DCT

1:15-cv-00069

Noven Pharma Inc v. Mylan Tech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-00069, N.D. W. Va., 04/24/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants being corporations organized under West Virginia law, having principal places of business in the state, being registered to do business in the state, and/or placing products into the stream of commerce for distribution in West Virginia.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA for a generic version of Plaintiffs' Minivelle® transdermal estradiol patch constitutes an act of patent infringement.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to transdermal drug delivery systems, specifically patches designed to deliver estradiol (a form of estrogen) through the skin.
  • Key Procedural History: This lawsuit arises under the Hatch-Waxman Act following Defendants' filing of ANDA No. 206685 with a "Paragraph IV certification," which alleges that Plaintiffs' patents are invalid or not infringed. The complaint notes that an identical lawsuit was filed one day prior in the District of Delaware and characterizes this West Virginia action as a "protective suit" to preserve Plaintiffs' rights in case Defendants challenge jurisdiction in Delaware.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,841,716 Priority Date
2005-01-11 U.S. Patent No. 6,841,716 Issue Date
2008-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,231,906 Priority Date
2012-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,231,906 Issue Date
2015-03-12 Noven receives Mylan's Paragraph IV notice letter (approx.)
2015-03-20 Related suit filed against Actavis Laboratories
2015-04-23 Parallel action filed in District of Delaware
2015-04-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,841,716 - "Patch", issued January 11, 2005 (’716 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with prior art transdermal patches that use a flexible support and a wave-shaped slit in the release liner. When a user applies one half of the patch and then tries to peel off the remaining liner, the small "grip section" of the liner can get caught between the user's skin and the adhesive layer, making it difficult to remove the rest of the liner smoothly (’716 Patent, col. 1:49-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a patch with a release liner that has a specifically dimensioned wave-shaped slit. By defining the wave height (4 mm to 8 mm) and wave pitch (6 mm to 12.5 mm), the design ensures that when the patch is bent, the edge of the remaining liner "can promptly protrude outward" from between the skin and the patch, allowing for easy gripping and removal without getting caught (’716 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-25).
  • Technical Importance: This design improves the ergonomics and usability of modern, highly flexible transdermal patches, making them easier for patients to apply correctly and without frustration (’716 Patent, col. 1:57-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" but does not specify which ones (Compl. ¶35). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A patch comprising a support, an adhesive layer, and a releasable film.
    • The release film has a slit running from one edge to the opposite edge.
    • The slit is a "wave shape" such that bending the support causes the remaining release film edge to protrude outward.
    • The wave pitch of the slit is 6 mm to 12.5 mm.
    • The wave height of the slit is 4 mm to 8 mm.

U.S. Patent No. 8,231,906 - "Transdermal Estrogen Device And Delivery", issued July 31, 2012 (’906 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent discusses the general difficulty of developing transdermal systems that are small—for better patient comfort, aesthetics, and lower cost—while still delivering a sufficient therapeutic dose of a drug over a desired period (’906 Patent, col. 1:44-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a smaller, yet effective, transdermal estrogen patch achieved through a specific formulation and construction. It uses a "monolithic" polymer matrix containing a blend of an acrylic adhesive, a silicone adhesive, and soluble PVP. Crucially, the system is designed with a higher "coat weight" (the mass of the drug-containing layer per unit area) than conventional patches. This increased coat weight allows for a higher concentration of estradiol per unit area, which the patent asserts leads to a surprisingly high drug flux, thereby enabling a smaller patch to deliver the same daily dose as a larger one (’906 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:44-54).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for the design of smaller, more discreet, and potentially less costly transdermal estrogen patches without compromising the therapeutic daily dosage, addressing significant patient and manufacturing considerations (’906 Patent, col. 3:44-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶35). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A monolithic transdermal drug delivery system for estradiol.
    • Comprising a single polymer matrix layer.
    • The polymer matrix comprises estradiol as the only drug.
    • The polymer matrix layer has a coat weight selected from the group consisting of 12.5 mg/cm² and 15 mg/cm².
    • The system includes greater than 0.156 mg/cm² estradiol.
    • The system achieves an estradiol flux that is greater than 0.01 mg/cm²/day.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendants' "generic Estradiol Transdermal System, USP 'Twice-Weekly'" in various dosage strengths, as described in ANDA No. 206685 (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a generic version of Plaintiffs' Minivelle® product, designed for the transdermal delivery of estradiol (Compl. ¶¶12, 33). The complaint alleges that Defendants' ANDA seeks FDA approval to market and sell this generic product prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit, positioning it as a direct competitor to Minivelle® (Compl. ¶32). The complaint does not contain technical details of the accused product's construction or formulation beyond what is implied by the infringement allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing a detailed claim chart or a narrative theory mapping specific product features to claim elements. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations for representative independent claims, citing the complaint's general infringement counts. The core of the infringement theory is that the product described in Defendants' ANDA will necessarily meet these limitations.

