DCT

2:10-cv-00322

Ortho-McNeil-Janssen PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. Lupin PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00322, D.N.J., 01/15/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper based on Defendants' business presence, continuous contacts, and prior submission to jurisdiction in the District of New Jersey.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA to market a generic version of the oral contraceptive ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN LO® constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering the drug's specific dosing regimen.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns triphasic oral contraceptives, a class of pharmaceutical products designed to provide contraception by administering varying doses of hormones over a monthly cycle.
  • Key Procedural History: The litigation was triggered by Defendant Lupin Ltd.'s submission of ANDA No. 200541 to the FDA, which included a Paragraph IV certification alleging that Plaintiff's patent is invalid, not infringed, or unenforceable. Plaintiff was formally notified of this certification via a letter dated December 22, 2009. This procedural posture is characteristic of litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-12-23 '815 Patent Priority Date
2001-04-10 '815 Patent Issue Date
2009-12-22 Defendant Lupin Ltd. provides notice of its Paragraph IV certification
2010-01-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,214,815 - "TRIPHASIC ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,214,815, "TRIPHASIC ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE," issued April 10, 2001 (’815 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a known trade-off in oral contraceptives (OCs). While reducing the daily estrogen dose is desirable to decrease side effects like nausea and the risk of thromboembolism, lower-estrogen formulations historically suffered from poor "cycle control," leading to a higher incidence of unscheduled breakthrough bleeding and spotting (Compl., Ex. A, '815 Patent, col. 1:10-38). This side effect often leads to patient non-compliance with the prescribed regimen.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem with a specific triphasic dosing regimen. The method involves administering a constant, low daily dose of an estrogen (25 µg of 17α-ethinylestradiol) for 21 days, while simultaneously administering a progestin (norgestimate) at three successively increasing dose levels over the same period ('815 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-10). The patent presents clinical trial data suggesting this low-estrogen, stepped-progestin approach provides cycle control comparable to higher-estrogen products ('815 Patent, col. 12:21-30; Table 5).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed invention sought to provide the established safety and tolerability benefits of a low-dose estrogen OC without the significant clinical drawback of poor cycle control that had limited the adoption of previous low-estrogen monophasic regimens ('815 Patent, col. 2:14-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "the claims of the '815 Patent" generally (Compl. ¶16). The first independent claim is Claim 1.
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
    • A method of contraception comprising administering a combination of 17α-ethinylestradiol and norgestimate for 21 successive days.
    • For the first 7 days, administering a daily dosage of 25 µg of 17α-ethinylestradiol and 0.180 mg of norgestimate.
    • For the succeeding 7 days, administering a daily dosage of 25 µg of 17α-ethinylestradiol and 0.215 mg of norgestimate.
    • For the next 7 days, administering a daily dosage of 25 µg of 17α-ethinylestradiol and 0.250 mg of norgestimate.
    • This 21-day active period is followed by 7 days without administration of either hormone.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general allegation could be interpreted to include them.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the generic drug product for which Defendants submitted Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 200541 to the FDA (Compl. ¶16).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint alleges that Defendants' ANDA seeks approval to market a "generic version of ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN LO®" (Compl. ¶16).
    • The filing further states that Lupin seeks approval for a product that is "bioequivalent to ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN LO®" (Compl. ¶18). As Plaintiff's ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN LO® is covered by the claims of the '815 Patent (Compl. ¶14), the complaint's theory is that the accused generic product, by virtue of its bioequivalence, is formulated to be administered according to the patented method. The act of infringement alleged is the submission of the ANDA itself, which under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) is a statutory act of infringement enabling the patent holder to litigate before the generic product enters the market.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Claim Chart Summary: The complaint does not include a claim chart. The infringement allegation is based on the premise that the product described in ANDA No. 200541 is a bioequivalent version of Plaintiff's patented ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN LO® product. Therefore, if approved and sold, its use would directly infringe the '815 Patent.
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of contraception which comprises administering for 21 successive days...a combination of 17a-ethinylestradiol and norgestimate... Defendants' submission of ANDA No. 200541 seeks approval to market a product containing these active ingredients for contraception, which is bioequivalent to Plaintiff's product. ¶¶16, 18 col. 9:1-4
for the first 7 days in a daily dosage corresponding to 25 µg of 17a-ethinylestradiol and 0.180 mg of norgestimate... The ANDA product is alleged to be a generic version of ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN LO®, which follows this specific 7-day dosing phase. ¶¶14, 16, 18 col. 9:5-7
for the succeeding 7 days a daily dosage equal to 25 µg of 17α-ethinylestradiol aid 0.215 mg of norgestimate... The ANDA product is alleged to be a generic version of ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN LO®, which follows this specific second 7-day dosing phase. ¶¶14, 16, 18 col. 9:7-9
and for the next 7 days a daily dosage equal to 25 µg of 17a-ethinylestradiol and 0.250 mg of norgestimate... The ANDA product is alleged to be a generic version of ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN LO®, which follows this specific third 7-day dosing phase. ¶¶14, 16, 18 col. 9:9-12
followed by 7 days without estrogen and progestogen administration. The packaging and instructions for the ANDA product, as a generic equivalent, would direct a 7-day hormone-free period. ¶¶14, 16, 18 col. 9:12-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Validity Questions: The primary point of contention, as identified in the complaint, stems from Defendants' Paragraph IV certification, which alleges the '815 Patent is "anticipated, obvious, and invalid" (Compl. ¶18). The core of the case will likely involve Defendants' attempts to prove these invalidity contentions.
    • Scope Questions: While the complaint frames infringement as a direct consequence of bioequivalence, a potential dispute could arise over the precise scope of the claim terms. The question for the court will be whether the specific formulation detailed in the confidential ANDA filing meets every limitation of the asserted claims as properly construed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The highly specific nature of the claims (chemical compounds, dosages, and timings) limits the number of ambiguous terms. However, the identity of the active ingredients could be a focus.

