DCT

3:15-cv-05982

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Inc v. HEC Pharm Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-09-09 Earliest Priority Date for ’955, ’648, ’541 Patents
2006-05-04 Earliest Priority Date for ’927 Patent
2008-08-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,407,955 Issues
2008-10-16 Earliest Priority Date for ’156 Patent
2009-01-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’695 Patent
2012-02-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,119,648 Issues
2012-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,178,541 Issues
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,673,927 Issues
2014-09-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,846,695 Issues
2014-10-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,853,156 Issues
2015-06-27 Plaintiff receives ANDA notification letter from HEC
2015-06-30 Plaintiff receives ANDA notification letters from Accord and Invagen
2015-07-01 Plaintiff receives ANDA notification letters from HEC and Aurobindo
2015-07-09 Plaintiff receives ANDA notification letters from Zydus and MSN
2015-07-10 Plaintiff receives ANDA notification letter from DRL
2015-07-13 Plaintiff receives ANDA notification letters from DRL and Mylan
2015-07-14 Plaintiff receives ANDA notification letter from Sun
2015-07-15 Plaintiff receives ANDA notification letter from Mylan
2015-07-20 Plaintiff receives ANDA notification letter from Prinston
2015-08-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,407,955 - "8-[3-AMINO-PIPERIDIN-1-YL]-XANTHINES, THE PREPARATION THEREOF AND THEIR USE AS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS"

  • Issued: August 5, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for compounds that inhibit the enzyme dipeptidylpeptidase-IV (DPP-IV) for the treatment of conditions such as type I and type II diabetes mellitus (’955 Patent, col. 1:15-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a class of substituted xanthine chemical compounds claimed to possess an inhibitory effect on DPP-IV activity (’955 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:20-24). The core chemical structure is a xanthine molecule substituted at the 8-position with a 3-amino-piperidin-1-yl group, with additional specified substitutions at other positions to achieve the desired pharmacological properties (’955 Patent, col. 2:21-4:67).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a new class of chemical entities for use as oral antidiabetic drugs, offering a new therapeutic pathway for managing type 2 diabetes (’955 Patent, col. 17:41-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least one claim, and the broadest independent claim is Claim 1.
  • Claim 1 recites a compound of a general Markush formula, with the following essential elements:
    • A substituted xanthine scaffold.
    • An R¹ substituent defined as a methyl group substituted by one of several specified functional groups (e.g., naphthyl, phenyl-oxadiazolyl, 2-oxo-2H-chromenyl).
    • An R² substituent selected from a methyl, isopropyl, or phenyl group.
    • An R³ substituent selected from a group of specified unsaturated alkyl or alkynyl groups (e.g., 2-buten-1-yl, 2-butyn-1-yl).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,119,648 - "8-[3-AMINO-PIPERIDIN-1-YL]-XANTHINES, THE PREPARATION THEREOF AND THEIR USE AS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS"

  • Issued: February 21, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '955 Patent, the '648 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the need for effective DPP-IV inhibitors to treat diabetes mellitus (’955 Patent, col. 1:15-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The '648 Patent claims a single, specific compound that falls within the broader class of compounds disclosed in the '955 Patent. This compound is 1-[(4-methyl-quinazolin-2-yl)methyl]-3-methyl-7-(2-butyn-1-yl)-8-(3-amino-piperidin-1-yl)-xanthine, known by the nonproprietary name linagliptin (’648 Patent, claim 1). The specification, incorporated from the '955 Patent, describes its synthesis and utility as a DPP-IV inhibitor (’955 Patent, Example IV (190)).
  • Technical Importance: This patent claims the specific active pharmaceutical ingredient linagliptin, which became the basis for the commercial drug TRADJENTA® (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 187).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single independent claim, Claim 1.
  • Claim 1 recites the following chemical compound:
    • 1-[(4-methyl-quinazolin-2-yl)methyl]-3-methyl-7-(2-butyn-1-yl)-8-(3-amino-piperidin-1-yl)-xanthine.

U.S. Patent No. 8,178,541 - "8-[3-AMINO-PIPERIDIN-1-YL]-XANTHINES, THE PREPARATION THEREOF AND THEIR USE AS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS"

  • Issued: May 15, 2012 (Compl. ¶183).
  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the '955 Patent, this patent isolates and claims a specific stereoisomer of the linagliptin compound. The single claim covers the (R)-enantiomer of the 3-amino-piperidine moiety, which is the specific configuration used in the final drug product.
  • Asserted Claims: The patent consists of a single independent claim, Claim 1.
  • Accused Features: The accused feature is the linagliptin API in Defendants' proposed generic products, which the complaint alleges is, or contains, the claimed (R)-enantiomer (Compl. ¶¶ 195, 221).

U.S. Patent No. 8,673,927 - "Uses of DPP-IV Inhibitors"

  • Issued: March 18, 2014 (Compl. ¶184).
  • Technology Synopsis: This is a method-of-use patent. It claims a method for treating type II diabetes in drug-naive patients or those who have not recently been treated with other oral antidiabetics, by administering a DPP-IV inhibitor, such as linagliptin.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims; the patent contains two independent claims (1 and 10).
  • Accused Features: The accused feature is the act of administering Defendants' proposed generic products according to the instructions that will allegedly be included in their product labeling (Compl. ¶¶ 235, 238-239).

