DCT

2:16-cv-04239

Helsinn Healthcare SA v. Zydus Pharma USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., et al., 2:16-cv-04239, D.N.J., 07/12/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant Zydus USA being incorporated in and having its principal place of business in New Jersey, and Defendant Cadila Healthcare Limited conducting business in the district through its subsidiary, Zydus USA.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA seeking to market a generic version of Plaintiff's Aloxi® intravenous solution constitutes an act of infringement of five U.S. patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns stable, liquid pharmaceutical formulations of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patents-in-suit are listed in the FDA's "Orange Book" as covering Helsinn's Aloxi® product. Defendants submitted ANDA No. 209002 with a Paragraph IV certification, asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid, which triggered this lawsuit under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The complaint also notes numerous related litigations against other generic drug manufacturers concerning the same patents and product, indicating a broad enforcement strategy for the Aloxi® patent portfolio.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-01-30 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2011-05-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,947,724 Issued
2011-05-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,947,725 Issued
2011-06-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,960,424 Issued
2013-12-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 Issued
2014-05-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,729,094 Issued
2016-07-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,947,724 - “Liquid Pharmaceutical Formulations of Palonosetron,” Issued May 24, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem that existing liquid formulations of the anti-emetic drug palonosetron have poor shelf-stability, with a shelf life of less than the one-to-two-year period required by health authorities, often necessitating refrigeration (’724 Patent, col. 2:1-4). Additionally, it notes that earlier 5-HT3 antagonists were less effective at controlling delayed-onset nausea and vomiting compared to acute emesis ('724 Patent, col. 1:36-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a liquid formulation of palonosetron that is shelf-stable for extended periods (e.g., over 24 months) at room temperature ('724 Patent, col. 3:58-62). This stability is achieved by controlling the formulation's pH and utilizing specific excipients, including a chelating agent, within a defined concentration range ('724 Patent, col. 4:6-20).
  • Technical Importance: Developing a room-temperature-stable liquid formulation for a highly potent, long-acting anti-emetic drug simplifies storage and administration in clinical settings, removing the logistical burdens of refrigeration and reconstitution ('724 Patent, col. 3:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but makes a general allegation of infringement. Independent claim 8 is representative of the formulation claims.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 8:
    • A pharmaceutically stable isotonic intravenous solution for reducing emesis.
    • Containing from 0.01 mg/ml to 5 mg/ml palonosetron or a salt thereof.
    • Buffered at a pH of from 4.0 to 6.0.
    • Containing an aqueous pharmaceutically acceptable carrier that includes a chelating agent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,947,725 - “Liquid Pharmaceutical Formulations of Palonosetron,” Issued May 24, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '724 Patent, this patent addresses the need for a palonosetron formulation with increased stability and shelf life, noting that a prior art formulation had a pH of 3.7 and insufficient stability (’725 Patent, col. 2:1-4, col. 2:36-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific, stable liquid formulation of palonosetron hydrochloride. The solution achieves stability through a combination of a specific drug concentration (0.05 mg/mL), a specific pH range (4.5 to 5.5), and the inclusion of both EDTA and a tonicifying amount of mannitol ('725 Patent, claim 2).
  • Technical Importance: This specific combination of ingredients and parameters provides a commercially viable, ready-to-use intravenous product with a long shelf life at room temperature, facilitating its use for preventing CINV ('725 Patent, col. 3:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claim 2 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 2:
    • A pharmaceutically stable solution for reducing emesis.
    • Containing 0.05 mg/mL palonosetron hydrochloride in a sterile injectable aqueous carrier at a pH of from 4.5 to 5.5.
    • Containing from 0.005 mg/mL to 1.0 mg/mL EDTA.
    • Containing mannitol in an amount sufficient to tonicify the solution, in a concentration of from about 10 mg/ml to about 80 mg/ml.

