Details for Patent: 8,415,363

« Back to Dashboard

Which drugs does patent 8,415,363 protect, and when does it expire?

Patent 8,415,363 protects TASIGNA and is included in one NDA.

Protection for TASIGNA has been extended six months for pediatric studies, as indicated by the *PED designation in the table below.

This patent has seventy-four patent family members in forty-two countries.

Summary for Patent: 8,415,363

Title:	Crystalline forms of 4-methyl-N-[3-(4-methyl-imidazol-1-yl)-5-trifluoromethyl-phenyl]-3-(4-pyridin-3-yl-pyrimidin-2-ylamino)-benzamide
Abstract:	Crystalline forms of 4-methyl-N-[3-(4-methyl-imidazol-1-yl)-5-trifluoromethyl-phenyl]-3-(4-pyridin-3-yl-pyrimidin-2-ylamino)-benzamide free base and salts thereof are prepared by various processes.
Inventor(s):	Paul W Manley, Wen-Chung Shieh, Paul Allen Sutton, Piotr “Peter” H Karpinski, Raeann R Wu, Stéphanie M Monnier, Jörg Brozio
Assignee:	Novartis AG
Application Number:	US13/565,913
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 8,415,363
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Composition;

US Patent 8,415,363: Nilotinib Crystal-Form Claims, Exclusivity and Patent Landscape

US Patent 8,415,363 protects two solid-state forms of nilotinib hydrochloride: crystalline Form B, a monohydrate, and crystalline Form B', an anhydrous form. The patent also covers pharmaceutical compositions containing those forms and their use to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). It does not claim nilotinib as a chemical entity, all nilotinib salts, or every nilotinib formulation.

The patent is commercially significant because Form B is associated with the marketed Tasigna product. Its main value is as a solid-state and product-by-process barrier against generic nilotinib products that use the claimed hydrochloride polymorphs.

What drug does US Patent 8,415,363 cover?

The patented compound is nilotinib hydrochloride, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Tasigna.

The chemical name in the claims is:

4-methyl-N-[3-(4-methyl-imidazol-1-yl)-5-trifluoromethyl-phenyl]-3-(4-pyridin-3-yl-pyrimidin-2-ylamino)-benzamide.

Nilotinib is a BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor marketed by Novartis for Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia. The FDA approved Tasigna in 2007 for adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in the chronic phase and for certain patients with resistant or intolerant CML [2].

The patent is therefore a secondary patent directed to the physical form of an already patented active ingredient.

What are the legal claims in US Patent 8,415,363?

Claim structure

Claims	Subject matter	Form covered	Practical scope
1	Crystal form defined by at least one XRPD peak	Form B monohydrate	Broadest Form B claim
2	Crystal form defined by the complete listed XRPD pattern	Form B monohydrate	Narrower and more analytically specific
3	Pharmaceutical composition	Form B monohydrate	Composition containing the protected form
4	CML treatment method	Form B monohydrate	Use of the protected form in CML
5	Crystal form defined by at least one XRPD peak	Form B' anhydrous	Broadest Form B' claim
6	Crystal form defined by the complete listed XRPD pattern	Form B' anhydrous	Narrower and more analytically specific
7	Pharmaceutical composition	Form B' anhydrous	Composition containing the protected form
8	CML treatment method	Form B' anhydrous	Use of the protected form in CML

Claims 1 and 5 are independent composition-of-matter claims directed to polymorphic forms. Claims 2 and 6 depend on those claims and require the full recited diffraction pattern. Claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 are use and composition claims that inherit the form limitations.

How broad are the Form B and Form B' crystal claims?

Form B monohydrate

Claim 1 identifies Form B by an XRPD pattern having at least one maximum selected from a list of approximately 19 diffraction angles:

7.2°, 9.2°, 11.4°, 12.0°, 12.3°, 14.6°, 14.8°, 15.7°, 17.6°, 19.2°, 19.5°, 20.5°, 22.0°, 23.4°, 23.9°, 25.0°, 25.5°, 25.9° and 27.0° 2θ.

Claim 2 requires the complete pattern.

