Patent: 9,913,902

Summary for Patent: 9,913,902

Title:	Purified antibody composition
Abstract:	The invention provides a method for producing a host cell protein-(HCP) reduced antibody preparation from a mixture comprising an antibody and at least one HCP, comprising an ion exchange separation step wherein the mixture is subjected to a first ion exchange material, such that the HCP-reduced antibody preparation is obtained.
Inventor(s):	Wan; Min M. (Worcester, MA), Avgerinos; George (Sudbury, MA), Zarbis-Papastoitsis; Gregory (Watertown, MA)
Assignee:	ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD. (Hamilton, BM)
Application Number:	15/718,621
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 9,913,902
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

Critical Analysis of Claims and U.S. Patent Landscape for US 9,913,902

US Patent 9,913,902 centers on a very specific “low cathepsin L activity” property for a 50 mg/mL liquid adalimumab product, with adalimumab expressed in a CHO system, and assayed using a defined cathepsin L kinetic assay. The claims are tight to a process for generating the assay readout (buffer, container, dilutions, dextran sulfate, incubation, and the Z-Leu-Arg-AMC substrate) and to numerical activity thresholds that likely map to engineered control over lysosomal proteolysis of the antibody.

From a landscape perspective, the patent’s enforceability depends less on broad antibody formulation technology and more on whether a product’s tested cathepsin L activity falls at or below the claimed numeric limits under the claimed assay conditions, and whether the accused product meets the specific presentation format (pre-filled syringe) and administration route (subcutaneous) limitations in dependent claims.

What is actually claimed in US 9,913,902?

The independent claims set out two alternative characterizations:

Claim 1: Activity threshold as “RFU/s/mg of adalimumab”

• Composition type: liquid pharmaceutical composition
• Active: adalimumab at 50 mg/mL
• Manufacturing source: adalimumab expressed in CHO cell expression system
• Assay characterization: cathepsin L kinetic assay gives:
  • cathepsin L activity < 1.3 RFU/s/mg adalimumab
• Assay definition (all key steps stated):
  1. Dilute 600-fold in a polystyrene container in solution:
     • 25 mM NaOAc
     • 5 mM DTT
     • 1 mM EDTA
     • pH 5.5
  2. Add dextran sulfate to 0.035 μg/mL
  3. Incubate at 37°C for 6 hours
  4. Add Z-leucine-arginine-AMC (Z-Leu-Arg-AMC), with the peptide covalently bound at its C-terminus to fluorescent 7-amino-4-methyl coumarin
  5. Ensure measurements fall within a linear range for hydrolysis
  6. Measure Z-Leu-Arg-AMC hydrolysis and report as RFU/s/mg adalimumab

Claim 16: Activity threshold as “fluorescent activity” (different unit expression)

• Same composition basics:
  • 50 mg/mL adalimumab, CHO expression system
• Different characterization:
  • fluorescent activity ≤ 0.0144 RFU/sec in the cathepsin L kinetic assay
• Same assay steps (i-iv) with the final readout based on fluorescent activity generated from hydrolysis

Dependent claims: tighter thresholds and product presentation

Dependent claims refine Claim 1’s cathepsin L activity limit into stepwise bands:

• Claim 2: ≤ 1.0 RFU/s/mg
• Claim 3: ≤ 0.6 RFU/s/mg
• Claim 4: ≤ 0.85 RFU/s/mg
• Claim 5: ≤ 0.9 RFU/s/mg

Presentation and dosing form are added in multiple dependent sets:

• Claims 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18: composition is packaged in a pre-filled syringe
• Claims 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19: composition is suitable for subcutaneous injection

Claim 17: “no detectable” fluorescence

• For Claim 16: no detectable level of fluorescent activity is observed.

Are the claims broad or narrow?

They are narrow in technical definition and broad in formulation coverage only to the extent the product meets the numeric/assay characterization.

1. Narrow by assay lock-in

   • The claims do not merely say “low cathepsin L cleavage.” They define:
     • exact dilution factor (600-fold),
     • container type (polystyrene),
     • exact buffer composition (NaOAc/DTT/EDTA at pH 5.5),
     • exact dextran sulfate concentration (0.035 μg/mL),
     • exact incubation condition (37°C, 6 hours),
     • specified substrate (Z-Leu-Arg-AMC),
     • requirement for linear range measurement,
     • and specific readouts (RFU/s/mg or RFU/sec).
   • This means an accused formulation can try to avoid literal infringement by showing that:
     • the assay performed differs (even subtly),
     • the unit conversion differs,
     • the assay does not remain in the linear range,
     • or the activity exceeds the defined threshold under the claimed assay protocol.

