In the complex world of pharmaceutical patent litigation, the case of IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC. stands out as a significant battle over generic drug entry and patent infringement. This article delves into the intricacies of this case, exploring its background, key issues, and implications for the pharmaceutical industry.
Background of the Case
The lawsuit, filed on September 17, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, centers around Impax Laboratories' drug Rytary®, which is used to treat Parkinson's Disease. Impax sued Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. for patent infringement based on Actavis's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of Rytary[1].
The Patents at Issue
Impax asserted six patents in this suit, with the U.S. Patent No. 7,094,427 (the '427 patent) playing a crucial role in the proceedings. The '427 patent, issued on August 22, 2006, was one of the key patents protecting Impax's Rytary® formulation[3].
Key Legal Issues
The case revolved around several critical legal issues, including literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and the validity of the asserted patents.
Literal Infringement
Actavis moved for summary judgment of non-infringement on all asserted patents. The court granted this motion for purposes of literal infringement, indicating that Actavis's proposed generic product did not directly infringe Impax's patents[1].
Doctrine of Equivalents
While the court granted summary judgment on literal infringement, it denied Actavis's motion regarding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. This doctrine allows for a finding of infringement even when the accused product or process does not literally infringe the patent claims[1].
Patent Validity
Although not explicitly discussed in the available court documents, patent validity is often a key issue in pharmaceutical patent litigation. Defendants typically challenge the validity of asserted patents as part of their defense strategy.
The Role of ANDA Filing
The case was triggered by Actavis's filing of ANDA No. 208522 with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This filing sought approval for a generic version of Impax's Rytary® (Levodopa/Carbidopa) capsule drug[3].
Hatch-Waxman Act Implications
The case falls under the framework of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which governs the approval of generic drugs. Under this act, the filing of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification (asserting non-infringement or invalidity of the brand's patents) constitutes an act of patent infringement, allowing the brand company to sue before the generic product enters the market.
Formulation Structure Claims
One category of claims at issue in the case was formulation structure claims. These claims related to the specific composition and structure of the drug formulation.
Carboxylic Acid Component
A key point of contention for the formulation structure claims was whether the carboxylic acid component in Actavis's proposed generic product was in a distinct bead, as required by Impax's patent claims[1].
Pharmacokinetic Profile Claims
Another important category of claims in the case was pharmacokinetic (PK) profile claims. These claims described the behavior of the drug in the body over time.
Maximum Concentration Claims
The court granted summary judgment of no literal infringement for the maximum concentration claims. Impax had proposed a special analytical procedure for determining infringement, but the court found this argument unpersuasive and unsupported by law[1].
40% Fluctuation Claims
For the 40% fluctuation claims, the court denied Actavis's motion for summary judgment. The court found that Actavis's argument relied on a non-infringement theory that it had not disclosed in its non-infringement contentions, and thus was barred from making this argument[1].
Indirect Infringement Claims
Impax also asserted claims of indirect infringement against Actavis, including inducement and contributory infringement.
Inducement
The court denied summary judgment on inducement, finding that a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Actavis's label instructs physicians to perform the infringing steps, and that the label and circumstantial evidence showed specific intent to induce infringement[1].
Contributory Infringement
Similarly, the court denied summary judgment on contributory infringement, finding a material factual dispute regarding whether the Actavis product was suitable for a substantial non-infringing use[1].
Prosecution History Estoppel
Actavis attempted to argue that prosecution history estoppel barred Impax from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. However, the court found Actavis's argument on this point too cursory and declined to fill in the gaps to create a complete argument[1].
Motion to Stay Proceedings
An interesting aspect of this case was Impax's motion to stay proceedings related to the '427 patent, pending the outcome of ongoing United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) reexamination proceedings[3].
Factors Considered in Stay Decision
The court considered several factors in deciding whether to grant the stay:
- Potential prejudice to the non-moving party (Actavis)
- Potential simplification of the issues in the case
- The stage of the proceedings
Partial Grant of Stay
Ultimately, the court granted the stay in part and denied it in part. It ordered Impax to proceed with its required disclosures on the '427 patent and allowed fact discovery to proceed, but stayed the remainder of the case with respect to the '427 patent pending completion of the reexamination process[3].
Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry
This case highlights several important aspects of pharmaceutical patent litigation:
- The complexity of formulation patents and the challenges in proving infringement
- The importance of proper disclosure in non-infringement contentions
- The potential impact of ongoing PTO proceedings on district court litigation
- The role of indirect infringement claims in ANDA litigation
Broader Context: Pay-for-Delay Settlements
While not directly related to the Impax v. Actavis case, it's worth noting that Impax has been involved in other significant pharmaceutical litigation, including a case related to pay-for-delay settlements.
FTC v. Impax Laboratories
In a separate case, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged Impax with engaging in an illegal "pay-for-delay" settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals regarding the drug Opana ER[5].
The Commission ruled that Impax engaged in an illegal pay-for-delay, or "reverse payment" settlement to delay the sale of a generic version of Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Endo")'s branded extended-release opioid pain reliever, Opana ER[4].
This case, which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, was the first fully litigated reverse payment case following the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis[7].
Key Takeaways
-
Patent infringement cases in the pharmaceutical industry often involve complex scientific and legal issues, as evidenced by the multiple types of claims (formulation structure, pharmacokinetic profile) at play in the Impax v. Actavis case.
-
Courts may treat different types of patent claims differently when considering summary judgment motions, as seen in the court's varying decisions on literal infringement for different claim categories.
-
Indirect infringement claims can play a significant role in ANDA litigation, potentially surviving summary judgment even when direct infringement claims do not.
-
Ongoing PTO proceedings can impact district court litigation, potentially leading to partial stays of proceedings.
-
The pharmaceutical industry continues to grapple with issues related to generic entry and patent settlements, as highlighted by the separate FTC case against Impax regarding pay-for-delay settlements.
FAQs
-
Q: What is an ANDA?
A: An ANDA, or Abbreviated New Drug Application, is a submission to the FDA for approval of a generic drug product.
-
Q: What is the doctrine of equivalents in patent law?
A: The doctrine of equivalents allows a court to find infringement even when the accused product or process doesn't literally infringe the patent claims, if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result.
-
Q: What is a pay-for-delay settlement?
A: A pay-for-delay settlement, also known as a reverse payment settlement, is an agreement in which a brand-name drug company pays a generic competitor to delay entering the market with a competing generic version of the drug.
-
Q: What is prosecution history estoppel?
A: Prosecution history estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a patent owner from using the doctrine of equivalents to recapture subject matter that was surrendered during patent prosecution.
-
Q: What factors do courts consider when deciding whether to stay proceedings?
A: Courts typically consider factors such as potential prejudice to the non-moving party, potential simplification of the issues, and the stage of the proceedings when deciding whether to grant a stay.
Sources cited:
- https://www.robinskaplan.com/newsroom/insights/impax-labs-v-actavis-labs-fl
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-2_15-cv-06934/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-2_15-cv-06934-0.pdf
- https://calawyers.org/antitrust-unfair-competition-law/applying-actavis-the-ftc-reverses-initial-decision-and-finds-that-impax-labs-entered-into-illegal-pay-for-delay-agreement/
- https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/141-0004-impax-laboratories-inc-matter
- https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication-listing/fifth-circuit-upholds-ftcs-impax-decision
