`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3962 (MLC)
`
` MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`::
`
`:
`
`HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A., et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,
`LTD., et al.,
`
`::
`
`:
`Defendants.
` :
`
`COOPER, District Judge
`
`This is an action arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(e)(2)(A). Plaintiffs, Helsinn Heathcare S.A. (“Helsinn”) and Roche Palo Alto
`
`LLC (“Roche”) (collectively, “plaintiffs”), are assignees of U.S. Patents No. 7,947,724
`
`(“‘724 patent”), No. 7,947,725 (“‘725 patent”), No. 7,960,424 (“‘424 patent”), and No.
`
`8,598,219 (“‘219 patent”). The four patents-in-suit are listed in the FDA “Orange
`
`Book” as covering plaintiffs’ product Aloxi®, which is a pharmaceutical composition
`
`containing the active ingredient palonosetron. The version of Aloxi® currently
`
`marketed by plaintiffs is an intravenous solution with approved indications for
`
`preventing or treating cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
`
`Plaintiffs brought this action, and related consolidated actions, against generic
`
`drug manufacturers, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., et al.
`v.
`Helsinn Healthcare S.A., et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:22),(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:21)
`Reddy Exhibit 1061
`
`Exh. 1061
`
`
`
`(“DRL”), Sandoz, Inc. (“Sandoz”), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva
`
`Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (“Teva”). Plaintiffs alleged that each group of
`
`defendants had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) containing so-
`
`called “Paragraph IV” certifications asserting that the claims of the patents-in-suit were
`
`invalid and/or not infringed. The asserted claims are claims 2 and 9 of the ‘724 patent,
`
`claim 2 of the ‘725 patent, claim 6 of the ‘424 patent, and claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ‘219
`
`patent. The pertinent limitations of the first three patents are “reducing emesis...,” the
`
`“0.05 mg/mL” concentration, and “EDTA.” The pertinent limitations of the ‘219
`
`patent are “reduce ... cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting,” “0.25 mg”
`
`dose in “5 mL ... solution,” and “EDTA.”
`
`Defendant Sandoz was dismissed from the action by consent, on December 31,
`
`2014. (Dkt. 247.) The Court issued a memorandum opinion construing certain
`1
`
`preamble language in the ‘219 patent claims, on April 22, 2015. (Dkt. 290.) An 11-
`
`day bench trial was conducted in June, 2015, with closing arguments presented on
`
`August 12, 2015. (Dkts. 320, 322, 324, 326, 328, 330, 331, 337, 340, 342, 344, and
`
` The Court will cite to the documents filed in this case in the Electronic Case Filing
`1
`System (“ECF”) by referring to their docket entry numbers by the designation of “dkt.”
`References to docketed materials are to their ECF pagination. The two later-filed actions that
`have been consolidated into this lead case are Civil Actions No. 11-5579 and No. 13-5815.
`Copies of the four patents-in-suit are attached as exhibits to the pleadings, and are trial
`exhibits. We will simply cite to the patents by page or column and line number.
`
`2
`
`Exh. 1061
`
`
`
`353.) Defendant DRL was dismissed on stipulation on October 16, 2015. (Dkt. 355.) 2
`
`Thus, the current parties in this case are plaintiffs and Teva.
`
`Teva asserts that the asserted claims of each of the four patents-in-suit are
`
`invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Teva also raises a written description claim
`
`against those patents under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Teva further asserts invalidity of those
`
`patents under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102. The on-sale bar issue
`
`presents not only underlying factual questions, but also a statutory interpretation
`
`question addressing the amended text of § 102(a)(1) under the America Invents Act
`
`(“AIA”), Pub.L. No. 112-29 (2011). Plaintiffs oppose each of Teva’s points on those
`
`issues, asserting that the patents are valid and enforceable.
`
`There is also an infringement issue. Teva filed one consolidated ANDA,
`
`seeking approval for products at two different dose levels (0.25 mg and 0.075 mg), and
`
`two different treatment indications (chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting
`
`(“CINV”) for the 0.25 mg dose, and post-operative nausea and vomiting (“PONV”) for
`
`the 0.075 mg dose). The concentration of both proposed Teva products is 0.05 mg/mL,
`
`because the 0.25 mg dose solution is 5 mL and the 0.075 mg dose solution is 1.5 mL.
`
` DRL and plaintiffs have a related action, actively pending in this Court, pertaining to
`2
`the ‘724 patent and DRL’s pending 505(b)(2) New Drug Application under 21 U.S.C. §
`355(b)(2). See Helsinn Healthcare S.A., et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., et al., Civil
`Action No. 12-2867. In that case, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on
`April 2, 2015, construing the ‘724 claim term “a chelating agent.” (Civ. Action No. 12-2867,
`dkt. 91 (Order) and 92 (SEALED Mem. Op.).)
`
`3
`
`Exh. 1061
`
`
`
`The asserted ‘219 patent claims only specify a 0.25 mg dose, in a 5 mL volume (i.e.,
`
`concentration 0.05 mg/mL), for CINV. Plaintiffs assert that if the ‘219 claims are held
`
`to be valid, those claims are infringed by Teva’s ANDA filing itself, according to the
`
`Hatch-Waxman Act, and therefore both generic products applied for in Teva’s ANDA
`
`must infringe and be enjoined. Teva disputes plaintiffs’ legal position and seeks a
`
`declaration that its 0.075 mg dose PONV product will not infringe the asserted ‘219
`
`patent claims.
