DCT

2:23-cv-03393

Bausch Health Ireland Ltd v. Padagis Israel Pharma Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-03393, D.N.J., 06/21/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendants conduct business in the district, intend to market and sell the accused generic product there upon FDA approval, and have previously consented to jurisdiction in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of Plaintiff's Arazlo® lotion constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering a specific pharmaceutical formulation.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to topical lotions for treating dermatological conditions, a field where formulation stability, therapeutic efficacy, and patient tolerability are critical for commercial success.
  • Key Procedural History: This action follows a previous lawsuit initiated by Bausch against Padagis concerning the same ANDA but based on a different patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,311,482). The patent-in-suit in this case, the '116 Patent, issued on June 20, 2023, and the complaint was filed the following day. Plaintiff states its intent to list the patent in the FDA's Orange Book for its Arazlo® product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-06-18 ’116 Patent Priority Date (filing of Provisional App. 62/181,481)
2022-05-12 Padagis sends Notice Letter to Bausch regarding ANDA No. 215393
2023-06-20 U.S. Patent No. 11,679,116 Issues
2023-06-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,679,116 - Topical Compositions and Methods for Treating Psoriasis

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,679,116, Topical Compositions and Methods for Treating Psoriasis, issued June 20, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the limitations of existing topical treatments for psoriasis (Compl., Ex. A, ’116 Patent, col. 1:26-2:13). Potent corticosteroids can have significant local and systemic adverse effects limiting their chronic use, while retinoids like tazarotene are often associated with local skin irritation, which can reduce patient compliance (Compl., Ex. A, ’116 Patent, col. 1:59-2:6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by combining a corticosteroid and a retinoid into a single topical composition. The specification suggests that using concentrations of these active ingredients below their typical monotherapy levels can produce a synergistic effect—greater efficacy with reduced adverse effects (Compl., Ex. A, ’116 Patent, col. 2:17-34, 3:24-41). The asserted claim, however, is not directed to the general concept but to a highly specific "recipe" for a lotion.
  • Technical Importance: Developing a combination therapy in a single vehicle that is more effective and tolerable than its individual components could represent a significant advance in patient care, simplifying treatment regimens and potentially improving outcomes for chronic conditions like psoriasis (Compl., Ex. A, ’116 Patent, col. 15:3-16:12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim, with the primary focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A pharmaceutical composition "consisting essentially of"
    • tazarotene, 0.045% w/w,
    • diethyl sebacate, 2.97% w/w,
    • light mineral oil, 8.03% w/w,
    • sorbitan monooleate, 0.1% w/w,
    • sorbitol solution (70%), 10.7% w/w,
    • and eight other specific excipients at precise weight-per-weight concentrations,
    • wherein the composition is a lotion.
  • The complaint does not foreclose asserting dependent claim 2, a method of treating psoriasis using the composition of claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the generic drug product described in Padagis's Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 215393 (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The "Padagis ANDA Product" is a generic tazarotene (0.045%) lotion intended to be a substitute for Plaintiff's branded product, Arazlo® (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 28). The complaint states that Padagis's ANDA relies on the Arazlo® New Drug Application and contains data intended to demonstrate the bioequivalence of the two products (Compl. ¶29). It also notes that Arazlo® is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 9 years of age or older (Compl. ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full claim-chart analysis, as the specific formulation contained within the confidential ANDA is not disclosed. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the submission of ANDA No. 215393 to the FDA for a generic equivalent of Arazlo® is a statutory act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) because the product described therein will necessarily meet the limitations of the asserted claims of the ’116 Patent upon approval (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: A determinative factual question will be whether the formulation detailed in Padagis's confidential ANDA contains each of the thirteen ingredients recited in Claim 1 at the exact weight-per-weight percentages specified. Any deviation from this precise "recipe" may support a non-infringement defense.
    • Scope Question: Given that Claim 1 uses the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of," a central legal dispute may arise if the Padagis formulation contains additional, unlisted ingredients. The court would then need to determine if those ingredients "materially affect the basic and novel properties" of the invention, which the patent suggests are synergistic efficacy and improved tolerability (Compl., Ex. A, ’116 Patent, col. 15:3-16:12).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "consisting essentially of"
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because it defines the scope of the claimed "recipe." The infringement analysis for Claim 1 will likely depend on whether Padagis's formulation, if it includes any unlisted ingredients, falls inside or outside the boundary set by this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the most likely avenue for a non-infringement argument if the accused product contains the thirteen listed ingredients but also includes others.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses numerous classes of potential excipients, such as various emulsifiers, thickeners, and solvents, that can be used in such formulations (Compl., Ex. A, ’116 Patent, col. 5:6-8:65). A party could argue this disclosure suggests that the addition of other common, inert excipients would not materially alter the invention's fundamental character.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites thirteen distinct ingredients with concentrations specified to two decimal places. A party could argue that such precision implies that the "basic and novel properties" are tied to this exact formulation, which was the subject of the clinical studies detailed in the patent (Compl., Ex. A, ’116 Patent, col. 11, Table 4). Under this view, any additional ingredient that alters the formulation's physical or chemical properties (e.g., viscosity, absorption, stability) could be argued to "materially affect" its character, thus placing it outside the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶33). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support these claims, such as how Defendant's product labeling might instruct users to perform the steps of the patented method claim.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willfulness. However, the prayer for relief requests that the court declare the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute permitting an award of attorneys' fees (Prayer ¶6). Such a request is often predicated on allegations of willful infringement. Plaintiff may argue that Defendant's knowledge is established by the filing of this lawsuit and potentially by the prior litigation involving the same ANDA and a related patent.

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

  • A primary issue for discovery will be one of compositional identity: does the confidential formulation described in Padagis's ANDA No. 215393 match, with precision, the thirteen-ingredient "recipe" set forth in Claim 1 of the ’116 patent?
  • The central legal battle will likely be a question of claim scope: if the Padagis formulation contains additional, unlisted ingredients, the case will hinge on the interpretation of "consisting essentially of" and whether those extra components are found to materially alter the basic and novel properties of the patented lotion.
  • A potential point of inquiry may be the mismatch in medical indication: does the fact that the '116 Patent is directed to treating psoriasis while the commercial Arazlo® product is indicated for acne vulgaris have any bearing on claim construction or the patent's validity, particularly concerning the asserted method claim?