Details for Patent: 8,357,677

✉ Email this page to a colleague

Summary for Patent: 8,357,677

Title:

Methods of treating hypertriglyceridemia

Abstract:

In various embodiments, the present invention provides methods of treating and/or preventing cardiovascular-related disease and, in particular, a method of blood lipid therapy comprising administering to a subject in need thereof a pharmaceutical composition comprising eicosapentaenoic acid or a derivative thereof.

Inventor(s):

Mehar Manku, Ian Osterloh, Pierre Wicker, Rene Braeckman, Paresh Soni

Assignee:

Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd

Application Number:

US13/608,775

Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:

See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 8,357,677

Patent Claim Types:
see list of patent claims

Use; Composition; Dosage form;

Patent landscape, scope, and claims:

United States Drug Patent 8,357,677: Claim Scope, Validity, Orange Book Status, and Generic Entry Risk

US Patent No. 8,357,677 protects a narrow clinical-use protocol for icosapent ethyl, marketed as Vascepa. The patent does not broadly claim EPA, fish oil, or an omega-3 composition. Its core claim requires a high-purity ethyl eicosapentaenoate product, substantially free of docosahexaenoic acid, administered orally at approximately 4 grams per day for at least 12 weeks to patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia.

The patent is commercially important because its independent claim tracks the original FDA-approved Vascepa indication for adults with triglyceride levels of at least 500 mg/dL. The claim is narrower than a general composition patent but potentially relevant to an ANDA product whose labeling includes the severe-hypertriglyceridemia indication.

What does US Patent 8,357,677 protect?

US 8,357,677 protects a method of treating a defined patient population with a defined EPA formulation, dose, treatment duration, and lipid response.

Core elements of claim 1

Claim element	Required limitation
Patient population	Subject with fasting baseline triglycerides from 500 mg/dL to about 1,500 mg/dL
Route	Oral administration
Dose	About 4 g per day
Composition	At least about 96% by weight of all fatty acids is ethyl eicosapentaenoate
DHA content	Substantially no docosahexaenoic acid or DHA esters
Treatment duration	At least about 12 weeks
Clinical result	Reduced triglycerides without substantially increasing LDL-C compared with placebo

The claim is a treatment-method claim. It does not claim every use of icosapent ethyl, every EPA product, or every patient with elevated triglycerides.

The patent is associated with the highly purified EPA formulation used in Vascepa. The active ingredient is icosapent ethyl, also called ethyl eicosapentaenoate or EPA ethyl ester. The formulation differs from mixed omega-3 products that contain substantial DHA.

How narrow is the 8,357,677 patent claim scope?

The claim scope is narrow in composition but broad enough to cover the labeled severe-hypertriglyceridemia use of Vascepa.

A competing product would generally need to satisfy all material limitations of claim 1 for literal infringement. The most important limitations are:

A baseline triglyceride range beginning at approximately 500 mg/dL.
Approximately 4 g daily.
At least approximately 96% EPA ethyl ester by weight of all fatty acids.
Substantially no DHA or DHA esters.
At least 12 weeks of treatment.
A triglyceride reduction without a substantial LDL-C increase relative to placebo.

A product containing EPA and DHA would present a strong non-infringement position if the DHA limitation is construed as a strict compositional requirement. A product administered at a materially different dose or used for a different patient population could also avoid literal infringement.

The importance of “about” and “substantially”

The terms “about 4 g,” “about 1,500 mg/dL,” “at least about 96%,” and “substantially no” introduce claim-construction issues.

“About 4 g” does not necessarily mean exactly 4.000 grams. A court would likely evaluate the term in the context of the specification, examples, formulation strength, and clinical protocol. The standard commercial regimen of two 1-g capsules twice daily would be the principal infringement concern.

“At least about 96%” focuses on the relative proportion of EPA ethyl ester among all fatty acids present. It is not necessarily a requirement that 96% of the entire capsule weight consist of EPA ethyl ester. Excipients, capsule materials, and non-fatty-acid ingredients may therefore remain outside the denominator.

“Substantially no DHA or its esters” creates a factual issue concerning residual DHA. Trace impurities may not avoid the claim, but a product containing a measurable or intentionally added quantity of DHA could have a stronger non-infringement position.

What do claims 2 through 9 add?

The dependent claims create narrower positions around administration, patient characteristics, and biomarker outcomes.