2. Narrow by numerical limits

   • Claim 1 is < 1.3 RFU/s/mg.
   • Dependent claims carve out multiple bands including ≤ 1.0, 0.9, 0.85, and 0.6 RFU/s/mg.
   • Claim 16 is capped at ≤ 0.0144 RFU/sec, with Claim 17 extending to “no detectable.”

3. Narrow by product specifics in dependent claims

   • Pre-filled syringe packaging and subcutaneous suitability are not in Claim 1/16 but are in dependent claims. This matters for infringement strategy and licensing value because many “liquid adalimumab” products exist, but fewer meet that same combination of form factor and route.

4. Potential ambiguity: relationship between different unit expressions

   • Claim 1 and Claim 16 use different readout formats:
     • RFU/s/mg adalimumab versus RFU/sec.
   • If those correspond to different normalization approaches, a competitor could argue non-equivalence by scaling. The patent language itself locks each claim to its own metric, so a product could potentially satisfy one but not the other, depending on assay framing.

Where does the patent likely sit in the broader adalimumab landscape?

US 9,913,902 appears positioned in the part of the biologics IP map that targets product quality attributes and comparability between manufacturing lots or biosimilar/reference products.

How the claim framing shapes the competitive field

• The independent claim requires:
  • liquid formulation,
  • adalimumab concentration of 50 mg/mL,
  • CHO expression origin,
  • and an assay-defined low cathepsin L activity result.
• This is less about “adalimumab per se” and more about the measured behavior of the specific formulation when exposed to cathepsin L proteolysis conditions.

Likely practical relevance

Cathepsin L cleavage in a kinetic assay is a proxy for susceptibility to lysosomal proteolysis. A product engineered or formulated to reduce that proteolysis can claim a functional advantage tied to stability or degradation pathways.

What are the highest-risk attack vectors against infringement?

For infringement invalidation strategy, defendants typically focus on (1) assay performance variability and (2) metric threshold boundary.

1) Assay reproduction is likely the central dispute

Because the claims define steps with specific reagents and conditions, litigation will likely concentrate on whether the accused product’s assay:

• is run in polystyrene containers,
• uses the specified pH 5.5 buffer (NaOAc/DTT/EDTA),
• uses dextran sulfate at 0.035 μg/mL,
• incubates at 37°C for 6 hours,
• uses Z-Leu-Arg-AMC correctly,
• and is measured within a linear range.

Even when “same assay” is conceptually performed, small experimental deviations can move RFU readouts. For claims with sharp caps (for example ≤ 0.6 RFU/s/mg), the boundary risk is high.

2) Unit conversion and reporting method could become decisive

Claim 1 normalizes to per mg adalimumab and per time (RFU/s/mg). Claim 16 caps RFU/sec without the per-mg normalization stated. If a competitor reports a different scaling due to their sample preparation or instrument settings, it can create a non-literal infringement path.

3) “No detectable” (Claim 17) is not a numeric limit

“Undetectable” depends on assay detection limits and instrument sensitivity. In practice, that becomes a contested parameter unless the patent itself defines the method’s LOD/LOQ.

4) Dependent claim limitations narrow the reachable products

For syringe packaged or subcutaneous-suitable products, the claim set becomes more form-factor dependent. Competitors can potentially route around by altering presentation.

What are the likely validity challenges?

The claim set is property-driven and assay-driven. Validity arguments would likely cluster in these buckets:

1. Insufficient novelty over prior art assay concepts

   • If prior patents or publications already disclosed the use of cathepsin L assays with Z-Leu-Arg-AMC and standard lysosomal conditions to characterize antibody proteolysis, novelty could be attacked as an optimization of known assay readouts.
   • The counter is that US 9,913,902 is not just “using cathepsin L” but defines the full assay recipe and numeric thresholds specific to a CHO-expressed, 50 mg/mL liquid adalimumab context.

2. Obviousness from known formulation changes

   • If a prior art formulation already produces a similar suppression of cathepsin L activity, tightening the numeric thresholds could be argued as routine optimization.
   • Conversely, if prior art teaches no such low RFU outcomes or does not tie CHO-expressed adalimumab at 50 mg/mL liquid format to specific thresholds, the novelty defense strengthens.

