DCT

1:23-cv-01383

AstraZeneca Ab v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01383, D. Del., 12/04/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and because Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is an alien corporation that may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of Plaintiff's FARXIGA® (dapagliflozin) product constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering the dapagliflozin compound.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns a specific C-aryl glucoside compound that functions as a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a class of drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes by increasing glucose excretion through urine.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,515,117, is listed in the FDA's Orange Book for dapagliflozin and that its term was extended under 35 U.S.C. § 156, now expiring on October 4, 2025. This case was triggered by Defendants' Paragraph IV certification in their ANDA, asserting that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the proposed generic product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-10-12 ’117 Patent Priority Date
2003-02-04 ’117 Patent Issue Date
2014-01-08 FDA Approval of FARXIGA® (NDA No. 202293)
2023-02-23 Defendants' Notice Letter to Plaintiff regarding ANDA No. 211416
2023-12-04 Complaint Filing Date
2025-10-04 ’117 Patent Extended Expiration Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,515,117 - C-ARYL GLUCOSIDE SGLT2 INHIBITORS AND METHOD

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,515,117 ("the ’117 patent"), C-ARYL GLUCOSIDE SGLT2 INHIBITORS AND METHOD, Issued February 4, 2003.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of managing type II diabetes (NIDDM), which is characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from excessive glucose production and peripheral insulin resistance (ʼ117 Patent, col. 2:13-18). A key factor contributing to hyperglycemia is the reabsorption of glucose from the glomerular filtrate in the kidney, a process primarily mediated by the sodium-dependent glucose transporter SGLT2 (ʼ117 Patent, col. 2:42-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a class of C-aryl glucoside compounds that selectively inhibit SGLT2 (ʼ117 Patent, col. 1:11-18). By inhibiting this transporter, the patented compounds are designed to block the reuptake of glucose in the kidneys, thereby promoting the excretion of glucose in the urine and helping to normalize plasma glucose levels (ʼ117 Patent, col. 2:53-59).
  • Technical Importance: This therapeutic approach provides a mechanism for controlling blood glucose that is independent of insulin action, representing a novel modality for treating diabetes and its associated complications (ʼ117 Patent, col. 2:32-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 14 (Compl. ¶¶ 45-49).
  • Independent Claim 1: Claims a specific chemical compound defined by its structure:
    • A compound having the structure depicted, which corresponds to the compound known as dapagliflozin.
  • Dependent Claim 14: Claims a method of treating or delaying the progression of various conditions (including diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and hyperglycemia) by administering a "therapeutically effective amount" of the compound of claim 1 to a mammal.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims of the ’117 patent (Prayer for Relief ¶1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the proposed 5 mg and 10 mg dapagliflozin tablets for which Sun seeks FDA approval via Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 211416 (the "ANDA Products") (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The ANDA Products are generic versions of AstraZeneca's FARXIGA® brand drug product (Compl. ¶1). The active pharmaceutical ingredient in these products is dapagliflozin, a compound the complaint alleges is claimed by the ’117 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 40). FARXIGA® is a commercially marketed product approved as a treatment to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (Compl. ¶41). Sun’s ANDA filing represents a formal act to obtain approval to market its generic dapagliflozin tablets in the U.S. before the expiration of the ’117 patent (Compl. ¶1, ¶45).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’117 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A compound having the structure: [depicted chemical structure of dapagliflozin] The complaint alleges that Sun's ANDA Products are tablets containing the active ingredient dapagliflozin, which is the compound claimed in claim 1 of the '117 patent. The act of infringement is the submission of ANDA No. 211416 seeking approval to market this compound. ¶1, ¶40, ¶45 col. 25:10-25

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central infringement question for claim 1 is one of direct chemical identity. A dispute could arise if the defendant argues that its dapagliflozin is a different polymorph, salt, or stereoisomer not covered by the claim's structural depiction. However, in a typical ANDA case, the primary dispute is more likely to concern the patent's validity rather than the identity of the compound.
  • Technical Questions: The key technical question is whether the dapagliflozin for which Sun seeks marketing approval in its ANDA is structurally identical to the compound recited in claim 1. This includes matching the specific stereochemistry shown in the patent claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For a compound claim such as claim 1, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim is defined by the depicted chemical structure. However, for the asserted method claim 14, the following term may be a focus.

  • The Term: "therapeutically effective amount" (from claim 14)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for infringement of method claim 14, which requires administering the claimed compound in a specific manner to achieve a therapeutic outcome. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement of the method claim will depend on whether Sun's proposed product label instructs or encourages administration of a dosage that meets this "effective amount" standard for the indications listed in the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition. A party could argue the term should be broadly construed to cover any amount that provides a therapeutic benefit for any of the numerous conditions listed, such as diabetes, hyperglycemia, or insulin resistance (ʼ117 Patent, col. 26:58-65).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a wide dosage range for adults, "preferably between 10 and 2,000 mg per day" (ʼ117 Patent, col. 20:17-18). A party could argue this provides context for a more defined, though still broad, range of what constitutes an effective amount, potentially excluding de minimis amounts.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges indirect infringement of at least claim 14 (Compl. ¶¶ 48-49).

  • Inducement: The inducement allegation is based on the assertion that Sun will copy the FDA-approved FARXIGA® label for its ANDA Products. This label allegedly instructs physicians and patients to use the product in a manner that directly infringes the method of claim 14, and that Sun has actual knowledge of the '117 patent from its receipt of a Notice of Certification (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 48).
  • Contributory Infringement: The complaint alleges that Sun's dapagliflozin tablets are a material part of the invention of claim 14, are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and will be sold with knowledge of their use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶49).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it alleges that Sun has "actual knowledge of the '117 patent" (Compl. ¶44) and requests that the court declare the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle the plaintiff to an award of attorney fees (Prayer for Relief ¶7).

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

  • A central issue will be one of patent validity: Can Sun demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the ’117 patent are invalid, likely on grounds of obviousness over prior art SGLT2 inhibitors or other related compounds known at the time of the invention?
  • A key evidentiary question for the method claim will be one of induced infringement: Assuming claim 14 is valid, does Sun's proposed product label, by virtue of copying the innovator's label, provide sufficient instruction and encouragement to physicians and patients to administer a "therapeutically effective amount" of dapagliflozin for the patented methods, thereby establishing the requisite intent for inducement?
  • A foundational question for infringement will be one of chemical identity: While likely not the primary battleground, the court must first determine whether the dapagliflozin compound described in Sun’s ANDA falls within the precise structural and stereochemical scope of the compound depicted in claim 1 of the ’117 patent.