- 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
-
March 26, 2024Ronald Schutz, Brendan Johnson Named to Forbes Top 200 Lawyers in the United States
-
March 21, 2024Robins Kaplan Firm Members Appointed to Law360 Editorial Boards
-
March 20, 2024Brandon Vaughn Inducted into The International Society of Barristers
-
April 5, 2024Mass Torts Made Perfect
-
April 17, 2024American Antitrust Institute Virtual CLE Lunch & Learn
-
May 2-3, 2024ACI Advanced Forum on Managed Care Disputes and Litigation
-
March 14, 2024How Many Cases Have You Tried to a Verdict?
-
March 2024Do We Have to Share That Information? Attorney-Client Privilege in the Multi-Entity Context
-
March 2024Sellers of a Business: Know Thyself.
-
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.
Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
After a five-day jury trial finding non-infringement, Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion for a new trial was denied.
December 11, 2019
Case Name: Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, No. 17-205-CFC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213415 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2019) (Connolly, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Suboxone® and Subutex® (buprenorphine); U.S. Patent No. 8,454,996 (“the ’996 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Orexo filed suit, alleging that Actavis’s anti-opioid-addiction ANDA product infringed the ’996 patent. After a five-day trial, the jury found that Actavis did not induce or contribute to infringement of the ’996 patent. Thereafter, Orexo moved, under Rule 59(e), for a new trial “on the issues of infringement, willfulness, and damages.” In particular, Orexo argued that a new trial was warranted because: (i) the judge incorrectly precluded evidence that in a previous case (“the Zubsolv® case”) the ’996 patent was found not invalid and was infringed by a generic version of another anti-opioid-addiction drug and (ii) the judge incorrectly excluded the introduction of Orexo’s patent and published patent applications that were related to, but were not, the patent-in-suit. The court denied Orexo’s motion.
Why Actavis Prevailed: As to the decision to exclude evidence of the Zubsolv® case, Orexo’s motion for a new trial failed for two reasons. First, the court found that Orexo waived the argument. Although Orexo “revisited” the judge’s ruling on multiple occasions, “it never argued or suggested that” the judge should reconsider the ruling. And although Actavis agreed to forego its invalidity defense subsequent to the judge’s ruling to exclude the Zubsolv® case—thereby potentially altering the court’s Rule 403 analysis—Orexo never sought reconsideration of the judge’s ruling to exclude the evidence. Second, even if Orexo had not waived the argument, it still would have excluded the evidence, as it would be unfairly prejudicial “to allow Orexo to attempt to prove that [the accused products] infringed the ’996 patent by adducing evidence about their similarities with Zubsolv® and then linking that evidence to [the prior] decision that Zubsolv® infringed the same patent.”
As to the exclusion of Orexo’s patent and published patent applications, the court explained they were not relevant unless Actavis had knowledge of their existence. The court further noted that at trial, it explained that if an Actavis witness were to admit that s/he was aware of a particular patent or publication, then it could be put into evidence. Orexo chose, however, to ask only two Actavis witnesses, and none had knowledge of the excluded patents and publications. In sum, the court explained that “Orexo has not identified a single publication that an Actavis witness was aware of that was excluded from evidence. It was the lack of evidence, not [the court’s ruling] that prevented Orexo from overcoming Actavis’s defense.”
Related Professionals
Christopher A. Pinahs
Partner
Haroon N. Mian
Associate
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.