DCT

1:16-cv-08284

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:16-cv-08284, D.N.J., 11/04/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue in the District of New Jersey is based on the U.S. subsidiaries of Defendant Zhejiang Huahai having principal places of business in Cranbury, New Jersey, and allegedly conducting substantial business, including the marketing and sale of generic drugs, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market generic aripiprazole tablets constitutes an act of infringement of two patents related to a specific crystalline form of aripiprazole and its use in pharmaceutical compositions.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns specific crystalline forms (polymorphs) of aripiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic, designed to possess advantageous physical properties such as low moisture absorption for improved manufacturing and stability.
  • Key Procedural History: This action arises under the Hatch-Waxman Act, triggered by Defendant Prinston’s submission of ANDA No. 20-5363 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The complaint states that Otsuka received a "Notice of Certification" letter from Prinston on September 22, 2016, asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid or will not be infringed by the proposed generic products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-09-25 ’302 Patent Priority Date
2002-11-15 FDA approves Otsuka's New Drug Application (NDA) for aripiprazole tablets
2002-12-27 ’182 Patent Priority Date
2016-06-07 ’302 Patent Issues
2016-07-12 ’182 Patent Issues
2016-09-22 Otsuka receives ANDA Notice of Certification letter from Prinston
2016-11-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,359,302 - "Low Hygroscopic Aripiprazole Drug Substance and Processes for the Preparation Thereof"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional anhydrous aripiprazole crystals are "significantly hygroscopic," meaning they readily absorb moisture from the air (ʼ302 Patent, col. 1:47-51). This property creates challenges in manufacturing, can cause the drug to convert into a less bioavailable hydrous form, and can reduce the product’s shelf-life (ʼ302 Patent, col. 1:52-col. 2:11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a novel crystalline form of anhydrous aripiprazole, termed "Anhydrous Aripiprazole Crystals B," which exhibits reduced hygroscopicity (ʼ302 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:26-33). The patent describes a specific process for preparing these crystals, which involves milling a conventional hydrate form of aripiprazole to create an intermediate ("Hydrate A") and subsequently heating it under controlled conditions to produce the desired stable, low-hygroscopic anhydrous form (ʼ302 Patent, col. 2:36-50).
  • Technical Importance: Developing a low-hygroscopicity form of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) is significant because it can simplify manufacturing processes, enhance the stability and shelf-life of the final drug product, and ensure more consistent bioavailability for patients (ʼ302 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶25). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • Anhydrous aripiprazole crystals
    • having low hygroscopicity, defined as a moisture content of 0.40% or less after being placed for 24 hours in a desiccator at 60° C. and 100% humidity
    • having one or more of the following properties: (a) specific powder x-ray diffraction peaks, (b) a specific infrared absorption spectrum, or (c) specific endothermic peaks in thermal analysis.
  • The complaint’s allegation of "at least one claim" may be construed to reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,387,182 - "Carbostyril Derivatives and Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for Treatment of Mood Disorders"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the limitations of existing treatments for mood disorders like depression, noting that a significant percentage of patients do not respond to initial antidepressant therapy and that existing drugs can have deleterious side effects (ʼ182 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a pharmaceutical composition that combines two types of drugs: (1) a carbostyril derivative, such as aripiprazole, which acts as a "dopamine-serotonin system stabilizer," and (2) a serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) (ʼ182 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-18). This combination therapy is intended for the treatment of mood disorders, particularly depression.
  • Technical Importance: The patent proposes a combination therapy to potentially improve efficacy and provide a therapeutic option for patients with treatment-resistant depression, a significant challenge in psychiatric medicine (ʼ182 Patent, col. 2:48-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶33). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A pharmaceutical composition comprising:
    • (a) a compound selected from aripiprazole or a specified metabolite of aripiprazole, in combination with
    • (b) at least one serotonin reuptake inhibitor selected from a recited group that includes fluoxetine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, milnacipran, citalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, and escitalopram.
  • The complaint’s allegation of "at least one claim" may be construed to reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are Defendants' generic "aripiprazole tablets" in 2 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg, and 30 mg dosage strengths, for which Defendant Prinston submitted ANDA No. 20-5363 to the FDA (Compl. ¶22, ¶24).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are generic versions of Otsuka's branded drug, Abilify® (Compl. ¶21). The ANDA filing represents an attempt to manufacture and sell a bioequivalent version of Otsuka's product in the United States prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges the defendants operate as a "single integrated business" for the approval, manufacture, and sale of generic pharmaceutical products in the U.S. (Compl. ¶12).
  • Visual Evidence: No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide specific factual allegations detailing how the Defendants' ANDA product meets each limitation of the asserted claims. The infringement counts are based on the statutory act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), which provides that submitting an ANDA for a drug claimed in a patent is an act of infringement (Compl. ¶26, ¶34). The following table summarizes the infringement theory as implied by the complaint's allegations.

