DCT

2:14-cv-04989

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v. Fresenius Kabi USA LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:14-cv-04989, D.N.J., 08/07/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey based on Defendant being registered to do business in the state, maintaining a corporate agent there, and having engaged in conduct causing foreseeable harm to Plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s submission of a New Drug Application to the FDA for a generic version of the antifungal drug Caspofungin Acetate for Injection constitutes an act of infringement of two patents covering the drug compound and its stable formulation.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns a class of potent antifungal compounds (echinocandins) and specific formulations designed to ensure their chemical stability for intravenous administration, primarily for treating serious fungal infections in hospital settings.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was filed under the Hatch-Waxman Act, triggered by Defendant’s notice letter of June 23, 2014, which included a Paragraph IV certification asserting that Plaintiff's patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or would not be infringed by the proposed generic product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1993-03-16 U.S. Patent No. 5,514,650 Priority Date
1996-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 5,952,300 Priority Date
1996-05-07 U.S. Patent No. 5,514,650 Issued
1999-09-14 U.S. Patent No. 5,952,300 Issued
2014-06-23 Date of Defendant's notice letter to Plaintiff
2014-08-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,514,650 - "AZA CYCLOHEXAPEPTIDE COMPOUNDS"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,514,650, "AZA CYCLOHEXAPEPTIDE COMPOUNDS", issued May 7, 1996.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for new and effective antibiotics to treat serious mycotic (fungal) and protozoal infections, particularly those caused by Candida, Aspergillus, and Pneumocystis carinii species in immune-compromised patients (ʼ650 Patent, col. 3:5-17).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a class of novel chemical compounds called "aza cyclohexapeptides." These molecules are semi-synthetic derivatives of naturally occurring antifungal agents, modified by replacing a specific oxygen atom in the core peptide ring with a nitrogen atom at the "C-5-orn" or "hemiaminal" position. This structural change is asserted to result in compounds with "superior antibiotic properties" ('650 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-13).
    • Technical Importance: The invention provided a new class of chemical entities for combating life-threatening fungal infections that were a growing concern, especially in patients with weakened immune systems ('650 Patent, col. 3:13-17).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent Claim 1 is a composition of matter claim directed to a group of specific chemical structures.
    • Claim 1 claims "An antimicrobial composition comprising a compound selected from the group consisting of" a series of specifically depicted aza cyclohexapeptide structures, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof ('650 Patent, col. 63:15-col. 66:2).
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27, 31-32).

U.S. Patent No. 5,952,300 - "ANTIFUNGAL COMPOSITIONS"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,952,300, "ANTIFUNGAL COMPOSITIONS", issued September 14, 1999.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent discloses that the specific antifungal compound later known as caspofungin acetate is "highly unstable and degrades by various pathways." While a prior formulation using a tartrate buffer existed, it "resulted in the generation of degradates at a relatively high rate," limiting the product's shelf life and commercial viability ('300 Patent, col. 2:60-68).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a new pharmaceutical formulation for the compound. The key innovation is the use of an "acetate buffer" instead of the prior tartrate buffer. This formulation, when combined with an excipient like sucrose or mannitol and lyophilized (freeze-dried), is claimed to be "significantly more stable," produce fewer unwanted degradation products, and have an extended shelf life ('300 Patent, col. 2:55-57; col. 3:1-4).
    • Technical Importance: A stable, long-shelf-life formulation is essential for an injectable drug, making the product commercially practical for widespread hospital and clinical use.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent Claim 1 is a pharmaceutical composition claim.
    • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
      • a) a pharmaceutically effective amount of the caspofungin compound (depicted in formula (I)) or its salts;
      • b) a pharmaceutically acceptable amount of an excipient effective to form a lyophilized cake; and
      • c) a pharmaceutically acceptable amount of an acetate buffer effective to provide a pharmaceutically acceptable pH ('300 Patent, col. 10:27-44).
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27, 31-32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's proposed drug product, "Caspofungin Acetate for Injection in 50 mg/vial and 70 mg/vial dosage strengths," as described in its 505(b)(2) New Drug Application (NDA) No. 206110 filed with the FDA (Compl. ¶9, ¶17).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The product is a proposed generic equivalent to Plaintiff's approved antifungal drug, CANCIDAS®, and is intended for the treatment of fungal infections (Compl. ¶14, ¶19). The complaint alleges that Fresenius's notice letter provided "very limited information" and did not list the product's ingredients apart from "caspofungin diacetate," nor their amounts (Compl. ¶20). The infringement allegations are therefore based on the act of filing the NDA and on information Plaintiff expects to obtain from the confidential application during discovery (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’650 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or sufficient technical detail for a claim-by-claim analysis of infringement for the ’650 patent. The infringement allegation is a statutory one under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), based on the act of filing an NDA for a product—caspofungin acetate—that is alleged to be an embodiment of the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶16, ¶26).

