DCT

3:18-cv-17312

Cosmo Tech Ltd v. Sun Pharmaceutical

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-17312, D.N.J., 12/17/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to the foreign defendants (Sun Ltd. and Sun FZE) because they can be sued in any judicial district, and as to the domestic defendant (Sun Inc.) because it has a regular and established place of business in New Jersey.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic version of Plaintiffs' Uceris® product constitutes an act of infringement of a patent directed to controlled-release oral pharmaceutical compositions.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to pharmaceutical formulations designed for the controlled delivery of an active ingredient, such as budesonide, to specific locations within the gastrointestinal tract for treating inflammatory conditions.
  • Key Procedural History: This is a Hatch-Waxman Act litigation initiated in response to a Paragraph IV certification filed by Defendant Sun FZE, which alleges that Plaintiffs' patent is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the proposed generic product. The patent-in-suit is listed in the FDA's "Orange Book" as covering Plaintiffs' branded drug, Uceris®. The complaint was filed within the 45-day statutory window following receipt of Defendants' notice letter, triggering a potential 30-month stay of FDA approval for the generic product. The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-06-14 '878 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2018-09-04 '878 Patent Issue Date
2018-11-02 Date of Defendant's Notice Letter
2018-12-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,064,878 - “Controlled Release and Taste Masking Oral Pharmaceutical Compositions”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,064,878, issued September 4, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating oral drug delivery systems that can release an active ingredient in a predictable, controlled manner within the gastrointestinal tract. The background notes that conventional methods, such as those using inert or simple hydrophilic matrices, can suffer from non-linear or inconsistent release profiles, potentially leading to suboptimal therapeutic effects ('878 Patent, col. 4:1-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a composite matrix structure. The active ingredient is first combined with amphiphilic compounds (which have both water-attracting and fat-attracting properties), and this mixture is incorporated into a lipophilic (fat-loving) matrix to form granules. These granules are then dispersed within an outer hydrophilic (water-loving) matrix. When the tablet is exposed to bodily fluids, the outer hydrophilic matrix swells to form a viscous barrier that slows down solvent penetration, while the inner amphiphilic components help to wet the drug, promoting a more steady and controlled release over time ('878 Patent, col. 4:26-41, col. 6:10-23). The entire tablet is then covered with a gastro-resistant coating to prevent premature drug release in the stomach.
  • Technical Importance: This multi-matrix approach is designed to achieve a more linear and prolonged release of a drug targeted for action in the colon, which is particularly useful for treating localized conditions like ulcerative colitis while minimizing systemic side effects ('878 Patent, col. 4:31-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A controlled release oral pharmaceutical composition in the form of a tablet.
    • The tablet comprises a "tablet core" which itself includes a mixture of (i) budesonide and (ii) a "macroscopically homogenous structure" that contains at least one lipophilic and at least one hydrophilic compound.
    • The tablet also comprises a "gastro-resistant coating" applied to the core to prevent release in the stomach.
    • A "wherein" clause specifies that the budesonide is dispersed in the macroscopically homogenous structure.
    • A final "wherein" clause requires that this macroscopically homogenous structure "controls the release kinetics" of the budesonide in the gastrointestinal tract.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims of the '878 Patent (Compl. p. 11, ¶A).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is "Sun's ANDA Product," identified as "budesonide extended-release tablets, 9 mg," which is a proposed generic version of Plaintiffs' Uceris® drug (Compl. ¶¶2, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is an oral tablet intended for the induction of remission in patients with active, mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (Compl. ¶35). The complaint alleges that the product is a controlled-release formulation comprising a tablet core and a gastro-resistant coating, designed to deliver 9 mg of budesonide to the gastrointestinal tract (Compl. ¶¶47, 49). Defendants are seeking FDA approval to manufacture and sell this product in the United States as a generic alternative to Uceris® prior to the expiration of the '878 Patent (Compl. ¶37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'878 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a tablet core comprising a mixture of: (i) budesonide in an amount effective to treat intestinal inflammatory disease; The accused ANDA product is alleged to comprise a tablet core containing 9 mg of budesonide, an amount effective to treat intestinal inflammatory disease. ¶49 col. 11:3-4
and (ii) a macroscopically homogenous structure comprising: (a) at least one lipophilic compound; and (b) at least one hydrophilic compound; The accused product's tablet core allegedly comprises a "macroscopically homogenous structure" that contains at least one lipophilic compound and at least one hydrophilic compound. ¶49 col. 9:42-49
a gastro-resistant coating applied directly to the tablet core that prevents release of budesonide in the stomach, The accused product is alleged to comprise a gastro-resistant coating. ¶47 col. 9:49-57
wherein the budesonide is dispersed in the macroscopically homogenous structure The complaint alleges that the budesonide in the accused product is dispersed in its macroscopically homogenous structure. ¶50 col. 9:49-57
and wherein the macroscopically homogenous structure controls the release kinetics of the budesonide from the tablet in the gastrointestinal tract. The complaint alleges infringement of the full claim, thereby alleging that the accused product's structure controls the release kinetics. ¶48 col. 9:49-57

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "macroscopically homogenous structure." The question is whether this term, as used in the patent, requires the specific multi-component architecture described in the specification (i.e., lipophilic granules dispersed in a hydrophilic matrix) or if it can be read more broadly to cover any uniform blend of lipophilic and hydrophilic materials in a tablet core.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations without providing technical details of the accused product's formulation. A key question for the court will be one of fact: does the formulation described in Sun's ANDA actually contain a "macroscopically homogenous structure" that "controls the release kinetics" as claimed? Evidence will be needed to show whether the accused structure performs the specific function required by the claim or if release is controlled by a different mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "macroscopically homogenous structure"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core inventive concept of the tablet's internal structure. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused product's formulation falls within the scope of this term's definition.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties may argue that the claim language itself—requiring only a structure with lipophilic and hydrophilic components—does not explicitly limit the term to a specific arrangement.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more detailed definition, stating that the compression of the constituent parts "yields a macroscopically homogeneous structure... namely a matrix containing a dispersion of the lipophilic granules in a hydrophilic matrix" ('878 Patent, col. 5:67-col. 6:2). This language may support an interpretation that the term requires this specific granular dispersion architecture.

  • The Term: "controls the release kinetics"

    • Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation at the end of Claim 1. Proving infringement requires showing not only that the accused product has the claimed structure, but also that this structure performs the claimed function of controlling the drug release.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "controls" means the structure must only contribute to or influence the release rate, not be the sole factor.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific mechanism where the hydrophilic matrix swells to form a "high viscosity hydrated front which prevents the further penetration of the solvent" ('878 Patent, col. 6:13-16). This may support an argument that "controls" requires the structure to be the primary mechanism governing the release profile through this specific swelling action.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that if Defendants manufacture, use, or sell the ANDA product, they would induce and contribute to infringement (Compl. ¶43). In the context of an ANDA case, this allegation is primarily directed at the post-approval marketing of the generic drug, where the product's label would instruct physicians and patients to use it in an infringing manner.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It does, however, seek attorneys' fees for an "exceptional case" pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 12, ¶D).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "macroscopically homogenous structure," which is described in the patent specification as a dispersion of lipophilic granules within a hydrophilic matrix, be construed to cover the specific formulation of the accused generic product, the details of which will emerge during discovery?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional causality: does the accused product's internal structure, whatever its composition, actually "control the release kinetics" of budesonide as required by Claim 1, or is the release profile primarily governed by other factors, such as the properties of the gastro-resistant coating or other excipients not contemplated by the claim's functional language?