Litigation Details for Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Docket		Date Filed	2014-04-03
Court	District Court, S.D. New York	Date Terminated	2014-12-23
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	6,488,963; 7,674,799; 7,674,800; 7,683,072; 7,776,314; 8,114,383; 8,337,888
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2014-04-03				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (1:14-cv-02357)

Last updated: August 15, 2025

Introduction

The case of Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (1:14-cv-02357) represents a segment of the broader pharmacological litigation landscape surrounding opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma and generic drug producers like Teva Pharmaceuticals. This case highlights patent disputes concerning the manufacturing, distribution, and patent infringement related to opioid formulations. Analyzing this case offers insights into pharmaceutical patent enforcement, litigating opioid-related intellectual property disputes, and strategic considerations for generic manufacturers.

---

Case Background

Parties Involved

• Plaintiff: Purdue Pharma L.P., the manufacturer of OxyContin, a vital opioid analgesic.
• Defendant: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a leading generic drug producer seeking to market a generic version of Purdue’s controlled-release oxycodone formulations.

Timeline and Context

The litigation commenced after Teva filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Purdue’s extended-release oxycodone formulations. Purdue alleged patent infringement and sought an injunction to prevent Teva from launching the generic drug until the patents expired or were invalidated.

The case is situated within the broader opioid litigation trend, where brand-name manufacturers vigorously defend their patents against generic challengers to protect market share and profits amid increasing scrutiny over opioid prescribing practices.

---

Legal Issues

Patent Validity and Infringement

• Purdue asserted that Teva’s proposed generic infringed multiple patents protecting the formulation, manufacturing process, and extended-release mechanisms.
• Teva countered that Purdue’s patents were invalid due to lack of novelty, obviousness, or improper claiming, and that their ANDA did not infringe the asserted patents.

Futility of Patent Challenges

• Purdue’s patent claims covered specific formulations and sustained-release technologies. The crux of dispute was whether Teva’s generic formulation fell within the scope of these patents.
• The legal challenge involved interpreting the patent claims and assessing whether Teva’s manufacturing process or formulation technology infringed these claims.

Hatch-Waxman Act Implications

• As an ANDA filer, Teva’s application triggered the patent litigation process mandated by the Hatch-Waxman Act, which aims to balance innovation incentives and generic drug access.
• The case examined whether Teva’s paragraph IV certification (asserting that patents are invalid or not infringed) was valid.

---

Court Proceedings and Rulings

Initial Filings and Motions

• The litigation initiated with Purdue filing suit shortly after Teva submitted its ANDA.
• Purdue sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Teva’s product launch pending trial, citing the strength and validity of its patents.

Key Legal Determinations

• The court examined whether Purdue’s patents were valid and enforceable, considering prior art, patent specifications, and claims.
• The court analyzed whether Teva’s generic infringed Purdue’s patents based on detailed claim construction and technical review.

Outcome

• The case, as of the last available update, resulted in a settlement, with Teva agreeing to delay its launch or pay royalties, avoiding a protracted patent fight.
• Alternatively, if litigation had proceeded, the court’s final decision would hinge on the patent validity and infringement findings and could include injunctions or damages.

---

Patent Litigation Strategy Analysis

Brand-Name Defense Tactics

• Purdue employed patent diligence strategies, including multiple patent filings covering different aspects of the formulation, to protect its market.
• The company also relied on patent term extensions and regulatory exclusivities to maximize patent life.

Generic Challenge Strategies

• Teva utilized paragraph IV certifications to challenge patents early, aiming for market entry prior to patent expiration.
• The strategy involved detailed patent invalidity arguments, technical non-infringement claims, and seeking cross-litigation opportunities.

Implications for Market Dynamics

• Patent litigation delays allow brand manufacturers to maintain market dominance.
• Settlements often involve pay-for-delay agreements or patent licensing, impacting drug pricing and availability.

---

Legal and Commercial Significance

Intellectual Property Enforcement

• The case underscores the importance of robust patent portfolios for pharmaceutical innovators.
• It highlights how patent protection can act as a significant barrier to generic entry, affecting drug prices and accessibility.

Regulatory and Litigation Interplay

• It reflects the influence of Hatch-Waxman litigations on drug markets, especially in high-stakes areas like opioids, where patent protection equates to substantial revenue.

Public Policy and Ethical Considerations

• While patent protections incentivize innovation, they can hinder timely generic access, contributing to high costs and limited availability.
• The opioid context intensifies scrutiny, as delays in generic entry prolong high drug prices and affect public health.

---

Future Outlook and Business Implications

The case exemplifies the ongoing tension between patent rights and generic competition. As Purdue faces increasing regulatory and legal pressures tied to its opioid products, securing patent enforcement becomes even more critical. For generics like Teva, strategic patent challenges present an opportunity to expand market share but also entail risk and potential litigation costs.

Bio/pharmaceutical companies should invest in comprehensive patent strategies, including patent term extensions and aggressive patent enforcement, to defend lucrative formulations. Conversely, generic manufacturers must optimize challenge pathways, leverage paragraph IV filings, and prepare for protracted legal battles pushing to accelerate or delay generic entry according to market conditions.

---

Key Takeaways

• Robust Patent Portfolio Essential: Protecting innovative formulations through multiple, well-drafted patents sustains exclusivity periods.
• Timing Is Critical: ANDA filings with paragraph IV certifications can trigger strategic patent litigation, delaying generics.
• Legal Challenges Require Technical Rigor: Patent validity and infringement defenses hinge on detailed legal and technical analyses.
• Settlements Impact Market Dynamics: Confidential or settled disputes can influence drug prices, access, and public perception.
• Regulatory-Patent Nexus: The interplay between FDA approvals and patent litigation significantly shapes market entry strategies.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: How does the Hatch-Waxman Act influence patent litigation for pharmaceuticals?
A1: The Hatch-Waxman Act facilitates generic entry through paragraph IV certifications, prompting patent infringement litigation by brand-name companies and establishing a structured pathway for resolving patent disputes before generic market entry.

Q2: What are common grounds for challenging the validity of pharmaceutical patents?
A2: Patent validity can be challenged based on prior art demonstrating lack of novelty or non-obviousness, improper claim scope, or inadequate disclosure, often underpinning paragraph IV certifications.

Q3: Why do brand-name firms invest heavily in patent portfolios for opioids?
A3: Because patents confer market exclusivity, allowing manufacturers to recoup substantial R&D investments and secure premium pricing—especially critical given the high profitability of formulations like OxyContin.

Q4: What role do patent infringement analyses play in pharmaceutical litigation?
A4: They determine whether a generic product, based on its formulation or manufacturing process, unlawfully approximates patented claims, influencing whether an injunction or damages is awarded.

Q5: How do settlement agreements impact generic drug availability?
A5: Settlements can delay generic entry through licensing or pay-for-delay arrangements, prolonging patent protection but potentially increasing drug costs and delaying access.

---

References

1. [1] U.S. District Court Docket for Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02357.
2. [2] Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 355, 355b.
3. [3] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ANDA process overview.
4. [4] Federal Circuit decisions on patent validity challenges in pharmaceuticals.
5. [5] Industry analysis on opioid litigation and patent enforcement strategies.

---