DCT

3:24-cv-04564

Janssen Pharma Inc v. Macleods Pharma Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:24-cv-04564, D.N.J., 04/04/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for Macleods USA as it has a regular and established place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. For Macleods India, an Indian corporation, venue is alleged as proper in any judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market generic versions of the diabetes drug INVOKAMET® constitutes an act of infringement of a patent covering combination drug therapies.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns pharmaceutical compositions for treating type 2 diabetes by combining metformin with a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, offering a dual-mechanism approach to glycemic control.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendant’s submission of a Paragraph IV certification notice letter. The complaint alleges that this notice letter does not contest that the proposed generic products would infringe the asserted patent. The complaint also references prior litigation between the parties concerning INVOKAMET®, which may be relevant to jurisdictional and venue arguments.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-07-08 '894 Patent Priority Date
2023-02-14 '894 Patent Issue Date
2024-02-20 Defendant sends Paragraph IV Notice Letter
2024-04-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,576,894 - “Combination Therapy For The Treatment Of Diabetes”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for effective treatments for glucose-related disorders like Type 2 diabetes mellitus, which is characterized by the body's inability to sufficiently produce or effectively use insulin, leading to elevated blood glucose levels and long-term health complications (’894 Patent, col. 9:36-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a co-therapy that combines two different types of anti-diabetic agents: metformin (a biguanide) and a C-arylglucoside derivative that functions as a sodium-dependent glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor (’894 Patent, col. 11:18-36). This combination attacks high blood sugar through two distinct mechanisms: metformin reduces glucose production by the liver, while the SGLT2 inhibitor prevents the kidneys from reabsorbing glucose back into the blood, causing it to be excreted in the urine.
  • Technical Importance: Combining agents with different mechanisms of action can provide a more robust and synergistic effect on glycemic control than either agent alone, potentially allowing for lower doses or improved outcomes for patients whose condition is not adequately managed by a single therapy (’894 Patent, col. 10:40-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, and 12 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a pharmaceutical composition comprising:
    • (a) metformin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof in an amount from about 500 mg to about 2000 mg;
    • (b) a specific compound of formula (I), or a salt thereof, in an amount from about 10 mg to about 300 mg;
    • Specific excipients, including microcrystalline cellulose as a diluent, a binder (e.g., polyvinylpyrrolidone), and croscarmellose sodium as a disintegrant, each within specified weight percentages.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the proposed generic versions of INVOKAMET® (canagliflozin and metformin hydrochloride tablets) for which Defendants seek FDA approval via Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 210380 (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Macleods ANDA Products contain the same active ingredients (canagliflozin and metformin hydrochloride), in the same dosage forms and strengths, as Janssen's branded INVOKAMET® drug (Compl. ¶49).
  • These products are indicated as a combination therapy to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (Compl. ¶43). The act of infringement alleged is the submission of the ANDA itself, which seeks approval to market these products prior to the expiration of the ’894 Patent (Compl. ¶58).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' Paragraph IV notice letter "does not contest infringement of any of the claims of the 894 Patent," including claims 1-4, 6-9, and 12 (Compl. ¶54). This suggests the core of the dispute may center on patent validity rather than infringement. The infringement allegations are based on the specifications of the Macleods ANDA filing.

