DCT

3:17-cv-07191

Forest Laboratories LLC v. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-07191, D.N.J., 09/18/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because multiple defendants maintain their principal place of business in the state and intend to market, sell, and distribute the accused generic product to residents of New Jersey.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of Plaintiff's Byvalson® hypertension treatment constitutes an act of infringement of two patents covering compositions and methods of use for nebivolol combined with an angiotensin II receptor antagonist.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to combination pharmaceutical therapies for treating cardiovascular disease, specifically combining a beta-blocker with a distinct vasodilating mechanism (nebivolol) and an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (valsartan) to manage hypertension.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendants' submission of ANDA No. 210596 and a corresponding Paragraph IV certification notice letter asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by their proposed generic product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-06-04 Priority date for '838 and '552 Patents
2010-09-28 '838 Patent issued
2010-11-23 '552 Patent issued
2016-06-03 Plaintiff's Byvalson® (NDA No. 206302) approved by FDA
2017-08-04 Defendant Prinston submitted ANDA No. 210596 to the FDA
2017-08-04 Defendant Prinston sent Paragraph IV Notice Letter to Plaintiffs
2017-09-18 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,803,838 - “Compositions Comprising Nebivolol”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the significant public health issue of hypertension and notes a need for pharmaceutical formulations that can stimulate or potentiate endothelial nitric oxide (NO) production, particularly in populations like African Americans where such production may be reduced ('838 Patent, col. 1:15-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a pharmaceutical composition that combines nebivolol, a beta-blocker known to increase nitric oxide levels in the vascular endothelium, with a second cardiovascular agent, specifically an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (ARB) such as valsartan ('838 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-12). This combination of two drugs with different mechanisms of action is intended to provide a more effective treatment for cardiovascular diseases.
  • Technical Importance: Combining antihypertensive agents with different mechanisms of action is a well-established therapeutic strategy for achieving superior blood pressure control compared to monotherapy.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4-5, 8-9, and 12 (Compl. ¶63).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A composition comprising between about 0.125 mg to about 40 mg nebivolol.
    • The composition also comprises between about 1 mg to about 1200 mg of an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (ARB) selected from olmesartan, losartan, or valsartan.
    • The composition provides a "higher therapeutic index" when administered to a patient with hypertension than either agent administered alone.

U.S. Patent No. 7,838,552 - “Compositions Comprising Nebivolol”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’838 Patent: the treatment of cardiovascular disorders such as hypertension ('552 Patent, col. 1:19-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method of treating hypertension by administering the pharmaceutical composition described in the ’838 Patent, which combines nebivolol with another cardiovascular agent like an ARB ('552 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-55). This patent protects the therapeutic application of the composition.
  • Technical Importance: Securing patent protection for both a novel composition and the method of using it provides a comprehensive intellectual property position, covering both the product itself and its approved medical use.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11 (Compl. ¶67).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A method of treating hypertension by administering a composition comprising between about 0.125 mg to about 40 mg nebivolol.
    • The composition also comprises between about 1 mg to about 1200 mg of a cardiovascular active agent selected from valsartan, losartan, or olmesartan.
    • The effectiveness of the composition is "greater than" treatment with either agent administered alone.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is "Prinston's ANDA Product," identified as ANDA No. 210596 (Compl. ¶53).

Functionality and Market Context

The product is a generic version of Plaintiffs' Byvalson® tablets, formulated to contain 5 mg of nebivolol (as nebivolol hydrochloride) and 80 mg of valsartan (Compl. ¶¶51, 53). As a generic equivalent, it is intended for the same medical indication as Byvalson®: the treatment of hypertension to lower blood pressure (Compl. ¶52). The filing of the ANDA signifies Defendants' intent to commercially manufacture, use, and sell this product in the United States upon receiving FDA approval (Compl. ¶53).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,803,838 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A composition comprising between about 0.125 mg to about 40 mg nebivolol or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof Prinston's ANDA Product contains 5 mg of nebivolol. ¶51, ¶53 col. 2:13-14
and between about 1 mg to about 1200 mg of an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (ARB) selected from the group consisting of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof Prinston's ANDA Product contains 80 mg of valsartan, which is an explicitly recited ARB. ¶51, ¶53 col. 2:7-12
wherein the composition provides a higher therapeutic index when administered to a patient having hypertension than either the corresponding amount of nebivolol or the ARB administered alone. The complaint alleges that Defendants' filing of ANDA No. 210596 for a product containing this composition was an act of infringement of the '838 patent, which includes this limitation. ¶63 col. 32:9-16

