DCT

1:23-cv-00690

Bayer IP GmbH v. Indoco Remedies Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00690, D. Del., 06/23/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for Indoco Remedies Limited as a foreign corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in the district. For FPP Holding Company LLC, venue is based on its incorporation in Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA for generic versions of the anticoagulant XARELTO® constitutes an act of infringement of two patents covering specific methods of using rivaroxaban.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for preventing and treating thromboembolic disorders (blood clots) using the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, a widely prescribed oral anticoagulant.
  • Key Procedural History: This action arises under the Hatch-Waxman Act, triggered by Indoco's Paragraph IV certification challenging the patents-in-suit. The patents are listed in the FDA's "Orange Book" in connection with Plaintiffs' XARELTO® products. The complaint notes that Indoco has previously consented to jurisdiction in Delaware in prior ANDA litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-01-31 U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 Priority Date
2017-01-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 Issued
2018-02-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,828,310 Priority Date
2020-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,828,310 Issued
2023-05-11 Indoco sends Paragraph IV Notice Letter to Plaintiffs
2023-06-23 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 - "Prevention and Treatment of Thromboembolic Disorders," Issued January 10, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for an effective and convenient treatment for thromboembolic disorders, which are a major cause of morbidity and mortality (’218 Patent, col. 8:12-20). Traditional therapies, such as heparin, are often non-selective or require inconvenient administration.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method of treatment using a specific direct factor Xa inhibitor, rivaroxaban, administered "no more than once daily" in a "rapid-release tablet" to treat specific disorders like deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms (’218 Patent, Claim 1). The patent presents clinical data suggesting that this once-daily regimen is surprisingly effective, despite the drug's relatively short plasma half-life which might otherwise suggest a need for more frequent (e.g., twice-daily) dosing (’218 Patent, col. 9:1-12, Table 1-1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention claims a simplified oral dosage regimen for a potent anticoagulant, which could improve patient compliance and convenience compared to injected therapies or more frequent oral dosing schedules (’218 Patent, col. 8:35-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A method of treating a specific thromboembolic disorder.
    • The disorder is selected from pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thromboses, and stroke.
    • The method comprises administering the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban.
    • Administration is "no more than once daily for at least five consecutive days."
    • The drug is delivered in a "rapid-release tablet."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,828,310 - "Reducing the Risk of Cardiovascular Events," Issued November 10, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the high risk of cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, death) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD). It notes that existing therapies, including aspirin alone or other antithrombotic combinations, either lack sufficient efficacy or introduce an unacceptably high risk of major bleeding (’310 Patent, col. 2:2-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific combination therapy comprising a low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) administered with a standard daily dose of aspirin (75-100 mg). The patent specification extensively discusses the results of the COMPASS clinical trial, which allegedly demonstrated that this particular combination therapy is "clinically proven effective" at reducing the risk of major cardiovascular events without an unacceptably high risk of fatal or critical-organ bleeding (’310 Patent, col. 3:45-55, col. 12:44-50).
  • Technical Importance: This combination therapy claims to provide a superior risk reduction benefit for a large, high-risk patient population (those with stable CAD/PAD) compared to the long-standing standard of care, aspirin monotherapy (’310 Patent, col. 12:41-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A method of reducing the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in a human patient with CAD and/or PAD.
    • The method comprises administering rivaroxaban and aspirin.
    • The amounts are "clinically proven effective" for the stated risk reduction.
    • Rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily.
    • Aspirin is administered in an amount of 75-100 mg daily.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Indoco's ANDA No. 218445 products, which are proposed generic versions of XARELTO® oral tablets in 2.5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg dosage strengths (Compl. ¶10). The infringement is statutory, based on the act of filing the ANDA seeking approval to market these products before patent expiration (Compl. ¶62, ¶72).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products contain rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor, and are intended as generic equivalents to XARELTO® (Compl. ¶39).
  • The infringement allegations are based on the proposed product labeling for Indoco's ANDA products. The complaint alleges the label for the 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg strengths will direct a method of use infringing the ’218 Patent (Compl. ¶45), while the label for the 2.5 mg strength will direct a method of use infringing the ’310 Patent (Compl. ¶52).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of treating a thromboembolic disorder ... wherein the thromboembolic disorder is selected from the group consisting of pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thromboses, and stroke. Upon information and belief, the proposed labeling for Indoco's 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg ANDA Products directs use for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). ¶45 col. 11:31-46
...comprising administering a direct factor Xa inhibitor that is 5-Chloro-N-({(5S)-2-oxo-3-[4-(3-oxo-4-morpholinyl)phenyl]-1,3-oxazolidin-5-yl}methyl)-2-thiophenecarboxamide... In its notice letter, Indoco stated that its ANDA Products contain rivaroxaban. ¶39 col. 3:19-29
...no more than once daily for at least five consecutive days... The complaint alleges that the proposed labeling for the 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg products directs use in a manner that satisfies the "no more than once daily" requirement. ¶45 col. 12:1-5
...in a rapid-release tablet... Indoco's notice letter stated the dosage form is oral tablets, which the complaint alleges satisfies the "rapid-release tablet" requirement. ¶44 col. 7:15-19
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the term "rapid-release tablet." The patent defines this term with reference to a specific USP dissolution test (’218 Patent, col. 7:15-19). The infringement analysis will depend on whether Indoco's formulation can be proven to meet this technical definition.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Indoco's proposed oral tablets meet the specific dissolution profile of a "rapid-release tablet" as required by the claim? The complaint makes a conclusory allegation on this point.

