Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 1751
`
`CMP DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 21-549 (MN)
`
`Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`
`
`Kelly E. Farnan, Tyler E. Cragg, RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, DE;
`Christopher J. Sorenson, Paige Stradley, MERCHANT & GOULD PC, Minneapolis, MN; Andrew
`O. Larson, MERCHANT & GOULD PC, New York, NY; Hayley M. Ostrin, MERCHANT & GOULD
`PC, Alexandria, VA – Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Anne Shea Gaza, Samantha G. Wilson, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP,
`Wilmington, DE; Steven A. Maddox, Jeremy J. Edwards, PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES &
`SAVITCH LLP, Washington, DC, Victor Sai, Dave Deonarine, Lianlian Wu, PROCOPIO, CORY,
`HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP, San Diego, CA – Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 29, 2023
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 1752
`
`NOREIKA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
`
`Plaintiff CMP Development, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “CMP”) brought this Hatch-Waxman
`
`action against Defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Defendant” or “Amneal”). Amneal
`
`filed Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 215572 (“Amneal’s ANDA”) with the U.S. Food
`
`and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to market a generic version (“ANDA
`
`product”) of CMP’s CaroSpir® product before the expiration of United States Patent Nos.
`
`10,624,906 (“the ’906 patent”), 10,660,907 (“the ’907 patent”) and 10,888,570 (“the ’570
`
`patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). Plaintiff alleges that Amneal will infringe
`
`claims 1 and 8 of the ’906 patent, claims 1 and 10 of the ’907 patent and claims 1 and 7-10 of the
`
`’570 patent. Validity of the claims of the Asserted Patents is not contested. (D.I. 99 ¶ 7).
`
`The Court conducted a two-day bench trial on January 13, 2023 and January 18, 2023.
`
`(See D.I. 110-111 (“Tr.”)). The parties completed post-trial briefing on March 13, 2023.
`
`(D.I. 112, 114, 117). With their briefing, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact.
`
`(D.I. 113, 115).
`
`After considering the entire record and the applicable law, the Court concludes that
`
`Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant’s ANDA product will infringe claims 1 and 8 of the
`
`’906 patent, claims 1 and 10 of the ’907 patent and claims 1 and 7-10 of the ’570 patent.
`
`Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden on infringement, the Court declines
`
`to reach Defendant’s legal defenses as to infringement.1 This opinion constitutes the Court’s
`
`findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`1
`
`
`In its post-trial brief, Defendant argues that CMP is barred from asserting the doctrine of
`equivalents by prosecution history estoppel, inherently narrow claiming and ensnarement.
`(D.I. 114 at 17-25). At trial, Defendant also argued that CMP was barred from asserting
`the doctrine of equivalents by specification disclaimer but appears to have dropped this
`argument in its post-trial briefing. (See, e.g., Tr. at 46:18-47:2; see also D.I. 114).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 1753
`
`I.
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`CMP is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 8026 U.S. 264A, Farmville, North
`
`Carolina 27828. (D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 2).
`
`2.
`
`Amneal is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Third
`
`Floor, Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807. (Id. ¶ 3).
`
`3.
`
`CMP owns the Asserted Patents, which are listed in the FDA publication,
`
`“Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (“the Orange Book”), as
`
`covering CMP’s CaroSpir® product. (D.I. 99 ¶ 5; D.I. 1 ¶ 30).
`
`4.
`
`By letters dated March 4, 2021 and March 25, 2021, Amneal advised CMP that it
`
`had submitted its ANDA 215572 to the FDA under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j) seeking FDA approval to
`
`engage in the commercial manufacture, use or sale of a generic version of CaroSpir® before the
`
`expiration of the Asserted Patents. (D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 34). Defendant’s ANDA No. 215572
`
`contains certifications pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) for each of the Asserted
`
`Patents. (Id. ¶ 35).
`
`5.
`
`This action was commenced before the expiration of forty-five days from receipt
`
`of Defendant’s notice letters, and the thirty-month stay of final FDA approval of Defendant’s
`
`pending ANDA application expired on September 5, 2023.2 (Id. ¶ 36).
