36, and reserves the right to assert numerous other claims (Compl. ¶¶45-47, 68).
    • Independent Claim 1:
      • A method of treating a tumor in a human patient in need thereof comprising
      • administering to the human an effective amount of an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody
      • that inhibits an interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1,
      • wherein the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody treats the tumor in the patient.
    • Independent Claim 19:
      • A method of decreasing tumor growth in a human patient in need thereof comprising
      • administering to the human patient an effective amount of an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody,
      • wherein the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody inhibits an interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1 and decreases the tumor growth in the human patient.
    • Independent Claim 36:
      • A method of suppressing metastasis of tumor cells in a human patient in need thereof comprising
      • administering to the human patient an effective amount of an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody,
      • wherein the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody inhibits an interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is AstraZeneca’s product IMFINZI, whose active ingredient is the antibody durvalumab (Compl. ¶¶13, 36).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • According to the complaint, which cites the product’s own label, IMFINZI (durvalumab) is a human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody designed to bind to human PD-L1 (Compl. ¶36). This binding is alleged to block the interaction between PD-L1 and its receptor, PD-1, thereby interfering with tumor-induced immune suppression and producing an anti-tumor immune response (Compl. ¶36).
    • The complaint alleges that AstraZeneca markets IMFINZI for the treatment of several types of cancer, including various forms of lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma (Compl. ¶¶37-42). It is positioned as a direct competitor to Plaintiffs' own immunotherapy product, OPDIVO (Compl. ¶14).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

  • '899 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of treating a tumor in a human patient in need thereof IMFINZI is prescribed and used for the treatment of a tumor in a human patient according to its prescribing information. ¶43, ¶44 col. 2:17-21
comprising administering to the human an effective amount of an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody IMFINZI’s active ingredient, durvalumab, is an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody that is administered in an effective amount. ¶36, ¶44 col. 6:1-5
that inhibits an interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1, IMFINZI’s label states that durvalumab binds to human PD-L1 and blocks the interaction of PD-L1 with PD-1. ¶36, ¶44 col. 2:23-25
wherein the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody treats the tumor in the patient. When administered to a human patient with a tumor, the IMFINZI antibody is alleged to treat the tumor in the patient. ¶44 col. 11:1-4
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The independent claims all contain "wherein" clauses that describe a therapeutic result (e.g., "wherein the... antibody treats the tumor," "decreases the tumor growth"). A primary legal dispute may arise over whether these clauses are true limitations on the scope of the claim, requiring Plaintiffs to prove a successful outcome for each act of infringement, or whether they merely state the intended purpose and inherent capability of the claimed method.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding IMFINZI's mechanism of action appear to be based on AstraZeneca's own product label (Compl. ¶36). This suggests that the fundamental technical question of whether IMFINZI is an anti-PD-L1 antibody that inhibits the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction may not be the central point of dispute. The case may instead focus on the legal interpretation of the claim language as applied to this known mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "treats the tumor in the patient" (and similar result-oriented clauses like "decreases the tumor growth" and "suppressing metastasis")
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to the infringement analysis. If interpreted as a strict limitation requiring proof of a positive clinical outcome, the burden on Plaintiffs would be substantial. If interpreted to mean the antibody is administered for the purpose of treating and is suitable for treating a tumor, the infringement analysis becomes more straightforward. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Federal Circuit has provided varied guidance on the limiting effect of such "wherein" clauses depending on the specific claim and specification context.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent title, "Immunopotentiative Composition," and the abstract focus on the composition's capability to achieve a result ("useful for treatment of cancer or infection") ('899 Patent, Abstract). This could support a reading that the claims cover the administration of a composition "with the potential" to treat, based on its defined mechanism of action, rather than requiring proof of success in every instance.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the active verb "treats," not "for treating" or "suitable for treating." A defendant may argue that this plain language requires an actual, achieved result. The patent specification includes extensive experimental data demonstrating actual tumor suppression and survival benefits in animal models, which a defendant could argue sets the standard for what "treats" means within the context of the patent ('899 Patent, Figs. 2, 3, 5).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that AstraZeneca’s prescribing information, marketing materials, and websites actively instruct and encourage healthcare providers to perform the patented methods of treatment (Compl. ¶65). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that IMFINZI is especially made and adapted for the infringing use and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶64).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on AstraZeneca's purported knowledge of the '899 patent since at least its issue date in 2016, or alternatively, from receiving service of a complaint in a prior 2017 lawsuit (Compl. ¶56). Plaintiffs further allege pre-suit knowledge based on AstraZeneca's citation to a European counterpart of the '899 patent during its own patent prosecution, its alleged monitoring of competitor portfolios, and its counsel's attendance at the trial for the related inventorship action (Compl. ¶¶57, 59, 60).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: will the "wherein" clauses in the asserted method claims be interpreted as requiring proof of an achieved clinical outcome (e.g., that the tumor was actually treated or its growth decreased), or will they be interpreted as defining the inherent capability and intended purpose of the administered antibody? The resolution of this question will significantly impact the evidentiary burden for proving infringement.
  • A second key issue will be one of scienter: the complaint details an extensive history of prior litigation, related legal actions, and alleged competitive monitoring. A central question for the willfulness claim will be whether this history establishes that AstraZeneca knew of the patent and the high likelihood of infringement, yet proceeded with a course of conduct that was objectively reckless, potentially justifying enhanced damages.