API and IP Newsletter

 Contents



FDA approval in December 2022


We monitor FDA approvals of small molecules. 


Adagrasib, approved in December 2022 by FDA. It is approved to treat KRAS G12C-mutated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in adults who have received at least one prior systemic therapy.


It is developed by Mirati Therapeutics. 


Several compounds are reported in patent family WO2019099524A1 One may note adagrasib is individualised in example 478 on page 1053.


Diagram

Description automatically generated

It seems many Indian companies have started development of this API. 

1-Bromo-8-chloronaphthalene is basic raw material for synthesising adagrasib. Suddenly one can see import of this intermediate in small quantities. 


Aurigene, Jubilant, Sai and Teva are importing this intermediate and there is high likelihood that these companies could have started development of adagrasib. 


The peak sales for adagrasib are estimated to be over $1.5 billion. Here


General information


PLI scheme for bulk drug witnesses, commissioning of 21 projects in 2022


This includes Meghmani LLP's facility to manufacture para amino phenol, the raw material for drugs including paracetamol, with installed capacity of 13,500 MT; Sadhna Nitro Chem Ltd's facility for para aminophenol with installed capacity of 12,000 MT; Hindys Labs Pvt Ltd's 3000 MT facility for 1,1 cyclohexane diacetic acid (CDA), an ingredient for anti-depressant gabapentin; and Emmennar Pharma's CDA facility with a capacity of 1,500 MT.

The other facilities set up under the PLI include Centreient Pharmaceuticals India's atorvastatin (installed capacity of 180 MT); Andhra Organics Ltd's sulfadiazine (360 MT); Hetero Drugs Ltd's oxcarbazepine (195 MT), levofloxacin (230 MT), carbidopa (16 MT), and levodopa (40 MT); Dasami Lab's cabamazepine (260 MT), and oxcarbazepine (195 MT); Honour Lab's lopinavir (49 MT), valsartan (300 MT), and levetiracetam (840 MT); Hindys Lab's acyclovir (525 MT); Globela Industries' norfloxacin (60 MT), and ofloxacin (100 MT); Anasia Lab's losartan (400 MT), and olmesartan (75 MT); and Hazelo Lab's vitamin B6 (70 MT) plants. 


News here.



Cingulate Initiates Phase 3 Study of Lead Asset CTx-1301, Designed as a True Entire Active-Day Treatment for ADHD


A biopharmaceutical company utilizing its proprietary Precision Timed Release™ (PTR™) drug delivery platform technology to build and advance a pipeline of next-generation pharmaceutical products, today announced the initiation of the first Phase 3 clinical trial of its lead candidate CTx-1301, a novel, investigational, trimodal, extended release tablet formulation of dexmethylphenidate, a compound approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 

News here.



Intellectual Property 


FMC Corporation & Ors. vs Natco Pharma Limited on 5 December 2022


This time for a change let us read Delhi HC decision about one case related to an insecticide Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR).

FMC Corporation appealed against an order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting FMC’s application. FMC filed the suit seeking a decree, restraining Natco from infringing a patented process/method for the manufacturing/preparation of CTPR. 


The patent is in respect of the process or method, as claimed in Indian Patent no. IN 298645 ('645).


The Dispute

  1. FMC alleged that the process, as disclosed by Natco in its application, is equivalent to the process claimed in the suit patent IN'645. 

  2. FMC argued that  both the methods, as claimed in the suit patent and in Natco’s application, describe an amide bond formation reaction to yield CTPR.

  3. The manufacturing processes, as claimed in the patent `645 and Natco's application, are equivalent processes. On the basis of equivalence, FMC argued that Natco's process infringes their patent.

  4. The prime issue was, whether the reagent thionyl chloride used in the Natco process for converting the pyrazole carboxylic acid to acid chloride is same as the reagent sulfonyl chlorides used for coupling the pyrazole carboxylic acid with aniline as set out in `645? 

  5. Do thionyl chloride which is an inorganic chloride, and sulfonyl chlorides which are organic chlorides, have different physical and chemical characteristics?

  6. The doctrine of equivalents must be applied to each element of the process. In the present case, the learned Single Judge had earlier examined the elements of the process and had, prima facie, found that the use of thionyl chloride could not be considered as equivalent to the element of sulfonyl chloride in the suit patent. 

  7. Admittedly, the properties of both the compounds are different. Whilst thionyl chloride is an inorganic compound, sulfonyl chloride is an organic compound. The manner in which the two reagents are used is also different. In the patent, sulfonyl chloride is added to the mixture of carboxylic acid and aniline in one step, the same is not the process used by Natco.


The learned Single Judge, after examining the material facts, earlier concluded as under:

  1. The case of FMC is primarily predicated on the Doctrine of Equivalents (DoE) and it is sought to be contended that even if the Natco process does not literally infringe the suit patent, it may be found to infringe on the bedrock of 'equivalence'. 

  2. Contention of Natco is that element-to-element test must be applied and tested on that anvil, in the present case there is no infringement since the reagent i.e. sulfonyl chloride is an essential element in FMC' process and the Natco process admittedly uses thionyl chloride as the reagent, which has different and distinct role in achieving the same task and accomplishing substantially, the same result. 

  3. Use of a different reagent and a completely different sequence of reactions in the Natco process cannot be termed as a minor or insubstantial variation, so as to accuse Natco of infringement and piracy.


HC concurred with above finding of the learned Single Judge’s order in February 2022 and decided the case in favour of Natco. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at ₹2,70,000/-, which should be paid to Natco within a period of two weeks from 5 December 2022. 


Decision here.









Popular posts from this blog

API and IP Newsletter- Recent ANDA approvals and Roxadustat decision by EPO: T 0072/23

API and IP Newsletter

API and IP Newsletter