Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • O
  • Orexo, AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLCOrexo, AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
From our private database of 16,600+ case briefs...

Orexo, AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2018 WL 4288961 (2018)


Facts

Orexo, AB (defendant) owned a patent on Zubsolv, a drug used to treat opioid dependence. The patent was known as the ‘330 Patent. Like prior drugs, the ‘330 patent called for a combination of buprenorphine, naloxone, and citric acid. However, the ‘330 Patent offered a different formulation from prior drugs such as Suboxone. The ‘330 patent used citric-acid particles as a carrier for buprenorphine particles, which other drugs had not done. Clinical trials showed that the ‘330 Patent increased the bioavailability of buprenorphine and thus improved the effectiveness of Zubsolv relative to existing drugs. Orexo also demonstrated that the formula in the ‘330 Patent would deter abuse of Zubsolv. Abuse was a major concern among the producers of similar drugs. Actavis (plaintiff) filed for a generic version of Zubsolv and challenged Orexo’s patent. Actavis argued that the formulation in the ‘330 Patent was obvious because each aspect of the formulation was referenced in prior art. The trial court ruled in favor of Actavis, holding that all the ingredients in the ‘330 Patent were generally known. The court stated that although the specific formulation was not shown or suggested in any reference, Orexo’s combination would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. The trial court also cited the existence of a patent owned by the makers of Suboxone, known as the ‘832 Patent. The ‘832 Patent included using citric acid to increase bioavailability. Additionally, the court cited several other patents that included components of the ‘330 Patent. Orexo countered that there was no other reference of citric acid as a carrier particle. Orexo appealed the case.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 436,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,600 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial