DCT

2:19-cv-00276

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Novartis Pharma Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00276, D.N.J., 01/09/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. has its principal place of business in the district, and both defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a generic drug manufacturer, seeks a declaratory judgment that its proposed generic version of the drug deferasirox will not infringe Defendant's patent covering a specific formulation of that drug.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns oral formulations of deferasirox, a drug used to treat chronic iron overload, aiming to improve patient compliance and reduce side effects compared to earlier versions.
  • Key Procedural History: This is a Hatch-Waxman Act case. Plaintiff Sun filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with a Paragraph IV certification, asserting its generic product would not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,283,209, which is listed in the FDA's Orange Book for the branded drug Jadenu®. After Sun notified Novartis of its filing, Novartis did not initiate an infringement suit within the statutory 45-day window. Sun has therefore filed this declaratory judgment action to resolve the infringement question and clear the path for FDA approval.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-05-17 ’209 Patent Priority Date
2015-03-30 FDA approves Novartis's NDA for Jadenu® tablets
2016-03-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,283,209 issues
2018-03-29 Sun files ANDA No. 211641 for generic deferasirox
2018-06-11 Sun notifies Novartis of its Paragraph IV certification for the ’209 Patent
2019-01-09 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,283,209 - “Oral Formulations of Deferasirox” (Issued Mar. 15, 2016)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the first-generation deferasirox product, Exjade™, as a "dispersible tablet" that must be dissolved in liquid before administration. This formulation suffered from poor solubility, required a high dose to be effective, and was associated with significant gastrointestinal (GI) irritation and side effects, in part because the drug had direct contact with the stomach mucosa (’209 Patent, col. 1:12-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a new solid oral dosage form—a conventional swallowable tablet—designed to overcome these problems. The formulation uses a specific combination of excipients to create a high-load tablet (45-60% active ingredient by weight) that features "reduced release under gastric conditions and fast release at near neutral pH" (’209 Patent, col. 2:40-44). This approach aims to bypass the stomach, reducing GI irritation, while improving patient compliance by providing a simpler, swallowable tablet instead of a dispersible one (’209 Patent, col. 2:2-15).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents a second-generation formulation intended to improve the safety profile and patient experience for a chronic therapy, potentially increasing adherence and therapeutic outcomes by reducing pill burden and adverse events (’209 Patent, col. 2:6-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any valid claim of the '209 patent" (Compl. ¶41). The patent contains three independent claims.
  • Independent Claim 1: A tablet for oral administration consisting of a specific recipe:
    • 90 mg deferasirox
    • 53.61 mg microcrystalline cellulose
    • 3.65 mg poly vinyl pyrrolidone K-30
    • 11.34 mg crospovidone
    • 0.16 mg poloxamer
    • 0.81 mg fumed silica
    • 2.43 mg magnesium stearate
    • 4.86 mg seal-coat
  • Independent Claim 2: A tablet with the same list of excipients as Claim 1, but with ingredient amounts scaled for a dose of 180 mg deferasirox.
  • Independent Claim 3: A tablet with the same list of excipients as Claim 1, but with ingredient amounts scaled for a dose of 360 mg deferasirox.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Sun's generic deferasirox tablets, for which it seeks FDA approval under ANDA No. 211641 (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes Sun's product as a generic version of deferasirox that is "bioequivalent to Novartis' drug Jadenu®" (Compl. ¶1, ¶25). The product is intended for sale in 90 mg, 180 mg, and 360 mg strengths (Compl. ¶28). The complaint seeks a court declaration to allow Sun to "engage in the commercial manufacture, use or sale" of these tablets upon receiving FDA approval (Compl. ¶28). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, does not set forth a theory of infringement. Instead, it asserts that Sun's proposed generic tablets, the subject of ANDA No. 211641, "will not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of the '209 patent" (Compl. ¶41). The complaint does not provide a claim chart or any specific technical details about its formulation to substantiate this assertion of non-infringement, as such information is confidential within the ANDA (Compl. ¶29).

The core of the dispute will therefore be a factual comparison between the highly specific compositions recited in the claims of the ’209 Patent and the confidential formulation of Sun's ANDA product. Sun's position is that its formulation does not meet, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the limitations of the asserted claims.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Question: Does the formulation described in Sun's confidential ANDA contain the exact eight ingredients, in the specific weight ratios relative to the active ingredient, as recited in independent claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’209 Patent? A deviation in any single ingredient or its quantity could support a finding of non-infringement.
  • Scope Question: The claims require a "seal-coat." The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether the coating on Sun's proposed tablet, if any, performs the function of a "seal-coat" as contemplated by the patent, or if it is a different type of coating (e.g., purely cosmetic) that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, given the nature of the claims, the following term and limitations will likely be central.

  • The Term: "seal-coat" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This is one of the few non-quantitative, functional/structural elements in a claim that is otherwise a precise recipe. The definition of "seal-coat" could be critical. If the term is construed narrowly to mean a specific type of coating with a primary sealing purpose, Sun could potentially avoid infringement if its tablet uses a different kind of coating (e.g., a non-functional film coat for aesthetic purposes or ease of swallowing) or no coating at all. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could be dispositive regardless of the other seven ingredients.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition of "seal-coat." A party might argue that in the context of pharmaceutical coatings, any layer that incidentally protects the core tablet or controls moisture interaction qualifies as a "seal-coat," giving the term a broader functional meaning.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves list the "seal-coat" as a distinct ingredient with a specific weight (e.g., 4.86 mg in Claim 1), separate from other excipients. A party could argue this implies a distinct, intentionally applied layer, not merely an inherent property of another component. The term is not used elsewhere in the specification, which could suggest it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood in the art of tablet manufacturing, potentially limiting its scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Sun seeks a declaration that its products "do not infringe and would not, if marketed, infringe or induce or contribute to the infringement of any valid claim of the '209 patent" (Compl., Prayer for Relief B). This is a proactive denial of liability for all forms of infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not at issue, as Sun is the plaintiff seeking a declaration of non-infringement.

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

This case appears to hinge on a direct comparison between a proprietary product formula and a patent's highly specific recipe claims. The central questions for the court will likely be:

  1. A core question of factual identity: Does Sun's confidential ANDA formulation for its generic deferasirox tablets contain the exact combination of eight ingredients in the specific quantities recited in claims 1-3 of the ’209 Patent? Given the specificity of the claims, any deviation could be dispositive.

  2. A secondary question of definitional scope: If Sun’s tablet includes a coating, can the term "seal-coat," as recited in the claims, be construed to read on that coating? The resolution of this may depend on evidence regarding the structure and primary purpose of the coating on Sun's product.