`
`This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and
`
`conclusions of law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). For the reasons
`
`set forth herein, the Court finds: (1) the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`would be defined as plaintiffs proposed, including skills of a clinician, marketing
`
`person, formulator, and pharmaceutical development scientist; (2) the framing of the
`
`obviousness issue would be whether it would have been obvious to a POSA in January,
`
`2003 to develop an improved intravenous antiemetic formulation containing
`
`palonosetron and (in particular) EDTA; (3) based on the prior art, the selection of
`
`palonosetron for development would not have been obvious; (4) based on the prior art,
`
`the selection of dosage 0.25 mg for CINV would not have been obvious; (5) based on
`
`the prior art, the selection of 0.05 mg/mL concentration would be dose-dependent and
`
`would not be obvious; (6) the asserted claims would not have been arrived at by
`
`“routine experimentation”; (7) evidence including commercial success attributable to
`
`4
`
`Exh. 1061
`
`
`
`the claimed formulation, industry skepticism, and long-felt need supports the finding
`
`of non-obviousness; (8) the asserted claims are not invalid for lack of written
`
`description; (9) the asserted claims were not ready for patenting as of January, 2002;
`
`(10) all three pre-January 2002 Helsinn contracts (including the MGI contract, which
`
`we find was a contract) meet the “sale or offer for sale” criteria under the pre-AIA on-
`
`sale bar test; but (11) none of the three pre-January 2002 Helsinn contracts meet the
`
`post-AIA on-sale bar test, as the Court interprets and applies the amended statutory
`
`language of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), because the Oread and SP contracts were entirely
`
`confidential, and although the existence of the MGI contract was announced publicly,
`
`the claimed invention itself was not disclosed; (12) the asserted claims of the ‘724,
`
`‘725, and ‘424 patents would be infringed by sale of Teva’s proposed 0.25 mg/5mL
`
`CINV product and 0.075 mg/1.5mL PONV product, as the parties have stipulated; (13)
`
`the asserted claims of the ‘219 patent would be infringed by sale of Teva’s proposed
`
`0.25 mg/5mL CINV product, as the parties have stipulated; and (14) the asserted
`
`claims of the ‘219 patent would not be infringed by sale of Teva’s proposed 0.075
`
`mg/1.5mL PONV product.
`
`Based on these factual findings, the Court concludes (under the applicable
`
`standards of proof on each issue) as follows: (1) Teva did not prove that the ‘724, ‘725,
`
`‘424, or ‘219 patents are invalid as obvious under § 103, or for lack of written
`
`description under § 112; (2) as to Teva’s on-sale bar claim of invalidity of the ‘724,
`
`5
`
`Exh. 1061
`
`
`
`‘725, and ‘424 patents under the pre-AIA § 102(b), Teva proved the “sale or offer to
`
`sell” prong as to the Oread, SP, and MGI contracts, but Teva did not prove that the
`
`claimed invention was “ready for patenting” as of January 30, 2002; therefore, Teva
`
`did not prove that the ‘724, ‘725, and ‘424 patents are invalid under the on-sale bar; (3)
`
`Teva did not prove that the ‘219 patent is invalid under the post-AIA § 102(a)(1) on-
`
`sale bar; (4) assuming that the ‘724, ‘725, and ‘424 patents are valid as the Court has
`
`found, the Court agrees with the parties’ stipulation that both the 0.075 mg dose and
`
`the 0.25 mg dose generic product specified in Teva’s ANDA will infringe those three
`
`patents; (5) assuming that the ‘219 patent is valid as the Court has found, the Court
`
`agrees with the parties’ stipulation that the 0.25 mg dose generic product specified in
`
`Teva’s ANDA will infringe the ‘219 patent; and (6) assuming that the ‘219 patent is
`
`valid as the Court has found, the Court further finds that plaintiffs did not prove that
`
`the 0.075 mg dose generic product specified in Teva’s ANDA will infringe the ‘219
`
`patent.
`
`Based upon these findings and conclusions, the Court will enter judgment
`
`declaring that:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`the asserted claims of the ‘724, ‘725, and ‘424 patents are valid and are
`infringed by both Teva’s proposed 0.25 mg and 0.075 mg generic
`products;
`
`the asserted claims of the ‘219 patent are valid and are infringed by
`Teva’s proposed 0.25 mg generic product; and
`
`6
`
`Exh. 1061
`
`
`
`(3)
`
`the asserted claims of the ‘219 patent are valid and are not infringed by
`Teva’s proposed 0.075 mg generic product.
`
`This Memorandum Opinion will be filed under temporary seal, and will be
`
`unsealed on or after December 1, 2015, unless a motion to seal is filed by any party.
`
`The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.
`
`Dated: November 13, 2015
`
` s/ Mary L. Cooper
`MARY L. COOPER
`United States District Judge
`
`7
`
`Exh. 1061