DCT

3:17-cv-07887

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Inc v. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-07899, D.N.J., 05/29/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has a regular and established principal place of business in the state and is acting as an agent for Defendant MSN Laboratories Private Limited, an Indian corporation not resident in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of the drug GILOTRIF® (afatinib) constitutes an act of infringement of patents covering the afatinib compound and a process for its manufacture.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to small molecule kinase inhibitors used for the first-line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients with specific epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.
  • Key Procedural History: The litigation was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendant’s submission of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification, alleging that Plaintiff's patents are invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the proposed generic product. Plaintiff received notice letters regarding the '586 Patent on September 1, 2017, and the '431 Patent on May 9, 2018, triggering the statutory framework for this infringement action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-12-20 ’431 Patent Priority Date
2003-10-17 ’586 Patent Priority Date
2012-05-29 ’431 Patent Issue Date
2013-04-23 ’586 Patent Issue Date
2013-07-01 FDA Approval for GILOTRIF® (approximate date from complaint) (Compl. ¶17)
2017-09-01 Defendant sends First Notice Letter regarding '586 Patent (Compl. ¶22)
2017-10-16 Original Complaint Filed (Compl. ¶30)
2018-05-09 Defendant sends Second Notice Letter regarding '431 Patent (Compl. ¶22)
2018-05-29 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. RE43,431 - "Quinazoline Derivatives and Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing Them"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to develop new compounds with valuable pharmacological properties for treating diseases caused by the hyperfunction of tyrosine kinases, which are enzymes involved in cell signaling pathways (’431 Patent, col. 1:33-40). Dysregulation of these pathways is associated with the growth of tumors and certain diseases of the lungs and airways (’431 Patent, col. 9:10-24, col. 11:24-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a class of compounds known as quinazoline derivatives, defined by a general chemical structure (Formula I), which inhibit signal transduction mediated by the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGF-R), a type of tyrosine kinase (’431 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:20-33). By blocking this signaling, the compounds can be used to treat cancers and other specified diseases (’431 Patent, col. 9:15-24).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a targeted therapeutic approach for cancers driven by specific molecular pathways, moving beyond traditional, less-specific chemotherapy.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific independent claims asserted against the Defendant (Compl. ¶¶ 31-39).

U.S. Patent No. 8,426,586 - "Process for Preparing Amino Crotonyl Compounds"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art methods for synthesizing aminocrotonyl compounds (the chemical class that includes afatinib) as being unsuitable for industrial-scale production. These prior methods allegedly suffered from low yields (at most 50%), required purification by column chromatography, and used starting materials that were not commercially available in large quantities or high purity (’586 Patent, col. 2:25-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an improved, multi-step chemical synthesis process that allows for the production of the target compounds with high yields and very good chemical purities, including a low content of the undesired cis-isomer impurity (’586 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-56). The process is designed to be industrially practicable and suitable for commercial application (’586 Patent, col. 2:45-49).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provides a commercially viable manufacturing process, enabling the large-scale production of the active pharmaceutical ingredient necessary for a commercial drug product.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific independent claims asserted against the Defendant (Compl. ¶¶ 48-56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the generic afatinib tablet product described in Defendant MSN’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 210804 (the "ANDA Product") (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The ANDA Product contains afatinib as its active ingredient (Compl. ¶16). Afatinib is a kinase inhibitor indicated for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors have specific EGFR mutations (Compl. ¶16).
  • MSN seeks FDA approval to manufacture, use, and sell this generic version of Plaintiff's commercial product, GILOTRIF®, prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 22). The complaint alleges that upon approval, MSN intends to commercially manufacture and sell the ANDA Product throughout the United States (Compl. ¶10).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific infringement allegations on a claim-by-claim basis or include a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the statutory act of filing the ANDA under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) and the anticipated commercialization of the ANDA product upon approval.

  • ’431 Patent (Compound Patent): The complaint alleges that MSN's filing of its ANDA to obtain approval for a generic version of GILOTRIF® (afatinib) tablets infringes the ’431 Patent (Compl. ¶33). The implicit theory is that the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the ANDA Product is a compound covered by one or more claims of the ’431 Patent.
  • ’586 Patent (Process Patent): The complaint alleges that MSN's filing of its ANDA also infringes the ’586 Patent (Compl. ¶50). The implicit theory is that the ANDA Product will be manufactured using a process covered by one or more claims of the ’586 Patent, constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) and, upon commercialization, § 271(g).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions (’431 Patent): A central question will be whether the specific crystalline form, salt, or stereoisomer of the afatinib active ingredient in MSN’s ANDA Product falls within the scope of the asserted claims of the ’431 Patent. MSN’s Paragraph IV certification suggests it will argue non-infringement or invalidity (Compl. ¶25).
    • Technical Questions (’586 Patent): The key technical question will be whether the synthesis process that MSN intends to use for manufacturing its generic product, as described in its ANDA, includes all the steps of an asserted claim of the ’586 Patent. Disputes in process patent cases often focus on whether seemingly minor deviations in chemical reagents, reaction conditions, or purification steps are sufficient to take the accused process outside the literal scope of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify any asserted claims from either patent-in-suit, precluding an analysis of key terms for construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that if the MSN ANDA is approved, MSN’s commercial activities would actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 52). This is based on the allegation that MSN knows health care professionals and patients will use the ANDA Product in accordance with its labeling, thereby infringing claims covering the compound and its methods of use (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 60).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that MSN had actual and constructive notice of the patents prior to filing its ANDA and was aware that doing so would constitute infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 53). It further alleges that MSN filed its ANDA without an adequate justification for its non-infringement and invalidity positions, rendering the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 55).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of claim scope and validity: Do the specific claims of the ’431 compound patent that Boehringer Ingelheim asserts in this litigation unambiguously cover the afatinib dimaleate salt in MSN's ANDA product, and can those claims withstand MSN's asserted invalidity challenges, which were referenced in its Paragraph IV certification notice?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of process comparison: Does the manufacturing process detailed in the confidential portions of MSN's ANDA, or the process it will ultimately use, practice every step of an asserted claim of the ’586 process patent, or are there legally significant differences in the synthesis pathway that place it outside the claims' scope?