U.S. Patent No. 7,960,424 - “Liquid Pharmaceutical Formulations of Palonosetron,” Issued June 14, 2011

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,960,424, "Liquid Pharmaceutical Formulations of Palonosetron," Issued June 14, 2011 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for a stable liquid formulation of palonosetron suitable for intravenous administration (’424 Patent, col. 2:36-41). The invention is a specific isotonic intravenous solution containing palonosetron hydrochloride, mannitol as a tonicity agent, and EDTA, buffered to a pH of 4.0 to 6.0 to ensure long-term shelf stability ('424 Patent, claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims; independent claims 1 and 5 are available.
  • Accused Features: The proposed generic palonosetron hydrochloride intravenous solution detailed in ANDA No. 209002 (Compl. ¶¶34, 36).

U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 - “Liquid Pharmaceutical Formulations of Palonosetron,” Issued December 3, 2013

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219, "Liquid Pharmaceutical Formulations of Palonosetron," Issued December 3, 2013 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a specific commercial embodiment: a single-use, unit-dose formulation for intravenous use (’219 Patent, col. 10:1-4). The invention claims a 5 mL sterile aqueous isotonic solution comprising a total of 0.25 mg of palonosetron hydrochloride, along with EDTA and mannitol, that is stable for at least 18 to 24 months when stored at room temperature ('219 Patent, claims 1, 8).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims; independent claims 1 and 8 are available.
  • Accused Features: The proposed 5 mL generic palonosetron hydrochloride intravenous solution (at 0.05 mg/mL) detailed in ANDA No. 209002 (Compl. ¶¶42, 44).

U.S. Patent No. 8,729,094 - “Liquid Pharmaceutical Formulations of Palonosetron,” Issued May 20, 2014

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,729,094, "Liquid Pharmaceutical Formulations of Palonosetron," Issued May 20, 2014 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of using the stable palonosetron formulation to treat CINV (’094 Patent, col. 10:58-60). The invention is a method for reducing the likelihood of CINV by intravenously administering a specific single-use, 5 mL formulation of palonosetron, mannitol, and EDTA to a patient before the start of chemotherapy ('094 Patent, claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims; independent claims 1, 5, 13, and 22 are available.
  • Accused Features: The submission of ANDA No. 209002, which seeks approval to market the generic product with a proposed label that allegedly instructs users to perform the patented method of administration (Compl. ¶¶50, 52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendants' proposed generic 0.05 mg/mL, 5 mL palonosetron hydrochloride intravenous solution, which is the subject of Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 209002 submitted to the FDA (Compl. ¶18).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The product is a generic version of Helsinn's Aloxi® brand intravenous solution, intended for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges that the filing of the ANDA, which seeks approval to manufacture and sell this generic drug prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit, is a statutory act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) (Compl. ¶20). The specific formulation details of the Defendants' product are contained within the confidential ANDA submission and are not public.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart, instead alleging that the submission of the ANDA constitutes infringement because the product described therein will, upon approval, meet the limitations of the asserted claims. The infringement theory is that to be an approvable generic version of Aloxi®, the Defendants' product must necessarily possess the characteristics claimed in the patents covering the Aloxi® formulation.

'724 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A pharmaceutically stable isotonic intravenous solution The product described in ANDA No. 209002 is an isotonic intravenous solution alleged to be a stable generic equivalent of Aloxi®. ¶18 col. 9:14-15
from 0.01 mg/ml to 5 mg/ml palonosetron or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, at a pH of from 4.0 to 6.0 The ANDA product has a concentration of 0.05 mg/mL palonosetron hydrochloride, which is within the claimed range, and is alleged to have a pH within the claimed range. ¶18 col. 9:16-19
an aqueous pharmaceutically acceptable carrier including a chelating agent The ANDA product is an aqueous solution and is alleged to contain a chelating agent to achieve the required stability for a generic equivalent. ¶18 col. 9:20-22