’716 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A patch provided with a support, an adhesive layer laminated on one side of said support, and a release film attached in a releasable manner to said adhesive layer and having a slit running from one edge to the opposite edge... The complaint alleges that the accused generic product is a transdermal patch that infringes the patent. ¶42 col. 13:30-35
...the shape of the slit in said release film is a wave shape... The complaint alleges infringement, which suggests the generic product's release liner will contain a slit characterized as having a wave shape. ¶42 col. 13:36-37
...the wave pitch of said wave-shaped slit of said release film is 6 mm to 12.5 mm... The complaint alleges infringement, which suggests the wave-shaped slit in the generic product will have a wave pitch falling within the claimed range. ¶42 col. 14:7-9
...and the wave height of each said wave-shaped slit of said release film is 4 mm to 8 mm. The complaint alleges infringement, which suggests the wave-shaped slit in the generic product will have a wave height falling within the claimed range. ¶42 col. 14:9-11

’906 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A monolithic transdermal drug delivery system for estradiol, comprising a single polymer matrix layer defining an active surface area and comprising a polymer matrix comprising estradiol as the only drug... The complaint alleges the accused "Estradiol Transdermal System" infringes the patent, which suggests it is a monolithic system with a single polymer matrix layer containing only estradiol as the drug. ¶¶20, 49 col. 15:20-25
...wherein the polymer matrix layer has a coat weight selected from the group consisting of 12.5 mg/cm² and 15 mg/cm²... The complaint alleges infringement, which suggests the generic product's polymer matrix will have a coat weight meeting the claimed values. ¶49 col. 15:25-27
...includes greater than 0.156 mg/cm² estradiol... The complaint alleges infringement, which suggests the generic product's formulation will include an estradiol concentration greater than the claimed threshold. ¶49 col. 15:27-28
...and achieves an estradiol flux that is greater than 0.01 mg/cm²/day, based on the active surface area. The complaint alleges infringement, which suggests the generic product, when used, will achieve a drug flux greater than the claimed rate. ¶49 col. 15:28-29
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’906 patent, a central question may be whether the term "monolithic", which the patent describes as comprising a "single polymer matrix layer" and lacking a rate-controlling membrane, can be read on the specific architecture of the accused generic product (Compl. ¶49; ’906 Patent, col. 6:31-35).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely depend on empirical facts contained within the confidential ANDA filing. For the ’716 patent, the key question is whether the Mylan product's release liner physically incorporates a slit with the specific "wave pitch" and "wave height" dimensions required by the claims (Compl. ¶42; ’716 Patent, col. 14:7-11). For the ’906 patent, the dispute will turn on whether the accused product's formulation has the claimed "coat weight", estradiol "concentration", and achieves the claimed "flux" (Compl. ¶49; ’906 Patent, col. 15:25-29).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "wave shape" (’716 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental geometry of the patented release liner slit. The dispute will center on whether this term is limited to the smooth, sinusoidal-like curves shown in the patent figures or if it covers other non-linear patterns.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that "the term 'wave-shaped' as used herein will refer to sine wave-like waveforms as well as sawtooth waves" (’716 Patent, col. 2:25-28).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the figures exclusively depict smooth, rounded waves and that the claimed function of the edge "promptly protruding outward" is best enabled by such a shape, potentially limiting the scope to exclude sharper, sawtooth-like patterns (’716 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 4).

The Term: "monolithic" (’906 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The assertion that the system is "monolithic" is a primary structural limitation. Its definition will be critical to determining if the architecture of Mylan's product, once revealed, falls within the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a standalone definition, which may support using the term’s plain and ordinary meaning in the art, generally referring to systems where the drug is integrated into the adhesive matrix.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that a monolithic system "comprises a single polymer matrix layer" and lacks a "rate-controlling membrane" (’906 Patent, col. 6:31-35). A defendant could argue that this language narrows the definition to a simple, single-layer structure and that any undisclosed complexity or sub-layering in its product places it outside this scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that upon FDA approval, Mylan will induce infringement (§ 271(b)) by "intentionally encouraging, aiding, and abetting" direct infringement and contribute to infringement (§ 271(c)) by selling the generic product with knowledge of the patents and the absence of any substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45, 51-52).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Mylan's awareness of the patents "prior to filing ANDA No. 206685" and its alleged action "without a reasonable basis for a good faith belief that they would not be liable for infringing" the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 54). This is premised on the knowledge required by the ANDA and Paragraph IV certification process.

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

  • A primary issue will be one of empirical fact: Does the product specified in Mylan's confidential ANDA actually possess the physical and chemical properties required by the asserted claims? This includes the precise geometric dimensions of the release liner slit for the ’716 patent and the exact formulation, coat weight, and resulting drug flux for the ’906 patent.
  • A secondary issue will be one of claim scope: Can the term "wave shape" in the ’716 patent be construed, based on the specification's text, to cover liner slits that are not smoothly sinusoidal? Likewise, how narrowly will the court define "monolithic" in the ’906 patent, and will the architecture of Mylan's product fall within that definition?