Claim	Additional limitation	Practical significance
2	Administration 1 to 4 times per day	Covers once-, twice-, three-times-, and four-times-daily regimens
3	One or more capsules	Directly maps to capsule-based products
4	Baseline LDL-C approximately 40 to 115 mg/dL	Narrows the patient population
5	Specified non-HDL-C, total cholesterol, VLDL-C, or HDL-C ranges	Adds baseline lipid-profile limitations
6	At least 10% fasting triglyceride reduction	Adds an efficacy threshold
7	At least 25% fasting triglyceride reduction	More demanding efficacy threshold
8	Reduction in apolipoprotein B	Adds an ApoB outcome
9	Reduction in VLDL-C	Adds a VLDL-C outcome

Claims 6 and 7 are not simply dose claims. They require the treatment to produce a specified clinical result. That can make infringement more difficult to prove before treatment occurs, but it can also create a record-based infringement theory using clinical data, labeling, prescribing practice, or post-treatment patient evidence.

What FDA-approved product does the patent cover?

The patent most directly maps to Vascepa, an oral prescription product containing icosapent ethyl.

Vascepa regulatory milestones

Event	Date
FDA approval for severe hypertriglyceridemia	July 26, 2012
Original indication	Adults with triglyceride levels of at least 500 mg/dL
FDA approval for cardiovascular-risk reduction	December 13, 2019
Commercial dosage for severe hypertriglyceridemia	4 g daily
Typical administration	Two 1-g capsules twice daily

The original severe-hypertriglyceridemia indication is the closest regulatory match to claim 1. The later cardiovascular-risk indication concerns a different patient population and a different therapeutic objective. It is associated with separate patent positions and should not be treated as automatically covered by every Vascepa patent. [1]

What is the Orange Book status of US 8,357,677?

US 8,357,677 has been associated with the Vascepa patent estate and the severe-hypertriglyceridemia indication. Orange Book status must be evaluated together with the listed use code, patent expiration date, and any paragraph IV certification.

The relevant Orange Book question is not merely whether the patent is listed. It is whether the proposed generic label includes the use protected by the patent.

Regulatory pathways

An ANDA applicant may address an Orange Book-listed patent through:

Paragraph I certification, if no patent information is listed;
Paragraph II certification, if the patent has expired;
Paragraph III certification, accepting approval after patent expiration;
Paragraph IV certification, asserting that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed; or
A section viii statement carving out the patented method from the proposed label.

For a product that retains the severe-hypertriglyceridemia indication, claim 1 creates a direct paragraph IV and infringement risk. A skinny-label strategy may reduce risk for cardiovascular-risk indications, but it does not necessarily remove exposure for the original severe-hypertriglyceridemia use.

When does US 8,357,677 expire?

The patent has a statutory term based on the earliest effective nonprovisional priority date, subject to patent-term adjustment, terminal disclaimers, and any applicable patent-term extension.

Public patent records identify the patent as having a projected expiration in late 2030, commonly reported around December 2030. The exact enforceable date should be taken from the current USPTO patent file and the FDA Orange Book listing because patent-term adjustment can alter the nominal 20-year calculation. [2,3]

The expected timeline is therefore:

Milestone	Approximate timing
Earliest priority and filing activity	2009
Patent grant	January 2013
Expected term without special extension	Based on 20-year statutory calculation
Reported projected expiration	Late 2030
Earliest realistic generic entry under an unmodified term	After expiration, absent successful invalidity, non-infringement, settlement, or launch-at-risk

The patent’s remaining commercial value is reduced if a court has already entered a judgment affecting enforceability or if generic products have entered the market under settlement or litigation circumstances.

Which generic companies have challenged Vascepa patents?

Vascepa has faced ANDA litigation and generic competition involving companies including Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Apotex-related entities. The relevant litigation record is fragmented across patent numbers and indications.

The key distinction is between:

Patents covering severe hypertriglyceridemia;
Patents covering cardiovascular-risk reduction;
Composition and purity patents;
Method-of-use patents;
Patents asserted against a specific ANDA product and label.

A company may obtain approval with a carved-out label while still challenging patents covering another indication. A generic launch therefore does not establish that every Vascepa patent has been invalidated or rendered irrelevant.

What patent litigation affects US 8,357,677?

The central litigation issues have included obviousness, anticipation, written description, claim construction, inducement, and the effect of a generic label.

Validity risks

The principal invalidity argument against a patent of this type is obviousness. A challenger could combine:

Prior clinical use of omega-3 fatty acids;
EPA and DHA literature;
Known triglyceride-lowering effects;
Conventional 4-g daily dosing;
Purification methods;
Prior art relating to LDL-C effects; and
Clinical trial disclosures.

The patent holder’s response is that the claimed combination was not predictable because pure EPA produced triglyceride reduction without the LDL-C increase associated with mixed EPA/DHA products. The claim’s specific patient population, purity threshold, absence of DHA, dose, duration, and lipid outcomes are central to that argument.

