Showing posts sorted by date for query budesonide. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query budesonide. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, December 19, 2020

Budesonide – USA

 

On Dec. 18, 2020, Federal Circuit affirmed (Rule 36 judgment) Delaware court in Uceris® litigation.

Previously, Plaintiffs Bausch Health Americas, Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Cosmo Technologies Limited (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed complaint asserting that Defendants Actavis Laboratories FL., Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (collectively, "Defendants") infringed and continue to infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 10,052,286, 10,064,878, 10,105,374, 10,143,698, 10,154,964, and 10,172,799 by filing ANDA for budesonide extended release tablets, 9 mg. On Oct 28, 2019, Delaware court issued final order & judgment finding of noninfringement in favor of Defendants.

Saturday, August 3, 2019

Budesonide - USA


Claim Construction (District of Delaware): Aug 02, 2019

Plaintiffs Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Cosmo Technology Ltd. ("Plaintiffs") filed suit against Actavis Laboratories Fl., Inc., Actavis Pharma Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. ("Defendants") on August 22, 2018, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,052,286; 10,064,878; 10,105,374; 10,143,698; 10,154,964  and 10,172,799 (collectively "the patents-in-suit"). These patents claim "controlled release budesonide formulations with a tablet core inside a gastroresistant coating."

Consolidated claim construction briefing was submitted on June 17,2019, an amended version was filed on June 27,2019, and the Court held a claim construction hearing on July 2, 2019.

Construction of Disputed Terms:

1. "Matrix":

Plaintiffs: "a structure for controlling the release of an active ingredient that does not have layers"
Defendants: "a homogeneous structure in all its volume"
Court: "a homogeneous structure in all its volume"

2. "Mixture" and "Compressed Blend"

Plaintiffs: "a composition of two or more substances that have been mixed" and
"a composition of two or more substances that have been mixed and compressed"
Defendants: "a homogeneous composition of two or more substances" and
"a compressed matrix (or homogeneous structure in all its volume)"
Court: "a homogeneous composition of two or more substances" and
"a compressed matrix (or homogeneous structure in all its volume)"

3. "Pharmacokinetic terms

The Court will adopt the parties' stipulated constructions for the "pharmacokinetic terms."

Claim term
Court’s construction
"an AUCo-infinity of said budesonide in   said human of about 16431.2±1 0519.8(pg)x(h)/mL"

and

"an AUC of said budesonide in said human of about 16.43 ±10.52 (ng)x (h)lmL"
"an AUCO-infinity of said budesonide in said human of approximately 16431.2±10519.8 (pg)x(h)/mL, i.e. approximately between 5,911.4 (pg)x(h)/mL and approximately 26,951 (pg)x(h)/mL"

and

"an AUC of said budesonide in said human of approximately 16.43±10.52 (ng)x(h)/mL, i.e. between approximately 5.91 (ng)x(h)/mL and approximately 26.95 (ng)x(h)/mL"
"a Cmax of said budesonide in said human of about 1348.8±958.8 pg/mL"

and

"a Cmax of said budesonide in said human of about 1.35±0.96 ng/mL"
"a Cmax of said budesonide in said human of approximately 1348.8±958.8 pg/mL, i.e. between approximately 390 pg/mL and approximately 2307.6 pg/mL"

and

"a Cmax of said budesonide in said human of approximately 1.35±0.96 ng/mL, i.e. between approximately 0.39 ng/mL and approximately 2.31 ng/mL"
"a T max of said budesonide in " said human of about 13.3±5.9 hour[s]"
“a T max of said budesonide in said human of approximately 13.3±5.9 hours, i.e. between approximately 7.4 hours and approximately 19.2 hours"
“oral administration of the oral dosage form to a human" and
"oral administration of the tablet to a human"
"No constructions necessary”
"said human"
“No construction necessary”

4. "Controls the release kinetics

Plaintiffs: Plain and ordinary meaning, i.e. "controls the release kinetics"
Defendants: "controls the release kinetics without effects from physically discrete elements"
Court: Plain and ordinary meaning, i.e. "controls the release kinetics"


Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Budesonide - USA


On Jan. 14, 2019, Federal Circuit upheld (Rule 36 Judgment) a lower court ruling that found Teva and Alvogen’s ANDA non-infringing which were filed to market generic version of Uceris®. 

Previously on 10/27/17, Delaware Court issued Order that US 8,784,888 patent not infringed by Actavis and Alvogen (reported here on this blog). In summary, Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to prove that Actavis infringes claim 9 & Alvogen infringes claim 6 of US’888 patent. The only claim limitation at issue was whether Defendant’s ANDA products have “macroscopically homogenous composition”. Court found that Defendants tablets do not appear of uniform structure throughout. Actavis tablets have some yellow dots & Alvogen tablets have some holes or bumps which were not uniformly distributed throughout the bisected tablet. Therefore court held that Defendants tablets are not macroscopically homogenous.

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Budesonide - USA

On Oct. 27, 2017, Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of district of Delaware issued an order granting Defendants' (Teva & Alvogen) motions for judgment of non-infringement of the US 8,784,888 patent in Uceris (Budesonide ER tablet) case. Claim 1 of US’888 patent reads:

“A controlled release oral pharmaceutical composition consisting essentially of: (1) a tablet core consisting essentially of: a) budesonide in an amount effective to treat intestinal inflammatory disease; and b) a macroscopically homogeneous composition comprising at least one lipophilic excipient, at least one amphiphilic excipient, and at least one hydrogel-forming hydrophilic excipient other than a gum, wherein said budesonide is dispersed in said macroscopically homogeneous composition; and (2) a coating on said tablet core, said coating consisting essentially of a gastro-resistant film”.

Cosmo filed suit against Actavis/ Teva and Alvogen in February 2015, after the companies sent notice with P-IV certification that their products would not infringe US’888 patent & other patents. Plaintiffs at one time asserted a number of patents and decided to drop patents at various stages of this litigation. Bench trial was completed on May 23, 2017. Court found that Plaintiffs did not meet the threshold to establish infringement. As the opinion was sealed, the court asked parties to sort out the final judgment, including other stipulations and orders about the other patents. Thereafter, the Court will issue a public version of its Memorandum Opinion.