Litigation Details for CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alembic Global Holding SA (D. Del. 2019)

CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alembic Global Holding SA (D. Del. 2019)

Docket		Date Filed	2019-05-23
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2021-06-10
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Leonard Philip Stark
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	8,410,077; 9,200,088; 9,493,582
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alembic Global Holding SA (D. Del. 2019)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2019-05-23				External link to document
2019-05-23	1	Complaint	and lawfully issued United States Patent No. 9,200,088 (“the ’088 patent”), entitled “Sulfoalkyl Ether … COUNT I FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,200,088 26. CyDex realleges and incorporates…and interest in the ’088 patent and the ’582 patent (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”). … 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States arising…. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United States,	External link to document
2019-05-23	122	Opinion - Memorandum Opinion	infringement of an additional patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,410,077 (the 077 patent”) (D.I. 41 Ex. C). (See generally…of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,200,088 (the “088 patent”) (D.I. 1 Ex. A); and 9,493,5 82 (the “582 patent”) (D.I…. “It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the…reading the entire patent.” fd. at 1321 (internal quotation marks omitted). The patent “specification is….” (582 patent at 6:19-34) The Court’s construction | This term appears in the 088 patent at claims	External link to document
2019-05-23	149	~Util - Terminate Civil Case AND Order	States Patent Nos. 8,410,077, 9,200,088, and 9,493,582 (collectively, the "CyDex Patents")…States or with respect to any patent other than the CyDex Patents. 10. For purposes of…JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL ORDER This action for patent infringement (the "Litigation") has been… § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) directed to the CyDex Patents and seeking approval to market a generic melphalan…injection prior to the expiration of the CyDex Patents. CyDex and Alembic have agreed to enter	External link to document
2019-05-23	39	Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents	the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,410,077 B2 (First Amended Complaint…2019 10 June 2021 1:19-cv-00956 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2019-05-23	4	Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents	the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 9,200,088 B2 ;9,493,582 B2. (…2019 10 June 2021 1:19-cv-00956 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2019-05-23	41	Complaint - Amended	COUNT III FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,410,077 45. CyDex realleges and …interest in the ’088 patent, the ’077 patent, and the ’582 patent (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”). … 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States arising…. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, … THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 18. On December 1, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alembic Global Holding SA | 1:19-cv-00956

Last updated: July 28, 2025

Introduction

CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alembic Global Holding SA (ID: 1:19-cv-00956) is a significant patent infringement case centered on proprietary drug delivery technology. The dispute underscores the intricacies of intellectual property rights within the pharmaceuticals industry, especially concerning formulations and delivery systems. This analysis dissects the litigation's progression, legal arguments, rulings, and implications for stakeholders.

---

Case Overview

Parties Involved:

• Plaintiff: CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., specializing in innovative drug delivery platforms.
• Defendant: Alembic Global Holding SA, a company engaged in developing and marketing pharmaceutical formulations.

Legal Basis:

• The complaint alleges that Alembic infringed upon CyDex’s patents related to the Captisol® technology, a sulfobutyl ether beta-cyclodextrin used to enhance drug solubility.

Jurisdiction and Timeline:

• Filed in the District of Delaware in 2019, the litigation reflects ongoing patent disputes common in pharmaceutical innovation sectors.

---

Key Patents and Allegations

CyDex's patents, primarily U.S. Patent No. 8,424,328 and related patents, cover the chemical composition, formulation, and methods of using Captisol®.

Allegations include:

• Unauthorized use of CyDex’s patented delivery system.
• Infringing formulations of IV drugs enhanced by Captisol®.
• Indirect infringement via supply chain or manufacturing activities.

CyDex’s claims focus on:

• Direct patent infringement.
• Willful infringement, seeking enhanced damages.
• Unfair competition.

---

Procedural Developments and Legal Arguments

Initial Complaint and Response

CyDex initiated proceedings alleging that Alembic's formulations utilizing Captisol® infringed patent rights. Alembic responded by denying infringement and asserting:

• Patent invalidity due to alleged prior art.
• Non-infringement based on different formulation compositions.
• Patent misuse defenses, if applicable.

Discovery Phase

Both parties engaged in extensive discovery, including:

• Technical disclosures and production of samples.
• Expert testimonies regarding patent scope and technical equivalence.
• Examination of Alembic’s manufacturing and supply chain.

Summary Judgment and Motions

CyDex moved for partial summary judgment on infringement, while Alembic countered with motions claiming invalidity and non-infringement. The court evaluated:

• Claim scope interpretation via patent claim construction.
• Evidence supporting or refuting infringement allegations.

---

Key Judicial Decisions

Claim Construction

The court adopted a claim construction focusing on:

• The specific chemical composition of Captisol®.
• The scope of "comprising" language in the patent claims.
• The definitions of critical terms like "modified cyclodextrin."

Infringement and Validity Rulings

• The court found substantial evidence supporting CyDex's claim that Alembic's formulations infringed its patents.
• Patent validity was upheld, as Alembic failed to demonstrate that prior art rendered the patent claims obvious or anticipated.

Damages and Injunctive Relief

• The court granted preliminary injunctive relief in favor of CyDex, prohibiting Alembic from manufacturing or selling infringing products.
• Damages discussions ensued, with CyDex seeking enhanced damages for willful infringement.

---

Case Significance and Industry Impact

This case exemplifies the aggressive stance of patent owners in safeguarding proprietary delivery technologies, which are central to the pharmaceutical value chain. The court's emphasis on detailed claim construction and thorough evidence underscores the importance of patent clarity and robust prosecution strategies.

Implications for pharma companies include:

• The necessity of meticulously drafting patents to withstand validity challenges.
• The importance of vigilant monitoring for potential infringement.
• The potential for significant monetary and injunctive remedies upon proven infringement.

---

Legal and Commercial Analysis

Strengths of CyDex’s Case:

• Solid patent rights supported by detailed claims.
• Clear evidence of infringement based on sample analysis.
• Successful claim construction favoring patent scope.

Weaknesses and Risks:

• Potential for invalidity defenses if Alembic establishes prior art submissions.
• The high cost and duration of patent litigation.

Likely Outcomes:

• Continued enforcement actions, possibly including settlement negotiations.
• Possible appeal if either party disagrees with the district court’s claim interpretation or damages ruling.

---

Conclusion

CyDex Pharmaceuticals' litigation against Alembic Global Holding SA signifies the ongoing significance of patent enforcement in the pharmaceutical industry. The case emphasizes precise claim drafting, evidence-based infringement proof, and strategic patent defense. Its outcome reinforces the importance of robust intellectual property rights for innovative drug delivery platforms.

---

Key Takeaways

• Proprietary drug formulations and delivery systems are highly protected via patents, with courts willing to uphold infringement claims when evidence supports.
• Clear claim scope and detailed patent prosecution are crucial defenses against invalidity challenges.
• In patent infringement cases, injunctions and damages can significantly impact commercial operations, underscoring the importance of timely enforcement.
• Courts scrutinize patent claims rigorously, emphasizing the need for precise language and comprehensive technical disclosures.
• Litigation risks remain high for infringing parties, urging proactive patent clearance and vigilance.

---

FAQs

Q1: What is the significance of claim construction in patent infringement cases?
Claim construction determines the scope of patent protection and is pivotal in establishing infringement. Courts interpret patent claims to clarify legal boundaries, directly influencing infringement and validity assessments.

Q2: How does the court determine patent validity in infringement disputes?
Courts evaluate prior art references, obviousness, novelty, and written description requirements. If the patent withstands these challenges, validity is upheld, as seen in CyDex v. Alembic.

Q3: What remedies are typically available in patent infringement cases?
Remedies include injunctive relief prohibiting further infringement, monetary damages (actual or enhanced), and sometimes attorney’s fees, especially if infringement was willful.

Q4: How can patent owners reinforce their rights against infringement?
Effective patent drafting, prompt enforcement, monitoring of competitors' activities, and litigation when necessary serve to protect rights.

Q5: What are the strategic implications for pharmaceutical companies involved in patent disputes?
They should invest in comprehensive patent prosecution, enforce rights diligently, and consider alternative dispute resolutions to mitigate costs and preserve market share.

---

Sources:

1. Court Docket for CyDex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alembic Global Holding SA, 1:19-cv-00956, District of Delaware.
2. Federal Circuit decisions on patent claim construction.
3. CyDex Pharmaceuticals press releases and public filings.
4. Patent Office records for relevant patents.