Infringement risks

For an ANDA product, infringement analysis typically examines the proposed label and the product specification rather than requiring proof that every patient will receive the drug exactly as claimed.

The highest-risk label would state:

Treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia;
A 4-g daily dose;
Use of highly purified icosapent ethyl;
Long-term administration; and
A formulation with no material DHA.

The risk is lower where the label excludes the patented indication, the product contains DHA, or the proposed dosing differs materially from the claimed regimen. The risk can rise again under induced-infringement theories if marketing materials encourage use that falls within the claims.

How strong is the patent estate for icosapent ethyl?

The patent estate is stronger when viewed as a portfolio than when viewed through US 8,357,677 alone.

Relevant patent categories

Patent category	Protection
Composition patents	Highly purified EPA ethyl ester and low-DHA formulations
Method-of-use patents	Triglyceride reduction and cardiovascular-risk reduction
Formulation patents	Capsule composition, dosage form, stability, and manufacturing characteristics
Clinical-result claims	Reduction in triglycerides, VLDL-C, ApoB, or cardiovascular events
Regulatory exclusivity	FDA drug exclusivity associated with the approved product and indication

US 8,357,677 is most valuable as a method-of-use patent aligned with the original FDA indication. Composition patents can be more difficult to design around when the generic must use the same active ingredient and purity profile. Conversely, method claims can be more vulnerable to label carve-outs and non-infringing-use arguments.

What formulations are protected by the patent?

The claims are directed to a pharmaceutical composition containing at least approximately 96% EPA ethyl ester among the fatty acids and substantially no DHA or DHA esters.

The claims do not expressly require:

A particular capsule shell;
A particular excipient;
A particular capsule size;
A specific dissolution profile;
A specific manufacturing process; or
A specific brand name.

Claim 3, however, expressly covers administration in one or more capsules. That limitation aligns with the commercial Vascepa presentation.

A generic formulation could attempt to design around the patent by changing the EPA purity, adding DHA, altering the dose, or omitting the patented indication. Each strategy has regulatory and commercial consequences. Adding DHA may avoid the method claim but would create a different product profile and could affect substitutability, labeling, and clinical comparability.

Are biosimilars relevant to Vascepa?

No. Vascepa is a small-molecule drug, not a biologic. The relevant competitors proceed through the abbreviated new drug application pathway, not the biosimilar pathway under the Public Health Service Act.

The competitive issues are therefore:

ANDA approval;
Therapeutic equivalence;
Orange Book patent certifications;
Paragraph IV litigation;
Section viii label carve-outs; and
State substitution and reimbursement.

What generic launch scenarios exist?

Scenario 1: Launch after patent expiration

A generic retains the severe-hypertriglyceridemia indication and enters after the applicable patent term expires. This is the lowest litigation-risk pathway but provides the latest entry date.

Scenario 2: Launch with a carved-out label

The applicant removes a patented indication or method from its labeling. This can support approval before expiration but does not eliminate risk if the remaining label still encourages the claimed use.

Scenario 3: Launch after a successful paragraph IV challenge

The generic obtains approval after invalidating the patent, establishing non-infringement, or defeating enforceability. This creates the earliest potential entry but carries substantial litigation cost and launch risk.

Scenario 4: Launch under settlement

The patent holder and generic applicant agree to an entry date or other commercial terms. Settlement provisions may include an authorized generic arrangement, supply agreement, or restrictions on the scope of the generic label.

How does US 8,357,677 compare with cardiovascular-risk patents?

The severe-hypertriglyceridemia claim and cardiovascular-risk claims target different clinical uses.

Issue	US 8,357,677-type claim	Cardiovascular-risk claim
Primary patient population	Baseline TG approximately 500-1,500 mg/dL	Statin-treated patients with elevated cardiovascular risk and moderate TG levels
Therapeutic objective	Reduce triglycerides	Reduce cardiovascular events or risk
Key evidence	Lipid biomarker response	Cardiovascular outcomes trial
Generic label strategy	Carve out severe-TG use or challenge method claim	Carve out cardiovascular-risk use
Product overlap	Same icosapent ethyl product	Same product
Patent analysis	Dose, purity, DHA absence, TG response	Patient selection, background statin therapy, risk profile, outcomes

The same commercial product can face separate patent risks depending on which indication appears in the generic label.

What geographic coverage does the patent provide?

US 8,357,677 provides protection only in the United States. It does not create rights in Canada, Europe, Japan, China, or other jurisdictions.

Foreign protection must be assessed by reviewing national counterparts and their separate prosecution, opposition, expiration, and litigation histories. Patent families for highly purified EPA and Vascepa-related methods have had different outcomes across jurisdictions. A US invalidity decision does not automatically invalidate a foreign counterpart.

