DCT

1:15-cv-02350

Gilead Sciences Inc v. Watson Laboratories Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-02350, D.N.J., 04/03/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants Watson Laboratories, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. having a principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey, and all Defendants conducting systematic and continuous business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of the drug LETAIRIS® (ambrisentan) constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering carboxylic acid derivatives.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns a class of chemical compounds that act as endothelin receptor antagonists, which are used in the treatment of conditions such as pulmonary hypertension.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE42,462, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,932,730. This lawsuit was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Plaintiffs' receipt of a notice letter regarding Defendant Watson’s ANDA No. 208-252, which included a Paragraph IV certification alleging that the patent-in-suit is invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-10-07 '462 Patent Priority Date (PCT Filing)
1999-08-03 Original U.S. Patent No. 5,932,730 Issue Date
2011-06-14 U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE42,462 Issue Date
2015-02-23 Plaintiffs received notice of Defendant Watson's ANDA certification
2015-04-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE42,462 - "Carboxylic Acid Derivatives, Their Preparation and Use"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that endothelin, a peptide synthesized by the vascular endothelium, is a potent vasoconstrictor. An increased or abnormal release of endothelin can cause persistent vasoconstriction in peripheral, renal, and cerebral blood vessels, which may lead to illnesses such as hypertension, pulmonary hypertension, and atherosclerosis (’462 Patent, col. 1:18-35). The technical challenge is to develop substances that can specifically inhibit the binding of endothelin to its receptors to counteract these effects (’462 Patent, col. 1:38-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a novel class of carboxylic acid derivatives, described by the general chemical structure of formula I, that are effective inhibitors of endothelin receptors (’462 Patent, col. 1:42-46, Abstract). The core structure generally comprises a central propionic acid backbone with two phenyl groups at the 3-position, and an ether or thioether linkage at the 2-position connecting to a pyrimidine ring (’462 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
  • Technical Importance: The development of effective endothelin receptor antagonists provided a valuable therapeutic approach for managing serious cardiovascular conditions, particularly pulmonary hypertension, for which treatment options were limited (’462 Patent, col. 1:30-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the '462 patent without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶27). Independent claim 24 appears to be most relevant as it describes the chemical structure of ambrisentan, the active ingredient in LETAIRIS® (Compl. ¶21).
  • Independent Claim 24:
    • A compound of formula I
    • where R is -CO₂H
    • R² is C₁-C₄-alkyl
    • X is CR¹⁴, where R¹⁴ is hydrogen
    • R³ is C₁-C₄-alkyl
    • R⁴ and R⁵, which can be identical or different, are phenyl, which can be substituted by one or more of the following selected from the group consisting of: halogen, nitro, hydroxyl, C₁-C₄-alkyl, C₁-C₄-alkoxy and C₁-C₄-alkylthio
    • R⁶ is a C₁-C₈-alkyl, which can be substituted by one or more substituents selected from the group consisting of: halogen, hydroxyl, nitro, cyano, C₁-C₄-alkoxy, C₃-C₆-alkenyloxy and C₁-C₄-alkylthio
    • Y is oxygen
    • Z is oxygen
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general allegation for "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendant Watson's proposed 5 mg and 10 mg ambrisentan tablets ("Watson's Proposed Products") (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are a generic version of Gilead’s LETAIRIS® drug, for which Watson is seeking FDA approval via ANDA No. 208-252 (Compl. ¶¶1, 23). The complaint alleges that the active ingredient in LETAIRIS®, the compound ambrisentan, is covered by the claims of the '462 patent (Compl. ¶21). The functionality of the accused product is therefore to provide a therapeutically equivalent dose of ambrisentan for the same indications as LETAIRIS®.
  • The filing of the ANDA indicates a commercial intent to enter the market for ambrisentan, currently occupied by Plaintiffs' LETAIRIS® product, prior to the expiration of the '462 patent (Compl. ¶¶1, 25).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the '462 patent covers the compound ambrisentan and that Watson's Proposed Products contain ambrisentan (Compl. ¶¶21, 23). The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 24, which appears to read on ambrisentan.