`
`2
`
`
`By letter dated August 21, 2023, the parties agree that Amneal will not launch its product
`until the Court enters final judgment on the case up until September 29, 2023. (D.I. 120).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 1754
`
`B.
`
`The Witnesses
`
`1.
`
`Fact Witnesses
`
`6.
`
`Anthony Pipho testified live at trial. Mr. Pipho is the Vice President of
`
`Operations at CMP and oversees product development, regulatory, logistics and manufacturing.
`
`(Tr. at 50:5-17). Mr. Pipho has worked at CMP for more than eight years. (Id.). He was hired
`
`by CMP to develop a spironolactone suspension, was responsible for developing CaroSpir® and
`
`participated in CMP’s efforts to have CaroSpir® approved by the FDA. (Tr. at 50:2-73:9).
`
`Mr. Pipho is a named inventor on the Asserted Patents. (D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶¶ 6, 14, 21; JTX-001 at
`
`2; JTX-002 at 2; JTX-003 at 2).
`
`7.
`
`Hardik Patel testified live at trial. Mr. Patel has worked at Amneal for more than
`
`fifteen years and is currently the Senior Director of Research and Development. (Tr. at 194:19-
`
`24). Mr. Patel was primarily responsible for Amneal’s research and development of the ANDA
`
`product. (Tr. at 198:3-16).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s Expert Witness
`
`8.
`
`Dr. Sriramakamal Jonnalagadda testified live at trial. Dr. Jonnalagadda has been
`
`a professor at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, St. Joseph’s University for twenty years.
`
`(Tr. at 110:1-4; JTX-035). He received a Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska Medical Center,
`
`focusing on the examination of polymers, polymer characteristics, and the use of polymers to
`
`design drugs. (Tr. at 110:4-12). Dr. Jonnalagadda’s research focuses on the development of
`
`solid and liquid forms, including liquid forms that rely on polymeric materials. (Tr. at 110:13-
`
`111:1). The Court recognized Dr. Jonnalagadda as an expert in the field of rheological
`
`properties of polymers used in liquid dispersion systems and pharmaceutical dosage forms.
`
`(Tr. at 114:9-15).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 1755
`
`3.
`
`Defendant’s Expert Witness
`
`9.
`
`Dr. Richard Christian Moreton testified live at trial. Dr. Moreton has a Ph.D.
`
`from the University of Wales in Cardiff in the field of pharmaceuticals. (Tr. at 242:21-243:7;
`
`DTX-144). Dr. Moreton’s work focuses on the performance and function of excipients in
`
`pharmaceutical formulations, including suspensions. (Tr. at 242:7-252:6). The Court recognized
`
`Dr. Moreton as an expert in the field of pharmaceutical science including pharmaceutical
`
`formulation and excipient technology. (Tr. at 252:7-13). The Court found Dr. Moreton to be
`
`particularly credible.
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`1.
`
`The ’906 Patent
`
`10.
`
`The ’906 patent is titled, “Spironolactone Aqueous Compositions” and issued on
`
`April 21, 2020, from U.S. Application No. 16/682,477 filed on November 13, 2019. (JTX-001 at
`
`2). The named inventors of the ’906 patent are Anthony Pipho and Michael Paul DeHart. (Id.).
`
`The ’906 patent expires on October 28, 2036. (D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 12).
`
`11.
`
`CMP asserts that the ANDA Product will infringe claims 1 and 8 of the ’906
`
`patent. Claims 1 and 8 claim:
`
`1. A ready-to-use liquid formulation, comprising:
`
`(a) about 0.20% w/v to about 1.0% w/v of spironolactone;
`(b) from about 0.18% w/v to about 0.36% w/v of a xanthan gum;
`(c) a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient; and
`(d) a sufficient amount of a water vehicle;
`wherein the formulation has a spironolactone content of 100±10%
`labeled content when stored for about 24-months at 25±2ºC. and
`40±5% relative humidity.
