DCT

1:20-cv-06842

Novo Nordisk Inc v. Sandoz Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 1:20-cv-06842, D.N.J., 06/04/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Sandoz has its principal place of business in the district and has committed an act of infringement there by submitting an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) while maintaining a regular and established place of business.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s submission of an ANDA for a generic version of the diabetes drug Victoza® infringes six patents covering the active ingredient (liraglutide), drug formulations, and components of the injection device.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of injectable diabetes treatments, specifically involving GLP-1 receptor agonists, which are a significant class of pharmaceuticals for managing blood glucose levels.
  • Key Procedural History: The litigation was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendant’s submission of ANDA No. 212972 to the FDA. The complaint states Defendant sent a Notice Letter on April 20, 2020, containing Paragraph IV Certifications asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by its proposed generic product. This lawsuit was filed within the 45-day statutory window.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-08-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,268,343 Priority Date
2001-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,846,618 Priority Date
2001-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,268,343 Issued
2002-07-03 U.S. Patent Nos. 7,762,994 & 8,579,869 Priority Date
2003-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,114,833 Priority Date
2007-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,265,893 Priority Date
2010-07-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,762,994 Issued
2012-02-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,114,833 Issued
2013-11-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,579,869 Issued
2014-09-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,846,618 Issued
2016-02-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,265,893 Issued
2020-04-20 Sandoz Notice Letter Sent
2020-06-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,268,343 - “Derivatives of GLP-1 Analogs”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background explains that while the naturally occurring hormone GLP-1 is effective at stimulating insulin secretion, its therapeutic use is limited by its extremely short half-life in the human body, as it is rapidly degraded by the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) (’343 Patent, col. 4:14-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by creating derivatives of GLP-1 analogs that have a "protracted profile of action" (’343 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-2). This is achieved by chemically modifying the GLP-1 peptide structure, primarily by attaching a "lipophilic substituent" (such as a fatty acid chain) to an amino acid residue, which allows the derivative to reversibly bind to albumin in the bloodstream, thereby slowing its degradation and clearance from the body (’343 Patent, col. 16:51-68).
  • Technical Importance: Developing long-acting GLP-1 analogs was a significant advance in diabetes therapy, allowing for less frequent injections (e.g., once-daily) compared to what would be required for the native hormone. The complaint alleges the claims of the patent cover the active ingredient liraglutide, marketed as Victoza® (Compl. ¶¶1, 23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 28, and 39 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Composition of Matter):
    • A GLP-1 derivative of formula I (SEQ ID NO:2)
    • Wherein specific amino acid positions may be substituted from a list of options
    • Wherein a lipophilic substituent is attached to the ε-amino group of a Lys residue at a specific position
  • Independent Claim 28 (Formulation):
    • A pharmaceutical composition
    • Comprising a GLP-1 derivative of claim 1
    • And a pharmaceutically acceptable vehicle or carrier
  • Independent Claim 39 (Method of Use):
    • A method of treating diabetes
    • Comprising administering to a patient a therapeutically effective amount
    • Of a GLP-1 derivative of claim 1
  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 2-3, 14, 29, and 31-33 (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 7,762,994 - “Needle Mounting System and a Method for Mounting a Needle Assembly”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes drawbacks of conventional screw-on needle hubs for injection pens, noting that they require a patient to turn the needle multiple times, which can be "inconvenient" for those with dexterity problems (’994 Patent, col. 2:1-5). It also notes that newer, non-cylindrical injection devices may have parts that extend past the needle mount, making it "impossible to mount the needle... without first removing it from the magazine" (’994 Patent, col. 2:6-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a mounting system that allows a needle assembly to be mounted with "only a partial rotation" (’994 Patent, col. 2:19-22). This is achieved through a bayonet-style coupling, where protrusions on the needle hub engage with L-shaped grooves on the needle mount (’994 Patent, col. 2:40-51; Fig. 1). Critically, the system also includes a second, separate coupling mechanism consisting of standard male threads, allowing the same mount to be compatible with both newer bayonet-style needles and conventional threaded needles (’994 Patent, col. 6:49-55).
  • Technical Importance: This dual-coupling system enhances user convenience and safety, especially for patients with impaired motor skills, while maintaining backward compatibility with widely available standard needles.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
    • A mounting system for mounting two different needle arrangements
    • Comprising a generally cylindrical shaped body having a distal end
    • A first coupling mechanism comprising a plurality of grooves in an outer wall to form a bayonet coupling
    • A second coupling mechanism comprising male threads on the distal end for a threaded needle assembly
    • Wherein the first and second coupling mechanisms are separate and at the same end segment
  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 2-8 (Compl. ¶30).

