Litigation Details for ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS LIMITED v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. (D.N.J. 2016)

ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS LIMITED v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. (D.N.J. 2016)

Docket	2:16-cv-07721-BRM-JAD	Date Filed	2016-10-21
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Brian R. Martinotti
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Joseph A. Dickson
Patents	9,211,253; 9,468,747; 9,561,177; 9,629,965; 9,775,838
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS LIMITED v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. (D.N.J. 2016)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2016-10-21	128		Construction and Prehearing Statement for U.S. Patent No. 9,775,838 by ADAPT PHARMA LIMITED, ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS…October 2016 2:16-cv-07721-BRM-JAD 830 Patent None District Court, D. New Jersey	External link to document
2016-10-21	171		Amended Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,211,253; 9,68,747; 9,561,177;9,629,965; and 9,775,838…October 2016 2:16-cv-07721-BRM-JAD 830 Patent None District Court, D. New Jersey	External link to document
2016-10-21	200		of United States Patent Numbers 9,211,253 (“‘253 patent”) and 9,468,747 (“747 patent”), Claim 10 of the… ‘253 patent and ‘747 patent, and Claim 29 of United States Patent No. 9,629,965 (“‘965 patent”).’ The…the ‘253 patent, Claims 3 and 33 of the ‘747 patent, Claims 5 and 27 of United States Patent No. 9,561,177…actuation.” (‘253 patent at 50:65—67; ‘747 patent at 53:42—44). Elsewhere, the ‘253 patent specification …9,561,177 (“177 patent”), and Claims 1 and 22 of the ‘965 patent. They have since resolved their dispute	External link to document
2016-10-21	201		about 100 ul" as used in United States Patent Numbers 9,211,253 and 9,468,747 requires no further construction…October 2016 2:16-cv-07721-BRM-JAD 830 Patent None District Court, D. New Jersey	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis: ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS LIMITED v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. (2:16-cv-07721-BRM-JAD)

Last updated: February 22, 2026

What are the core allegations and legal claims?

ADAPT Pharma Operations Limited filed suit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. on September 29, 2016, in the District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts patent infringement related to Narcan (naloxone hydrochloride) nasal spray, a drug used for opioid overdose reversal.

Specifically, ADAPT Pharma claims Teva infringed on U.S. Patent No. 9,124,185 (the '185 patent), which covers the formulation and methods of administering naloxone via nasal spray.

Claims:

• Direct patent infringement
• Indirect infringement (inducement and contributory infringement)
• Unfair competition and false advertising claims

What are the patent details?

The '185 patent, issued in 2015, claims priority to applications filed in 2012. It covers a specific formulation of naloxone nasal spray, including particular excipients, osmolarity, and spray device features designed to optimize drug delivery.

Key patent claims include:

• A nasal spray comprising a specific concentration of naloxone.
• Use of certain excipients for enhanced absorption.
• The particular device design enabling efficient nasal delivery.

What is the scope of the alleged infringement?

ADAPT Pharma alleges Teva's naloxone nasal spray products infringe the '185 patent's claims by utilizing formulations and delivery mechanisms that fall within its scope. The complaint notes Teva's product, Narcan nasal spray, uses similar excipients and delivery methods.

Teva's product details:

• Marketed as Narcan (naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray).
• Launched in 2015, prior to the patent's expiration in 2032 (assuming maintenance fees paid).
• Competitor to ADAPT's branded Narcan.

What procedural history and court filings are available?

• Complaint filed: September 29, 2016.
• Teva’s initial response: Denied infringement and validity challenges.
• Patent Office Inter Partes Review (IPR): Teva challenged the patent's validity in 2017; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review.
• PTAB decision: In 2018, invalidated certain claims of the '185 patent based on obviousness grounds.
• Litigation timeline: Cases in district court and PTAB overlapped, with appeals possible.

What legal issues are central?

1. Validity of the '185 patent, especially in light of Teva's IPR challenge.
2. Whether Teva's product infringes the patent claims.
3. The enforceability of paediatric and FDA regulatory data.
4. Potential damages and injunction considerations.

What was the outcome or current status?

• As of 2023, the case remains active with ongoing motions and possible appeals.
• PTAB invalidated specific patent claims, reducing enforceable scope.
• The district court has yet to reach a final judgment on infringement and damages.

How does this case compare to similar patent disputes?

Aspect	ADAPT Pharma v. Teva	Similar Case: GSK v. Teva
Patent challenged	Specific formulation patent ('185)	Broader process patents
Patent validity defense	Validity challenged via IPR	Multiple invalidity defenses
Outcome	Partial claim invalidation	Patent upheld or invalidated based on case specifics
Market impact	Competitor's sales affected	Similar dynamics in generics litigation

Key implications for industry

• Patent protection for drug formulations remains vulnerable during IPR proceedings.
• Patent holders should closely monitor PTAB decisions.
• Generics firms can challenge patents on obviousness or inventive step grounds effectively.
• Market entry strategies depend on patent robustness and legal timelines.

Key Takeaways

• The '185 patent is central to ADAPT Pharma's control over narcan nasal spray.
• PTAB invalidated certain claims, reducing patent enforceability.
• Teva’s IPR victory signals increased patent vulnerability in similar formulations.
• Litigation remains ongoing, with potential for settlement, invalidity, or further appeals.
• Patent efficacy in biological formulations hinges on detailed claim drafting and strategic legal defense.

FAQs

Q1: What is the significance of the PTAB’s invalidation of claims?
It limits ADAPT Pharma's patent rights, permitting competitors like Teva to market similar products without infringement claims on those specific claims.

Q2: How long might this litigation last?
Litigation could extend several years, depending on appeals, settlement negotiations, and the resolution of patent validity and infringement issues.

Q3: Can Teva continue selling Narcan nasal spray?
Yes, provided the patent claims invalidated are no longer enforceable, and no injunction is issued.

Q4: What impact does patent invalidation have on marketing?
Invalidation can allow generic manufacturers to compete more freely, potentially reducing prices and expanding accessibility.

Q5: How does this case affect patent strategy?
It highlights the importance of robust patent drafting, withstanding validity challenges during IPR proceedings, and aligning patent claims with regulatory data.

---

References

1. Patent and Trademark Office. (2023). Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions. Retrieved from https://ptab.uspto.gov
2. United States District Court. (2016). ADAPT Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (2:16-cv-07721-BRM-JAD).
3. GSK v. Teva, 2018; Market impact of patent invalidations in biosimilars and small-molecule drugs.
4. FDA. (2022). Narcan (naloxone) nasal spray approval history.
5. USPTO. (2015). Patent No. 9,124,185.