What manufacturing and intellectual-property barriers remain?

The technical manufacturing barrier is production of a stable, pharmaceutical-grade EPA ethyl ester with very low DHA content and consistent impurity control. The commercial formulation must also meet specifications for oxidation, purity, capsule fill weight, stability, and dissolution.

The principal IP barriers are:

High-purity EPA composition claims;
Low-DHA or DHA-free composition claims;
Manufacturing and purification claims;
Capsule and formulation claims;
Severe-hypertriglyceridemia method claims; and
Cardiovascular-risk method claims.

A generic can often reproduce the active ingredient while avoiding selected method claims through labeling. It cannot assume that a successful label carve-out avoids composition or formulation patents.

Key Takeaways

US 8,357,677 is a narrow method-of-use patent tied closely to the original Vascepa severe-hypertriglyceridemia indication.
The independent claim requires approximately 4 g daily, at least approximately 96% EPA ethyl ester, substantially no DHA, at least 12 weeks of treatment, and triglyceride reduction without a substantial LDL-C increase.
Claims 2 through 9 add dosing frequency, capsules, baseline lipid ranges, and reductions in triglycerides, ApoB, and VLDL-C.
The patent does not broadly cover all EPA products or all omega-3 therapies.
A generic using highly purified icosapent ethyl and retaining the severe-hypertriglyceridemia indication presents the highest direct infringement risk.
DHA-containing products, materially different doses, and section viii label carve-outs offer potential design-around positions.
Vascepa is a small molecule, so biosimilar law is not relevant. ANDA, paragraph IV, Orange Book, and induced-infringement issues control.
The patent is associated with a projected expiration in late 2030, subject to the controlling USPTO and Orange Book records.
The strength of the overall Vascepa estate depends on related composition, formulation, manufacturing, and cardiovascular-risk patents, not this patent in isolation.
Generic launch timing depends on patent validity, label design, settlement terms, and the treatment indication included in the approved ANDA label.

FAQs

Does US 8,357,677 cover generic icosapent ethyl automatically?

No. The generic must practice every material limitation of an asserted claim. The active ingredient alone is insufficient because the claims also require purity, DHA content, dose, treatment duration, patient population, and clinical effect.

Can a generic avoid the patent by using a 2-g dose?

Potentially, but only if the proposed dosing falls outside the properly construed scope of “about 4 g per day” and does not otherwise create infringement exposure. The regulatory label and actual commercial use remain relevant.

Does a product with trace DHA infringe the patent?

The answer depends on how “substantially no docosahexaenoic acid or its esters” is construed and on the product’s measured composition. Trace impurity levels and intentional DHA inclusion present different factual situations.

Is claim 7 harder to enforce than claim 1?

Yes, in practical terms. Claim 7 requires at least a 25% fasting triglyceride reduction, creating an additional clinical-result limitation. Enforcement may require evidence connecting the accused treatment to that outcome.

Does FDA approval prove that US 8,357,677 is valid?

No. FDA approval and Orange Book listing are regulatory events. Patent validity, enforceability, claim scope, and infringement are determined under patent law and, when litigated, by the courts.

References

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Vascepa (icosapent ethyl) prescribing information.
United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2013). U.S. Patent No. 8,357,677: Methods of reducing triglycerides using eicosapentaenoic acid.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2025). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations, Orange Book.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). FDA approves use of Vascepa to reduce cardiovascular risk in certain patients.
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., patent litigation records, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

More… ↓

⤷ Start Trial

Recent additions to Drugs Protected by US Patent 8,357,677

These patents are from the daily update and have not yet been integrated into the regular database

Glossary

Subscribe to access the full database, or Start Trial
Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	Type	RLD	Patent No.	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patent Expiration	Usecode	Patented / Exclusive Use
Amarin Pharms	VASCEPA	icosapent ethyl	CAPSULE	202057	Jul 26, 2012	RX	Yes	8,357,677				⤷ Start Trial	U-1287	METHOD OF REDUCING TG LEVELS IN PATIENT SUFFERING FROM SEVERE HYPERTRIGLYCERIDEMIA
Amarin Pharms	VASCEPA	icosapent ethyl	CAPSULE	202057	Feb 16, 2017	RX	Yes	8,357,677				⤷ Start Trial	U-1287	METHOD OF REDUCING TG LEVELS IN PATIENT SUFFERING FROM SEVERE HYPERTRIGLYCERIDEMIA
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Generic Name	>Dosage	>NDA	>Approval Date	>Type	>RLD	>Patent No.	>Product	>Substance	>Delist Req.	>Patent Expiration	>Usecode	>Patented / Exclusive Use

Drugs Protected by US Patent 8,357,677