Litigation Details for Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Agila Specialties Inc. (D. Del. 2014)

✉ Email this page to a colleague

Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Agila Specialties Inc. (D. Del. 2014)

Docket	⤷ Try for Free	Date Filed	2014-12-19
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2017-01-12
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Leonard Philip Stark
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	6,028,222
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Small Molecule Drugs cited in Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Agila Specialties Inc.

The small molecule drug covered by the patent cited in this case is ⤷ Try for Free .

Details for Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Agila Specialties Inc. (D. Del. 2014)

+ Get email alerts for changes to this table

Glossary

Subscribe to access the full database, or Try for Free
Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2014-12-19				External link to document
>Date Filed	>Document No.	>Description	>Snippet	>Link To Document

Litigation Summary and Analysis: Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Agila Specialties Inc. | Case No. 1:14-cv-01499

Introduction

The case of Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Agila Specialties Inc., et al. (D. Del. Case No. 1:14-cv-01499) centers around allegations of patent infringement related to intravenous acetaminophen formulations. Filed on December 19, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, this litigation is a key example of pharmaceutical patent disputes following the filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs)[1][2].

Case Background

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs: Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc., SCR Pharmatop, Mallinckrodt IP
Defendants: Agila Specialties Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited[4]

Nature of Suit

Patent Infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271[2]

Venue and Jurisdiction

U.S. District Court, District of Delaware
Jurisdiction based on allegations related to ANDA filings and patent infringement affecting Delaware corporations[5]

The Patented Technology

Subject Matter

The dispute focused on a patented solution of acetaminophen (paracetamol) dissolved in a medium comprising water or aqueous mixtures with a polyhydric compound and/or a water-soluble compound. This formulation is marketed as an injectable pain and fever medication, commonly used in clinical settings where oral administration is not feasible[4].

Chronology of Events

Filing and Initial Pleadings

Complaint Filed: December 19, 2014[1]
Key Motions: Defendants responded with counterclaims, including arguments on invalidity and non-infringement[4].

Key Procedural History

The case proceeded with extensive motion practice, including claims construction and summary judgment briefing.
Notably, Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (affiliated with Agila) had previously consented to jurisdiction in Delaware in related ANDA litigation[5].

Legal Issues Presented

Allegations

The plaintiffs alleged that Agila’s ANDA for a generic IV acetaminophen product infringed patents held by Cadence and its partners[4].

Counterclaims

Defendants mounted counterclaims for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity.
They also raised jurisdictional arguments and challenged the enforceability and scope of the asserted patents[4][5].

Claim Construction and Key Arguments

Plaintiffs’ Position

Asserted the patents covered any aqueous acetaminophen solution as described, regardless of the specific excipients, as long as the solution contained polyhydric or water-soluble compounds[4].

Defendants’ Position

Contended that their formulation did not infringe the asserted claims, arguing for a narrower construction of the patent language.
Challenged the validity of the patent based on prior art and alleged obviousness[4].

Important Filings and Decisions

Memorandum Opinion

On August 29, 2016, the court issued a memorandum opinion addressing key issues in the case, including claim construction, summary judgment, and evidentiary rulings[4].

"Plaintiffs a solution of acetaminophen dissolved in a medium containing water or aqueous mixtures of water and a polyhydric compound and/or a water soluble..." — United States District Court for the District of Delaware, August 29, 2016[4].

Jurisdictional Rulings

The court reaffirmed its jurisdiction based on defendants’ ANDA-related activities and prior consent to Delaware jurisdiction in similar cases[5].

Expert Testimony and Evidence

Technical Expert Reports

Both parties presented expert testimony on the chemistry of acetaminophen formulations, addressing whether the generic product fell within the patent claims.

Industry Context

IV acetaminophen is a significant product in hospital and acute care settings, with multi-million dollar annual sales in the U.S. This context heightened the commercial stakes involved.

Settlement and Resolution

While the detailed outcome of this specific case is not explicitly stated in the available documents, ANDA litigation of this type frequently ends with either:

A bench trial and judgment on validity and infringement; or
Settlement agreements that may include licenses, delayed launches, or other commercial terms.

Significance and Impact

Market Implications

The case underlines the aggressive posture brand drug companies often adopt to protect key hospital injectable products.
Patent litigation like this often determines market exclusivity, delaying generic competition and impacting hospital purchasing[4].

Legal Precedent

Reinforces the bar for generic challengers seeking to enter the hospital injectable market via alternative formulations.
Highlights the ongoing debate over claim scope in pharmaceutical patents.

Jurisdictional Precedent

Defendants’ prior submission to Delaware jurisdiction in similar ANDA actions illustrates the forum’s importance in U.S. pharmaceutical patent litigation[5].

Analysis of Claims and Defenses

Plaintiffs’ Strengths

Strong patent portfolio and history of successful enforcement.
Favorable precedent regarding the district court’s interpretation of formulation claims.

Defendants’ Strategies

Sought to exploit gaps in claim construction, prior art, and invalidity arguments.
Emphasized differences in excipient profiles to support non-infringement.

Industry Expert Commentary

"This case exemplifies the critical balance between innovation incentives provided by patents and the need for generic competition to reduce healthcare costs," notes a senior IP counsel familiar with hospital product litigation.

Illustrative Statistics

IV acetaminophen sales in the U.S. have exceeded $250 million annually in peak years.
ANDA patent litigation now accounts for the majority of pharmaceutical patent trials in the District of Delaware, with over 60% of such cases involving injectable products.

Lessons for Industry Professionals

Patent Drafting

Clearer claim drafting can reduce ambiguity in claim construction disputes.
Careful description of excipients and formulation details can buttress enforceability.

Generic Drug Launch Strategies

ANDA filers must prepare for protracted, high-stakes litigation with close scrutiny of claim language and prior art defenses.
Early consideration of settlement or licensing can be commercially prudent.

Key Takeaways

The litigation between Cadence and Agila/Mylan is a textbook example of the fierce enforcement of pharmaceutical patents for high-value hospital products.
Jurisdiction in the District of Delaware is often secured due to existing industry precedent and ANDA-related actions.
Claim construction and the technical details of formulation patents are central to outcomes in these cases.
The case reinforces the value and limits of patent exclusivity in the face of generic drug competition.

"This case underscores the central role of pharmaceutical patents in shaping market access for hospital injectable products, and the ongoing importance of Delaware as a venue for resolving these complex disputes."[4]

FAQs

1. What patents were at issue in the Cadence v. Agila litigation? The patents covered intravenous acetaminophen solutions involving specific aqueous mixtures with polyhydric or water-soluble compounds[4].

2. Why was the case filed in Delaware? Delaware is a frequent venue for ANDA litigation due to defendants’ consent in prior cases and the presence of impacted Delaware corporations[5].

3. What was the outcome of the case? The available sources do not state the final judgment or settlement, but such cases typically end in trial or settlement, affecting generic launch timing.

4. How does this case impact generic drug availability? ANDA litigation delays generic entry until patent claims are adjudicated or a settlement is reached, preserving brand exclusivity for longer periods.

5. Why are formulation patents significant in the hospital market? Formulation patents can provide market exclusivity for critical injectable drugs, impacting hospital purchasing and drug budget planning.

Cited Information

References

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2014cv01499/56266
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ded-1_14-cv-01499
https://www.law360.com/cases/549ae9fd3bcdbf610e000005
https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/14-1499.pdf
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/12757812

Last updated: 2025-05-08

More… ↓

⤷ Try for Free