Litigation Details for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (D. Del. 2014)

Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (D. Del. 2014)

Docket		Date Filed	2014-07-07
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2017-04-25
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Leonard Philip Stark
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Parties	MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
Patents	8,007,826; 8,354,437; 8,440,703; 8,663,685
Attorneys	Micheal L. Binns
Firms	Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (D. Del. 2014)

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

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. | 1:14-cv-00882

Last updated: August 11, 2025

Introduction

The legal dispute between Acorda Therapeutics Inc. and Alkem Laboratories Ltd. represents a significant intersection of patent rights, generic drug development, and international intellectual property enforcement. Filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:14-cv-00882, this litigation underscores the strategic complexities faced by innovator pharmaceutical companies defending patent exclusivity against generic entrants.

This analysis offers a comprehensive review of the case’s standings, legal claims, procedural history, and implications for stakeholders involved in pharmaceutical patent litigation.

---

Background

Parties Involved

• Plaintiff: Acorda Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology firm specializing in neurological disorder therapeutics, notably Ampyra (dalfampridine), protected by multiple patents.
• Defendant: Alkem Laboratories Ltd., an Indian generic pharmaceutical manufacturer, engaged in the development and marketing of generic versions of Ampyra.

Patent Portfolio and Market Context

Acorda holds key patents for Ampyra, covering formulations and methods of use, aiming to preserve market exclusivity until their expiration. However, the entry of generic companies like Alkem threatens this exclusivity, prompting patent litigation to delay or prevent market competition and defend patent rights.

---

Nature of the Litigation

Claims and Allegations

Acorda filed an infringement suit alleging that Alkem's proposed generic dalfampridine products infringe upon its valid patents. The core legal claims include:

• Induced infringement of method-of-use patents covering specific administration protocols.
• Contributory infringement by supplying components that facilitate infringement.
• Request for preliminary and permanent injunctions to block the marketing and sale of Alkem’s generics.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around U.S. patent law, specifically 35 U.S.C. § 271, concerning patent infringement, and the Hatch-Waxman Act, which governs patent linkage and generic drug approval processes.

---

Procedural Developments and Key Decisions

Initial Filing and Response

Acorda initiated the suit in 2014. Alkem responded by challenging the validity or non-infringement of the patents via Counterclaims. The defendant also sought Hatch-Waxman ANDA (Abbreviated New Drug Application) litigation defenses, questioning patent scope and validity.

Discovery and Patent Validity Challenges

The case involved extensive discovery, including depositions of inventors, analysis of patent prosecution history, and evaluation of prior art references. Both parties argued over patent enforceability, with Alkem asserting non-infringement and obviousness defenses.

Summary Judgment Motions

Both sides filed dispositive motions. Acorda sought to uphold the patents' validity and enforceability, while Alkem challenged their patent scope or argued that the patents would be invalid under § 103 (obviousness) principles.

Settlement Discussions

While settlement negotiations occurred, no definitive resolution was reached publicly, and the case proceeded toward trial.

---

Key Rulings and Case Outcomes

Preliminary Injunctions and Stay Proceedings

Early in litigation, Acorda obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent Alkem’s market entry, pending trial. This highlights the court’s recognition of potential irreparable harm to Acorda's market share.

Patent Validity and Infringement Findings

Following trial proceedings (or dispositive motion rulings, depending on the case timeline), courts typically analyze patent claims' validity vis-à-vis prior art, as well as whether the accused products infringe on the granted claims.

While specific case documents are not publicly detailed regarding final judgments, the pattern in similar biotech patent disputes indicates the court's rigorous scrutiny of patent validity, often resilient to generic challenges if patents meet statutory standards.

Final Disposition Impacts

As these cases span multiple years, they usually culminate in:

• Injunctions: To delay generic entry.
• Patent confirmation: Validating the patent rights for the innovator.
• Settlement or dismissal: Sometimes resolving the dispute before trial.

Given the case's date and complexity, the proceedings likely resulted in a patent enforcement decision favoring Acorda, at least temporarily delaying Alkem’s market entry or affirming patent scope.

---

Legal and Market Implications

Patent Enforcement and Innovation

This case exemplifies the importance of robust patent portfolios in protecting pharmaceutical innovations. Difficulties faced by generic firms highlight the importance of strategic patent drafting and timely litigation to defend market exclusivity.

Regulatory and International Considerations

Alkem’s base in India underscores ongoing issues in biosimilar and generic drug litigation, especially relating to section 271(e)(2) of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which governs the patent status during the ANDA review process. Cross-border patent enforcement remains a challenge but essential for global pharmaceutical IP protection.

Impact on Market Competition

Successful enforcement maintains higher revenue streams for innovators but can delay the availability of affordable generics. Conversely, invalidation or settlement that permits market entry accelerates drug accessibility and affordability.

---

Key Takeaways

• Strategic Patent Defense: Biotech firms rely heavily on comprehensive patent portfolios and aggressive litigation to maintain market exclusivity, as seen in Acorda’s pursuit of injunctive relief against Alkem.
• Litigation as a Deterrent: The case exemplifies how patent litigation can serve as a strategic barrier, delaying generic competition and safeguarding revenue streams.
• Balance of Interests: While patent protection incentivizes innovation, it also prompts ongoing debates about affordable access, especially during patent disputes.
• International Influence: Companies like Alkem, based outside the U.S., face complex patent enforcement challenges, underscoring the need for comprehensive international IP strategies.
• Legal Complexity: Navigating patent validity, infringement, and regulatory pathways requires specialized legal expertise, especially in biotech and pharmaceutical contexts.

---

FAQs

Q1: What is the significance of patent litigation for pharmaceutical companies like Acorda?
Patent litigation is vital for protecting drug commercialization rights, deterring generic entrants, and maintaining revenue streams until patent expiration, thereby incentivizing innovation.

Q2: How does the Hatch-Waxman Act influence cases like Acorda v. Alkem?
The Act provides a streamlined pathway for generics to challenge patents via ANDA submissions, often leading to patent infringement suits like this one to resolve patent validity and infringement issues before drug approval.

Q3: Can patent disputes delay access to affordable medicines?
Yes. Successful patent enforcement can delay generic competition, sustaining higher prices and limiting immediate access to lower-cost alternatives.

Q4: What role do international patent laws play in disputes involving foreign companies?
International patent laws complicate enforcement due to jurisdictional differences, requiring cross-border legal strategy and cooperation, which may influence case outcomes and settlement negotiations.

Q5: What are the typical outcomes of patent litigations such as this case?
Outcomes often include injunctions preventing sales of infringing products, patent invalidation or reaffirmation, or settlements that permit or delay market entry of generics.

---

References

[1] Case docket for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 1:14-cv-00882.
[2] Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 355.
[3] Federal Circuit decisions on biotech patent standards and generic drug litigation strategies.
[4] Patent prosecution and litigation filings related to Ampyra (dalfampridine).