Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

by Robins Kaplan LLP
Contact

Case Name: Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., Nos. 2012-1340, 2012-1341, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5023 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2014) (Circuit Judges Newman, Lourie, and Bryson presiding; Opinion by Lourie, J.) (appeal from D. Del., Davis, J.)

Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit:  Travatan Z® (travaprost); U.S. Patents Nos. 5,631,287 (“the ’287 patent”), 6,011,062 (“the ’062 patent”), 5,510,383 (“the ’383 patent”), and 5,889,052 (“the ’052 patent”)

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Barr submitted its ANDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, and sell an ophthalmic travoprost solution as a generic version of Travatan Z. Barr’s ANDA filing was second to that of Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Although the ’287 and ’062 patents were not listed in the Orange Book, Alcon initiated suit asserting that Barr’s ANDA submission constituted an act of infringement of claim 12 of the ’287 patent, claim 19 of the ’062 patent, and claims from four other patents, including its Orange Book-listed ’383 and ’052 patents. However, Alcon did not assert its ’383 and ’052 patents at trial and neither party adduced any evidence that specifically related to those patents. Barr stipulated that its generic product infringed the remaining two patents that Alcon had asserted and that those patents were not invalid

Alcon appeals from the final judgments of the district court finding that Barr did not infringe claim 12 of Alcon’s ’287 patent and claim 19 of Alcon’s ’062 patent, and holding those claims invalid for lack of  enablement and lack of an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. Barr cross-appeals from the district court’s denial of Barr’s post-judgment motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to amend the district court’s judgment and enter judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of non-infringement as to Alcon’s ’383 and ’052 patents. The Federal Circuit held that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Barr’s product would not infringe the asserted claims of the ’287 and ’062 patents, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barr’s motion to amend for JMOL of non-infringement of the ’383 and ’052 patents. The Federal Circuit further held that the district court’s invalidity determinations as to the asserted claims of the ’287 and ’062 patents were not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Why Barr Prevailed:  Alcon attempted to prove that the addition of PECO in Barr’s proposed generic product would chemically stabilize the prostaglandin travoprost and thus infringe the asserted claims of the ’287 and ’062 patents.  Alcon relied solely on a theory that the data reported in Table 7 of a stability study that Alcon conducted during its development work could be extrapolated to infer that the addition of PECO would chemically stabilize travoprost in Barr’s ANDA composition. Critically, however, the district court found, and the parties did not dispute on appeal, that the composition of the generic product proposed in Barr’s ANDA is significantly different from the compositions tested in Alcon’s study. The test formulations used by Alcon were maintained at pH 6.0-6.1 and contained 0.005% weight by volume of travoprost, varying concentrations of PECO, the antimicrobial preservative benzalkonium chloride, and a buffer solution comprising tromethamine, boric acid, and mannitol. In contrast, Barr’s ANDA product is maintained at a different pH, is composed of 0.004% weight by volume of travoprost and a buffered preservative system comprising propylene glycol, sorbitol, and zinc chloride, but does not contain benzalkonium chloride or a tromethamine/ boric acid/mannitol buffer solution. The Federal Circuit found that the formulations tested in Alcon’s stability study were meaningfully different from the product described in Barr’s ANDA, and thus provided no basis from which to draw any reliable inferences regarding whether the PECO in Barr’s composition would chemically stabilize the prostaglandin, which was the claimed invention.

Next, the Federal Circuit analyzed Barr’s Section 112 arguments. With regard to the district court’s non-enablement holding, the Federal Circuit found that the claims as a whole merely required that the addition of PECO to the composition provide some increase in chemical stability; the claims did not require a particular level of stability or a particular magnitude of increase. Moreover, the patents disclose exemplary compositions within the scope of the claims, detail how those example compositions are prepared from commercially-available ingredients, and provide step-by-step procedures for adding PECO to a prostaglandin composition in a way that embodies the claimed invention. The district court’s non-enablement ruling was premised on testimony that many “variables” may affect the chemical stability of prostaglandins in ophthalmic formulations. “Adjusting variables may be relevant to optimizing the stability of a given prostaglandin composition, but Barr proffered no evidence that any experimentation, let alone undue experimentation, with those variables would be necessary in order to practice the claimed invention.” Without that evidence, the Federal Circuit held that there was no foundation for the district court’s non-enablement ruling. With regard to the court’s lack-of-written-description holding, the Federal Circuit found that the ’287 patent provided exemplary formulations that embody the claimed invention, reciting concentrations of every ingredient, disclosing data generated by the inventor from accelerated stability testing showing the effect of PECO and prostaglandin concentration on stability and comparing the effect of PECO to that of a more commonly used surfactant, polysorbate 80. Because the ’062 patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’287 patent, it contained largely the same written description, including additional disclosures regarding the preferred types of hydrogenated PECOs that may be used with the claimed invention, two additional specifically preferred prostaglandins, and three additional exemplary formulations. The Federal Circuit thus reversed the district court’s Section 112 rulings.

Lastly, the Federal Circuit addressed whether Alcon’s infringement claims regarding its ’383 and ’052 patents were actually at issue during the trial below and whether the district court erred in denying Barr’s Rule 59(e) post-judgment motion to amend. Because Alcon informed Barr of its decision to drop its claims based on those patents and Barr subsequently omitted them from the pretrial order, the district court was right to acknowledge that the claims regarding the ’383 and ’052 patents were no longer in the case as of the time of trial. As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barr’s motion to amend for JMOL of infringement.

 

 

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:

Readers' Choice 2017
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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!