DCT

2:20-cv-03895

Eisai R&D Management Co Ltd v. Sandoz Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-03895, D.N.J., 04/09/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Sandoz Inc. based on its principal place of business in New Jersey and as to Sandoz GmbH as a foreign corporation subject to the court's jurisdiction.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application for a generic version of Plaintiff’s Halaven® product constitutes infringement of a patent related to analogs of Halichondrin B.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns synthetic intermediates and methods for producing complex macrolide compounds, specifically eribulin, an anti-cancer agent used to treat certain forms of metastatic breast cancer and liposarcoma.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendant's submission of Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 214310 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The ANDA contained a Paragraph IV Certification asserting that the patent-in-suit is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed. Plaintiff received Defendant's Paragraph IV Notice Letter on or about February 26, 2020, and filed this complaint within the 45-day statutory period.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-06-03 ’965 Patent Priority Date
2018-07-24 ’965 Patent Issue Date
2020-02-26 Plaintiff receives Defendant's Paragraph IV Notice Letter
2020-04-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,965 - "Intermediates for the Preparation of Analogs of Halichondrin B"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,965 ("the ’965 Patent"), titled "Intermediates for the Preparation of Analogs of Halichondrin B," issued on July 24, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of producing Halichondrin B, a potent anti-cancer agent originally isolated from a marine sponge ('965 Patent, col. 1:55-60). Because natural sourcing is impractical for large-scale pharmaceutical supply, the field required viable synthetic methods to produce Halichondrin B and its pharmaceutically active analogs ('965 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides synthetic methods and chemical intermediates for preparing analogs of Halichondrin B, including the specific compound designated B-1939 (eribulin) (’965 Patent, col. 2:7-16). The overall synthetic strategy involves the assembly of three key molecular fragments, designated F-1, F-2, and F-3, to construct the complex macrocyclic ketone structure of the final drug product (’965 Patent, col. 2:60-65).
  • Technical Importance: The patented technology provides a synthetic pathway for a complex, clinically significant anti-cancer agent, enabling its manufacture at a scale sufficient for therapeutic use (’965 Patent, col. 1:60-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted against the accused product, stating only that the product falls "within the scope of one or more claims of the '965 patent" (Compl. ¶32). The patent contains two independent claims, Claims 19 and 20.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is "Sandoz's ANDA Product," identified as a generic eribulin mesylate injection for intravenous use, formulated in 1 mg/2 mL (0.5 mg/mL) single-use vials (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Sandoz product is a generic version of Eisai's branded drug, Halaven®, which is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer and unresectable or metastatic liposarcoma (Compl. ¶20-21). Sandoz submitted ANDA No. 214310 to obtain regulatory approval to market this generic product in the United States prior to the expiration of the ’965 Patent (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges a technical act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), which makes the submission of an ANDA seeking approval to market a patented drug an act of infringement to create federal court jurisdiction (Compl. ¶27, 35). The complaint does not provide a detailed infringement theory or a claim chart mapping patent claim elements to the features of the accused product. It notes that Plaintiffs have not yet received a complete copy of the ANDA or product samples and will rely on discovery to develop their infringement contentions (Compl. ¶31-32).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Structural Identity: The central question will be whether the eribulin mesylate active pharmaceutical ingredient described in Sandoz's ANDA is structurally identical to the compound defined in the asserted claims of the ’965 Patent. Since the claims recite a complex chemical structure, this analysis will likely focus on a direct comparison of the molecular formula, connectivity, and stereochemistry.
  • Process vs. Product: The ’965 Patent is titled "Intermediates for the Preparation..." and extensively describes the synthesis pathway, but the issued claims are directed to final macrocyclic compounds. A key question will be whether the dispute is confined to the structure of the final product, or if infringement allegations will later expand to encompass any patented intermediates used in the Sandoz manufacturing process, should any such claims exist in related patents or be asserted from the ’965 Patent itself. The complaint currently lacks the detail to resolve this question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims or provide a basis for identifying key terms that may require judicial construction. In litigation involving claims to chemical compounds, claim construction disputes are less common than in other technology areas but may arise if there is ambiguity regarding, for example, stereochemical configurations or the scope of a substituent group defined by text rather than a precise structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain formal counts for induced or contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c).
  • Willful Infringement: There is no allegation of willful infringement.

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

This case, in its initial stage, presents as a straightforward Hatch-Waxman dispute that will turn on factual questions revealed during discovery. The central issues for the court will likely be:

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Sandoz's ANDA Product, as defined by its chemical structure and stereochemistry, fall within the literal scope of the asserted claims of the ’965 Patent?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of proof: What evidence will discovery of Sandoz's confidential ANDA submission, its referenced Drug Master File, and its product samples provide regarding the precise chemical identity of its proposed generic product and the process used to manufacture it? The resolution of the case will depend almost entirely on a comparison of this evidence against the patent claims.