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,114,833

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,114,833, “Propylene Glycol-Containing Peptide Formulations Which Are Optimal for Production and For Use in Injection Devices,” issued February 14, 2012.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses problems caused by the common isotonicity agent mannitol, which the inventors observed can crystallize and cause deposits on manufacturing equipment and clog injection needles (’833 Patent, col. 1:30-45). The patented solution is a pharmaceutical formulation that replaces mannitol with propylene glycol, which is alleged to reduce both production deposits and device clogging (Compl. ¶36; ’833 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-31 (Compl. ¶36).
    • Accused Features: The formulation of Sandoz's proposed generic product (Compl. ¶36).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,579,869

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,579,869, “Needle Mounting System and a Method for Mounting a Needle Assembly,” issued November 12, 2013.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’994 Patent, describes a needle mount for an injection device that includes two separate coupling mechanisms at the same end. One is a bayonet-style coupling with grooves for partial-turn attachment, and the second is a standard male thread for conventional screw-on needles, ensuring compatibility with different needle types. (’869 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-6 (Compl. ¶42).
    • Accused Features: The needle mount of the injection device for Sandoz's proposed product (Compl. ¶42).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,846,618

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,846,618, “Stable Formulation of Modified GLP-1,” issued September 30, 2014.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses that certain modified GLP-1 compounds, like liraglutide, are physically stable in aqueous solutions at high concentrations when formulated within a specific pH range. The invention claims a pharmaceutical formulation of a GLP-1 compound that has a pH from 7.5 to 9.4, which is asserted to provide enhanced stability. (’618 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶48).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-3 and 5-14 (Compl. ¶48).
    • Accused Features: The pH and formulation of Sandoz's proposed generic product (Compl. ¶48).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,265,893

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,265,893, “Injection Button,” issued February 23, 2016.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the friction that occurs between a push button and a rotating internal driving part in an injection pen. The invention is a push button connection featuring a pivot bearing and radial bearings designed to minimize this friction, thereby reducing the force a user must apply to inject a dose. (’893 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-6 (Compl. ¶54).
    • Accused Features: The push button mechanism of the injection device for Sandoz's proposed product (Compl. ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant Sandoz’s proposed generic version of liraglutide injection solution, 18 mg/3 ml (6 mg/ml), as described in ANDA No. 212972 (“Sandoz’s Product”) (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Sandoz’s Product is a generic drug intended to be a substitute for Novo Nordisk’s Victoza® product (Compl. ¶1). Sandoz’s ANDA filing asserts that its product is bioequivalent to Victoza® (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that Sandoz's Product, by its nature as a generic equivalent, will infringe claims directed to the liraglutide compound, its pharmaceutical formulation, and the injection device with which it is intended to be used (Compl. ¶¶23, 30, 36, 42, 48, 54). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific claim charts or detailed infringement contentions. The infringement theory is based on the act of filing an ANDA under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), which seeks approval for a product that, if marketed, would allegedly infringe the asserted patents (Compl. ¶22). The allegations below are constructed based on the complaint’s assertion that Sandoz’s generic product is a copy of Victoza® and its associated delivery system.