3. Written description and enablement around the full scope

   • If the claim reads on a wide set of formulations that all happen to pass the assay thresholds, validity could be challenged if the specification does not support the breadth of compositional variations capable of achieving those exact numeric caps.

Claim construction issues likely to matter in litigation

These are the factual levers that will determine infringement reach.

1) “Expressed in a Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell expression system”

This is a source-of-made requirement. Infringement depends on whether the adalimumab in the accused product was produced using CHO cells. If competitors use different systems, they may avoid the claim.

2) “Liquid pharmaceutical composition comprising 50 mg/ml”

Concentration is explicit. A product at 40 mg/mL or 100 mg/mL would not meet literal scope.

3) “Cathepsin L kinetic assay comprises”

This language invites claim construction disputes over:

• whether “comprises” means additional steps are allowed,
• whether intermediate steps can vary as long as the stated conditions are included,
• and how the “linear range” determination is implemented.

4) The exact assay readout

Claim 1 and Claim 16 use different metrics and different last-step emphasis:

• Claim 1: “measuring ... hydrolysis ... within a linear range” and reporting RFU/s/mg.
• Claim 16: reporting fluorescent activity generated with cap 0.0144 RFU/sec.

Landscape implications: how competitors likely respond

A competitor’s strategy will depend on whether they can:

• match the numeric thresholds,
• avoid CHO expression,
• change concentration,
• or avoid the dependent-form-factor limitations (pre-filled syringe and subcutaneous suitability).

Most direct “stay outside” routes

• Use a different antibody concentration than 50 mg/mL.
• Use non-CHO manufacturing to avoid the “expressed in CHO” requirement.
• Ensure the cathepsin L activity readout exceeds the claimed threshold under the claimed assay conditions (if feasible).

Most direct “design around inside” routes

• Run the claimed assay against candidate formulations and tune to a target below:
  • 1.0, 0.9, 0.85, or 0.6 RFU/s/mg (Claim 2-5), or
  • ≤ 0.0144 RFU/sec (Claim 16) and potentially “no detectable” (Claim 17).
• Standardize container type and buffer formulation to reduce measurement drift.

Key Takeaways

• US 9,913,902 is not a broad formulation claim. It is a narrow product-quality claim tied to cathepsin L proteolysis behavior measured by a fully specified kinetic assay and tight numerical thresholds.
• The central infringement risk is assay reproducibility and metric boundary performance:
  • container, buffer, pH, dextran sulfate concentration, incubation time, substrate identity, and linear-range measurement.
• Dependent claims narrow enforceability further via pre-filled syringe packaging and subcutaneous suitability.
• The most viable competitor defenses are likely:
  • demonstrating the product fails one of the explicit requirements (50 mg/mL, CHO expression),
  • showing the assay performed does not match the claimed protocol, or
  • proving the cathepsin L readout under the claimed assay protocol exceeds the relevant cap.

FAQs

1. What is the primary invention in US 9,913,902?
   A liquid 50 mg/mL adalimumab product (CHO-expressed) characterized by low cathepsin L activity using a defined Z-Leu-Arg-AMC kinetic assay, with numeric RFU thresholds.

2. Do the claims cover any formulation with low cathepsin L activity?
   No. The claims require the specific assay recipe and specific readout metrics (RFU/s/mg in Claim 1 series; RFU/sec in Claim 16 series).

3. Which dependent claims add product form constraints?
   The pre-filled syringe limitations appear in Claims 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18 and subcutaneous suitability appears in Claims 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19.

4. Why do Claim 1 and Claim 16 matter if both target cathepsin L?
   They define different quantitative outcomes (RFU/s/mg vs RFU/sec) and different enforcement boundaries, so a product could meet one metric profile but not the other.

5. What is the litigation hotspot?
   The cathepsin L kinetic assay method fidelity and the resulting readout relative to the claimed numeric caps.

---

References

[1] United States Patent No. 9,913,902. (n.d.). Liquid pharmaceutical composition characterized by cathepsin L kinetic assay performance. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Details for Patent 9,913,902

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Abbvie Inc.	HUMIRA	adalimumab	Injection	125057	December 31, 2002	9,913,902	2037-09-28
Abbvie Inc.	HUMIRA	adalimumab	Injection	125057	February 21, 2008	9,913,902	2037-09-28
Abbvie Inc.	HUMIRA	adalimumab	Injection	125057	April 24, 2013	9,913,902	2037-09-28

International Patent Family for US Patent 9,913,902

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration
Australia	2007235484
Brazil	PI0709726
Canada	2647029