’300 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a) a pharmaceutically effective amount of a compound having the formula (I) ... and the pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof, Defendant's product is identified as "Caspofungin Acetate for Injection," which Plaintiff alleges is the compound of formula (I) and is an embodiment of the claims (Compl. ¶16). ¶9, ¶16, ¶20 col. 2:35-54
b) a pharmaceutically acceptable amount of an excipient effective to form a lyophilized cake; and The complaint does not explicitly identify an excipient in the accused product but notes that Defendant's notice letter failed to list ingredients other than the active one (Compl. ¶20). ¶20, ¶24 col. 3:24-33
c) a pharmaceutically acceptable amount of an acetate buffer effective to provide a pharmaceutically acceptable pH. The complaint does not allege specific facts regarding the presence of an acetate buffer, basing its infringement theory on the full composition it expects to be revealed in the confidential NDA (Compl. ¶24). ¶24 col. 3:15-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’650 patent, a central question will be whether caspofungin acetate, the active ingredient in the accused product, falls within the scope of the asserted claims, which cover a class of related aza cyclohexapeptide compounds.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’300 patent, a key factual dispute will be whether the accused product's formulation, as described in its confidential NDA, actually contains an "acetate buffer" as required by the claims. The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations on this point suggests Plaintiff is relying on an inference that the generic product will mimic the innovator's formulation. If the accused product uses a different buffering agent, it may not literally infringe.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms for the ’650 patent. For the ’300 patent, the following term is central:

  • The Term: "acetate buffer"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the ’300 patent’s claimed solution to the drug's instability problem and distinguishes it from prior art tartrate-based formulations. The entire infringement case for this patent hinges on whether the accused product's formulation meets the definition of an "acetate buffer." Practitioners may focus on this term because designing a formulation with a non-acetate buffer would be a straightforward way to attempt to avoid infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples such as "suitable amounts of sodium acetate and acetic acid or suitable amounts of acetic acid and sodium hydroxide," which may support a construction covering any system using the acetate conjugate acid-base pair to maintain pH ('300 Patent, col. 3:19-23).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be limited by the preferred embodiments, such as the concentration ranges disclosed (e.g., "about 25 mM to about 50 mM") ('300 Patent, col. 3:23-24). The patent’s repeated distinction from the "tartrate buffer" of prior formulations could also be used to argue that "acetate buffer" must be the primary or sole buffering agent in the composition ('300 Patent, col. 2:66).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that should Defendant commercially launch its product, it would induce infringement by others (e.g., healthcare providers) and contribute to infringement, in addition to directly infringing (Compl. ¶27, ¶32).
  • Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" and alleges Defendant's Paragraph IV certification was "wholly unjustified" (Compl. ¶29, ¶34). This language lays the groundwork for a potential claim of willfulness and an award of attorney fees, with the knowledge element being satisfied by Defendant's statutory duty to review the patent and certify to it.

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

  1. A Core Factual Question: The viability of the infringement claim against the ’300 patent will depend on a critical fact to be revealed in discovery: does the confidential formulation in Defendant's NDA actually use an "acetate buffer"? The case may turn on this single technical detail.
  2. A Question of Claim Scope: The dispute over the ’650 patent will likely center on claim construction. The key issue will be whether the asserted claims, which define a class of chemical compounds, can be properly construed to read on the specific caspofungin acetate molecule in Defendant's product.
  3. The Unstated Defense: Although not detailed in the complaint, the central defense will be the invalidity arguments outlined in Defendant's Paragraph IV certification (Compl. ¶18). The ultimate outcome will depend not only on infringement but on whether the patents can withstand challenges based on prior art, likely focusing on the obviousness of the claimed compound and its formulation.