DCT

1:23-cv-01420

Harmony Biosciences LLC v. MSN Pharma Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01420, D. Del., 12/11/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in Delaware because Defendant MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation and Defendant MSN Laboratories Private Limited, a foreign corporation, is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of the drug WAKIX® (pitolisant hydrochloride) constitutes an act of infringement of three U.S. patents covering the drug's specific crystalline form and its use for treating sleep disorders.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns pitolisant, a histamine H3-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist, and specifically a crystalline salt form developed to improve its pharmaceutical properties for treating narcolepsy and other conditions involving excessive daytime sleepiness.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiffs have recently filed similar infringement suits against other generic drug manufacturers, including Lupin and AET Pharma, over the same patents and product. It also mentions that Defendant MSN Laboratories Private Limited filed a declaratory judgment action against one of the plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Virginia just days before this complaint was filed, indicating a multi-front legal battle over generic entry for WAKIX®.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-02-10 Earliest Priority Date for ’197 & ’430 Patents
2005-04-01 Earliest Priority Date for ’947 Patent
2012-06-26 ’197 Patent Issued
2013-01-15 ’430 Patent Issued
2013-07-16 ’947 Patent Issued
2019-08-14 WAKIX® (pitolisant hydrochloride) receives first FDA approval
2023-10-13 MSN sends correspondence (Paragraph IV notice) regarding its ANDA
2023-11-09 Plaintiffs file suit against Lupin Limited et al. for infringement
2023-11-21 Plaintiffs file suit against AET Pharma US, Inc. et al. for infringement
2023-12-08 MSN files declaratory judgment action in E.D. Virginia
2023-12-11 Complaint filed in the instant action

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,486,947 - "Treatment of Parkinson's Disease, Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Dementia with Lewy Bodies, Vascular Dementia with Non-Imidazole Alkylamines Histamine H₃-Receptor Ligands," Issued July 16, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that a large proportion of patients with neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's disease (PD) suffer from sleep and vigilance disorders, and that existing treatments for these symptoms are often "poorly efficient" (’947 Patent, col. 2:40-55). Furthermore, the role of the histamine H3 receptor in these specific conditions had not previously been established (’947 Patent, col. 2:5-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is based on the "unexpectedly demonstrated" discovery that a class of non-imidazole alkylamines, which act as histamine H3-receptor antagonists, can "markedly improve" major symptoms of these diseases, particularly sleep/wakefulness disorders (’947 Patent, col. 3:1-4). The patent claims methods of using these compounds to treat conditions like excessive daytime sleepiness (’947 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention established a new therapeutic pathway for treating sleep-related symptoms in specific patient populations, such as those with PD, for whom effective treatments were previously limited (’947 Patent, col. 2:49-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-5 and 10-14 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • A method for treating excessive daytime sleepiness
    • comprising administering to a patient in need thereof a compound of formula (IIa)
    • wherein the formula defines a chemical structure encompassing pitolisant (a piperidine ring connected via a propyl-ether-propyl linker to a substituted phenyl group) (’947 Patent, col. 43:55-45:34).

U.S. Patent No. 8,207,197 - "Monohydrochloride Salt of 1-[3-[3-(4-Chlorophenyl) Propoxy]Propyl]-Piperidine," Issued June 26, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent explains that the base form of the active pharmaceutical ingredient is an oil, and a previously known oxalate salt form has "low aqueous solubility," both of which limit the compound's suitability for use in a pharmaceutical product (’197 Patent, col. 1:12-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a novel crystalline monohydrochloride salt of the compound. This new salt form is described as having "unexpectedly much higher" aqueous solubility and a "better profile of stability to oxidation" compared to other forms (’197 Patent, col. 2:57-65). The specific crystalline polymorph is defined by its characteristic X-ray powder diffraction pattern (’197 Patent, col. 2:52-56).
  • Technical Importance: The creation of a stable and highly soluble salt form is a critical step in pharmaceutical development, enabling the formulation of a viable and effective oral dosage form (’197 Patent, col. 2:63-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • Crystalline 1-[3-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)propoxy]propyl]-piperidine monohydrochloride of formula (I)
    • optionally comprising water up to 6%
    • and having an X-ray diffractogram that comprises characteristic peaks (2θ) at 11.2°, 19.9°, 20.7° and 34.1° ±0.2° (’197 Patent, col. 14:21-27).

U.S. Patent No. 8,354,430 - "Monohydrochloride Salt of 1-[3-[3-(4-Chlorophenyl) Propoxy]Propyl]-Piperidine," Issued January 15, 2013

Technology Synopsis

This patent, a divisional of the application that led to the ’197 Patent, addresses the same problem of finding a pharmaceutically suitable form of pitolisant (’430 Patent, col. 1:21-34). It claims methods of using the novel crystalline monohydrochloride salt, which possesses superior solubility and stability, for treating various medical conditions, including sleep disorders like diurnal somnolence (’430 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

Asserted Claims

At least independent Claim 3 (Compl. ¶81).

Accused Features

The accused instrumentality is the proposed use of MSN's generic product for the "treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness," which Plaintiffs allege infringes the claimed method of treating "diurnal somnolence" (Compl. ¶57, ¶81; ’430 Patent, Claim 3).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendants' proposed generic pitolisant hydrochloride tablets, for which they seek FDA approval via ANDA No. 218873 (Compl. ¶1, ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product contains pitolisant hydrochloride, the same active ingredient as Plaintiffs’ WAKIX® tablets (Compl. ¶56). It is intended to be a generic equivalent for the same indication, the "treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness" (Compl. ¶57). The complaint characterizes WAKIX® as a "first-in-class drug" and the only FDA-approved treatment for excessive daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy that is not a scheduled controlled substance, suggesting significant commercial value that the generic product aims to capture (Compl. ¶2, ¶5, ¶34).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,486,947 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for treating excessive daytime sleepiness... Defendants seek approval to market their ANDA product for the "treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness." The product's label will instruct physicians and patients on this use, thereby inducing infringement. ¶57, ¶61 col. 43:55-56
...comprising administering to a patient in need thereof a compound of formula (IIa): ... wherein R¹ and R² form together with the nitrogen atom to which they are attached a saturated nitrogen-containing ring ... the chain A¹¹ represents an unbranched alkyl group -(CH₂)nII- where nII is 3; the group X¹¹ is -O-; the chain B¹¹ is an unbranched alkyl comprising 3 carbon atoms; and the group Y¹¹ represents a phenyl group, unsubstituted or mono- or polysubstituted... The MSN ANDA Products contain pitolisant hydrochloride. The chemical structure of pitolisant (1-[3-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)propoxy]propyl]-piperidine) falls within the scope of the compounds defined by formula (IIa) and its associated definitions in the claim. ¶56 col. 43:57-45:34

U.S. Patent No. 8,207,197 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Crystalline 1-[3-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)propoxy]propyl]-piperidine monohydrochloride of formula (I) The MSN ANDA Products contain pitolisant hydrochloride. By filing an ANDA, Defendants represent that their product is the same as and bioequivalent to WAKIX®, which is formulated with the patented crystalline form. ¶56, ¶69, ¶72 col. 14:21-23
optionally comprising water up to 6% The complaint does not provide specific detail for analysis of this element. - col. 14:25
and having an X-ray diffractogram that comprises characteristic peaks (2θ) at 11.2°, 19.9°, 20.7° and 34.1° ±0.2°. The complaint does not provide specific data on the crystalline form of the MSN ANDA product but alleges infringement based on the filing of the ANDA to market a generic version of WAKIX®, which embodies the patented crystalline form. ¶69, ¶72 col. 14:25-27

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the '430 Patent, a potential question is whether the label indication "excessive daytime sleepiness" (Compl. ¶57) is coextensive with the claimed method of treating "diurnal somnolence" (’430 Patent, Claim 3). While the terms are often used synonymously, any subtle differences could be explored during litigation.
  • Technical Questions: The central technical question for the ’197 and ’430 patents is one of polymorphism. Does the crystalline form of pitolisant hydrochloride in MSN's ANDA product exhibit the same X-ray diffraction pattern claimed in the patents? The litigation will likely focus on expert analysis and comparison of the physical characteristics of the accused product against the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "crystalline" (as used in Claim 1 of the '197 Patent and incorporated into the '430 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the bedrock of the '197 and '430 patents, which are directed to a specific solid-state form of the drug, not an amorphous version. The entire infringement case for these patents hinges on whether MSN's product contains the claimed "crystalline" monohydrochloride salt. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the claims are limited to a specific polymorph or could be construed more broadly.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition of "crystalline," which may support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning as understood in chemistry (i.e., a solid material whose constituents are arranged in a highly ordered microscopic structure).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links the term to a specific, novel crystalline form possessing advantageous properties (’197 Patent, col. 2:33-36). Claim 1 itself further limits the term by requiring a specific X-ray diffractogram with enumerated peaks (’197 Patent, col. 14:25-27), suggesting "crystalline" as used in the claim refers to this specific polymorph and not just any crystalline form.

Term: "excessive daytime sleepiness" (as used in Claim 1 of the '947 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the condition to be treated in the method-of-use claim. Proof of induced infringement requires evidence that MSN's product label will instruct or encourage treatment for this specific condition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for Broader/Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification identifies "excessive daytime sleepiness (including narcolepsy or 'sleep attacks')" as a key "vigilance disorder" that afflicts PD patients (’947 Patent, col. 2:42-46). This context, provided in the background section, may be used by either party to frame the scope of the term as understood by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. The complaint's allegation of a direct label match ("treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness," Compl. ¶57) suggests a direct correspondence that may limit extensive construction disputes.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that upon FDA approval, Defendants will induce infringement of all three patents-in-suit. This allegation is based on the act of providing a product label and package insert that will instruct physicians, pharmacies, and patients to administer the generic product for the patented indications, thereby causing direct infringement by the end-users (Compl. ¶61, ¶73, ¶85).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges Defendants had "actual knowledge" of the patents-in-suit prior to filing their ANDA, as evidenced by the required Paragraph IV certification sent to Plaintiffs (Compl. ¶63, ¶75, ¶87). It further alleges that Defendants' certification of non-infringement or invalidity was made "without a reasonable basis," which forms the foundation for a claim of willful infringement and a request for the case to be deemed "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶64, ¶76, ¶88).

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

  • A core issue will be one of crystalline identity: what is the precise polymorphic form of pitolisant hydrochloride in Defendants' ANDA product, and does its X-ray diffraction pattern fall within the scope of the characteristic peaks recited in the '197 and '430 patents? Resolution of this technical and evidentiary question will be determinative for the product patent claims.
  • A key legal and factual question will be one of induced infringement: will the final, FDA-approved label for Defendants' generic product contain instructions and indications that actively encourage or direct medical professionals and patients to use the drug in a manner that directly infringes the method-of-use claims of the '947 and '430 patents?
  • A significant strategic question will be the impact of parallel litigation: how will the proceedings and potential outcomes in Plaintiffs' other lawsuits against generic challengers, as well as Defendants' own declaratory judgment action in a different district, influence claim construction, discovery, and potential resolution of the present case?