7,838,552 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of treating hypertension comprising administering to a subject in need thereof a composition comprising between about 0.125 mg to about 40 mg nebivolol or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof Prinston's ANDA Product, containing 5 mg of nebivolol, is indicated for the treatment of hypertension. ¶51, ¶52 col. 2:47-49
and between about 1 mg to about 1200 mg of at least one other cardiovascular active agent selected from the group consisting of valsartan, losartan, olmesartan, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, Prinston's ANDA Product also contains 80 mg of valsartan, an explicitly recited cardiovascular agent. ¶51, ¶53 col. 2:50-53
wherein the effectiveness of the composition when administered to the subject is greater than treatment with nebivolol or a cardiovascular active agent selected from the group consisting of valsartan, losartan, olmesartan, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof administered alone. The complaint alleges that the proposed labeling for the ANDA product will instruct for the infringing use, which is based on the branded drug's greater effectiveness as a combination therapy. ¶67, ¶73 col. 47:1-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of the functional "wherein" clauses present in the independent claims of both patents. The dispute will likely focus on what evidence is required to prove a "higher therapeutic index" ('838 Patent) or "greater" "effectiveness" ('552 Patent). This raises the question of whether clinical data showing synergy is required, or if mechanistic evidence, such as the in vitro nitric oxide release data disclosed in the patents, is sufficient to meet these limitations.
    • Technical Questions: While infringement in an ANDA case is often stipulated for a bioequivalent product, a technical question may arise regarding the proof for the functional limitations. What is the technical and clinical evidence that the specific 5 mg nebivolol / 80 mg valsartan combination is synergistic or provides a higher therapeutic index compared to its individual components at those doses?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "higher therapeutic index" (from '838 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a required functional property of the claimed composition. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed to require a specific type of clinical advantage (e.g., synergistic blood pressure reduction, improved side effect profile) or if it can be satisfied by a mechanistic advantage, such as the enhanced nitric oxide production discussed in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition, which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in pharmacology, encompassing any improvement in the benefit-risk ratio ('838 Patent, col. 4:54-65).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples focus exclusively on measuring increased nitric oxide (NO) release from endothelial cells as the key benefit of the combination ('838 Patent, col. 29:10-31:48). A party could argue this disclosure limits the scope of "higher therapeutic index" to an advantage derived from this specific NO-based mechanism.

  • The Term: "effectiveness... is greater than" (from '552 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This functional language is critical for defining the scope of the patented method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the standard of proof for both direct and induced infringement. It raises the question of what metric (e.g., mean blood pressure reduction, response rate) must be "greater," and by how much.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "effectiveness" is used broadly in the context of treating cardiovascular disorders, suggesting it could encompass any clinically recognizable improvement in managing hypertension ('552 Patent, col. 2:46-51).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes a statement that the claimed composition "is at least 100% more effective" than the individual components, a calculation based on in vitro NO release data ('552 Patent, col. 31:46-49). This could be used to argue that "greater" effectiveness is tied to this specific, quantifiable mechanistic outcome.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement of the ’552 Patent. The inducement claim is based on the allegation that Defendants' proposed product labeling will be "substantively identical" to the label for Byvalson® and will explicitly instruct healthcare providers and patients to administer the drug for the treatment of hypertension, thereby causing infringement (Compl. ¶¶72, 73, 78). The contributory infringement claim is based on the allegation that the product has no substantial non-infringing uses, as it is only indicated for treating hypertension (Compl. ¶¶83, 84).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional and evidentiary scope: How will the court construe the functional limitations "higher therapeutic index" and "effectiveness... is greater than"? Will proof of these limitations require clinical data demonstrating a synergistic effect on blood pressure, or will the mechanistic, in vitro evidence of enhanced nitric oxide release disclosed in the patents be sufficient to satisfy the claim language?
  • A second key question will be one of validity: As is typical in ANDA litigation, the primary defense will likely be that the patents are invalid. The central validity question will be whether combining nebivolol and valsartan—two known antihypertensive agents—to treat hypertension would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, particularly in view of the claimed functional requirements for synergy or enhanced effectiveness.