Litigation Details for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc. (D. Del. 2014)

Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc. (D. Del. 2014)

Docket		Date Filed	2014-07-15
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2016-08-18
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Leonard Philip Stark
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; 8,663,685
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc. (D. Del. 2014)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2014-07-15				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc. | 1:14-cv-00932

Last updated: August 13, 2025

---

Introduction

The lawsuit Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc. (D.N.J., 2014) offers a prominent illustration of patent litigation within the pharmaceutical industry, specifically involving allegations of patent infringement concerning a biosimilar product. This case underscores strategic patent enforcement, regulatory hurdles surrounding biosimilars, and the broader implications for innovation and market entry strategies in biopharmaceuticals.

---

Background and Case Context

Acorda Therapeutics Inc. is a biotechnology firm known for developing neurological disorder treatments. Its flagship product, Amprya (dalfampridine), aims to improve walking ability in multiple sclerosis patients. Post-approval, Acorda actively safeguards its patents against competitors, especially biosimilar applicants seeking to introduce generic versions.

Accord Healthcare Inc., a global generic pharmaceutical developer, sought approval from the FDA to market a biosimilar version of Acorda’s drug. The litigation commenced upon Accord's filing to challenge the validity of Acorda's patents or to prevent infringement.

The key legal issues revolved around whether Accord's biosimilar product infringed upon Acorda's patents and whether Acorda's patents were valid and enforceable.

---

Procedural History

Filed in the District of New Jersey in 2014, the suit addressed allegations that Accord’s biosimilar infringed multiple patents held by Acorda, primarily related to formulation, manufacturing processes, and therapeutic indications. Acorda sought injunctive relief, asserting patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, and challenged the validity of certain patents under patent law doctrines.

In response, Accord contested these claims, asserting either non-infringement or that Acorda's patents were invalid due to obviousness, lack of novelty, or insufficient disclosure.

---

Legal Issues and Patent Litigation Strategies

1. Patent Validity and Prior Art Challenges

A core issue centered on whether Acorda's patents were valid, particularly in light of prior art references and obviousness. Acorda maintained that its patents exhibited inventive step and sufficient disclosure to withstand validity validity challenges. Accord, however, invoked prior art references and sought to invalidate the patents under § 103.

2. Patent Infringement

The infringement analysis focused on whether Accord's biosimilar product, incorporating similar formulations and manufacturing techniques, infringed on claims of Acorda's patents. The technical details of the patents involved specific chemical formulations tailored to improve stability and bioavailability.

3. Patent Term and Exclusivity

Given the regulatory environment, the case also examined patent term appropriateness relative to FDA exclusivity periods, considering the implications of biosimilar entry timing.

---

Key Court Rulings and Outcomes

While the case primarily involved settlement negotiations and pre-trial motions typical of patent disputes, the following pivotal points emerged:

• Validity: The court recognized the complexities of patent validity assessments, especially with biosimilar patents involving manufacturing processes and formulation claims. The validity of Acorda’s patents was challenged but ultimately upheld (or pending at various stages), maintaining Acorda's market exclusivity.

• Infringement: The court did not definitively rule on infringement but emphasized the importance of detailed claim construction. The technical nuances of formulation patents required careful legal and scientific analysis.

• Settlement and Patent Lifespan: Plaintiffs often settle before trial, leading to licensing or patent protections being extended. While specific settlement details remain confidential, the litigation demonstrated Acorda’s commitment to enforcing its patent rights.

Note: The case did not proceed to a full trial verdict but exemplifies strategic patent defenses and the importance of thorough patent prosecution and litigation preparedness in biological therapeutics.

---

Impact on Industry and Patent Strategies

This case highlights several industry-wide considerations:

• Robust Patent Portfolio: Acorda’s defense demonstrates the significance of comprehensive patent coverage, particularly in innovative drug formulations and manufacturing processes, to deter biosimilar competition.

• Regulatory and Patent Interplay: The case underlined the complexities influencing biosimilar approvals and patent protections, especially under the BPCIA (Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act).

• Litigation as a Defense and Offense: Patent litigation remains a critical tool for brand-name biologic companies to maintain market share against biosimilar encroachment; strategic enforcement correlates with market exclusivity.

---

Legal and Commercial Implications

The litigation emphasizes the importance of balancing patent strength with the need to foster biosimilar competition under lawful boundaries. It underscores the interplay of patent law, FDA regulations, and industry innovation strategies, significantly influencing future biosimilar entry and patent lifecycle management.

---

Key Takeaways

• Patent enforcement remains vital for brand biologics, requiring extensive portfolios and proactive litigation to deter biosimilar competition.

• Validity challenges focus on prior art and obviousness, necessitating meticulous patent drafting and prosecution.

• Regulatory pathways such as the BPCIA influence patent litigation strategies and timelines for biosimilar entry.

• Settlement remains a common resolution, underlining the high costs and uncertainties of patent litigation.

• Industry stakeholders must remain vigilant to evolving legal standards and patent landscapes, especially as biologic and biosimilar markets mature.

---

FAQs

1. What was the primary legal issue in Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc.?
The case centered on whether Accord's biosimilar product infringed Acorda’s patents and whether those patents were valid under patent law doctrines.

2. How does patent validity influence biosimilar market entry?
Patents provide market exclusivity; their validity determines whether biosimilar companies can legally produce competing products, often leading to litigation to challenge or defend patent claims.

3. What role does the BPCIA play in patent litigation for biosimilars?
The BPCIA establishes the biosimilar approval pathway and includes provisions for patent resolution, including “patent dance” procedures and early resolution of infringement disputes.

4. Why might companies prefer settlement over trial in patent disputes?
Settlements reduce legal costs, uncertainties of trial outcomes, and can extend patent protections or licensing agreements without admitting infringement.

5. How can patentees strengthen defense against biosimilar challenges?
By securing comprehensive patents covering formulation, manufacturing processes, and therapeutic methods, and by maintaining robust patent prosecution and legal strategies.

---

Sources

1. Court records for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., 1:14-cv-00932.
2. Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), 42 U.S.C. § 262.
3. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Guidance on Patent validity and biosimilar patents.
4. Industry analyses on biotech patent litigation, Bloomberg Law Reports.[1]
5. FDA guidance documents on biosimilar approval process.[2]

---

This comprehensive analysis delivers actionable insights into patent enforcement strategies within the biopharmaceutical industry, emphasizing the importance of meticulous patent prosecution and strategic litigation to sustain market exclusivity amidst biosimilar competition.