'725 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
0.05 mg/mL palonosetron hydrochloride... in a sterile injectable aqueous carrier at a pH of from 4.5 to 5.5 The ANDA product is specifically formulated at a concentration of 0.05 mg/mL and is alleged to have a pH within the claimed range. ¶18 col. 7:13-16
from 0.005 mg/mL to 1.0 mg/mL EDTA The ANDA product is alleged to contain the chelating agent EDTA within the claimed concentration range. ¶18 col. 7:17-18
mannitol in an amount sufficient to tonicify said solution, in a concentration of from about 10 mg/ml to about 80 mg/ml The ANDA product is alleged to contain the tonicifying agent mannitol within the claimed concentration range. ¶18 col. 7:19-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Validity vs. Infringement: The primary point of contention identified in the complaint is not infringement, but patent validity. The complaint explicitly states that Zydus's ANDA certification alleged the patent claims are invalid, but "did not allege noninfringement" (Compl. ¶¶19, 27, 35, 43, 51). This suggests the core of the legal battle will be over whether the patents are valid in light of prior art, rather than whether the generic product meets the claim limitations.
    • Scope Questions: A potential question for the court is the scope of the term "pharmaceutically stable." The patents describe stability for "greater than 24 months at room temperature" ('724 Patent, col. 3:58-60). The definition of this term could become relevant if the defendants argue their product, while bioequivalent, achieves stability through a mechanism or to a degree that falls outside the patent's construction of the term.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question, should infringement be contested, is whether the precise formulation in the confidential ANDA submission literally meets every concentration and pH limitation of the asserted claims. Helsinn will need to rely on discovery of the ANDA's contents to prove this element-by-element correspondence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "pharmaceutically stable"

    • Context and Importance: The central purpose of the inventions is to create a "stable" formulation. The definition of this term—specifically, the required duration, temperature, and acceptable level of degradation—is fundamental to determining the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the boundary between the patented invention and potentially non-infringing alternative formulations.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating the formulations "are shelf stable for periods greater than 24 months at room temperature" ('724 Patent, col. 3:58-60), which could support a construction based on achieving that functional result.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The examples in the patents provide stability data under specific, accelerated conditions, such as "stability at 80° C." ('724 Patent, col. 7:10-15). A party could argue these examples implicitly limit the scope of "stable" to the performance demonstrated in the specification.

  • The Term: "chelating agent"

    • Context and Importance: This term from claim 8 of the '724 Patent is important because its breadth will determine whether the claim is limited to the preferred embodiment (EDTA) or covers a wider class of stabilizers. If the accused product uses a stabilizer other than EDTA, the construction of this term would be dispositive for infringement of this claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the ingredient as "a chelating agent" and states it is "preferably EDTA," which suggests that EDTA is one example of a broader class of contemplated agents ('724 Patent, col. 5:58-63).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and all specific examples exclusively name and use EDTA as the chelating agent ('724 Patent, col. 5:46; Examples 4 & 5). A party might argue that the patent fails to provide written description support for any chelating agent other than EDTA, thereby limiting the claim scope to that specific compound.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' actions constitute inducement of infringement (Compl. ¶21). For the method claims of the '094 Patent, this allegation is based on the premise that the product label for the proposed generic drug will instruct medical professionals and patients to administer the drug in a manner that directly practices the steps of the claimed method.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It does, however, request an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is reserved for exceptional cases (Compl. p. 13).

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

  • A core issue will be one of patent validity: As the Defendants' ANDA certification focuses on invalidity rather than non-infringement, the central dispute will likely be whether the claimed formulations were obvious or anticipated by prior art at the time of invention, a common defense strategy in Hatch-Waxman litigation.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement proof: Assuming the patents are deemed valid, will the specific composition detailed in the Defendants' confidential ANDA submission be found to meet every limitation of the asserted claims, particularly with respect to the identity and concentration of excipients and the claimed pH ranges?
  • A final dispositive question will concern induced infringement: For the asserted method patent ('094), the court will need to determine if the proposed instructions for use on the generic product's label would actively encourage or instruct end-users to perform the patented method of administration, thereby satisfying the legal requirements for inducement.