DCT

3:23-cv-03003

Evofem BIOSCIENCES, INC. v. Padagis Israel Pharma LTD.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-03003, D.N.J., 06/01/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Padagis Israel is a foreign corporation, and because all defendants have previously consented to venue in the district and have agreed in writing not to contest venue for this specific action.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA for a generic version of Plaintiff’s PHEXXI® vaginal gel constitutes infringement of three patents covering contraceptive compositions and methods.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to non-hormonal, on-demand contraceptive gels that create a vaginal environment inhospitable to sperm, primarily by maintaining a low pH.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following a notice letter dated April 18, 2023, in which Defendant notified Plaintiff of its ANDA filing containing a Paragraph IV certification against the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff states the complaint was filed within the 45-day statutory window, which would trigger a 30-month stay of FDA approval for the generic product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-06-13 Earliest Priority Date for ’855 and ’610 Patents
2013-12-19 Earliest Priority Date for ’989 Patent
2020-02-25 ’855 Patent Issued
2022-05-24 ’989 Patent Issued
2022-09-13 ’610 Patent Issued
2023-04-18 Defendant's ANDA Notice Letter Sent to Plaintiff
2023-06-01 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,568,855 - “Compositions and Methods for Enhancing the Efficacy of Contraceptive Microbicides”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,568,855, “Compositions and Methods for Enhancing the Efficacy of Contraceptive Microbicides,” issued February 25, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a dual-purpose contraceptive microbicide that avoids the drawbacks of existing products, such as the detergent nonoxynol-9, which can damage the vaginal epithelium, disrupt beneficial microflora, and potentially increase the risk of sexually transmitted disease (STD) transmission (’855 Patent, col. 2:6-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a bioadhesive gel composition for preventing pregnancy. It utilizes a combination of a "matrix-forming compound" (e.g., alginic acid) and L-lactic acid in an aqueous carrier. The composition is designed to form a "matrix state" upon contact with ejaculate, which traps sperm. The L-lactic acid component maintains an acidic vaginal pH to further inactivate sperm and microbes, but in a manner that is less harsh than prior art detergents (’855 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:36-54).
  • Technical Importance: The invention represented a move toward leveraging specific biological isomers, like L-lactic acid, to achieve spermicidal and microbicidal effects that work in concert with the body’s natural defense mechanisms rather than disrupting them (’855 Patent, col. 6:41-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim, and independent claim 1 is representative (’855 Patent, col. 10:37-52).
  • Claim 1 is a method for preventing pregnancy comprising intravaginally administering a composition with the following key elements:
    • A "matrix-forming compound" from a specific list (alginic acid, chitosan, gellan gum, or poloxamer).
    • A "bioadhesive compound".
    • "L-lactic acid".
    • An aqueous-based carrier.
    • A functional requirement that the composition transitions from a "nonmatrix state" to a "matrix state" when in contact with ejaculate.
    • The composition must be "essentially free of D-lactic acid".
  • The complaint does not specify dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of the patent (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 11,337,989 - “Compositions and Methods for Inhibiting Inflammation and Diseases Using an Alginic Acid-Based Antimicrobial Compound”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,337,989, “Compositions and Methods for Inhibiting Inflammation and Diseases Using an Alginic Acid-Based Antimicrobial Compound,” issued May 24, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent explains that many viruses, including HIV and herpes, exploit the host's own inflammatory response to facilitate infection. Specifically, the activation of the NFkB pathway, which can be triggered by sexual activity, aids viral transcription and infectivity (’989 Patent, col. 10:30-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a composition, useful as part of an acid-buffering contraceptive, that inhibits this inflammatory pathway. The patent discloses that alginic acid can inhibit NFkB activation and mast cell degranulation, thereby blocking the host response that viruses trigger to invade cells. This provides a mechanism of protection that is distinct from direct microbicidal action (’989 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:4-17).
  • Technical Importance: This technology presents a dual-action approach to preventing STDs: direct antimicrobial/virucidal action combined with modulation of the host's immune response to make cellular invasion by pathogens more difficult (’989 Patent, col. 10:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim, and independent claim 1 is representative (’989 Patent, col. 21:26-34).
  • Claim 1 is a method for preventing conception comprising intravaginal administration of a composition with the following key elements:
    • "about 3.5-4.5% alginic acid".
    • "about 2.5-3.5% of xanthan gum".
    • "about 1-4% L-lactic acid".
    • A requirement that the alginic acid has a specific "ratio of mannuronate:guluronate residues between 0.3 and 1.5".
    • The composition is "essentially free of D-lactic acid".
  • The complaint's general allegation of infringement reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶74).