`
`8. The ready-to-use liquid formulation of claim 1, which comprises
`about 0.5% w/v of spironolactone.
`
`
`(JTX-001).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 1756
`
`2.
`
`The ’907 Patent
`
`12.
`
`The ’907 patent is titled, “Spironolactone Aqueous Compositions” and issued on
`
`May 26, 2020, from U.S. Application No. 16/823,604 filed on March 19, 2020. (JTX-002 at 2).
`
`The named inventors of the ’907 patent are also Anthony Pipho and Michael Paul DeHart. (Id.).
`
`The ’907 patent expires on October 28, 2036. (D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 19).
`
`13.
`
`CMP asserts that the ANDA Product will infringe claims 1 and 10 of the ’907
`
`patent. Claims 1 and 10 claim:
`
`1. A ready-to-use liquid formulation, comprising:
`
`(a) about 0.20% w/v to about 1.0% w/v of spironolactone;
`(b) from about 0.18% w/v to about 0.36% w/v of a xanthan gum;
`(c) a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient; and
`(d) a sufficient amount of a water vehicle;
`wherein the formulation has a spironolactone content of 100±10%
`labeled content when stored for about 12-months at 25±2ºC. and
`40±5% relative humidity.
`
`10. The ready-to-use liquid formulation of claim 1, which
`comprises about 0.5% w/v of spironolactone.
`
`
`(JTX-002).
`
`3.
`
`The ’570 Patent
`
`14.
`
`The ’570 patent is titled, “Spironolactone Aqueous Compositions” and issued on
`
`January 12, 2021, from U.S. Application No. 16/878,092 filed on May 19, 2020. (JTX-003 at 2).
`
`The named inventors of the ’570 patent are Anthony Pipho and Michael Paul DeHart. (Id.). The
`
`’570 patent expires on October 28, 2036. (D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 27).
`
`15.
`
`CMP asserts that the ANDA Product will infringe claims 1 and 7-10 of the ’570
`
`patent. Claims 1 and 7-10 claim:
`
`1. A ready-to-use liquid formulation, comprising:
`
`(a) about 0.20% w/v to about 1.0% w/v of spironolactone;
`(b) from about 0.18% w/v to about 0.36% w/v of a xanthan gum;
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 1757
`
`the ready-to-use
`
`(c) a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient; and
`(d) a sufficient amount of a water vehicle;
`wherein the formulation exhibits a content uniformity of about
`100% labeled content after shaking the formulation for about 10
`seconds.
`
`7. A dosage container comprising
`formulation of claim 1.
`
`8. The container of claim 7 comprised of an enclosed bottle,
`wherein the bottle comprises a polyethylene terephthalate and an
`amber colorant.
`
`9. The bottle of claim 8 having a volume of said bottle of 4 oz. or
`16 oz.
`
`10. The ready-to-use liquid formulation of claim 1, which
`comprises about 0.5% w/v of spironolactone.
`
`
`liquid
`
`The Products at Issue: CaroSpir® and the ANDA Product
`
`CMP holds approved New Drug Application (“NDA”) No. 209478,3 filed on
`
`(JTX-003).
`
`D.
`
`16.
`
`January 11, 2016, which sought approval to sell CaroSpir®. (D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 32).
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`FDA approved NDA No. 209478 for CaroSpir® on August 4, 2017. (Id. ¶ 33).
`
`CaroSpir® is a ready-to-use liquid oral suspension with spironolactone as the
`
`active pharmaceutical ingredient. (Tr. at 67:7-16; PTX-020 at 1).
`
`19.
`
`CaroSpir® is indicated for the treatment of heart failure, hypertension and edema
`
`caused by cirrhosis. (PTX-020 at 1; Tr. at 54:5-9).
`
`20.
`
`CaroSpir® is commercially available in 118 mL or 473 mL amber polyethylene
`
`terephthalate bottles. (PTX-020). CaroSpir® is approved with a dosage strength of 25 mg/5ml of
`
`the suspension. (Id.)
