Introduction
The litigation between Purdue Pharma L.P. and Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC is a significant case in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly involving the brand-name drug OxyContin. This dispute revolves around patent infringement claims related to the reformulated version of OxyContin, designed to deter abuse.
Background of OxyContin and the Reformulation
OxyContin, a controlled-release formulation of oxycodone, was initially introduced by Purdue Pharma. However, the original formulation was prone to abuse, as users could crush the tablets, dissolve them, and inject the solution directly into their bloodstreams. To address this issue, Purdue Pharma reformulated OxyContin to include a gelling agent that forms a thick gel when dissolved in a liquid, making it difficult to inject[1].
The Litigation
Purdue Pharma filed a lawsuit against Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, among other generic manufacturers, after they submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) to the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of the reformulated OxyContin.
District Court Proceedings
In the Southern District of New York, a five-day bench trial was held in July 2014 to address Purdue's allegations of infringement against Amneal. The court found that Amneal's ANDA product infringed claims 5, 7, 23, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,337,888 ('888 patent). However, the court also determined that these claims were invalid as obvious and that claim 7 was additionally invalid as indefinite[1].
Claim Construction and Validity
A key aspect of the litigation involved claim construction issues. The parties disagreed on the method to assess the viscosity limitation in the asserted claims and the substance required to impart viscosity. The court ruled that the gelling agent, which could include polyethylene oxide (PEO) along with other substances, was responsible for the viscosity, not just PEO alone[1].
The court also addressed Amneal's arguments that prior patents and applications anticipated the '888 patent. It rejected these arguments, finding that the prior references did not disclose the specific dosage range or the 12-hour therapeutic effect claimed in the '888 patent[1].
Obviousness Determination
Despite finding infringement, the court ruled that the asserted claims were obvious. The court noted that the OxyContin abuse crisis was widely known, and methods to prevent dissolution and extraction of oxycodone were well-known in the prior art. The use of PEO as both a gelling agent and a controlled-release agent was also common knowledge. The court concluded that it would have required minimal effort for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to determine the viscosity at which syringing and injection would become unreasonably difficult[1].
Federal Circuit Appeal
Purdue Pharma and its co-plaintiff Grunenthal GmbH appealed the district court's invalidity determinations to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, rejecting Purdue's arguments that the discovery of the source of a toxic impurity supported patentability. The court also affirmed the dismissal of actions against other generic manufacturers (Amneal, Epic, and Mylan) based on collateral estoppel, as Purdue did not present persuasive reasons why the Teva invalidity ruling should not apply to the other cases[3].
Delaware District Court Proceedings
In a separate case filed in the District of Delaware (1:17-cv-00210), Purdue Pharma again alleged infringement by Amneal Pharmaceuticals. This case was presided over by Judge Richard G. Andrews and involved similar issues related to the reformulated OxyContin. The case was closed in August 2018, with the court's decisions aligning with the earlier rulings on the invalidity of the patents in question[2][4].
Key Takeaways
- Patent Invalidity: The court and the Federal Circuit consistently found that the patents related to the reformulated OxyContin were invalid due to obviousness.
- Claim Construction: The litigation highlighted the importance of claim construction, particularly in determining the method and substance for assessing viscosity limitations.
- Prior Art: The court's decisions emphasized that prior art and common knowledge in the field can significantly impact the validity of patent claims.
- Collateral Estoppel: The Federal Circuit's affirmation of the district court's dismissal orders based on collateral estoppel underscores the importance of consistency in patent litigation across different defendants.
FAQs
-
What was the main issue in the litigation between Purdue Pharma and Amneal Pharmaceuticals?
- The main issue was whether Amneal's generic version of OxyContin infringed Purdue Pharma's patents related to the reformulated, abuse-deterrent version of OxyContin.
-
Why were the patents related to the reformulated OxyContin found invalid?
- The patents were found invalid because the court determined that the claimed inventions were obvious, given the prior art and common knowledge in the field.
-
What role did claim construction play in the litigation?
- Claim construction was crucial in determining the method and substance for assessing viscosity limitations, which directly impacted the infringement and validity analyses.
-
How did the Federal Circuit's decision affect other generic manufacturers?
- The Federal Circuit's decision to affirm the district court's invalidity determinations and dismissals based on collateral estoppel affected other generic manufacturers, as it applied the same invalidity ruling to their cases.
-
What was the outcome of the Delaware District Court case?
- The Delaware District Court case was closed with decisions that aligned with the earlier rulings, finding the patents invalid and dismissing the actions against Amneal and other generic manufacturers.
Citations
- Robins Kaplan LLP - Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC
- RPX Corporation - Purdue Pharma LP et al v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC DC
- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP - Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Purdue Pharma's OxyContin Patents
- PacerMonitor - Purdue Pharma LP et al v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC
- Casetext - Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC
