Litigation

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.

settled

2:15-cv-01360

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Filed: 2015-02-20

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (1)

Δ Roxane Laboratories, Inc.

Summary

The '306 patent was asserted; Roxane moved to dismiss the '306 claims on §101 subject-matter eligibility, which the court administratively terminated and stayed discovery on pending IPR. The case was consolidated with Roxane's '302 case on Mar 24, 2016 and settled in April 2017.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 8772306-2-15-cv-01360 · edit in Admin

Further reading

District court vs. PTAB: where to fight a patent challenge
Every defendant who actually fights a patent ends up choosing — sometimes implicitly — between district court invalidity, PTAB IPR, or both in parallel. The trade-offs are not symmetric; the choice often determines the case.
Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014)
Octane Fitness rejected the rigid Brooks Furniture test and restored district-court discretion over fee awards. Together with its companion Highmark, it gave defendants the most realistic post-trial recovery path the modern patent system has produced.
Patent term and expiration
Patents don't last forever. They don't even reliably last 20 years. The expiration date that actually matters depends on the earliest filing date, the maintenance schedule, and any USPTO or FDA delays the patent owner can claim back.
Obviousness under § 103
Most patented inventions are combinations of existing ideas. The modern KSR standard makes those combinations easier to attack than they used to be.
How to read a patent claim chart
The claim chart is where the plaintiff's case actually lives. The complaint is a pitch deck; the chart is the homework — and most patent troll homework doesn't survive a careful read.

All resources →