’894 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising (a) metformin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof in an amount in the range of from about 500 mg to about 2000 mg; The Macleods ANDA Products are alleged to contain metformin hydrochloride in the same strengths as INVOKAMET®, which include dosages within the claimed range. ¶2, ¶49 col. 55:25-28
and (b) a compound of formula (I)...or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; in an amount of from about 10 mg to about 300 mg; The Macleods ANDA Products are alleged to contain canagliflozin, which the complaint implicitly asserts is a compound of formula (I), in the same strengths as INVOKAMET®, which include dosages within the claimed range. ¶2, ¶49 col. 55:29-31
and between about 5% and about 50% by weight of diluent which is microcrystalline cellulose; The complaint does not provide specific details on the excipients in the Macleods ANDA Products, but infringement is alleged for all claims, including claim 1 which requires this specific diluent. ¶54, ¶59 col. 56:14-16
between about 1% and about 10% by weight of binder comprising a material selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone... The complaint does not provide specific details on the excipients in the Macleods ANDA Products, but infringement is alleged for all claims, including claim 1 which requires this specific binder. ¶54, ¶59 col. 56:17-20
and between about 1% and about 10% by weight of disintegrant which is croscarmellose sodium. The complaint does not provide specific details on the excipients in the Macleods ANDA Products, but infringement is alleged for all claims, including claim 1 which requires this specific disintegrant. ¶54, ¶59 col. 56:21-22

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary question is whether Defendants will, in fact, contest infringement, contrary to the complaint's allegation. If they do, a key issue would be whether the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the Macleods ANDA product—canagliflozin—falls within the structural definition of "a compound of formula (I)" as claimed.
  • Technical Questions: Should infringement be contested, the analysis would focus on whether the specific formulation detailed in the confidential ANDA meets the quantitative limitations for the diluent, binder, and disintegrant recited in claim 1. The interpretation of the term "about" in these quantitative ranges could become a central point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "a compound of formula (I)"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the chemical structure of the SGLT2 inhibitor component of the claimed combination. The entire infringement case hinges on whether the canagliflozin in Defendants' ANDA product meets this definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself presents a generic Markush structure for formula (I), which could be argued to encompass a class of related compounds beyond the specific embodiment used in INVOKAMET® (’894 Patent, col. 55:30-56:13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly discloses "Compound (I-X)" as a specific embodiment, which corresponds to the structure of canagliflozin (’894 Patent, col. 12:55-63). A defendant might argue that the invention is effectively directed to this specific compound, potentially limiting the claim's scope to canagliflozin itself.

Term: "about" (as in "about 500 mg" or "about 5%")

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the claimed dosage ranges for the active ingredients and the weight percentages for the excipients. Its interpretation is critical for determining literal infringement, as it defines the permissible boundaries of these quantitative limitations. Practitioners may focus on this term because a formulation that is numerically outside a range but close to its boundary could still be found to infringe depending on the scope afforded to "about."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "about," which a party might argue implies it should be given its ordinary meaning in the pharmaceutical arts, allowing for standard manufacturing tolerances and variability.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the precision of the examples and other disclosures in the patent specification (e.g., Table 4 showing specific formulations) suggests that "about" should be interpreted narrowly and not as a license to deviate significantly from the recited values (’894 Patent, col. 53, Table 4).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' future commercial activities would induce and contribute to infringement by third parties (e.g., physicians and patients) (’Compl. ¶59). This is premised on the act of seeking FDA approval to market a drug with a label that will instruct users on an infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: While the term "willful" is not used, the complaint seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees, which are remedies associated with such findings (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e-f). The basis for knowledge is Defendants' Paragraph IV notice letter, which the complaint alleges was received on or about February 22, 2024, establishing at least post-filing knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶51-52, ¶62).

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

  • A foundational issue will be one of litigation strategy: will Macleods adhere to its alleged non-contestation of infringement, thereby focusing the case entirely on a challenge to the ’894 patent's validity, or will it reverse course and dispute whether its product meets the claim limitations?
  • A central technical question, should infringement be contested, will be one of definitional scope: does the term "a compound of formula (I)" read on canagliflozin, and do the quantitative limitations for excipients, qualified by the term "about," literally cover the formulation specified in Macleods's ANDA?
  • Ultimately, as is typical in Hatch-Waxman litigation, the case will likely turn on a validity determination: assuming the Macleods product is found to fall within the scope of the claims, the core question for the court will be whether the claims of the ’894 patent are valid and enforceable against challenges of obviousness or lack of novelty in light of prior art related to diabetes combination therapies.