The claim expressly requires:

• the hydrochloride salt;
• the monohydrate state;
• crystalline Form B; and
• characterization by the specified XRPD peaks.

The monohydrate limitation excludes anhydrous Form B' unless the accused material is also present as, or converts to, the claimed hydrate under the relevant claim-construction and infringement conditions. A generic manufacturer cannot avoid the patent merely by using a different tablet excipient if the drug substance remains the claimed Form B monohydrate.

Form B' anhydrous

Claim 5 covers anhydrous Form B' using a separate XRPD peak list:

7.2°, 9.2°, 11.5°, 12.0°, 13.9°, 14.3°, 15.4°, 17.6°, 18.6°, 20.3°, 21.7°, 22.5°, 23.2°, 24.7°, 24.9°, 25.2°, 26.0°, 26.6°, 27.5°, 28.2°, 29.2° and 30.0° 2θ.

Claim 6 requires the full set of peaks.

The distinction between Form B and Form B' is material. Form B is a monohydrate, while Form B' is an anhydrous hydrochloride. A manufacturer using an anhydrous form may still infringe claim 5 or 6 if the XRPD profile matches the claimed Form B' form.

What does the “at least one maximum” limitation mean?

Claims 1 and 5 are materially broader than claims 2 and 6 because they require only one selected diffraction maximum, rather than the complete pattern.

That creates two consequences.

First, the broad claims can capture material that has one listed peak but differs in other diffraction characteristics. In a litigation setting, the patent holder would still need to establish that the material is the claimed Form B or Form B' and satisfies the hydrate or anhydrate limitation. One isolated peak should not be treated as sufficient proof of polymorphic identity without supporting solid-state data.

Second, the “at least one” language creates a potential validity and claim-construction pressure point. A defendant could argue that a single peak is insufficiently distinctive if the same reflection appears in another nilotinib solid form or in a mixed phase. The dependent full-pattern claims provide a narrower fallback position with stronger analytical specificity.

The most important technical evidence would include:

• XRPD comparison against the patent figures;
• moisture-content or Karl Fischer analysis;
• thermogravimetric analysis;
• differential scanning calorimetry;
• infrared or Raman spectroscopy;
• solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance; and
• phase-conversion studies under manufacturing and storage conditions.

What formulations are protected by US 8,415,363?

Claims 3 and 7 cover pharmaceutical compositions containing a therapeutically effective amount of the respective crystal form and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, diluent or excipient.

The claims do not require a particular:

• capsule shell;
• tablet coating;
• dissolution profile;
• dosage strength;
• excipient;
• manufacturing process; or
• release mechanism.

The formulation claims are therefore form-centric rather than formulation-specific. They can reach conventional oral dosage forms if the drug substance in the composition is Form B monohydrate or Form B' anhydrous.

They do not expressly claim:

• a particular nilotinib dose;
• a food-effect mitigation method;
• a specific capsule composition;
• a sustained-release formulation;
• a nanoparticle formulation; or
• a co-formulation with another active ingredient.

The patent’s commercial relevance is strongest where the approved product uses the claimed solid form in its drug substance, rather than where a competing manufacturer develops a demonstrably different salt, solvate or polymorph.

What method-of-use protection does the patent provide?

Claims 4 and 8 cover administering the specified crystal form to treat CML.

These claims are narrower than a general claim to treating cancer with nilotinib because they require:

1. the claimed physical form;
2. a therapeutically effective amount;
3. administration to a subject in need; and
4. treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia.

The method claims do not cover every oncology use of nilotinib. They do not expressly recite:

• acute lymphoblastic leukemia;
• gastrointestinal stromal tumors;
• dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans;
• a specific BCR-ABL mutation;
• a particular treatment line; or
• a specified dose or administration schedule.

For an ANDA product, method claims can still create litigation risk if the proposed labeling directs use for CML and the generic drug uses the patented form.

When does US Patent 8,415,363 lose exclusivity?

The patent issued on April 9, 2013. Public patent records identify a June 28, 2006 priority date for the crystal-form subject matter. On a standard United States patent-term calculation, the nominal expiration date is June 28, 2026, subject to any applicable patent-term adjustment or disclaimer reflected in the USPTO record [1].

