United States District Court for the District of New Jersey invalidates all asserted claims of US Patent No. 8822438 for prostate cancer drug Zytiga (Abiraterone Acetate)

US healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Oct. 26, 2018 announced that the District Court of New Jersey has issued a ruling that invalidates all the claims of J&J subsidiary Janssen’s US Patent No. 8,822,438 for the prostate cancer drug Zytiga® (abiraterone acetate). The patent challenge was brought by generic drug makers who had questioned the validity of the US8822438 patent which is scheduled to expire on August 24, 2027.

The defendants in this case are Amerigen Pharmaceuticals; Amneal Pharmaceuticals; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories; Mylan Pharmaceuticals; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva’9; West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corporation, and Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“West-Ward/Hikman”); and Wockhardt. The defendants are generic drug companies who seek to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of a generic version of the plaintiff’s branded drug, ZYTIGA®.

ZYTIGA® (abiraterone acetate) is a prescription medicine that is used along with prednisone. On February 7, 2018, the USFDA approved Zytiga in combination with prednisone for treatment of men with metastatic high-risk castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). The USFDA initially approved abiraterone acetate with prednisone in 2011 for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who had received prior chemotherapy, and expanded the indication in 2012 for patients with metastatic CRPC. The recommended dose for Zytiga for metastatic CSPC is 1,000 mg orally once daily with prednisone 5 mg orally once daily. Zytiga had sales of $1.4 billion in the first 9 months of 2018 in the US alone.

The plaintiff, i.e. Janssen alleged infringement of claims 4, 8, 11, 19 and 20, all of which rely on claim 1 of the US 8,822,438 patent, based on the defendants’ filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”). If defendants’ ANDAs are approved, defendants will allegedly induce infringement of the asserted claims of the US 8,822,438 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 27 1(b) and contribute to infringement of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 27 1(c). Defendants denied infringement and claimed that the patent claims are invalid for obviousness and for lack of a written description.

The US8822438 patent covers method of treatment of a prostate cancer in a human by co-administering Zytiga with steroid prednisone. Independent Claim 1 of the US8822438 patent reads as follows:

“A method for the treatment of a prostate cancer in a human comprising administering to said human a therapeutically effective amount of abiraterone acetate or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and a therapeutically effective amount of prednisone.”

Essentially, the US District Judge McNulty ruled as follows “Like the PTAB, I find that the ‘438 patent is invalid for obviousness. I find the patent’s written description to be adequate, however. In the alternative, and to facilitate appellate review, I have ruled on the infringement issues that were tried. Assuming that the ‘438 patent is valid, I find based on the proposed generic labels that the ANDA defendants’ marketing of abiraterone would infringe, on either an induced infringement or contributory infringement theory”.

The US District Judge McNulty found that there was more than sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to combine abiraterone with prednisone. The Judge ruled that prednisone’s ability to reduce pain and side effects in cancer patients “would furnish a powerful motivation” to combine prednisone with Zytiga’s active ingredient and as such: “That road led straight to the practice of the patented method: the target condition would be prostate cancer; the target population would be the subset of patients who had mCRPC; the dosage would be 1000mg of abiraterone and 10mg of prednisone daily; the object would be to slow the spread of the disease by hormone deprivation; the clinical results would be the same, and would be measured by prolongation of life (or, in the interim, by proxy metrics such as reduction of PSA levels)”. The judge concluded that “the patented combination here was well foreshadowed in peer-reviewed articles. That factor outweighs the others. Balancing all of the prior art and the other indicia, I find that the evidence favors a conclusion of obviousness. Tokai Corp. u. Easton Enters., 632 F.3d 1358, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“However, even assuming the existence of a nexus, we see no error in the district court’s determination that Tokai failed to establish ‘that any of these secondary factors are significant,’ . . . in light of the strong showing of prima facie obviousness.”).”

The judge also said that if the US8822438 patent is found to be valid upon appeal, the generic-drug companies would infringe it. The decision has come after a number of generic-drug companies including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Mylan NV, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Inc submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications to sell generic versions (250 mg and/or 500 mg tablets) of the drug.

Caroline Pavis, a spokeswoman for J&J’s Janssen unit said “We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling and will continue to defend the patent.” “We plan to appeal the decision.”

Previously, on 17 January 2018 the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), in three inter partes proceedings, found the US8822438 patent invalid for being obvious. A motion for reconsideration remains pending.

Author: Mr. Antony David , Principal Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at antony@khuranaandkhurana.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eighteen − 15 =

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010