`
`3
`
`
`There is a typo in the Pretrial Order (D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 32) with respect to the NDA
`number. (See Tr. at 376:15-18). The parties corrected the typo at trial. (Tr. at 378:11-
`14, 407:11-12). The correction is reflected above.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 1758
`
`21.
`
`All Asserted Patents are listed in the Orange Book as covering CaroSpir®.
`
`(D.I. 99 ¶ 5).
`
`22.
`
`Amneal’s ANDA seeks approval to market its ANDA product, a generic version
`
`of CaroSpir®, prior to the expiration of the patents listed in the Orange Book. (Id. ¶ 2-3).
`
`23.
`
`The ANDA product has been established as bioequivalent to CaroSpir®. (Tr. at
`
`200:3-203:9, 215:8-17; JTX-048).
`
`24.
`
`CaroSpir® and the ANDA Product are both pharmaceutical suspensions. A
`
`pharmaceutical suspension is a liquid oral dosage form in which the active ingredient is often
`
`undissolved. (Tr. at 51:23-52:2).
`
`25.
`
`Suspensions provide an option for patients who have difficulty swallowing
`
`tablets, such as pediatric and geriatric patients, and thus need a liquid form of the active
`
`ingredient (here, spironolactone). (Tr. at 51:7-18, 67:17-20).
`
`26.
`
`Suspensions are inherently unstable, both chemically and physically. (Tr. at
`
`124:15-125:2). A suspending agent works to help maintain the uniformity of the particles in a
`
`suspension (i.e., the active ingredient) by increasing the viscosity of a suspension to slow the rate
`
`of sedimentation. (Tr. at 52:11-53:16, 255:16-256:14). Particles in a suspension will eventually
`
`settle at the bottom of a bottle over time even if a suspending agent is used in a suspension.
`
`(Tr. at 53:14-18, 255:13-256:14).
`
`27.
`
`A viable ready-to-use suspension allows sedimented particles to be resuspended
`
`easily but is (at the same time) not so thick that it becomes difficult to resuspend settled particles
`
`or dispense the dose. (Tr. at 62:19-22, 312:13-25).
`
`28.
`
`CaroSpir® uses xanthan gum as a suspending agent. (Tr. at 217:22-218:5).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 1759
`
`29.
`
`Defendant’s ANDA product does not use xanthan gum as a suspending agent.
`
`(D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 37). Defendant’s ANDA product uses tragacanth powder as a suspending agent.
`
`(Id. ¶ 38).
`
`30.
`
`Defendant engaged in independent experimentation to select tragacanth powder as
`
`its suspending agent and to optimize the amount of tragacanth powder in its ANDA product.
`
`(Tr. at 199:18-202:15, 310:8-22). The experimentation lasted at least six months, involved
`
`multiple working groups within Amneal, required making and testing about 150 formulations,
`
`and involved testing more than a dozen different potential suspending agents or combinations of
`
`suspending agents. (Tr. at 199:18-200:20, 201:11-202:15, 203:10-206:17, 206:24-208:8, 210:8-
`
`16).
`
`E.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`By letter dated January 25, 2022, the parties agreed that no terms in the Asserted Patents
`
`needed construction (D.I. 32) and, as a result, “the plain and ordinary meaning of each term in
`
`the claims of the Asserted Patents as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] should
`
`apply.” (D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 28).
`
`F.
`
`Facts Related to Infringement
`
`1.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`31.
`
`The definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art applied by CMP’s expert for
`
`the purposes of the Asserted Patents is as follows:
`
`A hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`someone with a degree in pharmaceutical chemistry, analytical
`chemistry, or pharmacy (or a similar subject related
`to
`formulations) with 4-6 years of work experience
`in
`the
`development of, or research related to, drug formulations.
`
`(D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶ 29).
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 1760
`
`32.
`
`The definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art applied by Defendant’s
`
`expert for the purposes of the Asserted Patents is as follows:
`
`A hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have an
`advanced degree in pharmaceutical science, analytical chemistry,
`or a similar subject related to formulations, and at least 2 years’
`experience in research and/or development relating to drug
`formulations; or a person with a bachelor’s degree
`in
`pharmaceutical science, analytical chemistry, or a similar subject
`related to formulations, and at least 5 years’ experience in research
`and/or development relating to drug formulations.
`
`The opinions offered by each sides’ expert as to the infringement of the Asserted
`
`
`(Id. ¶ 30).
`
`
`33.
`
`Patents do not change based on which of the above-stated definitions of person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art is applied. (Id. ¶ 31).
`
`34.
`
`At the time of invention, both Dr. Jonnalagadda and Dr. Moreton met the
`
`definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art offered by each side. (See Tr. at 109:18-
`
`114:15; JTX-035; Tr. at 242:5-246:7, 255:4-9; DTX-144).
`
`2.
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`35.
`
`The parties agree that Amneal’s ANDA product will literally infringe all elements
`
`of the asserted independent claims except for one: the presence of “from about 0.18% w/v to
`
`about 0.36% w/v of a xanthan gum,” which is a limitation in all asserted claims in this case.
`
`(See D.I. 99, Ex. 1 ¶¶ 10-11, 17-18, 25-26).
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff argues that this limitation is met under the doctrine of equivalents by the
`
`suspending agent in Defendant’s ANDA product – i.e., tragacanth powder. (D.I. 112 at 3).
`
`37.
`
`In their briefs, the parties address whether (a) tragacanth powder is the equivalent
`
`of xanthan gum and (b) the specified amount of tragacanth powder in the ANDA product is the
`
`equivalent of the recited amount of xanthan gum in the claims.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 1761
`
`a.
`
`Equivalence of Xanthan Gum and Tragacanth Powder
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff argues that tragacanth powder is the equivalent of xanthan gum under
`
`both the function-way-result test and the insubstantial differences test.4 (D.I. 112 at 4).
`
`i.
`
`The Way Xanthan Gum and Tragacanth Powder Increase
`Viscosity
`
`
`39. With respect to the function-way-result test, Defendant does not dispute that
`
`tragacanth powder performs substantially the same function to obtain substantially the same
`
`result as the recited xanthan gum. (See D.I. 112 at 3; Tr. at 20:25-21:6). The function of the
`
`claimed xanthan gum is to act as a suspending agent, and the result achieved is a ready-to-use
`
`liquid oral spironolactone suspension that results in 100% ± 10% labeled content after 24 months
`
`or after about 10 seconds of shaking.
`
`40.
`
`The dispute centers on whether tragacanth powder works in substantially the same
`
`way as xanthan gum. That is, whether tragacanth powder and xanthan gum increase viscosity in
`
`their respective suspensions in substantially the same way. (See D.I. 112 at 3; Tr. at 20:25-21:6).
`
`41.
`
`Xanthan gum increases the viscosity of a suspension through the random
`
`entanglement of its polymer chains. (Tr. at 140:18-141:14, 296:8-25, 297:13-24).
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff argues that tragacanth powder increases viscosity in substantially the
`
`same way. (D.I. 112 at 3). At trial, Plaintiff attempted to support this assertion primarily
`
`through the testimony of its expert, Dr. Jonnalagadda.
`
`43.
`
`First, Dr. Jonnalagadda testified that he believes tragacanth powder and xanthan
`
`gum work in substantially the same way because, in an experiment conducted by Amneal during
`
`4
`
`
`At trial, Plaintiff’s counsel and expert focused on the function-way-result test. In its post-
`trial briefing, Plaintiff argues under both tests but does not distinguish between which
`evidence and arguments it relies on for which test. (See D.I. 112). The Court thus
`addresses the record as a whole in assessing whether Plaintiff has met its burden under
`either test.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 1762
`
`development of its ANDA product, out of the four suspending agents tested, only tragacanth
`
`powder and xanthan gum prevented visually observable sedimentation after seven days. (Tr. at
`
`128:3-131:25).
`
`44.
`
`Apart from his say-so and expertise as a polymer scientist, Dr. Jonnalagadda did
`
`not offer any scientific support for the connection he made between the results of this experiment
`
`and his conclusion that the two components work in substantially the same way. (See, e.g., Tr. at
`
`140:22-25 (explaining that he “truly believe[s] the mechanism by which they are increasing the
`
`viscosity and the formulation on the particles to prevent them from coming together, the
`
`mechanism by which that is happening is precisely the same”)).
`
`45.
`
`Dr. Jonnalagadda also opined that Defendant’s ANDA product matches certain
`
`release specifications of CaroSpir® (e.g., visual and physical appearance, viscosity, density, pH,
`
`re-suspendability and dissolution) and that these similar physicochemical properties of the
`
`finished products indicate that their respective suspending agents both increase viscosity in
`
`substantially the same way. (Tr. at 144:9-146:24; JTX-048 at 127-32).
`
`46.
`
`Again, apart
`
`from his say-so and expertise as a polymer scientist,
`
`Dr. Jonnalagadda offered little in the way of scientific support for the connection he made
`
`between the similarity in physicochemical properties of the two finished products and the way in
`
`which their respective suspending agents increase viscosity.
`
`47.
`
`In its reply brief, Plaintiff asserts that Dr, Jonnalagadda’s opinion is supported by
`
`reliable experimental data – that is, Amneal’s Product Development Report and the supporting
`
`lab notebook. (See D.I. 117 at 1-2). Although these documents may show that the
`
`physicochemical properties of both products overall are similar, Dr. Jonnalagadda failed to
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 1763
`
`adequately explain how the documents support his opinion that similarities in the final products
`
`evidence the way their respective suspending agents work.
`
`48. When asked whether it was possible for Amneal’s product to meet these
`
`specifications with a suspending agent that does not work the same as xanthan gum, the
`
`explanation Dr. Jonnalagadda gave was the following: “If the mechanism was different, you
`
`would not get that match. So the answer I guess would be no.” (Tr. at 146:19-24). In contrast
`
`to Dr. Jonnalagadda’s testimony, Dr. Moreton testified that the tests made on the final product
`
`“explain nothing about how the viscosity develops or how the individual components work.”
`
`(Tr. at 309:18-310:6).
`
`49.
`
`Dr. Jonnalagadda based his product-to-product comparison and opinion on the
`
`premise that the ANDA product and CaroSpir® differ solely with respect to their suspending
`
`agents and are otherwise the same. (Tr. at 174:21-25).
`
`50.
`
`As Dr. Jonnalagadda acknowledged at trial, however, this premise is incorrect
`
`because the two formulations also have different buffer systems. (Tr. at 175:20-176:14; see also
`
`Tr. at 203:10-204:1). Dr. Jonnalagadda further recognized that having different buffers as well
`
`as suspending agents may have required an analysis to determine which of the similar
`
`physicochemical properties might ultimately be attributable to the buffer rather than the
`
`suspending agent. (Tr. at 175:7-19). Although Dr. Jonnalagadda then purported to have
`
`conducted such an analysis, he stated that this was “a while ago,” so his “knowledge of the
`
`buffer is not exactly precise.” (Tr. at 176:5-25). Dr. Jonnalagadda did not present or discuss the
`
`results of his analysis of the buffers any further.
`
`51.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff contends that the fact that both suspending agents are natural
`
`gums shows that they both work substantially through polymer entanglement. (D.I. 112 at 7).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 1764
`
`The closest Dr. Jonnalagadda’s testimony comes to supporting this assertion is when, upon being
`
`asked why he believed both suspending agents kept sedimentation from occurring in the Amneal
`
`experiments, Dr. Jonnalagadda replied, “They’re very similar. They’re both natural gums,” and
`
`then proceeded to list other similarities. (Tr. at 131:12-17). This explanation, however, fails to
`
`show why both suspending agents being natural gums holds any relevance with respect to the
`
`specific way they increase viscosity.
