DCT

1:22-cv-10967

Enanta Pharma Inc v. Pfizer Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-10967, D. Mass., 06/21/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Pfizer maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including laboratory, research, and manufacturing facilities, and has committed acts of infringement in Massachusetts by offering for sale and selling the accused product.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s PAXLOVID™ product, an oral antiviral for the treatment of COVID-19, infringes a patent directed to compounds that inhibit coronavirus replication.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves small-molecule protease inhibitors designed to block the function of a key viral enzyme, 3CL protease, which is essential for the replication of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-2.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has a history of developing protease inhibitors for other viruses, such as HCV. It alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of the patent-in-suit on the day it was issued.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-07-20 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,358,953
2022-06-14 U.S. Patent No. 11,358,953 Issued
2022-06-21 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,358,953 - "Functionalized Peptides as Antiviral Agents"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11358953, "Functionalized Peptides as Antiviral Agents", issued June 14, 2022 ('953 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for effective therapies for coronavirus infections ('953 Patent, col. 2:18-24). It identifies the 3C-Like protease (3CLpro), a viral enzyme critical for the virus's life cycle, as an ideal antiviral target because there is no human equivalent, reducing the potential for off-target effects ('953 Patent, col. 2:5-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a class of chemical compounds, described as functionalized peptides, designed to inhibit the 3CLpro enzyme, thereby blocking the processing of viral polyproteins and halting viral replication ('953 Patent, col. 1:15-24, Abstract). The core of the invention is a general chemical structure, Formula (I), which defines the class of inhibitor compounds ('953 Patent, col. 2:49-65, Fig. (1)).
  • Technical Importance: The development of direct-acting antiviral agents that target specific viral enzymes like 3CLpro represents a primary strategy for creating effective treatments for diseases caused by novel coronaviruses ('953 Patent, col. 2:15-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶¶23, 25).
  • Independent Claim 1 elements:
    • A compound represented by Formula (VI-6a), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,
    • wherein X is -CN; and
    • A is optionally substituted C1-C8 alkyl or optionally substituted heteroaryl.
  • Independent Claim 5 elements:
    • The compound of claim 1 which is represented by Formula (X-e), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,
    • wherein A and X are as defined in claim 1.
  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 2 and 7-10 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Pfizer’s PAXLOVID™ product (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • PAXLOVID is an oral antiviral therapy for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in high-risk patients, sold under an Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Compl. ¶28). The product consists of two active ingredients: nirmatrelvir, which is alleged to be a SARS-CoV-2 3CL protease inhibitor, and ritonavir, which is used to increase the plasma concentration of nirmatrelvir (Compl. ¶¶3, 29, 31). The complaint provides the full chemical name and structural formula for nirmatrelvir (Compl. ¶¶32-33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the nirmatrelvir compound contained in Pfizer's PAXLOVID product infringes the asserted claims of the ’953 Patent (Compl. ¶¶3, 45). The complaint includes several diagrams illustrating the chemical structure of nirmatrelvir and highlighting specific functional groups that allegedly map onto the patent's claims. One such visual highlights the cyano group on nirmatrelvir (Compl. ¶35), and another highlights the portion of the molecule alleged to be a substituted alkyl group (Compl. ¶38).

  • ’953 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A compound represented by Formula (VI-6a) The active ingredient nirmatrelvir is a compound alleged to have the structural formula shown in the complaint, which falls within the genus of compounds represented by Formula (VI-6a). ¶¶32-33, 45 col. 14:29-41
or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof Nirmatrelvir is provided in immediate-release, film-coated tablets with pharmaceutically acceptable carriers or excipients. ¶39 col. 74:9-42
wherein X is -CN The nirmatrelvir compound includes a cyano (-CN) functional group. ¶34-35 col. 4:47
and A is optionally substituted C1-C8 alkyl or optionally substituted heteroaryl The nirmatrelvir compound includes a "2,2,2-trifluoroacetamide-substituted C5 alkyl" group, which the complaint alleges is an "optionally substituted C1-C8 alkyl" as defined in the claim. ¶¶36-38 col. 3:60-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the specific chemical structure of nirmatrelvir literally falls within the scope of the claimed genus. While the complaint draws a direct correspondence, a dispute could arise over subtle stereochemical or structural differences between nirmatrelvir and the claimed formulas.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on whether Pfizer's "2,2,2-trifluoroacetamide-substituted C5 alkyl" group (Compl. ¶36) meets the claim limitation "optionally substituted C1-C8 alkyl." The proper construction of this term, in light of the patent's specification and definitions, will be a key point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "optionally substituted C1-C8 alkyl"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the "A" group in Claim 1. The allegation of infringement hinges on the structure of this group in the accused nirmatrelvir compound falling within the definition of this term (Compl. ¶¶36-38). The construction of "optionally substituted" will therefore be critical to determining the scope of the claim and whether it reads on the accused product.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s detailed definitions section provides an extensive, non-limiting list of possible substituents, including functional groups such as -NHC(O)-C1-C12-alkyl and allows for further substitution on those groups (e.g., with halogens) ('953 Patent, col. 69:61–col. 70:65). This broad definition may support the Plaintiff’s argument that the complex substituent on nirmatrelvir is covered.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the written description does not adequately support the full breadth of the term as applied to the specific, complex substituent found in nirmatrelvir. The exemplary compounds listed in the patent's tables may feature simpler substitutions for the "A" group, which could be used to argue that the inventors did not contemplate or enable a structure as complex as that found in the accused product ('953 Patent, Tables 1-6).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Pfizer’s "Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers" instructs medical professionals to prescribe PAXLOVID™ for the treatment of COVID-19, thereby intending for end-users to directly infringe by taking the drug (Compl. ¶¶40, 46). It also alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c), asserting that PAXLOVID™ is especially made for an infringing use and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶47).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Pfizer's purported knowledge of the ’953 Patent from the date of its issuance, June 14, 2022, when Enanta allegedly provided written notice to Pfizer (Compl. ¶42). The allegation centers on post-notice conduct constituting an unjustifiably high risk of infringement (Compl. ¶43).

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

  • A core issue will be one of validity and priority: Did Enanta invent and validly claim the compound class, including nirmatrelvir, before any public disclosure or invention by Pfizer? The case will likely involve a detailed examination of the prior art and the respective timelines of each company's COVID-19 antiviral research programs, which were proceeding in parallel during a global pandemic.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: Can the generic chemical structures and the term "optionally substituted C1-C8 alkyl" in Enanta's claims be construed to unambiguously cover the specific molecular structure of nirmatrelvir? While the complaint presents a direct structural mapping, the outcome will depend on the court's interpretation of the claim language in light of the patent's specification and prosecution history.