DCT

3:24-cv-09748

Astellas Pharma Inc v. Zydus Pharma USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:24-cv-09748, D.N.J., 01/03/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Zydus USA Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in the district, and Defendant Zydus Ltd. is a foreign corporation that may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market generic enzalutamide tablets constitutes an act of infringement of patents covering specific formulations and methods of using Plaintiffs' drug, Xtandi®.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns pharmaceutical formulations designed to improve the oral bioavailability of enzalutamide and specific dosage regimens to manage drug-drug interactions, primarily for the treatment of prostate cancer.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the parties were previously involved in litigation concerning a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,709,517, which was dismissed without prejudice in April 2023. This action was initiated under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendants' submission of notice letters related to their ANDA filing for generic enzalutamide.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,839,689 Priority Date
2015-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 12,161,628 Priority Date
2020-08-04 FDA approves NDA for Xtandi® (enzalutamide) tablets
2022-05-26 First Zydus Notice Letter (re: '517 patent) received by Plaintiffs
2022-07-08 Prior litigation over '517 patent filed
2023-04-17 Prior litigation over '517 patent dismissed
2023-11-16 FDA approves expanded indication for Xtandi® tablets
2023-12-12 U.S. Patent No. 11,839,689 Issues
2024-09-03 Second Zydus Notice Letter (re: '689 patent) received by Plaintiffs
2024-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 12,161,628 Issues
2024-12-11 Plaintiffs notify Zydus of '628 patent
2024-12-27 Third Zydus Notice Letter (re: '689 patent supplement) received by Plaintiffs
2025-01-03 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,839,689 - “Formulations of Enzalutamide”

Issued December 12, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge that enzalutamide in its crystalline form has poor aqueous solubility, which can limit its absorption by the body after oral administration and thus reduce its therapeutic effectiveness (’689 Patent, col. 2:46-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by creating a "solid dispersion" where enzalutamide exists in an amorphous (non-crystalline) state, mixed with a "concentration-enhancing polymer," specifically hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMCAS). This amorphous formulation is designed to dissolve more rapidly and completely in an aqueous environment, thereby improving the oral bioavailability of the drug (’689 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-62).
  • Technical Importance: Developing stable amorphous solid dispersions is a significant strategy in pharmaceutical science for improving the performance of poorly water-soluble drugs, enabling effective oral delivery where it might otherwise be impractical (’689 Patent, col. 2:36-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the ’689 patent, with a focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A pharmaceutical composition comprising a solid dispersion
    • consisting essentially of amorphous enzalutamide
    • and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate” (“HPMCAS”)
  • The complaint notes that certain dependent claims specify that the formulation is a tablet (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 12,161,628 - “Combination Therapy”

Issued December 10, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a specific drug-drug interaction. When enzalutamide is taken concurrently with a strong inducer of the enzyme CYP3A4 (such as the antibiotic rifampin), the inducer can accelerate the metabolism of enzalutamide, leading to significantly lower levels of the drug in the patient's bloodstream and potentially compromising its anti-cancer effect (’628 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a specific method to counteract this effect. It claims a method of treating prostate cancer in a patient already taking rifampin, which involves "co-administering" a higher-than-standard daily dose of enzalutamide—specifically 240 mg—to compensate for the accelerated metabolism and maintain therapeutic plasma concentrations (’628 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-14).
  • Technical Importance: Proactively managing known drug-drug interactions through specific dosage adjustments is a critical aspect of safe and effective pharmacotherapy, particularly in oncology where patients often receive multiple medications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the ’628 patent, with a focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A method of treating prostate cancer in a patient to whom rifampin is administered
    • comprising co-administering to the patient a daily dose of 240 mg of enzalutamide
  • The complaint does not mention specific dependent claims but reserves the right to assert them.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Zydus's Generic Products," which are generic enzalutamide tablets in 40 mg, 80 mg, 120 mg, and 160 mg strengths. Zydus is seeking FDA approval to market these products through ANDA No. 217322 and a supplement thereto (Compl. ¶¶40, 41).