U.S. Patent No. 8,846,695 - "Treatment For Diabetes In Patients With Inadequate Glycemic Control Despite Metformin Therapy Comprising A DPP-IV Inhibitor"

  • Issued: September 30, 2014 (Compl. ¶185).
  • Technology Synopsis: This is a method-of-use patent claiming a method of treating type II diabetes by administering a DPP-IV inhibitor (linagliptin) to patients who have inadequate glycemic control despite ongoing metformin therapy. This covers the use of linagliptin as an add-on therapy to metformin.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims; the patent contains four independent claims (1, 2, 3, and 4).
  • Accused Features: The accused feature is the act of administering Defendants' proposed generic products (particularly the linagliptin/metformin combination product) according to the instructions that will allegedly be included in their product labeling (Compl. ¶¶ 246, 249-250).

U.S. Patent No. 8,853,156 - "Treatment For Diabetes In Patients Inappropriate For Metformin Therapy"

  • Issued: October 7, 2014 (Compl. ¶186).
  • Technology Synopsis: This method-of-use patent claims a method of treating type II diabetes by administering linagliptin to patients for whom metformin therapy is deemed inappropriate due to contraindications or intolerability. This covers the use of linagliptin as an alternative to metformin.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims; the patent contains two independent claims (1 and 13).
  • Accused Features: The accused feature is the act of administering Defendants' proposed generic linagliptin product according to the instructions that will allegedly be included in its product labeling (Compl. ¶¶ 257, 260-261).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the generic drug products for which the numerous defendants have submitted ANDAs to the FDA. These include generic linagliptin 5 mg tablets (analogous to TRADJENTA®) and generic linagliptin and metformin hydrochloride tablets in various dosages (e.g., 2.5 mg/500 mg), analogous to JENTADUETO® (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 195, 366).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The proposed generic products contain linagliptin, a DPP-IV inhibitor, as the active pharmaceutical ingredient, intended for the treatment of type II diabetes mellitus (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges that the defendants' ANDAs rely on Plaintiff's safety and efficacy data for TRADJENTA® and JENTADUETO® and contain data purporting to demonstrate bioequivalence to those branded products (Compl. ¶¶ 196-197). The filing of these ANDAs represents a direct commercial challenge to Plaintiff's marketed drugs, triggering this infringement action under the Hatch-Waxman Act (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 199).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed element-by-element infringement analysis or claim charts. The infringement allegations are based on the statutory framework of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), which defines the submission of an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of a patented drug as an act of infringement. The theory for the compound patents is that the defendants' ANDA products contain the claimed compounds. The theory for the method-of-use patents is that the defendants' proposed product labels will instruct physicians and patients to use the generic drugs in a manner that infringes the claimed methods.

  • '955 Patent Infringement Allegations

    The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-by-claim infringement analysis.

  • '648 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The compound 1-[(4-methyl-quinazolin-2-yl)methyl]-3-methyl-7-(2-butyn-1-yl)-8-(3-amino-piperidin-1-yl)-xanthine. The complaint alleges that Defendants' ANDA products, such as the "HEC Linagliptin Product," are pharmaceutical formulations containing the claimed compound, linagliptin. ¶195, ¶210 ’955 Patent, col. 40:50-42:5

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to identify specific claim terms that are likely to be the subject of a construction dispute. For the compound-specific patents (’648 and ’541), claim construction is not anticipated to be a central issue. For the broader Markush claim of the '955 patent and the method claims of the remaining patents, construction disputes may arise during litigation, but the complaint provides no basis for their preliminary analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants will induce and contribute to infringement of the patents-in-suit (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 203-206). The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendants' promotional activities and package inserts for their ANDA products will instruct and encourage medical professionals and patients to use the generic drugs in an infringing manner, particularly with respect to the method-of-use patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 205, 260). The basis for contributory infringement is the allegation that the ANDA products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶203).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, for each count of infringement, it alleges that the case is "exceptional" and warrants an award of attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (e.g., Compl. ¶208). The factual basis for this assertion appears to be Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit, based on their listing in the FDA's Orange Book and the formal notification letters sent to Plaintiff as part of the ANDA process (Compl. ¶¶ 190, 198).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of claim scope and identity: For U.S. Patent No. 7,407,955, does the specific linagliptin molecule fall within the scope of the broad Markush groups defined in the claims? For U.S. Patent Nos. 8,119,648 and 8,178,541, the central question will be a factual one of chemical identity: do the defendants' proposed generic products contain the specifically claimed compound and stereoisomer?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of induced infringement: Will the final, FDA-approved product labeling for the defendants' generic drugs contain instructions that directly correspond to the steps of the asserted method claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,673,927, 8,846,695, and 8,853,156, thereby encouraging or instructing infringement by end-users?
  • While not an infringement question, the ultimate outcome will heavily depend on the validity of the asserted patent claims. The defendants' Paragraph IV certifications signal an intent to challenge the patents, likely on grounds of obviousness or anticipation, which will form the core of their defense.