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		Date Filed	2016-10-21
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2020-06-30
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Brian R. Martinotti
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Joseph A. Dickson
Parties	TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD.
Patents	9,211,253; 9,468,747; 9,561,177; 9,629,965; 9,775,838
Attorneys	HECTOR DANIEL RUIZ
Firms	Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
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				External 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…2016 30 June 2020 2:16-cv-07721 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…2016 30 June 2020 2:16-cv-07721 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…2016 30 June 2020 2:16-cv-07721 830 Patent None District Court, D. New Jersey	External link to document
2016-10-21	283	Brief	longer-asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,211,253 (“the 253 patent”).1 For each patent, Nalox-1 filed one petition…Challenged Patent Prior Art Instituted? IPR2019-00685 9,211,253 … 9,211,253 Wang No IPR2019-00687 9,211,253 …administrative patent judges is tasked with reviewing the patentability of a previously issued patent. To request… the four patents-in- suit before this Court (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,468,747 (“the ’747 patent”), 9,561,	External link to document
2016-10-21	342	Order	States Patents held by Plaintiffs: (1) Claims 7 and 9 of United States Patent Number 9,468,747 (the …the “’747 Patent”) (TX-0001) 2; (2) Claim 4 of United States Patent Number 9,561,177 (the “’177 Patent…, 24, and 25 of United States Patent Number 9,629,965 (the “’965 Patent”) (TX-0003); and (4) Claims…, 33, and 38 of United States Patent Number 9,775,838 (the “’838 Patent) (TX-0004). 1 On… ’747 Patent are INVALID; and it is further ORDERED that Claim 4 of the ’177 Patent is INVALID	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS LIMITED v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. | 2:16-cv-07721

Last updated: August 5, 2025

---

Introduction

The litigation between Adapt Pharma Operations Limited and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Case No. 2:16-cv-07721) exemplifies a pivotal legal dispute concerning patent rights within the pharmaceutical industry, particularly concerning naloxone formulations used in opioid overdose treatments. This case underscores the significance of patent protection, infringement implications, and strategic patent litigation in the highly competitive pharmaceutical landscape.

---

Case Background

Adapt Pharma, a pharmaceutical company specializing in opioid overdose rescue therapies, filed patent infringement claims against Teva Pharmaceuticals following Teva's entry into the market with generic versions of Adapt’s Narcan® (naloxone hydrochloride), a leading opioid reversal agent. Adapt held multiple patents, notably U.S. Patent No. 8,658,786, which protected its proprietary naloxone formulation.

Teva sought FDA approval for its generic naloxone product, prompting Adapt to pursue patent enforcement. The legal proceedings aimed to protect Adapt's patented formulations and maintain market exclusivity, critical in the lucrative opioid overdose reversal market.

---

Litigation Proceedings

Initial Complaint and Patent Allegations

Adapt filed suit in the District of New Jersey, asserting that Teva's generic naloxone infringed multiple claims of its patents, especially those covering specific formulations, delivery mechanisms, and dosing protocols. The complaint alleged willful infringement and sought injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Patent Validity and Infringement

A central issue was whether Teva's generic formulation infringed Adapt's patents. Adapt argued that Teva's product fell within the scope of claims covering specific formulation attributes, such as concentration, excipients, and stability features. Teva countered that its product did not infringe and challenged the validity of the patents, asserting that claims were obvious or lacked novelty.

Motion Practice and Patent Challenges

The case involved multiple motions, including Teva's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, asserting patent invalidity and non-infringement. Adapt filed motions to prevent Teva from marketing its product until patent disputes were resolved, emphasizing the importance of maintaining exclusivity given the patent protections.

Settlement and Patent Settlement Agreements

While some cases resolved via settlement, the legal battle underscored the strategic importance patents hold in pharmaceutical competition. Many patent disputes in this sector are settled before trial, often through licensing agreements or patent lapses.

---

Legal Outcomes and Current Status

As of the latest updates, the case remained active with ongoing patent validity questions. Notably, Teva received tentative FDA approval for its generic naloxone but was required to navigate patent litigations, possibly delaying market entry. The courts continued to scrutinize the validity and scope of Adapt’s patents, impacting the broader industry’s perception of patent strength in this segment.

---

Analysis

Patent Strategy and Industry Impact

This case highlights the criticality of robust patent portfolios for pharmaceutical innovators. Adapt's enforcement actions demonstrate a strategic attempt to safeguard market share against generic manufacturers, a common defensive tactic that can influence market dynamics and pricing strategies.

Litigation Risks for Generic Manufacturers

Teva’s challenges illustrate the litigation risks faced by generic firms attempting to enter markets with existing patents. Patent validity disputes can delay generic approval, allowing brand-name companies to maintain exclusivity longer and command higher prices.

Regulatory and Commercial Implications

Regulatory agencies like the FDA play a pivotal role, as tentative approvals often depend on patent litigation outcomes. Courts' decisions concerning patent validity can significantly influence drug pricing, accessibility, and competition policies in public health.

Legal Trends and Broader Industry Significance

This case exemplifies ongoing legal tensions over patent protection for complex formulations, especially for life-saving drugs. It emphasizes the importance of strong patent drafting and strategic litigation to deter generic challenge and preserve revenue streams.

---

Key Takeaways

• Patent Strength Is Paramount: Effective patent protection can serve as a defensive barrier, delaying market entry by generics and maintaining profitability.
• Litigation as a Strategic Tool: Patent infringement lawsuits are often employed as strategic instruments in market control, though they carry risks of invalidity defenses.
• Regulatory and Legal Interplay: The FDA’s approval process intersects with patent litigation, affecting timing, market access, and pricing.
• Innovation and Patent Lifecycles: The case underscores the importance of continuous innovation and precise patent claims to extend exclusivity periods.
• Industry-Wide Implications: The case signals a broader trend of escalating patent disputes in critical drug segments, influencing drug accessibility and healthcare costs.

---

FAQs

1. What are the key patent issues involved in the Adapt v. Teva case?
The primary issues revolve around whether Teva’s generic naloxone infringed Adapt’s patents and whether those patents are valid under current patent law principles, including novelty and non-obviousness.

2. How does patent infringement litigation impact generic drug market entry?
Litigation can delay generic approval and market entry, allowing brand-name companies to extend market exclusivity and maintain higher prices, impacting drug affordability.

3. Can patent invalidity be successfully asserted in such pharmaceutical disputes?
Yes. Patent invalidity defenses often rely on claims of obviousness, lack of novelty, or prior art references, and courts evaluate these during litigation.

4. How do regulatory agencies like the FDA interact with patent disputes?
The FDA’s approval process for generics is influenced by patent status. A patent infringement suit can delay or prevent generic approval, and preliminary approvals often depend on patent litigation outcomes.

5. What lessons can pharmaceutical companies derive regarding patent strategies from this case?
Companies should prioritize comprehensive patent drafting, anticipate challenges, and employ litigation strategically to protect market share in competitive, high-stakes drug markets.

---

References

[1] Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2:16-cv-07721 (D.N.J.).

[2] FDA Tentative Approval for Teva’s Generic Naloxone, FDA Reports, 2017.

[3] U.S. Patent No. 8,658,786.