U.S. Patent No. 11,439,610 - “Compositions and Methods for Enhancing the Efficacy of Contraceptive Microbicides”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,439,610, “Compositions and Methods for Enhancing the Efficacy of Contraceptive Microbicides,” issued September 13, 2022.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers contraceptive compositions with specific quantitative formulations. It addresses the need for a non-irritating, on-demand contraceptive by claiming a composition comprising specific weight percentages of alginic acid, xanthan gum, and L-lactic acid, which together maintain a low vaginal pH to immobilize sperm and pathogens (’610 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-28). The claimed invention is a specific embodiment of the broader concepts disclosed in the ’855 patent.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least one claim; independent claims are 1 and 10 (’610 Patent, col. 9:40, col. 11:10).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the constituent ingredients of the Padagis ANDA Product—a vaginal gel containing lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate—which are alleged to meet the specific compositional and concentration limitations of the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶47, 86, 90).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "Padagis ANDA Product," a generic drug product for which Padagis submitted ANDA No. 217960 to the FDA (Compl. ¶47).

Functionality and Market Context

The Padagis ANDA Product is described as a "lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate vaginal gel" (Compl. ¶47). It is a proposed generic equivalent to Plaintiff's marketed PHEXXI® product, which is indicated for use as an on-demand method of contraception (Compl. ¶45).

The lawsuit was triggered by Padagis's filing of the ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification, an act that constitutes a technical act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) to create jurisdiction for the suit (Compl. ¶¶48, 57). The commercial context is Padagis’s intent to market this generic product in the U.S. prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit, which are listed in the FDA's Orange Book for PHEXXI® (Compl. ¶¶46-47).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain detailed infringement contentions or claim charts, instead relying on the statutory infringement framework of the Hatch-Waxman Act. The infringement theory is predicated on the allegation that by failing to provide non-infringement defenses in its notice letter, Padagis has admitted that its proposed generic product will meet all limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶50).

’855 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a method for preventing pregnancy comprising intravaginally administering a composition The proposed labeling for the Padagis ANDA Product will direct users to intravaginally administer the gel for contraception. ¶60 col. 10:37-39
a matrix-forming compound selected from the group consisting of: alginic acid, chitosan, gellan gum, and poloxamer The complaint does not identify a specific component, but alleges the Padagis ANDA Product contains a component that meets this limitation. ¶56 col. 10:40-43
a bioadhesive compound The complaint does not identify a specific component, but alleges the Padagis ANDA Product contains a component that meets this limitation. ¶56 col. 10:44-45
L-lactic acid The Padagis ANDA Product is identified as a "lactic acid... vaginal gel" alleged to contain the required L-isomer. ¶47 col. 10:46
has a nonmatrix state when not in contact with ejaculate, and a matrix state when in contact with ejaculate The Padagis ANDA Product is a gel alleged to exhibit the claimed functional gelling behavior upon contact with semen. ¶56 col. 10:48-51
essentially free of D-lactic acid The complaint alleges the Padagis ANDA Product meets this purity requirement for its lactic acid component. ¶56 col. 10:51-52

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Evidentiary Question: A primary point of contention will be establishing the identity and properties of the excipients in the Padagis ANDA product. Does any component qualify as a "matrix-forming compound" from the patent’s exclusive list?
  • Technical Question: What evidence will show that the Padagis product's lactic acid is "L-lactic acid" and "essentially free of D-lactic acid"? This may turn on the manufacturing process and sourcing of the lactic acid used in the generic formulation.
  • Functional Question: Does the Padagis gel, which is not based on alginic acid, in fact form a "matrix state" upon contact with ejaculate as required by the claim? This may require competing expert testimony and testing.

