DCT

3:16-cv-01727

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Inc v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:16-cv-01727, D.N.J., 03/29/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.'s principal place of business in New Jersey, its registration to do business in the state, and its distribution and sales of pharmaceutical products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) to market generic versions of the diabetes drugs TRADJENTA® and JENTADUETO® constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering methods of treatment using the active ingredient linagliptin.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to DPP-IV inhibitors, a class of oral medications for treating type 2 diabetes by improving glycemic control through the incretin system.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Plaintiff's receipt of Defendant's Paragraph IV certification notice, which asserted that the patent-in-suit is invalid or would not be infringed by the proposed generic products. Plaintiff’s counsel has also certified that this case is related to a consolidated action against another generic manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. HEC Pharm Group, et al., No. 3:15-cv-05982 (D.N.J.).

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-05-04 ’859 Patent Priority Date
2015-11-03 ’859 Patent Issue Date
2015-12-09 Plaintiff received Defendant's Paragraph IV certification
2016-03-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,173,859 - "Uses of DPP IV Inhibitors"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,173,859, "Uses of DPP IV Inhibitors", issued November 3, 2015. (Compl. ¶27).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of managing type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetic conditions. It notes that existing treatments are often insufficient to lower patient HbA1c levels into the desired target range of less than 6.5%, a key metric for long-term glycemic control. (’859 Patent, col. 2:1-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method of using a specific dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitor to treat type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders. By inhibiting the DPP-IV enzyme, the drug increases the level of certain hormones (like GLP-1) that stimulate insulin release and lower blood sugar. The patent claims methods of administering this specific inhibitor, including in combination with other common antidiabetic drugs like metformin. (’859 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:8-9).
  • Technical Importance: The use of DPP-IV inhibitors represented a significant therapeutic approach by targeting the incretin system, offering a new mechanism for managing blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. (’859 Patent, col. 1:17-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" of the ’859 patent without specifying which claims will be asserted. (Compl. ¶38).
  • Independent claim 1, a representative method claim, includes the following essential elements:
    • A method for treating type 2 diabetes.
    • Administering the specific xanthine compound 1-[(4-methyl-quinazolin-2-yl)methyl]-3-methyl-7-(2-butyn-1-yl)-8-(3-(R)-amino-piperidin-1-yl)-xanthine (linagliptin) or a therapeutically active salt thereof.
    • Administering the compound in an oral dosage of 2.5 mg or 5 mg.
    • Administering the compound in combination with metformin.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶38, ¶40).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s proposed generic drug products submitted to the FDA under ANDA Nos. 208455 and 208454. (Compl. ¶34). These are identified as the "Sun Linagliptin Product" (a generic version of TRADJENTA®) and the "Sun Combination Products" (generic versions of JENTADUETO®). (Compl. ¶34).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Sun Linagliptin Product is a 5 mg oral tablet containing linagliptin. (Compl. ¶34). The Sun Combination Products are oral tablets containing linagliptin and metformin hydrochloride in dosages of 2.5 mg/500 mg, 2.5 mg/850 mg, and 2.5 mg/1000 mg. (Compl. ¶34).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant's ANDAs contain data demonstrating the bioequivalence of its proposed products to Plaintiff's branded TRADJENTA® and JENTADUETO® products. (Compl. ¶35-36). The filing of these ANDAs signals a commercial intent to enter the U.S. market for oral type 2 diabetes treatments. (Compl. ¶1, ¶39).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,173,859 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of treating type 2 diabetes comprising administering to a patient in need thereof... The proposed labels for the Sun ANDA Products will instruct for their use in treating type 2 diabetes, thereby directing physicians and patients to perform the claimed method. ¶40, ¶44 col. 23:27-28
(a) 1-[(4-methyl-quinazolin-2-yl)methyl]-3-methyl-7-(2-butyn-1-yl)-8-(3-(R)-amino-piperidin-1-yl)-xanthine, or a therapeutically active salt thereof... The Sun ANDA Products contain the active pharmaceutical ingredient linagliptin, which is the chemical compound recited in the claim. ¶34 col. 5:12-20
...in an oral dosage of 2.5 mg or 5 mg, and... The Sun Linagliptin Product is formulated in a 5 mg dosage, and the Sun Combination Products are formulated with a 2.5 mg dosage of linagliptin. ¶34 col. 23:33-34
(b) metformin. The Sun Combination Products are fixed-dose combinations containing metformin hydrochloride. The Sun Linagliptin Product's label will instruct for its use with metformin as part of standard diabetes treatment protocols. ¶34 col. 23:35
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Validity Questions: In Hatch-Waxman litigation, the primary dispute is often over patent validity. A central issue for the court will be Defendant's contention that the asserted claims are invalid. (Compl. ¶37). This will likely focus on obviousness, raising the question of whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the specific DPP-IV inhibitor (linagliptin) with metformin to treat type 2 diabetes and achieve the claimed results. The patent's own acknowledgment that combining different active principles is often indicated for metabolic disorders could be a focal point of this dispute. (’859 Patent, col. 8:1-3).
    • Scope Questions: Should Defendant pursue a non-infringement defense, it may raise questions about claim scope. For instance, a potential dispute could arise over whether the specific salt form of linagliptin used in the Sun ANDA Products qualifies as a "therapeutically active salt thereof" within the meaning construed from the patent's specification and prosecution history.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to identify specific claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology and the nature of ANDA litigation, the following terms may become central to the case.