U.S. Patent No. 6,268,343 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 28) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A pharmaceutical composition comprising a GLP-1 derivative of claim 1... Sandoz’s Product is alleged to be a pharmaceutical composition containing liraglutide, which the complaint asserts is a GLP-1 derivative covered by claim 1. ¶23 col. 267:25-28
...and a pharmaceutically acceptable vehicle or carrier. Sandoz’s Product is an injectable solution that necessarily contains pharmaceutically acceptable excipients. ¶14 col. 267:25-28

U.S. Patent No. 7,762,994 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A mounting system for mounting two different needle arrangements... The injection device intended for use with Sandoz's Product is alleged to have a mount compatible with multiple needle types. ¶30 col. 5:24-26
...the first coupling mechanism comprising a plurality of grooves...to form a bayonet coupling... The device is alleged to include a bayonet-style coupling for partial-turn needle attachment. ¶30 col. 5:31-46
...the second coupling mechanism comprising male threads...for...a threaded needle assembly... The device is alleged to also include standard threads for compatibility with conventional screw-on needles. ¶30 col. 6:49-55

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may concern whether the specific chemical structure of liraglutide falls within the scope of the term "GLP-1 derivative" as defined in the claims of the ’343 Patent. Sandoz’s Paragraph IV certification suggests it will contest either infringement or the validity of this claim scope (Compl. ¶16).
  • Technical Questions: For the device patents (e.g., ’994 Patent), a question for the court may be whether the specific needle mount and push button that Sandoz intends for use with its product practices every element of the asserted claims. The complaint does not identify the specific device Sandoz will use, creating an evidentiary question as to what instrumentality is actually being accused of infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms that may be in dispute. However, based on the technology, the following terms may become central to the case.

  • The Term: "lipophilic substituent" (’343 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the composition of matter claim for the active ingredient. The determination of whether liraglutide’s fatty acid side chain constitutes a "lipophilic substituent" as claimed will be critical to the infringement analysis for the ’343 Patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term broadly to include, for example, "an acyl group of a straight-chain or branched fatty acid" and provides a wide range of potential carbon chain lengths, such as from 4 to 38 (’343 Patent, col. 16:5-10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue the term should be limited by the numerous specific examples disclosed in the patent, or that statements made during prosecution could limit its scope (’343 Patent, col. 19-37).

  • The Term: "bayonet coupling" (’994 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the novel, partial-turn needle attachment feature. Infringement of the device claims may turn on whether the accused device's mechanism meets the structural requirements of a "bayonet coupling" as described by the claim language.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and summary suggest the invention covers systems that allow mounting with "only a partial rotation" (’994 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:19-22), which may support a functional, rather than strictly structural, definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides structural details, requiring "a plurality of grooves" with a "first portion" and a "second portion oriented at an angle." A defendant may argue that only a mechanism meeting these specific structural limitations can be considered a "bayonet coupling" under the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Sandoz, with knowledge of the ’343 patent, would induce infringement of method of treatment claim 39. This is based on the allegation that Sandoz’s product label will instruct physicians and patients to administer the drug for the treatment of diabetes (Compl. ¶24).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement" but alleges in each count that the case is "exceptional" and requests an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (e.g., Compl. ¶27). The implicit basis for this is Sandoz's alleged knowledge of the patents, as evidenced by its Paragraph IV certification, and its decision to seek approval for its generic product.

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

  • A core issue will be one of chemical scope and validity: does the specific molecular structure of liraglutide fall within the patentably valid scope of the asserted claims of the '343 patent, particularly the definition of a "GLP-1 derivative" with a "lipophilic substituent"?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of product identity: what are the exact specifications for the formulation (e.g., pH, use of propylene glycol) and the delivery device (e.g., needle mount, button mechanism) set forth in Sandoz's ANDA, and does this proposed product meet every limitation of the asserted formulation and device patent claims?
  • The resolution of the dispute will likely depend on claim construction, followed by a technical comparison between the construed claims and the product Sandoz has described to the FDA, all within the statutory framework of ANDA litigation where the act of filing can constitute infringement.