DCT

2:17-cv-00389

Novartis AG v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00389, D.N.J., 01/19/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the District of New Jersey based on Defendant Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.'s principal place of business in the state and because the filing of the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) allegedly constitutes a tortious act causing foreseeable harm to Plaintiff Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, which also has its principal place of business in New Jersey.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s filing of an ANDA to market a generic version of the multiple sclerosis drug GILENYA® (fingolimod) constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering the drug's active chemical compound and its method of use.
  • Technical Context: The patent relates to a class of chemical compounds known as 2-amino-1,3-propanediol derivatives, which act as immunosuppressants for treating autoimmune diseases and preventing organ transplant rejection.
  • Key Procedural History: This case was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following a December 8, 2016 notice letter from Aurobindo, which included a Paragraph IV certification that U.S. Patent No. 5,604,229 is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by its proposed generic product. The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit has been the subject of numerous prior infringement litigations against other generic drug manufacturers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1992-10-21 '229 Patent Priority Date
1997-02-18 '229 Patent Issue Date
2016-12-08 Defendant Sent ANDA Notice Letters
2017-01-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,604,229 - "2-Amino-1,3-Propanediol Compound and Immunosuppressant"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,604,229, “2-Amino-1,3-Propanediol Compound and Immunosuppressant,” issued February 18, 1997.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for new immunosuppressive agents, noting that existing drugs like cyclosporin, while effective for preventing organ transplant rejection, can cause undesirable side effects such as nephrotoxicity (Compl. ¶22; '229 Patent, col. 1:15-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a novel class of 2-amino-1,3-propanediol compounds and their pharmaceutically acceptable salts, which are described as possessing potent immunosuppressive action ('229 Patent, Abstract). These compounds are asserted to be useful for treating autoimmune diseases and preventing or treating rejection in organ or bone marrow transplants, with the goal of providing therapeutic benefits with fewer side effects ('229 Patent, col. 1:62-65, col. 2:59-65).
  • Technical Importance: The invention relates to a new class of orally administered immunosuppressants, a significant therapeutic modality for chronic conditions. The commercial embodiment of the invention, GILENYA®, is identified in the complaint as the first oral drug approved by the FDA for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" ('229 Patent, Compl. ¶35). Based on the subject matter, representative independent claims include:

  • Independent Claim 1 (Compound): This claim is directed to a genus of 2-amino-1,3-propanediol compounds defined by a chemical formula (I-8) and their pharmaceutically acceptable salts ('229 Patent, col. 279:42-53). Essential elements include:
    • A 2-amino-1,3-propanediol compound of the formula (I-8)
    • wherein Re is a phenylalkyl in which the alkyl moiety is a straight- or branched chain C6-C20 alkyl which may be substituted by certain groups
    • or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof
  • Independent Claim 41 (Method of Use): This claim is directed to a method of treating autoimmune diseases ('229 Patent, col. 290:42-46). Essential elements include:
    • A method for prevention or treatment of an autoimmune disease
    • which comprises administering to a mammal
    • a therapeutically effective amount of any one of the compounds claimed in claims 1, 21, 24, 29 or 32.

The complaint implicitly reserves the right to assert any of the patent's claims, including dependent claims that specifically recite the fingolimod compound (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Aurobindo's Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") No. 207983 product, which is identified as "Fingolimod 0.5 mg capsules," a generic version of Novartis's GILENYA® (Compl. ¶1, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a generic pharmaceutical intended to be a bioequivalent substitute for the branded drug GILENYA® (Compl. ¶31).
  • The complaint alleges that by filing its ANDA, Aurobindo has represented to the FDA that its product contains the same active ingredient (fingolimod), has the same method of administration, dosage form, and strength, and will be prescribed for the same indications as GILENYA® (Compl. ¶¶23, 31).
  • The intended use, as directed by the proposed product labeling, is for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (Compl. ¶¶23, 36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), which defines the submission of an ANDA for a drug claimed in a patent as an act of infringement (Compl. ¶32). The infringement theory is based on the allegation that Aurobindo's proposed generic product, if approved, will have the same active ingredient and labeled indications as the patented GILENYA® product (Compl. ¶31, 36).

'229 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A 2-amino-1,3-propanediol compound...or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. Aurobindo’s ANDA product is alleged to contain fingolimod, or a salt thereof, as its active pharmaceutical ingredient. ¶31 col. 292:1-5
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 41) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for...treatment of an autoimmune disease...comprising administering to a mammal a therapeutically effective amount of...a compound as claimed in claim 1... Aurobindo’s proposed product label allegedly instructs physicians and patients to administer the fingolimod product for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease. ¶36 col. 2:59-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Validity Questions: The central dispute in this ANDA litigation will likely concern patent validity. Aurobindo's Paragraph IV certification asserts that the '229 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable (Compl. ¶28). The case will likely focus on whether the claims covering fingolimod satisfy the requirements of novelty, non-obviousness, and adequate written description over the prior art.
    • Scope Questions: While the active ingredient in GILENYA®, fingolimod, appears to be explicitly described in the patent (e.g., in dependent claim 52), a non-infringement defense could still arise. Such a defense might question whether Aurobindo's specific formulation or salt form falls outside the literal scope of the asserted claims or their equivalents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "therapeutically effective amount"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in method-of-use claims (e.g., Claim 41) and is central to determining infringement. Its construction will be critical for assessing whether Aurobindo's proposed 0.5 mg dose falls within the claimed scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth could also be relevant to validity challenges based on enablement and written description.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a wide range of possible dosages, stating that the appropriate dose may vary and can be "from about 0.01 to 100 mg/person as an active ingredient, per day" ('229 Patent, col. 177:18-24). This language could support an interpretation that covers a wide spectrum of dosages, including the accused 0.5 mg dose.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's only specific formulation example describes a "soft capsule" containing "30 mg" of the active compound ('229 Patent, col. 279:8-12). A party might argue that this specific disclosure limits the meaning of "therapeutically effective amount" to dosages closer to those explicitly exemplified in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiffs allege that Aurobindo will actively induce infringement upon approval of its ANDA (Compl. ¶37). This allegation is based on the claim that Aurobindo's proposed product labeling will instruct medical professionals and patients to administer the drug for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, a patented method of use (Compl. ¶36). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the product is especially adapted for an infringing use and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶38).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Aurobindo had "actual and constructive knowledge" of the '229 patent prior to filing its ANDA, in part due to the patent's listing in the FDA's Orange Book (Compl. ¶¶25, 33). It further alleges that Aurobindo "acted without a reasonable basis for believing that it would not be liable for infringing" the patent, which may support a claim for willful infringement (Compl. ¶40).

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

  • A core issue will be one of patent validity: can Aurobindo prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claims of the '229 patent covering the fingolimod compound and its use are invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of adequate written description in light of the prior art?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of willfulness: assuming the patent is found valid and infringed, did Aurobindo’s decision to challenge the patent via an ANDA filing, particularly given the patent's extensive prior litigation history against other generic manufacturers, constitute the type of egregious conduct that would justify an award of enhanced damages?
  • A secondary issue may relate to claim scope: does the term "therapeutically effective amount," as used in the method claims, have a scope that is fully enabled and described by the specification, and does the accused 0.5 mg dosage fall within that scope?