The FDA Orange Book has listed US 8,415,363 in connection with nilotinib capsules. The Orange Book is the controlling commercial reference for FDA-listed patents and pediatric exclusivity information associated with approved products [3].

Nilotinib exclusivity timeline

Event	Date
Nilotinib crystal-form priority	June 28, 2006
Tasigna FDA approval	October 29, 2007
US Patent 8,415,363 issued	April 9, 2013
Nominal 20-year patent expiration	June 28, 2026
Core nilotinib compound patent expiry	January 30, 2023, including listed term adjustments where applicable
Generic-entry window	Dependent on patent challenges, settlements and the enforceability of listed patents

The compound patent and the crystal-form patent create different risk periods. Once the core compound patent expired, a generic manufacturer could pursue entry, but the listed crystal-form patent remained a potential obstacle if the ANDA product used Form B or Form B'.

What is the Orange Book status of US 8,415,363?

US 8,415,363 has been listed as a drug-product patent for nilotinib capsules. Its significance is greater than a non-listed research patent because an ANDA applicant must address the listed patent through a Paragraph I, II, III or IV certification.

A Paragraph IV certification would assert that the patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. If the patent owner timely filed an infringement action, the Hatch-Waxman framework could impose a 30-month stay of final FDA approval, subject to statutory exceptions and litigation developments [4].

The listing does not establish validity or infringement. It establishes that FDA treated the patent as relevant to the approved product for Orange Book purposes.

Which companies have challenged nilotinib patents?

Generic competition has involved ANDA applicants seeking approval for nilotinib capsules after expiry or challenge of Novartis patents. Publicly reported disputes have focused on the core nilotinib patent and related product patents, including litigation involving major generic manufacturers.

The commercially relevant challenger categories include:

• large multinational generic companies;
• specialty generic companies;
• applicants seeking first-filer or early-entry positions; and
• manufacturers developing products that avoid the claimed crystal form.

A Paragraph IV challenge to US 8,415,363 would likely focus on:

• anticipation by an earlier-disclosed nilotinib hydrochloride form;
• obviousness of selecting or preparing the claimed hydrate or anhydrate;
• lack of enablement across the full “at least one peak” scope;
• indefiniteness of XRPD peak definitions using “about”; and
• non-infringement based on a different polymorph, salt or hydration state.

No biosimilar pathway applies. Nilotinib is a chemically synthesized small molecule, so competition proceeds through the ANDA pathway, not the abbreviated biosimilar pathway under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.

How strong is the patent estate for nilotinib?

The estate has three principal layers:

Layer	Protection	Business function
Core compound patents	Nilotinib molecule and related compounds	Primary product exclusivity
Solid-state patents	Hydrochloride hydrates, anhydrates and polymorphs	Drug-substance and manufacturing barrier
Regulatory and use protection	CML indications, labeling and approval rights	Supports market access and litigation positions

US 8,415,363 is strongest against a generic that copies the Tasigna drug substance or uses the same commercially selected polymorph. It is weaker against a product that uses:

• a different salt;
• a non-claimed polymorph;
• an amorphous form;
• a different solvate;
• a formulation that avoids the claimed physical form; or
• a manufacturing route that produces a non-infringing final form.

The patent does not prevent all nilotinib competition after expiry of the compound patent. Its blocking effect depends on the solid form selected by each ANDA applicant.

What manufacturing and geographic barriers does the patent create?

The patent is a United States right. It does not independently block manufacture, sale or importation in Europe, Japan, China or other jurisdictions. Parallel patent families may provide corresponding protection outside the United States, but the US claims cannot be exported to other territories.

Manufacturing risk is concentrated in solid-state control. A generic manufacturer must control:

• solvent and antisolvent selection;
• crystallization temperature;
• seeding;
• water activity;
• drying conditions;
• milling;
• storage humidity; and
• phase conversion during granulation and encapsulation.

A process designed to produce Form B' may unintentionally hydrate during processing. Conversely, Form B may lose water under drying or low-humidity conditions. Those transitions can affect both product quality and infringement analysis.

