- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
June 17, 2024Emily Tremblay Named IP Rising Star by Euromoney in 2024 Women in Business Law Awards
-
June 17, 2024Three Robins Kaplan Partners Named BTI Client Service All-Stars
-
June 13, 2024Brendan Johnson Named South Dakota Trial Lawyer of The Year
-
June 27, 2024Sex Abuse Litigation
-
June 10-11, 20242024 Probate and Trust Law Section Conference
-
June 11, 2024FBA 2024 Federal Practice Seminar
-
June 2024Robins Kaplan Secures Landmark $7.75 Million Verdict in Aerosol Duster Misuse Case
-
June 2024To Seize or Not to Seize: Campus Protests and Police Uses of Force
-
June 2024Communicating Your Estate Plan: A Helpful Tool, Not a Fix-All
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
Entresto® (sacubitril/valsartan)
January 31, 2024
![GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Bulletin](/-/media/images/newsletters/generically-speaking-social-graphics/generically-speaking-hero.png?la=en&h=667&w=1625&la=en&hash=151AD0028AE5BAE5774A3E18FD49978E)
Case Name: Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., Civ. No. 19-cv-201, 2024 WL 384929 (N.D.W.V. Jan. 31, 2024) (Kleeh, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Entresto® (sacubitril/valsartan); U.S. Patents Nos. 8,877,938 (“the ’938 patent”) and 9,388,134 (“the ’134 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: The parties stipulated that if Mylan infringed claim 1 of the ’938 patent, then it also infringed the ’134 patent. The ’938 patent recited substantially pure trisodium sacubitril-valsartan hemipentahydrate in crystalline form. Mylan argued that it did not infringe because the API in its ANDA product was not substantially pure, which the court construed to mean an “at least 90% chemical purity,” and because its API was not a hemipentahydrate.
Why Novartis Prevailed: Mylan first argued that it did not infringe because the API in its ANDA product was not “substantially pure.” The maker of Mylan’s API admitted, though, that it produced substantially pure API. Further, the specification in Mylan’s ANDA stated that its API must not have more than 2.95% impurities. Mylan argued that its API dissociates into separate sacubitril and valsartan products, but the court found this not to be the case based on Mylan’s statement to FDA that it “performed studies on both the drug substance and drug product to ascertain that Sacubitril/Valsartan . . . is stable during drug product manufacture and stability . . . with no conversion to other polymorphic forms.” The court found that Mylan’s ANDA product was substantially pure.
Mylan next argued that its API was not a hemipentahydrate. The record evidence was undisputed that an asymmetric unit of Form II API consists of three formula units, such that each asymmetric unit consists of 3x water molecules. In the asymmetric unit of Form II, there are ten positions for water molecules. The court found that Mylan correctly modeled the water molecule OW7 as disordered over two positions, but found that Mylan incorrectly modeled three of the remining water molecules in the asymmetric unit of Form II—OW1, OW3, and OW8—as present at 100% occupancy. For this reason, Mylan was incorrect to model 9 total water molecules per asymmetric unit, that when divided by three formula units per asymmetric unit, equals 3 water molecules per formula unit (i.e., trihydrate). The court found, however, that Mylan’s “trihydrate model of Form II [was] chemically impossible.” Instead, the court concluded that Novartis’s controlled humidity TGA, DVS, and Hi-Res TGA testing all demonstrated that OW1, OW3, and OW8 are present at 50% occupancy, which results in 2.5 bound waters (i.e., hemipentahydrate). For this reason, the court found that Mylan infringed the patents-in-suit.
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.