DCT

1:25-cv-00211

Vifor (International) AG v. Apotex Inc.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00211, D. Del., 02/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant Apotex Corp. is incorporated in Delaware and both defendants are alleged to have committed acts of infringement in the district, including by submitting an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA with the intent to market the accused products in Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ filing of an ANDA to market a generic version of Plaintiffs' Injectafer® (ferric carboxymaltose injection) constitutes an act of infringement of six U.S. patents covering the drug's composition and methods of use.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to water-soluble iron-carbohydrate complexes for intravenous treatment of iron deficiency anemia, a condition affecting a significant patient population for which parenteral iron therapy is a critical treatment modality.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Plaintiffs' receipt of a Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Apotex, which asserted that the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the proposed generic product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-10-23 ’109 Patent Priority Date
2006-01-06 ’702, ’612, ’260, ’091, and ’502 Patents Priority Date
2009-11-03 ’109 Patent Issue Date
2010-07-13 ’702 Patent Issue Date
2013-07-25 FDA approval for Plaintiffs’ Injectafer® product
2014-11-25 ’612 Patent Issue Date
2022-06-21 ’260 Patent Issue Date
2022-09-06 ’091 Patent Issue Date
2022-10-25 ’502 Patent Issue Date
2025-01-09 Apotex sends Paragraph IV Notice Letter to Plaintiffs
2025-02-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 7,612,109 - Water-Soluble Iron-Carbohydrate Complexes, Production Thereof, and Medicaments Containing Said Complexes

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for parenteral iron preparations that are easy to sterilize, have low toxicity, and avoid the risk of dangerous anaphylactic shocks associated with dextran-based iron complexes (’109 Patent, col. 1:24-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a water-soluble iron-carbohydrate complex created by reacting an iron (III) salt with the oxidation product of maltodextrins. This process yields a stable complex with a specific molecular weight range, intended to be safer and more effective for treating iron deficiency anemia (’109 Patent, col. 2:45-53, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for producing a stable, non-dextran iron complex suitable for parenteral administration, addressing safety and manufacturing challenges of prior art treatments (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶39). Independent claim 1 is representative:
    • A water soluble iron carbohydrate complex having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 80,000 to 400,000,
    • comprising the reaction product of:
      • (a) an aqueous solution of an iron (III) salt and
      • (b) an aqueous solution of the oxidation product of (i) at least one maltodextrin and (ii) an aqueous hypochlorite solution at an alkaline pH,
    • wherein, when one maltodextrin is present, the maltodextrin has a dextrose equivalent of between 5 and 20, and wherein, when a mixture of more than one maltodextrin is present, the dextrose equivalent of each individual maltodextrin is between 2 and 40, and the dextrose equivalent of the mixture is between 5 and 20.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general allegation against "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 7,754,702 - Methods and Compositions For Administration of Iron

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes limitations of existing parenteral iron therapies, including health risks (e.g., anaphylactoid reactions with iron dextran), and dosage and administration rate limitations (e.g., high pH, high osmolarity) for other products that necessitate multiple sessions over extended periods to achieve iron repletion (’702 Patent, col. 1:35-col. 2:13).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method of treating iron deficiency anemia by administering a high single-unit dose of an iron carbohydrate complex (specifically, iron carboxymaltose) in a short period of time. This approach is intended to provide a safer and more efficient means for total dose iron delivery in fewer sessions (’702 Patent, col. 2:14-34).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for the rapid intravenous administration of a large, therapeutic dose of iron, which can reduce the number of patient visits and overall cost and inconvenience associated with treating iron deficiency (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 4–9, 16–22, 24, 26, 31–40, and 44–57 (Compl. ¶51). Independent claims 4 and 31 are representative method claims:
  • Independent Claim 31:
    • A method of treating iron deficiency anemia, comprising
    • administering intravenously to a subject in need thereof an iron carboxymaltose complex in a single dosage unit of at least about 0.6 grams of elemental iron
    • in about 15 minutes or less.
  • The complaint explicitly asserts dependent claims (Compl. ¶51).

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,895,612, Methods and Compositions For Administration of Iron, issued November 25, 2014.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’702 patent, describes methods for treating iron deficiency anemia by administering an iron carboxymaltose complex. The claims focus on specific patient populations and administration parameters to ensure safe and effective high-dose iron repletion (’612 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" without further specification (Compl. ¶65).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the use of Apotex's ANDA Products in a method of treating iron deficiency anemia associated with chronic kidney disease and/or heavy uterine bleeding, involving administration of at least 0.6 grams of elemental iron in about 15 minutes or less (Compl. ¶66).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,364,260, Methods and Compositions For Administration of Iron, issued June 21, 2022.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family, is directed to methods of treating iron deficiency or dysfunctional iron metabolism, particularly in patients with cardiomyopathy. It claims the administration of an iron carboxymaltose complex in specific high-dose, rapid-infusion regimens (’260 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" without further specification (Compl. ¶77).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the use of Apotex's ANDA Products for treating iron deficiency associated with cardiomyopathy by administering at least 0.6 grams of elemental iron intravenously in about 15 minutes or less (Compl. ¶78).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,433,091, Methods and Compositions For Administration of Iron, issued September 6, 2022.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the family's focus on high-dose, rapid IV iron administration methods. The claims are directed to treating anemia in a human subject by administering a single dosage unit of at least about 0.7 grams of elemental iron as an iron carboxymaltose complex in 15 minutes or less (’091 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" without further specification (Compl. ¶89).
    • Accused Features: The accused features involve the administration of Apotex's ANDA Products intravenously in a single dosage unit of at least about 0.7 grams of elemental iron in 15 minutes or less to treat anemia (Compl. ¶90).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,478,502, Methods and Compositions For Administration of Iron, issued October 25, 2022.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims methods for treating iron deficiency anemia or functional iron deficiency. The claimed method involves administering an iron complex that results in increased transferrin saturation, using specific high-dose, rapid-infusion parameters (’502 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" without further specification (Compl. ¶101).
    • Accused Features: The accused features include the use of Apotex's ANDA Products to treat iron deficiency anemia by administering at least 0.6 grams of elemental iron intravenously in about 15 minutes or less, resulting in increased transferrin saturation (Compl. ¶102).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Apotex's generic ferric carboxymaltose injection products, which are the subject of ANDA No. 219993 ("Apotex's ANDA Products") (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Apotex's ANDA Products are alleged to have the same active ingredient (ferric carboxymaltose), dosage forms, and strengths as Plaintiffs' Injectafer® product and are intended for the same approved medical indications (Compl. ¶¶34-35).
  • The complaint alleges the product is an aqueous solution of ferric carboxymaltose, an iron carbohydrate complex, formulated for parenteral application (Compl. ¶41).
  • The product is intended to be administered intravenously in a single high dose (e.g., at least 0.6 grams) over a short time period (e.g., 15 minutes or less) to treat various forms of iron deficiency anemia (Compl. ¶54). The product is a generic version of a commercially significant drug, Injectafer®, for treating iron deficiency (Compl. ¶1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’109 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A water soluble iron carbohydrate complex... Apotex's ANDA Products comprise ferric carboxymaltose, which is an iron carbohydrate complex. ¶41 col. 2:45-47
...having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 80,000 to 400,000 daltons... The ferric carboxymaltose in Apotex's ANDA Products has a weight average molecular weight of 80,000 to 300,000 daltons. ¶41 col. 4:9-15
...comprising the reaction product of: (a) an aqueous solution of an iron (III) salt and (b) an aqueous solution of the oxidation product of (i) at least one maltodextrin and (ii) an aqueous hypochlorite solution at an alkaline pH... The active ingredient, ferric carboxymaltose, is a type of iron-carbohydrate complex produced by reacting an iron (III) salt with an oxidized maltodextrin ligand. ¶41 col. 2:45-53
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges a molecular weight of 80k-300k daltons, which falls within the broader 80k-400k dalton range of claim 1. A potential point of contention could be the precise method used to measure the molecular weight and whether Apotex's product meets the claimed range under all relevant testing conditions.
    • Technical Questions: Infringement will depend on whether the specific process used to manufacture Apotex's ferric carboxymaltose falls within the scope of the "reaction product" language of the claim, which specifies oxidation of maltodextrins with a hypochlorite solution.

’702 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 31) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of treating iron deficiency anemia... Apotex's ANDA Products will be used in a method of treating iron deficiency anemia. ¶54 col. 2:35-37
...comprising administering intravenously to a subject in need thereof an iron carboxymaltose complex... Apotex's ANDA Products, which contain an iron carboxymaltose complex, will be administered intravenously to a subject in need thereof. ¶54 col. 4:1-4
...in a single dosage unit of at least about 0.6 grams of elemental iron... The product will be administered in a single dosage unit of at least about 0.6 grams of elemental iron. ¶54 col. 4:5-10
...in about 15 minutes or less. The product will be administered in about 15 minutes or less. ¶54 col. 4:15-18
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the construction of "single dosage unit." Questions may arise as to whether different administration protocols described in Apotex's proposed label could be argued to fall outside a court's construction of this term.
    • Technical Questions: A key question will be whether Apotex's proposed product label instructs or encourages physicians to administer the drug in a manner that meets all limitations of the asserted method claims, which is a required element for proving induced infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "iron carbohydrate complex" (’109 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental composition of the invention. Its construction is critical because it will determine whether Apotex's specific formulation of ferric carboxymaltose is covered. Practitioners may focus on this term because any subtle differences in the chemical structure or properties of Apotex's generic could be used to argue non-infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the complex as obtainable from "one or more maltodextrins" and notes that the molecular weight can range up to 400,000 daltons, suggesting the term is not limited to a single, precise structure (’109 Patent, col. 2:48-49, col. 4:9-10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples with particular reaction conditions and resulting molecular weights (e.g., Mw 271 kDa in Example 1), which could be used to argue that the term should be limited to complexes with characteristics similar to those explicitly disclosed (’109 Patent, col. 5:42-44).

  • The Term: "single dosage unit" (’702 Patent, Claim 31)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed method of high-dose administration. Infringement depends on whether the administration of at least 0.6 grams of iron as instructed on the proposed generic label constitutes a "single dosage unit" as understood in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a total therapeutic dose delivered via one infusion, as opposed to a pre-packaged vial, meets the claim limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as providing "a safe and efficient means for delivery of a total dose of iron in fewer sessions," which may support an interpretation that a "single dosage unit" refers to the total amount delivered in one therapeutic session, regardless of how it is packaged (’702 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent refers to administering "1000 mg elemental iron in about 200 ml to about 300 ml of diluent," which could be argued to define the "single dosage unit" as a specific prepared volume for infusion, potentially excluding other preparation methods or volumes (’702 Patent, col. 7:5-8).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all six patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and contributory infringement under § 271(c) (e.g., Compl. ¶¶44-47, 57-60). The inducement allegations are based on the assertion that Apotex knows of the patents and that its proposed product label will instruct healthcare professionals to administer the generic drug in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶45). The contributory infringement allegations state that Apotex's ANDA products are a material part of the claimed inventions and are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶47).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the structural and procedural limitations of the patents, such as the "weight average molecular weight" of the iron complex and the meaning of administering a "single dosage unit"? The outcomes of these definitions will likely determine whether Apotex’s proposed generic product, which must be bioequivalent to the brand-name drug, falls within the scope of the asserted claims.
  • A second central question will concern infringement by admission. The complaint repeatedly alleges that Apotex’s failure to provide detailed non-infringement arguments in its notice letter constitutes an admission of infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶40, ¶53). The court will need to address the legal weight of this pleading strategy in the context of Apotex's blanket assertion in its notice letter that the patents are not infringed (Compl. ¶32).
  • The ultimate dispute will likely focus on patent validity. Apotex has filed a Paragraph IV certification alleging the patents are invalid and/or unenforceable (Compl. ¶32). Consequently, a key focus of the litigation will be Apotex's defenses, likely involving arguments of obviousness or lack of enablement based on the state of the art for intravenous iron therapies at the time the patents were filed.