DCT

3:20-cv-03168

Cubist Pharma LLC v. Mylan Pharma Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:20-cv-03168, D.N.J., 03/23/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the district and have committed or will commit acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA for a generic version of the antibiotic CUBICIN RF® constitutes an act of patent infringement.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns pharmaceutical formulations of the lipopeptide antibiotic daptomycin, specifically compositions designed to improve chemical stability and reduce reconstitution time for intravenous administration.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Plaintiff's receipt of a notice letter from Defendants regarding their ANDA submission (No. 213966). The letter included a Paragraph IV certification asserting that the patent-in-suit is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the proposed generic product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-11-23 '456 Patent Priority Date
2015-09-22 '456 Patent Issue Date
2020-02-19 Plaintiff receives Defendants' ANDA Notice Letter (approx.)
2020-03-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456, Lipopeptide Compositions And Related Methods, issued September 22, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes technical challenges with prior formulations of daptomycin, a lipopeptide antibiotic. These include slow reconstitution of the lyophilized (freeze-dried) powder, which could take 15-45 minutes, and chemical instability, where daptomycin degrades into structurally similar but less-effective compounds like anhydro-daptomycin and its β-isomer (’456 Patent, col. 1:53-64, col. 2:43-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses novel daptomycin compositions that exhibit faster reconstitution times and improved chemical stability (’456 Patent, Abstract). The solution involves creating an aqueous solution of daptomycin with specific excipients, particularly a non-reducing sugar such as sucrose, and adjusting the pH to a preferred range of 6.5-7.5 before lyophilizing the mixture into a solid powder (’456 Patent, col. 3:5-15, col. 27:1-5).
  • Technical Importance: These improvements provide a longer shelf-life and allow for significantly faster preparation of the antibiotic for intravenous administration, a practical advantage in clinical settings where rapid treatment of serious bacterial infections is required (’456 Patent, col. 2:50-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 2, 7-11. (Compl. ¶¶30, 35).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A solid pharmaceutical daptomycin composition,
    • wherein said composition is prepared by lyophilizing an aqueous daptomycin solution
    • comprising daptomycin and sucrose.
  • Independent Claim 15:
    • A solid pharmaceutical daptomycin composition,
    • wherein the solid pharmaceutical daptomycin composition is prepared by a process comprising:
      • a. dissolving sucrose in an aqueous solution comprising daptomycin to form a daptomycin sucrose formulation;
      • b. adjusting the pH of the daptomycin sucrose formulation to about 6.5 to about 7.5; and
      • c. converting the daptomycin sugar formulation to the solid pharmaceutical daptomycin composition.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is "Mylan's Proposed ANDA Product," a generic daptomycin for injection drug, for which Mylan submitted Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 213966 to the FDA (Compl. ¶¶1, 24).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The proposed product is a generic version of Plaintiff's CUBICIN RF® drug, which is indicated for treating complicated skin and skin structure infections as well as certain bloodstream infections caused by susceptible Gram-positive bacteria (Compl. ¶¶1, 7).
    • The complaint alleges that by submitting its ANDA, Mylan seeks to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, and sale of its generic daptomycin product prior to the expiration of the ’456 Patent (Compl. ¶29). The complaint does not contain specific details of the accused product's formulation, alleging that such information will be revealed through discovery (Compl. ¶26).
    • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart or a technical breakdown of how the accused ANDA product infringes the asserted claims. The infringement allegations are made generally on "information and belief," a common practice in Hatch-Waxman litigation where the specific formulation of the accused generic product is not publicly available at the time of filing. The complaint alleges that discovery will show that Mylan's commercialization of its Proposed ANDA Product would infringe at least claims 1-2, 7-11, and 15 of the '456 patent (Compl. ¶30). The core infringement theory is that the product described in Mylan's confidential ANDA filing meets all the limitations of the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary dispute will likely center on compositional identity. For claim 1, the question is whether Mylan's formulation, as described in its ANDA, contains "sucrose" in addition to daptomycin and is prepared via lyophilization. For dependent claims, further questions arise, such as whether the formulation meets the specific molar ratio of daptomycin to sucrose recited in claim 2 ("about 1:1.12 to about 1:8.98") or is prepared at the specific pH recited in claim 9 ("a pH of about 7.0").
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question for the court will be: What are the specific ingredients, ingredient ratios, and manufacturing process steps (such as lyophilization and pH adjustment) specified in Mylan's ANDA No. 213966? The complaint asserts that this information, once produced in discovery, will confirm infringement (Compl. ¶26).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "sucrose" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The presence of sucrose is a required element of independent claim 1. The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because if Mylan’s formulation uses a different sugar excipient, it may present a straightforward non-infringement defense against this claim.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue for a broader scope under the doctrine of equivalents by pointing to specification language that lists multiple sugars, including "trehalose, sucrose, mannitol, lactose, maltose, fructose, dextrose, and combinations thereof," as suitable for the invention (’456 Patent, col. 5:65-67).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit and singular recitation of "sucrose" in claim 1, while other sugars are discussed elsewhere in the specification, suggests a deliberate choice by the patentee. The patent’s examples and tables also test and compare different sugars individually, reinforcing that "sucrose" is a specific selection and not interchangeable with other sugars for purposes of literal infringement (’456 Patent, Figs. 5A-5D).

  • The Term: "about" (e.g., "a pH of about 7.0" in Claim 9)

  • Context and Importance: Several dependent claims use the word "about" to qualify numerical values, such as pH levels and molar ratios. The scope of this term will be critical in determining whether Mylan's specific formulation, which may not have a value of exactly 7.0, still falls within the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will set the precise numerical boundaries for infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader range could point to the specification, which discloses ranges like "about 6.5 to 7.5" and "about 4.5 to 8.0," suggesting that "about 7.0" should be interpreted as a central point within a similarly reasonable range (’456 Patent, col. 27:26-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower range could highlight the technical importance of the pH 7.0 value, which the patent links to unexpectedly rapid reconstitution times (’456 Patent, col. 5:56-65). This linkage could support an interpretation where "about" only covers minor variations that do not materially affect the stated advantage.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Mylan's future commercial activities will induce or contribute to infringement of the '456 patent (Compl. ¶¶30, 34). The factual basis for this allegation is that Mylan would provide its generic product with instructions for reconstitution and administration, thereby causing end-users (e.g., pharmacists, clinicians) to perform the patented methods or use the patented compositions.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Mylan has had "knowledge of the '456 patent since at least the date it submitted Mylan's ANDA" (Compl. ¶31). This allegation of knowledge, coupled with Mylan's Paragraph IV certification (Compl. ¶25), could form the basis for a later claim of willfulness or a request for enhanced damages if infringement is found.

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

  • A central factual issue will be one of compositional identity: Does the specific formulation detailed in Mylan’s confidential ANDA submission contain sucrose and is it manufactured using the processes (e.g., lyophilization, pH adjustment) required by the asserted independent and dependent claims of the ’456 patent?
  • A key legal issue will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe terms of degree, such as "about," in the context of the patent's teachings? The interpretation of these terms will determine the precise boundaries of the claims and could be dispositive on the question of infringement.
  • An inevitable point of conflict will be patent validity: Mylan's Paragraph IV certification states that the '456 patent is invalid (Compl. ¶25). Consequently, a primary focus of the litigation will be Mylan’s anticipated challenge to the patent’s validity, likely on grounds of obviousness in light of prior art related to stabilizing and reconstituting lipopeptide antibiotics.