  • The Term: "norgestimate"
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its precise definition is critical to the infringement analysis. While appearing definite, disputes in pharmaceutical cases can arise over whether an allegedly generic compound—which may have different purity profiles, isomeric ratios, or crystalline forms—falls within the scope of the term as used in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists "norgestimate" as one of many possible "progestogens" that may be employed in contraceptive inventions generally, without providing a limiting definition or chemical structure ('815 Patent, col. 4:53-65). This may support an argument that the term encompasses any pharmaceutically active form of the compound.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s specific examples and claims are exclusively directed to "norgestimate" in combination with "17a-ethinylestradiol" ('815 Patent, col. 9:1-12 (Claim 1); col. 10:20-31 (Example 1)). A party could argue that the term should be construed as being limited to the specific form of norgestimate used in the clinical trials that demonstrated the invention's novel properties of improved cycle control.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that if Defendants' ANDA is approved, their commercial manufacture, use, or sale of the generic product would constitute direct infringement, and that they would also induce or contribute to infringement by others (Compl. ¶¶19, 21). The basis for inducement would be the product's labeling and marketing materials, which would instruct physicians to prescribe and patients to take the drug according to the patented infringing method.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it does allege that the case is "exceptional" and seeks attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶22). The factual basis for this allegation is Defendants' knowledge of the '815 Patent, evidenced by their filing of a Paragraph IV certification and their notice letter of December 22, 2009 (Compl. ¶18).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of patent validity: can Defendants prove by clear and convincing evidence their allegation that the '815 Patent is anticipated or obvious in light of prior art, as asserted in their Paragraph IV certification? The outcome of the case may depend heavily on the court's analysis of the state of the art in oral contraceptives before December 1998.
  2. A second issue will be one of statutory infringement: does the product described in Lupin’s confidential ANDA No. 200541, if approved and marketed, contain the precise combination of compounds and dosing schedule recited in the asserted claims of the '815 Patent? While bioequivalence creates a strong inference of infringement, the definitive answer resides in the technical details of the ANDA.
  3. The case will also present a question of remedy: assuming the patent is found valid and infringed, the primary legal question will be whether the court should grant Plaintiff's request for an order under the Hatch-Waxman Act stating that the effective date of any FDA approval of the ANDA cannot be earlier than the expiration date of the '815 Patent.