Functionality and Market Context

The generic products are intended to be therapeutic equivalents to Plaintiffs' Xtandi® tablets. The ANDA seeks approval for the same indications, which include the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer and other forms of prostate cancer (Compl. ¶42). The complaint alleges that Zydus copied the formulation of Xtandi® tablets and that the proposed labeling for the generic products will substantially copy the instructions for Xtandi® (Compl. ¶¶55, 70). The complaint includes a figure showing the chemical structure of enzalutamide, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in both the brand and accused generic products (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’689 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a pharmaceutical composition comprising a solid dispersion consisting essentially of amorphous enzalutamide and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate” (“HPMCAS”) Zydus’s Generic Products allegedly contain a pharmaceutical composition with a solid dispersion of amorphous enzalutamide and HPMCAS, and are alleged to be a copy of the patented invention. ¶¶52, 55, 57 col. 45:23-25

’628 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of treating prostate cancer in a patient to whom rifampin is administered, The proposed labeling for Zydus’s Generic Products will allegedly instruct their use for treating prostate cancer and will identify rifampin as a strong CYP3A4 inducer that decreases enzalutamide plasma concentrations. ¶70 col. 14:9-10
comprising co-administering to the patient a daily dose of 240 mg of enzalutamide. The proposed labeling for Zydus’s Generic Products will allegedly direct the co-administration of the tablets at a dose of 240 mg daily in patients who are receiving rifampin. ¶70 col. 14:11-12

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’689 Patent, a key question will be the scope of the term "consisting essentially of." The infringement analysis will turn on whether Zydus’s proposed formulation contains any unlisted ingredients within the solid dispersion that materially alter the basic and novel properties (e.g., solubility, stability, bioavailability) of the claimed amorphous composition.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’628 Patent, the primary question is one of inducement. What evidence does the complaint provide that Zydus's proposed product label will actively "direct" or "encourage" the specific 240 mg dosage adjustment for patients on rifampin, as opposed to merely providing information about a potential drug interaction? The resolution will depend on the precise wording of the proposed label submitted to the FDA.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’689 Patent: "consisting essentially of"

    • Context and Importance: This transitional phrase is critical to defining the scope of the composition claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether any additional, unrecited components in Zydus’s solid dispersion are deemed to materially alter the fundamental characteristics of the claimed amorphous enzalutamide/HPMCAS mixture.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification distinguishes between the "solid amorphous dispersion" and the final "pharmaceutical composition" or "tablet," which can include numerous other excipients like fillers and disintegrants (’689 Patent, col. 19:47-20:4). This may suggest that the "consisting essentially of" language is narrowly focused on the dispersion itself, allowing other components in the final tablet.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and detailed description frame the combination of amorphous enzalutamide and HPMCAS as the core solution to the bioavailability problem (’689 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-62). A party could argue that any unlisted ingredient within the dispersion that impacts the stability of the amorphous form or its dissolution profile would be a material alteration that vitiates the "basic and novel" properties of the invention.

  • Term from ’628 Patent: "co-administering"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the method claim and the allegation of induced infringement. Its construction will be pivotal in determining whether Zydus’s product label instructs the performance of the claimed method.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "co-administration" broadly to mean that "the pharmacological effects of enzalutamide and the strong CYP3A4 inducer overlap in the patient at the same time," without requiring simultaneous ingestion or a combination pill (’628 Patent, col. 2:15-22).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites a "method of treating," which implies a deliberate action. A party might argue that the claim requires an explicit instruction to follow a specific therapeutic regimen. The patent claims a specific dose adjustment (to 240 mg) as the solution to the interaction problem, suggesting the act of "co-administering" in this context is tied to this intentional dose modification (’628 Patent, col. 2:9-14).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Zydus will actively induce infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’628 patent. The basis for this allegation is the proposed product labeling for Zydus's Generic Products, which will allegedly instruct physicians to prescribe a 240 mg daily dose of enzalutamide for prostate cancer patients who are also receiving rifampin (Compl. ¶¶69, 70).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of both patents. For the ’689 patent, it alleges Zydus had pre-suit knowledge via notice letters sent in September and December 2024 (Compl. ¶59). For the ’628 patent, it alleges Zydus had pre-suit knowledge as of at least December 11, 2024, via notification from Plaintiffs' counsel (Compl. ¶65). For both patents, the complaint alleges Zydus knows its actions will constitute infringement and that its invalidity or non-infringement positions lack an objective good faith basis (Compl. ¶¶60-61, 72, 75).

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

  • A core issue for the ’689 patent will be one of compositional fact and claim scope: Does the precise formulation of Zydus’s generic product, as detailed in its ANDA, fall within the scope of a solid dispersion "consisting essentially of" amorphous enzalutamide and HPMCAS, or does it contain other ingredients that materially alter the invention's fundamental properties?
  • A key evidentiary question for the ’628 patent will be one of inducement: Does the specific language in Zydus's proposed product label, which the complaint alleges "will direct the co-administration" of a 240 mg dose, constitute active encouragement sufficient to establish the specific intent required for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)?
  • A broader question affecting both patents will be one of commercial conduct: Given the allegations that Zydus copied Plaintiffs' formulation and label, the court will examine whether Defendants' pre- and post-suit conduct, including the factual and legal bases for their non-infringement and invalidity positions, rises to the level of willfulness or makes the case "exceptional."