Skip to content

Teva v. Amneal Oral Arguments and Claim Construction Order: Recent Developments in the Ongoing Debate Over the Orange Book Listing of Device Patents

 | 

As the FTC continues to crack down on pharmaceutical manufacturers’ allegedly improper listing of patents in the FDA Orange Book, counsel for Teva and Amneal presented oral arguments in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 8, 2024, before the panel of Judges Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. The Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court decision that ordered Teva to delist five patents from the Orange Book for Teva’s ProAir® HFA inhaler product.

Teva had sued Amneal, alleging that Amneal’s ANDA infringed five Orange Book-listed patents. Amneal filed counterclaims seeking, among other things, an order that Teva remove five patents from the Orange Book. Supported by an amicus brief filed by the FTC, Amneal prevailed, and Teva appealed.

The Federal Circuit case focuses on whether Teva’s patents, directed to the device aspects of the inhaler combination product, but not expressly reciting the active ingredients, are properly listed in the Orange Book. During oral argument, Teva focused on the Combination Product Statute (21 U.S.C. § 353(g)(1)) and the Orange Book Listing Statute (21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1)(A)(viii)). Teva argued that its combination product should be considered a drug product. In response, Judge Taranto stated that the Combination Product Statute explicitly provides that the FDA can review combination products as if they were drug products, but it does not logically follow that combination products are to be considered drug products for all purposes.

Teva provided a proposed statutory test under which a patent claiming a component of a drug product is listable. Teva argued that in this situation, the medicament is administered via a metered dose inhaler, and because a drug product is defined to include all of its components, all aspects of the metered dose inhaler are components of the drug product and patents directed to such components are listable.

Amneal argued, in turn, that the device patents do not satisfy the Listing Statute’s requirements that (1) the patent be a drug product patent, and (2) the patent claim the drug for which the applicant submitted the application. Amneal argued that the active ingredient (albuterol sulfate) is “the drug,” and that its interpretation is consistent with Congressional intent. Amneal also emphasized that the issue for the court is not whether these device patents can be asserted, but whether they qualify for listing in the Orange Book and, thus, receive the special treatment that Orange Book listed patents receive under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which Amneal characterized as “superpowers.”

Teva’s opening appellate brief emphasized that the district court had not engaged in claim construction but nevertheless concluded that the patents at issue do not claim or even mention the drug active ingredient. On November 4, 2024, just four days before the oral argument, the district court issued a formal claim construction order finding that Teva’s five device patents do not require a drug active ingredient.

Follow Knobbe Medical for additional updates and news on medical devices and related products.

 

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Teva v. Amneal Oral Arguments and Claim Construction Order: Recent Developments in the Ongoing Debate Over the Orange Book Listing of Device Patents Headshot

Joseph Reisman

Joseph M. Reisman is a partner in our San Diego office.

Dr. Reisman's practice involves patent prosecution and strategic counseling, and legal opinion work, chiefly for clients in the pharmaceutical, chemical, and biotechnology industries; this practice allows him to utilize the technical training he received while earning a Ph.D. in Chemistry. He also has broad litigation and appellate experience. His litigation experience is varied, and includes numerous complex patent infringement actions brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act, in which he has represented both defendants and plaintiffs. He has also represented major pharmaceutical companies in complex contractual disputes in, for example, private arbitration and litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery. He has authored numerous appeal briefs, and conducted oral argument on appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Dr. Reisman often represents manufacturers of generic and follow-on products and has been a team leader in successfully earning early market entry of generic equivalents of many well-known products, including Lipitor (atorvastatin) and Valcyte (valganciclovir). Dr. Reisman regularly counsels his clients and provides strategic advice with an eye toward successful patent litigation strategies, including settlement, always keyed to successful business outcomes.

Dr. Reisman also has extensive experience obtaining and enforcing complex patent portfolios, trade secret rights and other forms of intellectual property for his clients. He has extensive experience developing patent portfolios relating to pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty chemical, and water treatment technologies.

During the course of his graduate studies in biochemistry, Dr. Reisman was awarded "La Bourse Chateaubriand" by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the French Embassy to the United States. Under that six-month grant, he continued his doctoral research (at the University of California, San Diego) on the structure and function of certain DNA-binding proteins, while working at the Université de Montpellier in Montpellier, France. After graduating from law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Dr. Reisman served for two years as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Alan D. Lourie, Circuit Judge, at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In every year since 2012, Dr. Reisman has been included on the list of The Best Lawyers in America. His recognition ranges from the field of Patent Prosecution, Patent Advisory, Strategy, and Management, Patent Litigation. Since 2000, he has consistently served as an Adjunct Professor of Patent Law at the University of San Diego, School of Law. He is also an active member of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. He has served, for several years, as a member of the Association’s Board of Directors and its executive leadership team. In 2022-23, he served as the Association’s President, and he currently serves as the Association’s Immediate Past President.

Dr. Reisman joined the firm in 1998, and became a partner in 2002.

View all posts published by Joseph Reisman
Teva v. Amneal Oral Arguments and Claim Construction Order: Recent Developments in the Ongoing Debate Over the Orange Book Listing of Device Patents Headshot

Sophia Zahn

Sophia Zahn is an associate in our San Diego office. Her practice focuses on patent prosecution and portfolio management, due diligence, IP strategy, transactions/agreements, and opinions/counseling. Sophia currently assists clients in various fields of technology including chemical, pharmaceutical, polymer/materials, and medical device fields.

Sophia earned her J.D. from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law where she served as Senior Editor on the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal and competed in the USPTO National Patent Application Drafting Competition. Additionally, Sophia was accepted into the Mann School of Pharmacy where she earned a graduate certificate in Regulatory and Clinical Affairs.

Sophia earned her M.S. in Chemistry from Carnegie Mellon University, where she studied organic and polymer chemistry. Her research focused on synthesizing macrocyclic ligands linked to monomers, polymerizing those monomers, and forming organometallic complexes to obtain polymer-bound catalysts.

Sophia was a Summer Associate with Knobbe Martens in 2022 and joined the firm as an Associate in 2023.

View all posts published by Sophia Zahn
By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.
close modal