- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
April 23, 2024David Martinez Recognized Among Top 100 Lawyers in Los Angeles by LA Business Journal
-
April 15, 2024Robins Kaplan Named to 2024 BTI Client Service A-Team
-
April 9, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Files Complaint Against Social Media Giants Meta, Snap, TikTok on Behalf of Spirit Lake Nation, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
-
April 30, 2024Navigating Generational Dynamics
-
May 2-3, 2024ACI Advanced Forum on Managed Care Disputes and Litigation
-
May 6, 2024Litigating with the Legends
-
First QuarterGENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
-
March 2024e-Commerce: Pitfalls and Protections
-
March 25, 2024Endo Ventures Unlimited Co. v. Nexus Pharms. Inc.
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Avadel Pharms. Plc
Xyrem® (sodium oxybate)
October 19, 2021
Case Name: Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Avadel Pharms. Plc, Civ. No. 21-691 (MN), 2021 WL 4860682 (D. Del. Oct. 19, 2021) (Noreika, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Xyrem® (sodium oxybate); U.S. Patent No. 8,731,963 (“the ’963 patent”)
Nature of Case and Issue(s) Presented: Jazz made and sold Xyrem, a drug approved for the treatment of cataplexy and excessive daytime sleepiness associated with the sleep disorder narcolepsy. The active ingredient in Xyrem had been recognized as a dangerous substance, frequently misused as a “date rape drug” in cases of drug-facilitated sexual assault. Therefore, the FDA conditioned approval on the implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) that controlled distribution of the product and minimized the possibility of abuse. The ’963 patent purportedly covered using a computer-implemented system that addressed certain FDA-required REMS conditions of using Xyrem according to its label.
Avadel submitted a 505(b)(2) application seeking approval to manufacture and sell its own sodium oxybate product. Avadel acknowledged that a REMS would be required for its product. Jazz sued Avadel for infringement of five patents, the only Orange Book-listed patent being the ’963 patent. In its answer and counterclaim, Avadel alleged that the ’963 patent should be delisted from the Orange Book. Avadel then moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to its counterclaim seeking delisting of the ’963 patent. The court denied Avadel’s motion.
Why Jazz Prevailed: Avadel argued that the ’963 patent should be delisted because it claimed a “system,” not a drug product or method of using a drug, as required by statute. Jazz conceded that its patent claimed a system, but argued that: (i) Avadel’s counterclaim was not ripe because Avadel had not filed a certification against the ’963 patent; and (ii) there were at least factual issues regarding whether it was required to list the patent in the Orange Book.
The court disagreed with Jazz’s first argument that the motion was not ripe. The Supreme Court had found that Congress created a mechanism, in the form of a legal counterclaim, for parties to challenge patent information submitted to the FDA, and that such a counterclaim was available regardless of whether the defendant had certified against the listed patent.
But the court found in favor of Jazz based on its second argument. The Hatch-Waxman Act recited two requirements for a patent to be eligible for listing in the Orange Book. First, it must be one for which infringement could reasonably be asserted if a person not licensed by the owner of the patent were to engage in the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug. Second, it must claim one of the following three categories of subject matter: (i) a drug substance; (ii) a drug product; or (iii) a method of using such drug for which approval was sought or had been granted in the patent holder’s NDA. The FDA-approved label stated that “Xyrem is available only through a restricted distribution program called the … XYREM REMS because of the risks of central nervous system depression and abuse and misuse.” Moreover, Avadel’s arguments depended on claim construction and whether a “system” included methods of using the approved product.
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.