RE42,462 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 24) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A compound of the formula I where R is -CO₂H The accused product is ambrisentan, which is a propanoic acid derivative, a type of carboxylic acid. ¶21, ¶23 col. 38:5-7
R² is C₁-C₄-alkyl; R³ is C₁-C₄-alkyl; X is CR¹⁴, where R¹⁴ is hydrogen The pyrimidine ring of ambrisentan is substituted with two methyl groups (a C₁-alkyl) at the 4- and 6-positions and a hydrogen at the 5-position. ¶21, ¶23 col. 38:8, 10-11
R⁴ and R⁵... are phenyl, which can be substituted... The accused ambrisentan compound contains two unsubstituted phenyl groups at the 3-position of the propanoic acid backbone. ¶21, ¶23 col. 38:12-18
R⁶ is a C₁-C₈-alkyl... The accused ambrisentan compound contains a methoxy group (-OCH₃), where the R⁶-Z- structure corresponds to methyl-oxygen-. Methyl is a C₁-alkyl. ¶21, ¶23 col. 38:19-24
Y is oxygen In the accused ambrisentan compound, the pyrimidine ring is linked to the 2-position of the propanoic acid backbone via an oxygen atom. ¶21, ¶23 col. 38:25
Z is oxygen In the accused ambrisentan compound, the methoxy group is linked to the 3-position of the propanoic acid backbone via an oxygen atom. ¶21, ¶23 col. 38:26
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: In ANDA litigation involving a compound patent, if the generic product is a bioequivalent copy of the branded drug, infringement is often conceded, and the case centers on validity. The complaint's allegations suggest a direct structural correspondence between ambrisentan and the asserted claims. A potential dispute, though not detailed in the complaint, could arise if Watson's formulation contains a different salt, ester, or polymorph of ambrisentan, raising the question of whether such forms fall within the scope of a claim to the acid form -CO₂H.
    • Technical Questions: The primary technical question for infringement is whether the molecular structure of the ambrisentan in Watson's Proposed Products maps precisely onto every element of an asserted claim. Based on the public structure of ambrisentan and the language of Claim 24, the correspondence appears to be high, suggesting that the central dispute in the case will likely concern the patent's validity, as raised in Watson's Paragraph IV certification (Compl. ¶25).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "R⁶ is a C₁-C₈-alkyl"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the substituent attached to the Z-group (oxygen, in the case of ambrisentan's methoxy group). The ambrisentan molecule has a methoxy group, where R⁶ is methyl (a C₁-alkyl) and Z is oxygen. The construction of "C₁-C₈-alkyl" is therefore essential to establish literal infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of radicals for "C₁-C₈-alkyl", including methyl, ethyl, propyl, and various butyl, pentyl, and hexyl isomers, establishing a clear structural class. (’462 Patent, col. 8:36-60). This definition supports reading the term to encompass any straight-chain or branched saturated hydrocarbon with 1 to 8 carbons.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue for a narrower construction if the specification emphasized particular embodiments or examples that excluded certain structures, though the patent appears to provide a broad, conventional definition. The specification further notes that these alkyl groups "can each carry one to five halogen atoms" or other specified groups, which could be used to argue that the context implies more than just simple, unsubstituted alkyls are contemplated (’462 Patent, col. 7:30-34).

  • The Term: "phenyl, which can be substituted by one or more of the following selected from the group consisting of: halogen, nitro, hydroxyl, C₁-C₄-alkyl, C₁-C₄-alkoxy and C₁-C₄-alkylthio"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the R⁴ and R⁵ groups, which are core components of the claimed molecule. In ambrisentan, these are unsubstituted phenyl rings. The definition of this term is critical for determining the overall scope of the claims and will be central to any validity analysis based on prior art.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 24 explicitly allows for substitution with a specific list of functional groups, giving breadth beyond just unsubstituted phenyl. The specification provides numerous examples of substituted phenyl groups in its tables, such as "4-F-Phenyl," "3-NO₂-Phenyl," and "3,4-Dimethoxyphenyl," reinforcing that a wide range of substitutions is contemplated (’462 Patent, Table 1, col. 25-28).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The list of permitted substituents in claim 24 is closed ("selected from the group consisting of"), meaning phenyl rings with substituents not on this list would not infringe. This provides a clear boundary that could be used to distinguish the claims from prior art or other compounds.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that upon FDA approval, Defendants will intentionally encourage infringement with knowledge of the '462 patent (Compl. ¶30). It also alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c), based on knowledge that Watson's Proposed Products are "especially adapted for a use that infringes" and have "no substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶31).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that this is an "exceptional one" and seeks an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶34). The basis for knowledge of the patent is established by Defendants' ANDA filing and the associated notice letter sent to Plaintiffs (Compl. ¶¶24-25).

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

  • A foundational question is one of claim scope and interpretation: Although the complaint alleges a straightforward structural overlap, the case may require a judicial determination of the precise boundaries of key chemical terms like "C₁-C₈-alkyl" and the scope of permissible substitutions on the "phenyl" rings, which will define the universe of infringing compounds.
  • The central battleground, typical for ANDA litigation, will likely be patent validity. The core issue for the court will be to assess the validity of the asserted claims in light of prior art, answering the question raised by the Defendants' Paragraph IV certification: are the claims of the '462 patent, when properly construed, invalid as anticipated or obvious?
  • A final procedural question will concern the finding of an "exceptional case." The court will need to evaluate whether the Defendants' litigation conduct or the substantive weakness of their invalidity or non-infringement positions rises to the level required to award attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.