`
`52.
`
`Dr. Jonnalagadda also testified that xanthan gum and tragacanth powder have
`
`similar molecular weights and similar chemical structures (i.e., they are both anionic
`
`polysaccharides). (Tr. at 131:10-133:13, 147:2-150:6). Dr. Jonnalagadda opined that these
`
`similarities indicate that the two suspending agents increase viscosity in substantially the same
`
`way.5 (Id.).
`
`53.
`
`Apart from his say-so and expertise as a polymer scientist, Dr. Jonnalagadda
`
`offered no scientific support for the connection he made between these properties and the way in
`
`which the two suspending agents work.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff has failed to establish that the characteristics and qualities that its expert
`
`cites (i.e., that both suspending agents prevented visually observable sedimentation, that the
`
`finished products exhibit similar characteristics, that both are natural gums, and that they have a
`
`similar molecular weight and chemical structure) in fact indicate that xanthan gum and
`
`tragacanth powder increase viscosity in substantially the same way.
`
`5
`
`
`In its post-trial briefing, Plaintiff also contends that these qualities indicate that both
`suspending agents work through “film formation.” (D.I. 112 at 7). It is unclear what
`Plaintiff is referring to given that, at trial, Dr. Jonnalagadda only briefly noted that he
`would “expect the film formation mechanisms . . . to be the same as well” without
`explaining what film formation is. (Tr. at 141:15-142:14; see also Tr. at 301:10-15).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 1765
`
`a.
`
`Bassorin
`
`55.
`
`Defendant contends that the two suspending agents do not increase viscosity in
`
`substantially the same way due to the presence of bassorin in tragacanth powder. (See D.I. 114
`
`at 10-12).
`
`56.
`
`There is no dispute as to the following facts: (1) xanthan gum is a water-soluble
`
`hydrocolloid; (2) tragacanth powder is made up of two components – bassorin and tragacanthin;
`
`(3) tragacanthin is water soluble. (Tr. at 118:17-18, 148:18-149:8, 291:5-16; JTX-066 at 1; JTX-
`
`070 at 480; see also D.I. 112 at 7-8; D.I. 113 ¶¶ 89-91; D.I. 114 at 4-5).
`
`57.
`
`Bassorin is the majority component, making up around 60-70% of tragacanth
`
`powder. (Tr. at 291:5-16; JTX-066 at 1; JTX-070 at 480). Tragacanthin is the minority
`
`component, making up around 30-40% of tragacanth powder. (Tr. at 291:5-16; JTX-066 at 1;
`
`JTX-070 at 480; see also D.I. 112 at 7).
`
`58.
`
`The parties’ experts disagree as to whether the majority component bassorin is,
`
`according to Dr. Moreton, “insoluble” in water or, according to Dr. Jonnalagadda, “less soluble”
`
`in water.6 (Tr. at 148:18-149:21, 291:5-11, 294:6-296:2).
`
`59.
`
`Regardless of whether bassorin is categorized as insoluble or less soluble, the
`
`parties agree that bassorin – the majority component of tragacanth powder – increases viscosity
`
`6
`
`through a different mechanism than tragacanthin. That is, in Plaintiff’s words, “tragacanthin (the
`
`The Court found Dr. Moreton’s opinion on the solubility of bassorin more credible than
`that of Dr. Jonnalagadda’s given that it was backed by more scientific support and
`explanation. (See Tr. at 291:5-11, 294:6-296:3; JTX-066 at 1; JTX-072 at 2). The Court,
`however, declines to reach the factual issue of whether bassorin is technically “less
`soluble” or “insoluble.” As noted above, regardless of the way bassorin is characterized,
`the parties do not dispute that tragacanth powder is made up of two components rather
`than one and that the way in which bassorin increases viscosity is through swelling in
`water and forming a gel rather than through polymer entanglement. Based on the record
`before the Court, whether bassorin is characterized as either “insoluble” or “less soluble”
`in water compared with tragacanthin would not impact the Court’s determination
`regarding infringement.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 1766
`
`soluble portion) increases viscosity through random entanglement . . . while bassorin (the less
`
`soluble portion), swells and forms a gel.” (D.I. 112 at 8; see also D.I. 114 at 11; Tr. at 297:1-
`
`298:6; 319:14-16).
