DCT

2:20-cv-10378

Bayer IP GmbH v. DR Reddy's Laboratories Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-10378, D.N.J., 08/12/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Dr. Reddy's Inc. is incorporated and has its principal place of business in New Jersey, and Defendant Dr. Reddy's Ltd. is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market generic versions of Plaintiffs' XARELTO® (rivaroxaban) tablets constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering a specific method of treatment.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to anticoagulants, specifically direct Factor Xa inhibitors used to treat and prevent thromboembolic disorders such as deep vein thrombosis and stroke.
  • Key Procedural History: This case was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act, triggered by Defendants' submission of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification. This certification asserts that U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the proposed generic product. The complaint notes Defendants provided Plaintiffs with a notice letter dated June 30, 2020, informing them of the ANDA filing. The complaint also identifies other pending litigation involving the same plaintiffs against different generic manufacturers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-01-31 U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 Priority Date
2017-01-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 Issue Date
2020-06-30 Dr. Reddy's Notice Letter Sent to Plaintiffs
2020-08-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218, "Prevention and Treatment of Thromboembolic Disorders," issued January 10, 2017.

  • The Invention Explained:

    • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the disadvantages of prior art anticoagulants. Heparin is non-selective and carries a high risk of bleeding, while vitamin K antagonists like warfarin have a very slow onset of action and a narrow therapeutic index, requiring time-consuming patient monitoring (’218 Patent, col. 2:1-21).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method of treatment using a specific direct factor Xa inhibitor, rivaroxaban, which has a relatively short plasma half-life (4-6 hours) that would conventionally suggest administration two or three times per day (’218 Patent, col. 3:35-42). The patent claims a method of administering this short-half-life drug "no more than once daily" in a "rapid-release tablet" to treat certain thromboembolic disorders, asserting this regimen is surprisingly effective and improves patient compliance (’218 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:65-col. 3:10). The specification presents clinical trial data comparing once-daily to twice-daily dosing to support this finding (’218 Patent, Tables 1-1, 1-2).
    • Technical Importance: A once-daily oral dosing regimen for a chronic condition offers significant advantages in patient convenience and adherence compared to multi-dose or injectable therapies (’218 Patent, col. 2:37-40).

  • Key Claims at a Glance:

    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36, 43).
    • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
      • A method of treating a thromboembolic disorder
      • comprising administering a direct factor Xa inhibitor that is 5-Chloro-N-({(5S)-2-oxo-3-[4-(3-oxo-4-morpholinyl)phenyl]-1,3-oxazolidin-5-yl}methyl)-2-thiophenecarboxamide (rivaroxaban)
      • no more than once daily
      • for at least five consecutive days
      • in a rapid-release tablet
      • to a patient in need thereof,
      • wherein the thromboembolic disorder is selected from the group consisting of pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thromboses, and stroke.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement is alleged for "at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶36).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the proposed generic 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg rivaroxaban tablets described in Defendants' ANDA No. 208534 ("Dr. Reddy's ANDA Products") (Compl. ¶9).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The proposed labeling for the accused products allegedly directs their use for treating and preventing various thromboembolic disorders, including reducing the risk of stroke, treating deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and treating pulmonary embolism (PE) (Compl. ¶35). These indications mirror those of Plaintiffs' XARELTO® product (Compl. ¶22). The submission of the ANDA itself signifies a commercial intent to enter the market upon FDA approval as a lower-cost, bioequivalent alternative to the brand-name drug (Compl. ¶1, 38). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'218 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of treating a thromboembolic disorder... wherein the thromboembolic disorder is selected from the group consisting of pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thromboses, and stroke. The proposed labeling for Dr. Reddy's ANDA Products allegedly directs their use for treating indications that fall within the claimed group of disorders, including DVT, PE, and stroke. ¶35 col. 11:29-31; col. 13:3-5
comprising administering a direct factor Xa inhibitor that is 5-Chloro-N-({(5S)-2-oxo-3-[4-(3-oxo-4-morpholinyl)phenyl]-1,3-oxazolidin-5-yl}methyl)-2-thiophenecarboxamide The complaint states that Dr. Reddy's ANDA Products contain rivaroxaban, the chemical compound recited in the claim. ¶31 col. 12:59-65
no more than once daily for at least five consecutive days The complaint alleges that the proposed labeling for the ANDA products directs a dosing regimen that meets the "no more than once daily for at least five consecutive days" requirement. ¶35 col. 12:65-col. 13:2
in a rapid-release tablet The complaint alleges that the dosage form of the ANDA Products is tablets and that this form satisfies the "rapid-release tablet" requirement of the claim. ¶33 col. 11:18-24
to a patient in need thereof The proposed labeling directs use for patients with the specified thromboembolic disorders, who are patients in need of such treatment. ¶35 col. 13:1-2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether Dr. Reddy's proposed generic tablets meet the specific definition of a "rapid-release tablet" as defined in the patent specification. The complaint alleges satisfaction of this element (Compl. ¶33), but provides no technical data (e.g., dissolution profiles) from the ANDA to support this conclusion. The patent provides a specific quantitative definition for this term, creating a clear criterion for infringement that will require factual evidence.
    • Scope Questions: While the complaint focuses on infringement, a defense in an ANDA case inherently raises questions of validity. A potential point of contention will be whether the claimed "once daily" dosing regimen for a short-half-life drug was non-obvious in light of prior art knowledge regarding anticoagulant therapy and formulation science. The patent itself presents data to argue for the non-obviousness of this approach (’218 Patent, col. 3:60-col. 4:4).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "rapid-release tablet"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of the method claim requires that the accused product be administered in this specific dosage form. The definition of this term could be dispositive, as a formulation that releases the active ingredient too slowly would fall outside the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent appears to act as its own lexicographer, providing a specific, testable definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader definition might argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, without being strictly limited by the example in the specification.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an explicit and quantitative definition: "In the context of the present invention, rapid-release tablets are in particular those which, according to the USP release method using apparatus 2 (paddle), have a Q value (30 minutes) of 75%" (’218 Patent, col. 11:18-24). This statement provides strong evidence that the patentee intended to define the term with this precise meaning, which would likely lead a court to adopt this narrow construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Dr. Reddy's plans to market its product with a proposed label that will instruct physicians and patients to use the generic drug in a manner that directly infringes the ’218 patent (e.g., once daily for claimed indications) (Compl. ¶35, 41, 43). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the ANDA products are "especially made or adapted for use in infringing the '218 patent" and are "not suitable for substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶42).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful," but it lays the groundwork for such a claim. It alleges that Dr. Reddy's has knowledge of the ’218 patent and its claims, yet "has continued to assert its intent" to engage in infringing activities upon FDA approval (Compl. ¶40). This allegation of post-notification intent to infringe could support a later claim for enhanced damages.

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

  • A central issue will be one of claim construction and factual proof: Can Plaintiffs prove that the accused generic tablets meet the specific dissolution profile (a Q value of 75% at 30 minutes) that the patent explicitly provides as the definition for a "rapid-release tablet"? The outcome may hinge on the technical evidence of the generic product's performance.
  • The ultimate question, inherent in any Hatch-Waxman case, will be one of patent validity: Was the discovery that a short-half-life Factor Xa inhibitor could be dosed effectively and safely on a "once daily" schedule a non-obvious invention over the prior art? The defendant's Paragraph IV certification signals its intent to challenge the patent on these grounds, and the case will likely turn on the strength of the evidence for and against obviousness.