Abstract
Relying on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Akamai, and the subsequent en banc Federal Circuit ruling, an Indiana court recently concluded that the entire performance of a patented method covering drug administration is attributable solely to a single entity, the physician or other health care provider of the patient. In particular, although patients on their own need to obtain one of three claimed components of the patented dosing regimen, the court found that physicians and other health care providers direct the manner and timing of ingesting that component and that patient compliance with those instructions is necessary to receive the full benefit of treatment. Thus, there would be no defense of divided infringement because through this attribution, physicians would directly infringe the patent claims, and the generic drug manufacturer defendants would induce such infringement because their drug labeling instructs physicians to follow the patented regimen.
Any person who actively induces infringement of a patent is liable as an infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). This form of indirect infringement is commonly at issue in Hatch-Waxman infringement actions because generic drug manufacturers always provide drug-package inserts containing instructions for healthcare providers and patients, and these package inserts typically correspond to a patented method of treatment.
A finding of induced infringement is predicated on a finding of direct infringement. Direct infringement occurs where all the steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity. Recently, in Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.1 et al the parties disputed whether a patented method of administering a drug would be directly infringed where a physician would administer two of the claimed components, but the patient was required to obtain and take another of the claimed components. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana concluded that the entire performance of the patented administration is attributable to physicians and, thus, physicians would directly infringe the patented method. Because the defendants' proposed generic drug-labeling instructs physicians to follow the patented administration, the court found they would be liable for inducing the physicians' infringement.
Background
Eli Lilly owns U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the '209 patent)
covering a method of administering a chemotherapy drug, pemetrexed
disodium, marketed by Lilly under the trade name ALITMA®. The
method of administration requires co-administration of the drug
with folic acid and vitamin B12 in order to reduce incidences of
patient toxicity caused by pemetrexed disodium.
Several generic drug manufacturers (Defendants) filed Abbreviated
New Drug Applications seeking Federal Drug Administration (FDA)
approval to market generic forms of pemetrexed disodium. The
Defendants sought to sell their generic pemetrex disodium products
with drug labeling that instructs physicians to follow the patented
administration.
Eli Lilly brought a Hatch-Waxman infringement action against the
Defendants, asserting infringement of the '209 patent. The
asserted claims required treatment with specified amounts of folic
acid and vitamin B12 prior to administering the pemetrexed
disodium. During a first trial, only patent validity was at issue
because the parties jointly stipulated to induced infringement, but
the Defendants reserved the right to litigate the induced
infringement issue if the U.S. Supreme Court granted a then-pending
petition for writ of certiorari in Limelight Networks, Inc. v.
Akamai Technologies, Inc., and either reversed or vacated the
Federal Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court did so, and the
parties moved to litigate the issue of induced infringement.
The parties' dispute centered on whether the '209 patent
would be directly infringed, which is a prerequisite for induced
infringement. The experts for both sides agreed that in following
the Defendants' proposed drug labeling, a physician will
administer the vitamin B12 by injection and the pemetrexed disodium
by infusion and that the patient, at the instruction of the
physician, must obtain and take the folic acid.
The Eli Lilly Decision
Looking to the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in
Akamai, the court observed that for direct infringement to
occur, "performance of all of the claimed steps [must] be
attributed to a single person." The court then looked to a
subsequent en banc decision of the Federal Circuit in which the
Court unanimously set forth the present law on divided
infringement. Specifically, if more than one actor practices the
steps of an asserted claim, a court must decide if the acts of one
are attributable to the other such that a single entity is
responsible for infringement. The Federal Circuit explained that a
court will hold a single entity responsible for others'
performance 1) where the entity directs or controls others'
performance or 2) where the actors form a joint enterprise. The
Federal Circuit found that the first circumstance may be satisfied
if an entity conditions others' participation in an activity or
receipt of a benefit on performance of a step or steps of a
patented method, and also establishes the manner or timing of the
performance.
Applying this reasoning to the present case, the court expressed
the relevant question as whether the physician sufficiently directs
or controls the patient's acts so as to condition treatment
with pemetrexed disodium in the manner that reduces toxicities upon
the performance of a patented step and establishes the manner and
timing of the performance. The court answered this question
affirmatively. Although patients on their own obtain and take folic
acid, the court found that taking folic acid prior to the
administration of pemetrexed disodium—as claimed in the
patent and explained in the drug prescribing information and
patient information—was critical to lower the chances of
harmful side effects. According to the court, therefore, taking the
folic acid in the manner specified was a condition of the
patient's participation in the pemetrexed disodium treatment to
receive the full benefit of treatment. Physicians, the court
continued, based upon the patented method, direct the manner and
timing of patients' ingestion of folic acid.
Based on these findings, the court determined that the physicians,
in accordance with the Defendants' proposed drug-labeling,
direct, or control-patients' administration of folic acid
"such that the performance of all the claimed steps, including
administration of folic acid, can be attributed to a single person,
i.e., the physician." Accordingly, the physicians, the Court
concluded, would directly infringe the patent, and the defendants
would induce such infringement through the instructions in their
drug labeling.
Strategy and Conclusion
This decision provides an example of a divided infringement analysis post Akamai within the context of Hatch-Waxman patent-infringement litigation. Generic drug manufacturers will be liable for induced infringement if physicians or other healthcare providers direct or control the performance of patients based upon the manufacturer's proposed drug package insert.
Footnote
1 The Eli Lilly decision can be found at http://www.finnegan.com/files/upload/LES_Insights_Column/2015/EliLilly_v_Teva.pdf.
Previously published in LES Insights
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
