Jazz Pharmaceuticals vs. Teva: Dismissal in Cannabinoid Epilepsy Patent Litigation

Updated on Dec. 9, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

In a procedural resolution characteristic of complex Hatch-Waxman litigation, one segment of a multi-defendant patent case concluded via stipulated dismissal. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Research UK Limited v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. et al. (2:23-cv-03914), involving U.S. Patent 11,633,369 B2 for cannabinoid epilepsy treatment, was dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Apotex Inc. after 566 days in the New Jersey District Court. This outcome, governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), highlights strategic settlement management in multi-generic pharmaceutical patent infringement battles. For IP litigators, the case illustrates tactical procedural choices in preserving patent enforcement rights while narrowing litigation fronts.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

• Plaintiff – Jazz Pharmaceuticals Research UK Limited: A subsidiary of Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, a biopharmaceutical company with neuroscience assets. The plaintiff holds the patent at issue.
• Defendants – Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. & Multiple Generic Manufacturers: The complaint named Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and numerous other entities including Apotex Inc., Lupin Ltd., Cipla Ltd., and others, indicating concurrent Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) challenges from multiple generic manufacturers.

The Patent at Issue

• U.S. Patent No. 11,633,369 B2 (“the ’369 patent”): Titled “Use of cannabinoids in the treatment of epilepsy.” This patent covers methods of treating epilepsy using purified cannabidiol (CBD). Its claim construction would be pivotal in an ANDA infringement analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). To research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP for similar assets, specialized tools are recommended.

The Accused Products & Commercial Context
The defendants were likely ANDA filers seeking to market generic versions of a cannabinoid-based epilepsy treatment. The commercial stakes of such patent litigation are typically high, involving market exclusivity for the patented therapy.

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jazz was represented by Saul Ewing LLP, with attorneys including William C. Baton and Charles Michael Lizza.
• Defendant’s Counsel (Apotex): The stipulating defendant, