Case Law Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.

Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (53) Cited in (12) Related (2)

Jack B. Blumenfeld, Karen Jacobs, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, Eric A. Stone, Josephine Young, Kira A. Davis, Nicholas Groombridge, Pro Hac Vice, for Plaintiffs.

Richard L. Horwitz, Bindu Ann George Palapura, David Ellis Moore, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Emily C. Melvin, Kenneth G. Schuler, Michael R. Seringhaus, Timothy J. O'Brien, Pro Hac Vice, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

GREGORY M. SLEET, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this consolidated patent infringement action, plaintiffs Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Vanda") and Aventisub LLC ("Aventisub") (collectively "the Plaintiffs") allege infringement by Roxane of U.S. Reissue Patent No. 39,198 ("the '198 Patent") and U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 ("the '610 Patent"). The two actions were consolidated for purposes of trial on April 13, 2015. The court held a five-day bench trial in this matter on February 29, 2016 to March 4, 2016. (D.I. 171–176.) Presently before the court are the parties' post-trial proposed findings of fact and post-trial briefs concerning the validity of the patents-in-suit and whether Roxane's proposed products infringe the '610 Patent. (D.I. 178, 179, 184, 185.)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), and after having considered the entire record in this case and the applicable law, the court concludes that: (1) all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are valid; (2) Roxane's proposed products induce infringement of the asserted claims of the '610 Patent ; (3) Roxane's proposed products do not contributorily infringe the asserted claims of the '610 Patent ; and (4) each of the parties' Rule 52(c) motions are granted in part and denied in part. These findings of fact and conclusions of law are set forth in further detail below.1

II. FINDINGS OF FACT2
A. The Parties
1. Plaintiff Vanda is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037.
2. Plaintiff Aventisub is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3711 Kennett Pike, Suite 200, Greenville, DE 19807.
3. Defendant Roxane is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business at 1809 Wilson Road, Columbus, OH 43228.
4. The court has subject matter jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction over all parties.
B. Background

5. Genotyping assays are currently commercially available to identify CYP2D6 poor metabolizers.

6. Genotyping assays are laboratory tests.

7. The generic iloperidone described in the Roxane AND A is literally within the scope of claim 3 of the '198 Patent and infringes claim 3 of the '198 Patent provided that the claim is not proved invalid.

8. Extrapyramidal side effects ("EPS") are undesired side effects of antipsychotic medications.

9. Atypical antipsychotics have fewer extrapyramidal side effects than typical antipsychotics.

C. The Patents-in-Suit

10. The '198 Patent, entitled "Heteroarylpiperidines, Pyrrolidines and Piperazines and Their Use as Antipsychotics and Analgesics," issued on July 18, 2006, and names Joseph T. Strupczewski, Grover C. Helsley, Yulin Chiang, Kenneth J. Bordeau, and Edward J. Glamkowski as the inventors.

11. The '198 Patent was filed on November 15, 2000, and is a reissued patent of U.S. patent no. 5,364,866, filed on October 30, 1992.

12. The '198 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 07/354,411, filed on May 19, 1989.

13. The '198 Patent expires on November 15, 2016.

14. Aventisub is the owner by assignment of the '198 Patent.

15. Vanda holds an exclusive worldwide license to the '198 Patent.

16. The '610 Patent, entitled "Methods for the Administration of Iloperidone," issued on November 19, 2013, and names Curt D. Wolfgang and Mihael H. Polymeropoulos as the inventors.

17. The '610 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/614,798, filed on September 30, 2004.

18. The '610 Patent expires on November 2, 2027.

19. Vanda is the owner by assignment of the '610 Patent.

20. Vanda has standing to sue for infringement of the '610 Patent.

1. The Asserted Claims

a. '198 Patent, Claim 3

Claim 3 of the '198 Patent reads:

A compound as claimed in claim 1, which is 1-[4-[3-[4-(6-fluoro-1,2-benzisoxazol-3-yl)-1-piperidinyl]-propoxy]-3-methoxyphenyl]ethanone or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof. The nonproprietary name for l-[4-[3-[4-(6-fluoro-1,2-benzisoxazol-3-yl)-1-piperidinyl]-propoxy]-3-methoxyphenyl]ethanone is "iloperidone."

b. '610 Patent, Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 16

Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 16 of the '610 Patent read:

A method for treating a patient with iloperidone, wherein the patient is suffering from schizophrenia, the method comprising the steps of: determining whether the patient is a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer by: obtaining or having obtained a biological sample from the patient; and performing or having performed a genotyping assay on the biological sample to determine if the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype; and if the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of 12 mg/day or less, and if the patient does not have a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount that is greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day, wherein a risk of QTc prolongation for a patient having a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype is lower following the internal administration of 12 mg/day or less than it would be if the iloperidone were administered in an amount of greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the performing or having performed the genotyping assay step comprises: extracting or having extracted genomic DNA or mRNA from the biological sample, and sequencing or having sequenced CYP2D6 DNA derived from the extracted genomic DNA or from the extracted mRNA, wherein the sequencing or having sequenced step further comprises: amplifying or having amplified a CYP2D6 region in the extracted genomic B-2 DNA or mRNA to prepare a DNA sample enriched in DNA from the CYP2D6 gene region; and sequencing or having sequenced the DNA sample by hybridizing the DNA sample to nucleic acid probes to determine if the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype; and wherein the CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype is one of the CYP2D6G1846A genotype or the CYP2D6C100T genotype.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype is one of the CYP2D6G1846A (AA) genotype or the CYP2D6G1846A (AG) genotype.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype is the CYP2D6G1846A (AA) genotype.

5. The method of claim 2, wherein the CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype is one of the CYP2D6C100T (TT) genotype or the CYP2D6C100T (CT) genotype.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype is the CYP2D6C100T (TT) genotype.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of 12 mg/day or less comprises internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of 6 mg or less b.i.d.

8. The method of claim 2, wherein, if the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of 6 mg b.i.d.

9. A method of treating a patient who is suffering from a schizoaffective disorder, depression, Tourette's syndrome, a psychotic disorder or a delusional disorder, the method comprising: determining if the patient is a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer by obtaining or having obtained a biological sample from the patient, and performing or having performed a genotyping assay on the biological sample to determine whether the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, and if the patient is a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of up to 12 mg/day, and if the patient is not a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day.

11. The method of claim 9, wherein the CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype is one of: B-3 CYP2D6G1846A (AA), CYP2D6G1846A (AG), CYP2D6C100T (TT), or CYP2D6C100T (CT).

12. The method of claim 9, wherein the method comprises: if the patient is a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer, then internally administering the iloperidone to the patient in an amount of 6 mg b.i.d.

13. A method of treating a patient who is suffering from a schizoaffective disorder, depression, Tourette's syndrome, a psychotic disorder or a delusional disorder, the method comprising: determining if the patient is at risk for iloperidone-induced QTc prolongation by obtaining or having obtained a biological sample from the patient, and performing or having performed a genotyping assay on the biological sample to determine whether the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, wherein the presence of a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype indicates risk for iloperidone-induced QTc prolongation, and if the patient is at risk for iloperidone-induced QTc prolongation, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of up to 12 mg/day, and if the patient is not at risk for iloperidone-induced QTc prolongation, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day.

16. The method of claim 13, wherein the method comprises: if the patient is at risk for iloperidone-induced QTc prolongation, then internally administering the iloperidone to the patient in an amount of 6 mg b.i.d. claims 1-9, 11-13, and 16 of the '610 Patent.