’989 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a contraceptive microbicide composition comprising about 3.5-4.5% alginic acid The complaint does not provide the formulation of the ANDA product, but alleges it will meet this limitation. This raises a clear dispute, as the ANDA product is not described as containing alginic acid. ¶71 col. 21:27-28
about 2.5-3.5% of xanthan gum The complaint does not provide the formulation of the ANDA product, but alleges it will meet this limitation. This also raises a clear dispute. ¶71 col. 21:28-29
about 1-4% L-lactic acid The Padagis ANDA Product is described as a "lactic acid... vaginal gel" alleged to contain the required L-isomer in the claimed concentration range. ¶¶47, 71 col. 21:29
wherein the alginic acid has a ratio of mannuronate:guluronate residues between 0.3 and 1.5 The complaint does not provide details on this point, but alleges infringement. This limitation appears unlikely to be met literally if the product does not contain alginic acid. ¶71 col. 21:30-31

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Question: The infringement allegation for this patent appears to present a significant mismatch. The complaint identifies the Padagis product as a "lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate" gel (Compl. ¶47), while claim 1 explicitly requires "alginic acid" and "xanthan gum." This raises the question of whether infringement will be argued under the doctrine of equivalents.
  • Evidentiary Question: Does the Padagis ANDA Product's formulation contain the specific weight percentages of components as required by the claim? The case will depend on the details revealed in the ANDA itself during discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "essentially free of D-lactic acid" (’855 Patent, Claim 1; ’989 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The patents distinguish L-lactic acid from the D-isomer and racemic mixtures, attributing superior activity to the L-form. The definition of "essentially free" is therefore critical. If the Padagis product uses a standard racemic lactic acid, infringement of this limitation may fail unless "essentially free" is construed very broadly. Practitioners may focus on this term as potentially dispositive of non-infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a specific numerical percentage for "essentially free," which a party could argue supports a less strict standard, perhaps meaning only that D-lactic acid was not an active, intentionally added ingredient.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the novelty and importance of using purified L-lactic acid, distinguishing it from the D/L mix produced by bacteria, suggesting the term implies a purity level beyond that of a racemic mixture (’855 Patent, col. 9:1-11).

The Term: "matrix state" (’855 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation describing the gel's behavior. The infringement analysis will require determining whether the accused product exhibits this specific change upon contact with ejaculate.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any measurable increase in viscosity or gelling that has the effect of impeding sperm motility constitutes a "matrix state."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the matrix formation to the interaction of alginic acid with cations in semen to form a "semisolid matrix" that can "trap" microbes and sperm (’855 Patent, col. 7:15-24). A party could argue this requires a specific, cross-linked gel structure, not just a simple thickening.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Padagis’s proposed product labeling will instruct end-users on how to perform the patented methods (e.g., intravaginal administration), thereby encouraging infringement (Compl. ¶¶60-61, 75-76, 90-91). The basis for contributory infringement is the allegation that the Padagis ANDA Product is especially made for an infringing use and is not suitable for a substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶62, 77, 92).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Padagis having acted with "full knowledge" of the patents-in-suit, at the latest from receiving the Paragraph IV notice letter, and having "no reasonable basis" for believing it would not be liable for infringement (Compl. ¶¶65, 80, 95).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As this is an ANDA action, the case will depend on whether discovery reveals that the specific, confidential formulation of the Padagis ANDA product—including the exact isomer and purity of its lactic acid, the identity of its excipients, and the precise concentrations of all components—literally meets the limitations of the asserted claims.
  • A key legal battle will be over claim construction: The outcome may turn on the court's interpretation of "essentially free of D-lactic acid." A narrow construction requiring high purity of the L-isomer could present a significant hurdle for the plaintiff if the accused product uses a racemic mixture.
  • A fundamental question will be one of technical and equivalents-based infringement: Given that the accused product is described as a "lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate" gel, a major point of contention for the ’989 and ’610 patents will be whether it can infringe claims that explicitly require "alginic acid" and "xanthan gum." This suggests the dispute may focus heavily on the doctrine of equivalents and whether the components of the accused product perform the same function, in the same way, to achieve the same result.