U.S. Patent No. 10,828,310 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of reducing the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death in a human patient with coronary artery disease and/or peripheral artery disease... Upon information and belief, the proposed label for Indoco's 2.5 mg ANDA Product directs a method for reducing the risk of these specific events in patients with CAD and/or PAD. ¶52 col. 4:1-10
...comprising administering to the human patient rivaroxaban and aspirin in amounts that are clinically proven effective... The complaint alleges that the proposed label for the 2.5 mg product directs the administration of rivaroxaban and aspirin, and that the specified dosages are those clinically proven effective. ¶52 col. 4:5-10
...wherein rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily... The proposed labeling for the 2.5 mg product is alleged to direct administration of rivaroxaban twice daily. ¶52 col. 4:8-10
...and aspirin is administered in an amount of 75-100 mg daily. The proposed labeling is alleged to direct the co-administration of aspirin in a daily amount of 75-100 mg. ¶52 col. 4:10-11
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does the claim term "clinically proven effective" impose a separate, positive limitation on the method, or is it a descriptive preamble element that is satisfied by performing the subsequent dosage steps? The patent specification heavily links this phrase to the results of a specific clinical trial (’310 Patent, col. 3:26-40).
    • Technical Questions: In an ANDA case, infringement is often determined by whether the proposed label instructs users to perform the claimed method. The central question will be whether the instructions on Indoco's 2.5 mg product label will induce physicians to prescribe, and patients to take, the product in the combination and for the indications required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’218 Patent:

  • The Term: "rapid-release tablet"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the physical dosage form. Infringement will depend on whether Indoco's accused product meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent provides a specific, technical definition tied to a standard pharmaceutical test, creating a clear potential point of non-infringement if the accused product has a different dissolution profile.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue for a general, common-sense meaning of rapid release, not strictly limited by the single example test.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states, "In the context of the present invention, rapid-release tablets are in particular those which, according to the USP release method using apparatus 2 (paddle), have a Q value (30 minutes) of 75%" (’218 Patent, col. 7:15-19). This explicit quantitative definition may support a narrow construction.

For the ’310 Patent:

  • The Term: "clinically proven effective"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the body of the claim and qualifies the administered amounts of rivaroxaban and aspirin. Its construction is critical to determining whether it adds a limitation to the claim beyond the specific dosages that follow. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could either narrow the claim to the specific context of the COMPASS trial data cited in the patent or render it as a preamble-like statement with no limiting effect.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term is merely descriptive of the inherent result of administering the specified 2.5 mg rivaroxaban / 75-100 mg aspirin combination, and thus following the dosage steps inherently satisfies this limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly ties the invention to the specific findings of the COMPASS trial, stating the "invention concerns the discovery that combination therapy... shows efficacy" and that the "findings presented herein were obtained from the phase III COMPASS trial" (’310 Patent, col. 3:45-55). This may support an argument that "clinically proven effective" requires a level of proof demonstrated by a large-scale clinical trial, potentially limiting the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. Inducement is based on the allegation that Indoco's proposed product labeling will actively instruct and encourage physicians and patients to use the generic products in a manner that directly infringes the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 56). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the products are especially made for infringing uses and are not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 57).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, but it lays the factual groundwork for such a claim. It alleges that Indoco has knowledge of the patents via their listing in the FDA's Orange Book and, at a minimum, from receiving the notice letter dated May 11, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 48, 55). The complaint alleges that Indoco "specifically intends to infringe" the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 55).

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

This ANDA litigation will likely center on the interplay between the patent claims and the contents of the defendant's proposed product labeling. The key questions for the court appear to be:

  • A core issue will be one of induced infringement: Will the instructions for use on Indoco's proposed product labels for its various rivaroxaban dosages inevitably lead medical professionals and patients to perform all the steps of the methods claimed in the ’218 and ’310 patents for the specified patient populations?
  • A key question of claim construction for the '218 patent will be one of technical definition: Does Indoco's generic tablet formulation meet the specific dissolution profile required by the term "rapid-release tablet" as explicitly defined in the patent's specification?
  • A central legal question for the '310 patent will be the limiting effect of claim language: Does the phrase "clinically proven effective" add a substantive limitation to the claim that must be separately proven, or is it merely a laudatory phrase that describes the result of performing the claimed dosage steps?