  • The Term: "therapeutically active salt thereof"

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical to defining the scope of the claimed invention beyond the specific base compound. If Defendant's proposed product uses a different salt form of linagliptin, its infringement defense may depend on arguing that its salt is not a "therapeutically active salt" as the term is used in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the phrase generally without listing or limiting the types of salts covered, which may support a construction that includes any salt form of the compound that demonstrates therapeutic activity for the claimed purpose. (’859 Patent, col. 23:31-32).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope might contend that the term is limited by the examples or embodiments disclosed in the specification, or that the term should be limited to salts that were known to be therapeutically active at the time of the invention.

  • The Term: "fixed combination"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in other independent claims (e.g., claim 16) and is crucial for allegations against the Sun Combination Products, which are single-tablet formulations. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition distinguishes between a single dosage form and a multi-pill kit, which has direct consequences for the scope of infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "fixed combination" could encompass co-packaged products intended for simultaneous administration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes formulating compounds "together with one or more inert conventional carriers and/or diluents... to form conventional galenic preparations such as tablets, coated tablets, [and] capsules," which suggests a single, integrated dosage form. (’859 Patent, col. 8:13-24).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s promotional activities and product labeling for the Sun ANDA Products will instruct and encourage medical professionals and patients to use the products in a manner that directly infringes the ’859 Patent’s method claims. (Compl. ¶44). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the products are especially adapted for an infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce. (Compl. ¶41-42).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willfulness. However, it alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the ’859 patent, at least as of its Paragraph IV notification, and pleads that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, seeking an award of attorneys' fees. (Compl. ¶43, ¶46; Prayer for Relief ¶b).

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

  • A core issue will be one of validity: are the asserted method claims invalid as obvious over the prior art? This will likely turn on whether a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine linagliptin with metformin to treat type 2 diabetes with a reasonable expectation of success, based on the state of the art as of the patent's 2006 priority date.
  • A key evidentiary question may be one of infringement scope: assuming Defendant advances a non-infringement argument, does the specific formulation of its proposed generic product, particularly its salt form, fall within the scope of the claim term "therapeutically active salt thereof" as properly construed?
  • A final question for the court will be whether Defendant's basis for challenging the patent, as detailed in its Paragraph IV notice and advanced during litigation, is sufficiently weak or its conduct sufficiently egregious to render the case "exceptional" and justify an award of attorneys' fees.