DCT

2:22-cv-07357

Astellas Pharma Inc v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., 2:22-cv-07357, D.N.J., 12/16/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. has a principal place of business in New Jersey, conducts marketing and sales in the state, and has previously submitted to the jurisdiction of the court in other actions.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of the prostate cancer drug Xtandi® (enzalutamide) constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering the enzalutamide compound.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to diarylhydantoin compounds, a class of small-molecule drugs designed to act as potent androgen receptor inhibitors for the treatment of hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
  • Key Procedural History: The litigation was triggered by Defendant’s notice letter, sent pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, advising Plaintiffs of its ANDA filing seeking to market generic enzalutamide tablets prior to the expiration of the patent-in-suit. The notice letter included a certification that claims of the patent are, in Defendant’s opinion, invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-05-13 ’517 Patent Priority Date
2010-05-04 ’517 Patent Issue Date
2020-08-04 FDA approves NDA for Xtandi® tablets
2022-11-17 Date of Sun Notice Letter advising of ANDA filing
2022-12-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,709,517 - “Diarylhydantoin Compounds”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,709,517 (“the ’517 Patent”), “Diarylhydantoin Compounds,” issued May 4, 2010.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the progression of prostate cancer from a hormone-sensitive state to a "hormone refractory" state, where treatments like castration and existing anti-androgen drugs fail (Compl. Ex. A, ’517 Patent, col. 1:20-41). The patent notes that a cause for this failure is the overexpression of the androgen receptor (AR), which can cause prior art anti-androgens (like bicalutamide) to paradoxically switch from being inhibitors (antagonists) to activators (agonists) of the cancer cells (’517 Patent, col. 2:49-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a new class of diarylhydantoin compounds designed to be superior AR inhibitors. The patented solution provides compounds that exhibit strong antagonistic (inhibitory) activity while having minimal agonistic (stimulatory) activity, even when the AR is overexpressed, thereby remaining effective in treating hormone-refractory prostate cancer (’517 Patent, col. 2:50-57, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This technical approach provided a potential therapeutic solution for patients whose prostate cancer had become resistant to standard androgen deprivation therapies, a critical unmet need in oncology (’517 Patent, col. 1:42-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a composition of matter claim covering a selection of specific chemical compounds:
    • A compound selected from the group consisting of several specifically enumerated chemical structures.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but states that Defendant will infringe "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶46).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendant Sun’s generic enzalutamide tablets in 40 mg and 80 mg dosages (“Sun’s Generic Products”), which are the subject of Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 217302 submitted to the FDA (Compl. ¶32, ¶33).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Sun’s Generic Products are intended to be generic versions of Plaintiffs’ Xtandi® tablets (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges that the ANDA seeks approval for the same indications as Xtandi®, namely the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (Compl. ¶34). The complaint alleges that the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Sun’s Generic Products is the compound enzalutamide (Compl. ¶45, ¶47), which is depicted with its chemical structure (Compl. ¶23). The chemical structure shown in the complaint corresponds to the compound known as RD162 in the ’517 patent.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement action is brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), which defines the submission of an ANDA seeking to market a patented drug before patent expiration as a statutory act of infringement. The core of Plaintiffs’ infringement theory is one of direct structural identity.

’517 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A compound selected from the group consisting of: [a list of compounds including the structure for enzalutamide] Sun’s Generic Products, if approved by the FDA, will contain the compound enzalutamide. ¶47 col. 106:1-17

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement allegation appears to be straightforward, as Claim 1 of the ’517 Patent is a Markush claim explicitly reciting the chemical structure of enzalutamide (identified as RD162’ in the patent). The complaint alleges that Sun's generic product contains enzalutamide (Compl. ¶47). This raises the question of whether there is any basis for a non-infringement argument, or if the case will primarily be a dispute over the patent's validity.
  • Technical Questions: Given that the infringement allegation is based on direct chemical identity, the central technical questions will likely relate to the validity defenses raised by the defendant. The complaint notes that Sun’s notice letter asserted that claims of the ’517 patent are "invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed" (Compl. ¶35), but does not provide the specific bases for these assertions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: The specific chemical structure of enzalutamide recited in Claim 1.
  • Context and Importance: In a chemical composition case where infringement is alleged based on structural identity, traditional claim construction of disputed terms is often not the central issue. The dispute is less about the meaning of a word and more about whether the claimed chemical entity itself is patentable over the prior art or satisfies other statutory requirements. Practitioners may focus not on construing a term, but on analyzing the patent’s disclosure to support or attack the validity of the claim to this specific compound.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The primary evidence is the chemical structure itself, which is explicitly drawn in Claim 1 of the ’517 Patent (col. 106:1-17) and depicted in the complaint (Compl. ¶23). The specification provides detailed synthesis examples and analytical data for this compound, identified as RD162, confirming its structure and properties (’517 Patent, Example 52). As there is no apparent ambiguity in the structure itself, the focus will likely shift from claim interpretation to arguments regarding patentability.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Sun was aware of the ’517 patent at the time of its ANDA submission, citing Sun's reference to the patent in its notice letter and the patent's listing in the FDA's Orange Book (Compl. ¶48). It further alleges that Sun "knows or should know" that its commercial activities post-approval will infringe (Compl. ¶49). Plaintiffs also allege that Sun’s invalidity positions are "devoid of an objective good faith basis" and that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶50, Prayer for Relief ¶E).

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

The complaint outlines a dispute characteristic of Hatch-Waxman litigation, where the act of infringement is the ANDA filing itself. The central questions for the court will likely be:

  • A core issue will be one of patent validity: As the complaint alleges direct structural identity between the accused generic product and the claimed compound, the primary defense will likely be that Claim 1 of the ’517 Patent is invalid. The case will turn on whether the defendant can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claim to the enzalutamide compound is invalid, for instance, on grounds of obviousness over prior art compounds or lack of adequate written description.
  • A second key question will be one of statutory relief: Assuming the patent is found not invalid and infringed, the central issue for resolution will be the appropriate relief under the Hatch-Waxman Act, specifically an order directing the FDA to set the effective date of approval for Sun’s ANDA no earlier than the expiration of the ’517 Patent, including any extensions.