`
`60.
`
`Thus, as explained by Dr. Moreton at trial, tragacanth powder increases viscosity
`
`by a combination of swelling and polymer chain entanglement. (Tr. at 297:1-298:6, 307:9-14).
`
`61.
`
`In addition, as Dr. Moreton testified, scientific literature reflects that the presence
`
`of bassorin interacting with tragacanthin in tragacanth powder has a different effect on viscosity
`
`than that of either compound interacting alone with water. (Tr. at 298:7-300:16, 302:9-303:1;
`
`JTX-072 at 4-5). Accordingly, as Dr. Moreton explained, tragacanth powder increases viscosity
`
`by a combination of three interactions: (1) the majority component of water-insoluble (or less
`
`soluble) bassorin swelling with water; (2) the minority component tragacanthin dissolving in
`
`water, leading to polymer chain entanglement; and (3) the interaction between bassorin and
`
`tragacanthin. (Tr. at 297:1-12, 307:9-14).
`
`62.
`
`It is undisputed that xanthan gum increases viscosity in a single way – by the
`
`entanglement of dissolved polymer chains. (Tr. at 296:8-22, 297:13-24, 140:18-141:14).
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff contends, however, that “the presence of bassorin simply does not
`
`matter.” (D.I. 112 at 9).
`
`64.
`
`In support of this argument, Plaintiff first points to Amneal’s experiments that
`
`showed tragacanth powder prevented sedimentation. Plaintiff contends that because bassorin
`
`takes up to twenty-four hours to fully hydrate without heat and the Amneal scientists did not heat
`
`the tragacanth powder batches during their experiments, the experiments show that tragacanthin
`
`alone is responsible for the suspension of spironolactone. (D.I. 112 at 10). The testimony that
`
`comes closest to supporting this theory is the following from Dr. Jonnalagadda:
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00549-MN Document 123 Filed 09/29/23 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 1767
`
`Q: Assuming [Amneal] heat[ed] the batches, does that change
`your opinion in any way about the manner in which these two
`suspending agents are achieving the increased viscosity of the
`suspension?
`
`A: No, the mechanism of action of viscosity increase is the same
`between tragacanth and xanthan.
`
`Q: Regardless of whether it’s heated?
`
`A: Regardless of whether it’s heated.
`
`(Tr. at 143:21-144:3). Dr. Jonnalagadda offered no further explanation as to why heating would
`
`not impact the mechanism by which both suspending agents increase viscosity and did not testify
`
`that these experiments show that tragacanthin alone is responsible for the suspension of
`
`spironolactone. The record is insufficient to support this theory.
`
`65.
`
`In support of its contention that the presence of bassorin “simply does not matter,”
`
`Plaintiff further argues that the asserted claims are all “comprising” claims; that is, they are
`
`open-ended and thus the presence of additional material, such as bassorin, does not negate
`
`infringement. (D.I. 112 at 9). Plaintiff presented no testimony in support of this argument.
`
`66.
`
`Furthermore, Plaintiff has waived this argument as it was not properly disclosed
`
`in the Pretrial Order. (See D.I. 99).
`
`67. When asked whether the difference in solubility between the two portions of
`
`tragacanth powder makes a difference as to his opinion that tragacanth powder and xanthan gum
`
`increase viscosity in the same way, Dr. Jonnalagadda did not respond with either of Plaintiff’s
`
`attorneys’ arguments noted above. Rather, Dr. Jonnalagadda testified that the difference in
`
`solubility “does not” make a difference in his opinion because “[t]he less soluble portion is also a
`
`[water-soluble] hydrocolloid, that’s what I would call it. Ther

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.