’302 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Anhydrous aripiprazole crystals... Defendants’ ANDA product is identified as "aripiprazole tablets" and is alleged to infringe. The implied theory is that the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the tablets is the claimed crystalline form. ¶24, ¶25 col. 45:30-33
...having low hygroscopicity, wherein said low hygroscopicity is defined as a moisture content of 0.40% or less when the anhydrous aripiprazole crystals are placed for 24 hours in a dessicator maintained at a temperature of 60° C. and a humidity level of 100%... The complaint does not provide specific data but alleges that the generic products will infringe, implying the crystals in the ANDA product will meet this functional limitation. ¶25 col. 44:1-7
...wherein the anhydrous aripiprazole crystals have... a powder x-ray diffraction spectrum comprising characteristic peaks at 2θ=11.0°, 16.6°, 19.3°, 20.3°, and 22.1°, using a Cu Kα x-ray; The complaint does not provide specific data but alleges that the generic products will infringe, implying the crystals in the ANDA product will exhibit these characteristic structural peaks. ¶25 col. 44:8-12

  • Analysis of ’182 Patent Infringement Allegations:
    The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to construct a claim chart for the ’182 Patent. The asserted independent claims of the ’182 Patent require a composition containing both aripiprazole and a serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) (’182 Patent, col. 27:45-56). However, the complaint identifies the accused instrumentality only as "aripiprazole tablets" (Compl. ¶24) and makes no allegation that these tablets also contain an SRI. The basis for the infringement allegation is therefore not apparent from the face of the complaint and may rely on a theory of induced infringement based on the proposed product labeling, though no facts supporting such a theory are pleaded.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Technical Questions (’302 Patent): A central factual dispute will be whether the aripiprazole API in Defendants’ ANDA product is, in fact, the specific "Anhydrous Aripiprazole Crystals B" claimed in the patent. This will require evidence comparing the physical and chemical properties (e.g., hygroscopicity, X-ray diffraction pattern) of the generic API against the claim limitations.
    • Legal & Pleading Questions (’182 Patent): A threshold question for the court may be whether the complaint plausibly alleges infringement of the ’182 patent. The analysis will focus on how a product containing only aripiprazole can be alleged to infringe claims requiring a combination of aripiprazole and an SRI. This raises the question of whether the complaint provides sufficient notice of the infringement theory (e.g., direct, induced) being pursued.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "low hygroscopicity" (’302 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’302 patent's asserted novelty over prior art aripiprazole forms. While the claim provides a functional definition (moisture content ≤ 0.40% under specific conditions), the scope of this term will be critical. A dispute may arise over whether it is limited to the specific polymorph described as "Crystals B" or if it can cover any anhydrous aripiprazole crystal that meets the functional test.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the term purely by its functional performance ("a moisture content of 0.40% or less..."), which may support an interpretation that covers any crystal meeting that test, regardless of its method of manufacture (’302 Patent, col. 44:1-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and explicitly links the property of "reduced hygroscopicity" to the novel "Anhydrous Aripiprazole Crystals B" created via the disclosed process involving "Hydrate A" (’302 Patent, col. 2:26-33; Abstract). This could support an argument that the term should be construed as being limited to the specific crystalline form detailed in the patent's embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain explicit counts for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that the actions related to the ANDA filing "were done with the cooperation, participation, assistance, and for the benefit, of Zhejiang Huahai, Huahai US, Prinston and Solco," which may provide a factual basis for later asserting theories of joint or indirect infringement among the related corporate defendants (Compl. ¶27, ¶35).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or seek enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. It does request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for the purpose of awarding attorney fees (Compl. p. 10, ¶9).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of technical identity: Does the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the Defendants' generic product possess the specific physicochemical properties—particularly the low hygroscopicity and X-ray diffraction pattern—required to fall within the scope of the asserted claims of the ’302 patent? The case will likely depend on expert testimony and empirical data comparing the accused product to the patent's claims.

  2. A key legal question will be one of pleading sufficiency and infringement theory: For the ’182 patent, which claims compositions containing both aripiprazole and a serotonin reuptake inhibitor, how does the Plaintiff allege that Defendants’ aripiprazole-only tablets infringe? The viability of this claim may depend on whether the complaint provides adequate notice of an unstated theory, such as induced infringement based on the ANDA's proposed product label.