- 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
-
December 5, 2024Jake Holdreith Named to Twin Cities Business Top 100
-
December 4, 2024Robins Kaplan Obtains $10.5 Million Post-Verdict in Landmark Aerosol Dust Remover Abuse Case
-
December 2, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2025 Partners
-
December 11, 20242024 Year in Review: eDiscovery and Artificial Intelligence
-
December 12, 2024Strategies for Licensing AI: A Litigation Perspective
-
December 2024A Landmark Victory for Disabled Homeless Veterans: Q&A with the Trial Team
-
November 8, 2024Trademark tensions on the track: Court upholds First Amendment protections in Haas v. Steiner
-
November 8, 2024Destination Skiing And The DOJ's Mountain Merger Challenge
-
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.
Teva Branded Pharm. Products R&D, Inc. v. Deva Holding A.S.
ProAirĀ® HFA (albuterol sulfate)
August 28, 2024
Case Name: Teva Branded Pharm. Products R&D, Inc. v. Deva Holding A.S., Civ. No. 24-4404 (SRC), 2024 WL 3966314 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2024) (Chesler, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: ProAir® HFA (albuterol sulfate); U.S. Patents Nos. 8,132,712 (“the ’712 patent”), 9,463,289 (“the ’289 patent”), 9,808,587 (“the ’587 patent”), 10,022,509 (“the ’509 patent”), 10,022,510 (“the ’510 patent”), 10,086,156 (“the ’156 patent”), 10,561,808 (“the ’808 patent”), 10,695,512 (“the ’512 patent”), 11,395,889 (“the ’889 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Teva holds the NDA for ProAir® HFA and Deva filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version. Teva listed the nine patents-in-suit in the FDA’s Orange Book. Teva sued Deva alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit. Teva’s complaint asserts two counts of patent infringement for each of the nine patents, one for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), and one for declaratory judgment of infringement based on the expected future marketing of Deva’s ANDA product. Deva moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on two arguments: (i) none of the nine patents claims a drug, therefore no act of infringement has taken place under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e); and (ii) the complaint does not allege sufficient immediacy to trigger declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The motion was denied-in-part and its decision was reserved-in-part.
Why Teva Prevailed: As to the declaratory judgment claims, Deva argues that the complaint alleged “no more than a vague possibility that, at some unknown future point in time, the FDA may approve Deva’s ANDA and Deva may begin to market an infringing product.” Those allegations fail to meet the immediacy standard necessary for declaratory judgment jurisdiction set forth in Federal Circuit, specifically Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 110 F.3d 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Teva responded by arguing that the complaint established two required elements: Deva had made meaningful preparation for infringing activity by filing its ANDA; and the facts pled made plausible the inference that Deva refused to change the course of its actions in the face of litigation. The court found that the complaint alleges “sufficient facts to support the finding that there is a definite and concrete infringement dispute between parties with adverse legal interests, which is real and substantial, and which could be resolved by the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” While there may not be a formula for determining whether the controversy alleged has sufficient immediacy to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment, “the Supreme Court directed district courts to consider the usefulness of the declaratory judgment remedy and the fitness of the case for resolution, when deciding to exercise discretion to declare the rights of litigants.” This consideration was adopted in Federal Circuit jurisprudence. Given no indication from Deva that, upon FDA approval, it would not proceed to market, there is more than sufficient allegations to demonstrate that an actual controversy subject to judicial resolution exists between the parties.
As to the 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) allegations, Deva argued that in view of another case, Teva v. Amneal, where the court decided that the same patents did not claim drugs and were improperly listed in the Orange Book, no subject matter jurisdiction could exist. That case is on appeal and Teva asked, and the court agreed, to wait until the Federal Circuit has decided the pending appeal in that case.
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.