The patent therefore creates an IP barrier and a process-development barrier. A non-infringing form must remain stable through manufacturing, packaging and shelf life.

What generic launch scenarios exist for nilotinib?

Scenario 1: Launch after patent expiry

An ANDA applicant using Form B or Form B' could launch after the relevant patent expires, subject to FDA approval and any other enforceable listed patent or regulatory exclusivity.

Scenario 2: Paragraph IV launch

A challenger could launch before expiry after prevailing in litigation, securing a favorable settlement, or accepting the risk of an at-risk launch. The main defenses would be invalidity and non-infringement.

Scenario 3: Alternative solid form

A company could develop a nilotinib salt, solvate, amorphous form or polymorph outside the literal scope of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6. The product would still face potential infringement allegations under other patents, but US 8,415,363 would present a reduced direct risk.

Scenario 4: Licensed entry

A settlement or license could permit an agreed launch date. No publicly identified license involving US 8,415,363 changes the patent’s nominal expiration analysis. Settlement terms should be examined separately because an agreement may permit entry before expiry without eliminating the patent.

Key Takeaways

• US 8,415,363 is a nilotinib solid-state patent, not a basic molecule patent.
• Claims 1 through 4 cover Form B nilotinib hydrochloride monohydrate.
• Claims 5 through 8 cover anhydrous Form B' nilotinib hydrochloride.
• Claims 1 and 5 are broad peak-selection claims; claims 2 and 6 require the full XRPD pattern.
• Composition and CML method claims depend on use of the specified crystal forms.
• The patent issued April 9, 2013, and has a nominal June 28, 2026 expiration date based on the reported priority date.
• The patent has been relevant to Orange Book-listed nilotinib product protection.
• Generic risk depends on the selected solid form, not merely on whether the product contains nilotinib.
• No biosimilar pathway applies because nilotinib is a small-molecule drug.
• The principal technical defenses are non-infringing polymorph selection, alternative salt or solvate development, and invalidity challenges to the XRPD limitations.

FAQs

Does US 8,415,363 protect all nilotinib products?

No. It protects specified crystalline forms of nilotinib hydrochloride and compositions or CML methods using those forms. A different salt, solvate, amorphous form or polymorph may fall outside its literal scope.

Is Form B the same as Form B' nilotinib?

No. Form B is claimed as a hydrochloride monohydrate. Form B' is claimed as an anhydrous hydrochloride. Their XRPD peak lists are different and reflect distinct solid-state forms.

Can a generic use nilotinib after the core compound patent expires?

Yes, but expiry of the core compound patent does not automatically eliminate risk under later solid-state patents. The generic must determine whether its drug substance falls within the Form B or Form B' claims.

Can XRPD alone establish infringement?

XRPD is central to the claims, but infringement analysis normally requires evaluation of the complete claim limitations, including salt identity and hydration state. A single matching peak may be insufficient to establish the claimed polymorph without additional characterization.

Does the patent cover nilotinib treatment for diseases other than CML?

The asserted method claims specifically recite treatment of CML. They do not expressly claim every disease treated with nilotinib.

References

1. United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2013). US Patent No. 8,415,363, crystalline forms of nilotinib hydrochloride.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2007). Tasigna (nilotinib) prescribing information and approval history.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations: Orange Book.
4. U.S. Congress. (1984). Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j).

Drugs Protected by US Patent 8,415,363

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate
Novartis	TASIGNA	nilotinib hydrochloride	CAPSULE;ORAL	022068-003	Mar 22, 2018	AB	RX	Yes	No	8,415,363*PED				Y
Novartis	TASIGNA	nilotinib hydrochloride	CAPSULE;ORAL	022068-002	Jun 17, 2010	AB	RX	Yes	No	8,415,363*PED				Y
Novartis	TASIGNA	nilotinib hydrochloride	CAPSULE;ORAL	022068-001	Oct 29, 2007	AB	RX	Yes	Yes	8,415,363*PED				Y

International Family Members for US Patent 8,415,363

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Argentina	054846
Australia	2006276204
Australia	2011202047
Australia	2012201453
Australia	2013211489
Brazil	PI0613615