Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. Myrbetriq® (Mirabegron)

Robins Kaplan LLP
Contact

Robins Kaplan LLP

Case Name: Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Civ. No. 20-1589, 2023 WL 3934386 (D. Del. June 9, 2023) (Bataillon, J.) 

Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Myrbetriq® (mirabegron); U.S. Patent No. 10,842,780 (“the ’780 patent”)

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Astellas sued to enjoin a number of Defendants from marketing generic versions of Myrbetriq, an extended-release formulation of mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder. The ’780 patent claims overcoming “food effect,” described as a drug’s dangerous potency on an empty stomach contrasted by its inefficacy on a full one, by describing an extended-release formulation of mirabegron comprising a hydrogel-forming polymer, hydrophilic additive, and a dissolution limitation: that the dosage has dissolved no more than 39% at 1.5 hours and at least 75% after 7 hours. The parties engaged in a five-day bench trial. The court found that the asserted claims were invalid.

Why Defendants Prevailed: Defendants argued that the ’780 patent was invalid for not meeting the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Specifically, Defendants argued that the patent specification did not offer sufficient clarity to enable a skilled artisan to make the invention without undue experimentation. Astellas countered that the specification directs routine activity by highly-skilled artisans in a predictable art. Taking Astellas at its word, the court found that Astellas conceded that the ’780 patent was enabled because it claimed invalid subject matter: a natural law applied via routine, conventional, and well-known methods. Relying extensively on Astellas’s expert conceding at trial that sustained release hydrogel formulations were well-known, well-characterized, not difficult to formulate, and not difficult to tune to arrive at a suitable dissolution profile, the court found that “Astellas’s zealous defense has conceded more fundamental ground. Embodying no more than the discovery of a natural law applied via well-known techniques for formulating sustained release tablets, the ’780 patent claims ineligible subject matter.”

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robins Kaplan LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Robins Kaplan LLP
Contact
more
less

Robins Kaplan LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide