Litigation Details for Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC (D. Del. 2021)

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC (D. Del. 2021)

Docket		Date Filed	2021-05-12
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Gregory B. Williams
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To
Parties	AVADEL SPECIALTY PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC
Patents	10,195,168; 10,213,400; 10,272,062; 10,675,258; 10,736,866; 10,864,181; 10,952,986; 10,973,795; 11,253,494; 11,426,373; 11,554,102; 6,045,501; 6,228,398; 6,309,663; 6,315,720; 6,419,960; 6,514,531; 6,755,784; 7,268,156; 7,668,730; 7,765,106; 7,765,107; 7,772,209; 7,895,059; 8,101,209; 8,263,650; 8,324,275; 8,457,988; 8,589,182; 8,591,922; 8,731,963; 8,772,306; 8,901,173; 9,050,302; 9,132,107; 9,486,426
Attorneys	Jack B. Blumenfeld; Rose S. Lee
Firms	DLA Piper LLP (US)
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC (D. Del. 2021)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2021-05-12				External link to document
2021-05-12	1	Complaint	United States Patent Nos. 8,731,963 (the “’963 patent”), 10,758,488 (the “’488 patent”), 10,813,885 … for patent infringement and for a declaratory judgement of patent infringement under the patent laws…PageID #: 2 (the “’956 patent”), and 10,966,931 (the “’931 patent”) owned by Jazz Pharmaceuticals (…’963 patent entitled, “Sensitive Drug Distribution System and Method.” A copy of the ’963 patent is attached…of the ’931 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 27. The claims of the patents-in-suit cover	External link to document
2021-05-12	11	Answer to Complaint	United States Patent Nos. 8,731,963 (the “’963 patent”), 10,758,488 (the “’488 patent”), 10,813,885 (…United States Patent Nos. 8,731,963 (the “’963 patent”), 10,758,488 (the “’488 patent”), 10,813,885 (… for patent infringement and for a declaratory judgement of patent infringement under the patent laws … (the “’885 patent”), 10,959,956 (the “’956 patent”), and 10,966,931 (the “’931 patent”) owned by Jazz… for patent infringement and for a declaratory judgment of patent infringement under the patent laws	External link to document

Last updated: July 11, 2026

ecutive summary
Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC (No. 1:21-cv-00691) is a patent case tied to Jazz’s CNS drug portfolio. The docket identifies Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC as the accused party and places the dispute in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A litigation summary and merits-driven analysis cannot be produced to a complete standard from the information provided.

What happened in Jazz v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC (1:21-cv-00691) litigation?

No case-specific facts can be stated accurately without docket records (complaint claims and asserted patents, answer/counterclaims, claim construction orders, trial dates, and any settlement or dismissal).

Court and procedural posture

• Case number: 1:21-cv-00691
• Parties: Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (plaintiff); Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC (defendant)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (per docket identifier context)

Which patents and claims were asserted in Jazz v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals (21-cv-00691)?

A litigation summary must name the asserted patent(s), their U.S. publication numbers, and the claim categories (composition of matter, formulation, method of use, or manufacturing). Those details are not included in the input, so the asserted-claims profile cannot be produced.

What kind of infringement theory is used (direct, induced, contributory)?

Not determinable from the provided information.

What invalidity defenses were raised (35 USC 102/103/112)?

Not determinable from the provided information.

What did the court decide in Jazz v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals (1:21-cv-00691)?

A decision-and-outcome section requires at minimum: Markman/claim construction rulings, summary judgment, and any motions to dismiss or compel. None of those records are provided, so the court’s holdings cannot be summarized.

Claim construction and key claim terms

Not available from the provided information.

Summary judgment and dispositive motions

Not available from the provided information.

How does the Jazz v. Avadel case affect generic and reformulation entry risk?

A reliable “entry risk” analysis depends on:

• whether Avadel was accused for an ANDA or 505(b)(2) filing,
• the Orange Book-listed patents linked to the asserted drug(s), and
• the case outcome or current status (stay, settlement, or final judgment).

Those inputs are not included, so competitive and regulatory implications cannot be quantified.

Paragraph IV vs. non-Paragraph IV posture

Not determinable from the provided information.

Potential design-around pathways

Not determinable without the asserted claims and the alleged product.

Has Jazz and Avadel settled or dismissed the case (1:21-cv-00691)?

A settlement/dismissal status requires the docket disposition (stipulation of dismissal, consent judgment, or recorded settlement agreement). No such disposition details are provided.

Any injunctions or ongoing obligations

Not available.

What is the Orange Book status of Jazz’s product in this dispute?

An Orange Book mapping requires the listed patents for the relevant Jazz NDA(s), including:

• expiration dates,
• patent types (drug substance, drug product, method of use), and
• any listed exclusivity periods.

Those details are not present in the input, so the Orange Book status cannot be stated.

Key timeline: filings, motions, rulings, and next events

A litigation timeline must include docket dates (complaint filing date, Rule 16 scheduling order, claim construction schedule, expert disclosures, dispositive motion dates, and trial or settlement milestones). Those dates are not provided.

Event	Date	Source
Case filed (complaint)	Not provided	Docket needed
Defendant answer/response	Not provided	Docket needed
Markman/claim construction	Not provided	Docket needed
Summary judgment or other dispositive ruling	Not provided	Docket needed
Settlement/dismissal	Not provided	Docket needed
Current status	Not provided	Docket needed

Litigation risk analysis for investors and licensing teams

A high-quality risk analysis requires: asserted patent strength (remaining life, prosecution history, claim scope), likelihood of invalidity/survival, and whether injunctive relief is obtainable. None of the case merits record is provided, so this cannot be completed.

Patent estate strength (life, breadth, enforceability)

Not determinable from the provided information.

Commercial exposure scenarios

Not determinable from the provided information.

Key takeaways

• Case identification is provided (1:21-cv-00691), but no asserted-patent, outcome, or procedural-record data is included.
• Without docket and merits specifics, a complete litigation summary and actionable analysis cannot be produced.

FAQs

1. What is the asserted patent list in Jazz Pharmaceuticals v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals (1:21-cv-00691)?
2. What claim construction rulings did the court issue in Jazz v. Avadel (1:21-cv-00691)?
3. Did the case reach summary judgment or trial, and what was the disposition?
4. What Orange Book-listed patents are implicated by Jazz’s asserted claims in this matter?
5. Did Avadel enter under an ANDA or 505(b)(2), and was there a Paragraph IV notice?

References (APA)

1. Not provided.