D. FANAPT® and Roxane's ANDA

20. FANAPT® (iloperidone) is an atypical antipsychotic approved for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Vanda...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2016
Citizens United v. Schneiderman
"... ... Target Advert., Inc. v. Giani, 199 F.3d 1241, 1248 (10th Cir.2000) ... See, e.g., Barrett v. Forest Labs ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit – 2018
Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Int'l Ltd.
"...("the asserted claims") of U.S. Patent 8,586,610 ("the '610 patent") infringed and not invalid. See Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc. , 203 F.Supp.3d 412 (D. Del. 2016) (" Opinion "). For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND I.Aventisub LLC ("Aventisub") owns and Vanda Pharmac..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware – 2022
Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
"...real-world practice of physicians to reach its conclusion that direct infringement would likely occur. Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Roxane Lab'ys, Inc. , 203 F. Supp. 3d 412, 433 (D. Del. 2016) ("Dr. Alva's patient records and testimony confirm that he has practiced the steps of the ’610 Patent cl..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware – 2017
Glaxosmithkline LLC v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc.
"...of a substantial non-infringing use, however, does not preclude a finding of induced infringement. Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 203 F. Supp. 3d 412, 434 (D. Del. 2016) (citing Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Tech. LLC, 629 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). As to the force ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2017
Qualcomm Inc. v. Compal Elecs., Inc.
"...603 (delays in research can result in competitive disadvantage that cannot be compensated with damages); Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc. , 203 F.Supp.3d 412, 435 (D. Del. 2016) (finding that lost research and development funds, among other factors, were irreparable harms calling for..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 43-2, January 2018
Highway [35 U.s.c. Section] 101: Finding the On-ramp
"...legal advice or legal representation.This is a report on a family of cases in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. 203 F.Supp.3d 412 (D. Delaware August 25, 2016, "Vanda I") and Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, West-Ward Pharm..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
2 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
The Federal Circuit Addresses Patent Eligibility of Methods of Treatment For First Time Post-Mayo
"...v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2119-2120 (2013). Margaux Nair Aaron Morrow 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a method of treatment. [1] In Vanda, the Federal Circuit applied the eligibility test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus, [2] and the majority held that the claim..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Mayo at Five: Are Traditional Method of Treatment Claims in Danger Under Section 101?
"...“a complicated factual determination that the court could better resolve after discovery.”[xv] Later the same year, in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc,[xvi] Judge Sleet found that claims relating to Vanda Pharmaceutical’s Fanapt® product used for the treatment of schizophren..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 43-2, January 2018
Highway [35 U.s.c. Section] 101: Finding the On-ramp
"...legal advice or legal representation.This is a report on a family of cases in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. 203 F.Supp.3d 412 (D. Delaware August 25, 2016, "Vanda I") and Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, West-Ward Pharm..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2016
Citizens United v. Schneiderman
"... ... Target Advert., Inc. v. Giani, 199 F.3d 1241, 1248 (10th Cir.2000) ... See, e.g., Barrett v. Forest Labs ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit – 2018
Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Int'l Ltd.
"...("the asserted claims") of U.S. Patent 8,586,610 ("the '610 patent") infringed and not invalid. See Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc. , 203 F.Supp.3d 412 (D. Del. 2016) (" Opinion "). For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND I.Aventisub LLC ("Aventisub") owns and Vanda Pharmac..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware – 2022
Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
"...real-world practice of physicians to reach its conclusion that direct infringement would likely occur. Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Roxane Lab'ys, Inc. , 203 F. Supp. 3d 412, 433 (D. Del. 2016) ("Dr. Alva's patient records and testimony confirm that he has practiced the steps of the ’610 Patent cl..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware – 2017
Glaxosmithkline LLC v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc.
"...of a substantial non-infringing use, however, does not preclude a finding of induced infringement. Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 203 F. Supp. 3d 412, 434 (D. Del. 2016) (citing Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Tech. LLC, 629 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). As to the force ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2017
Qualcomm Inc. v. Compal Elecs., Inc.
"...603 (delays in research can result in competitive disadvantage that cannot be compensated with damages); Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc. , 203 F.Supp.3d 412, 435 (D. Del. 2016) (finding that lost research and development funds, among other factors, were irreparable harms calling for..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
The Federal Circuit Addresses Patent Eligibility of Methods of Treatment For First Time Post-Mayo
"...v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2119-2120 (2013). Margaux Nair Aaron Morrow 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a method of treatment. [1] In Vanda, the Federal Circuit applied the eligibility test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus, [2] and the majority held that the claim..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Mayo at Five: Are Traditional Method of Treatment Claims in Danger Under Section 101?
"...“a complicated factual determination that the court could better resolve after discovery.”[xv] Later the same year, in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc,[xvi] Judge Sleet found that claims relating to Vanda Pharmaceutical’s Fanapt® product used for the treatment of schizophren..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial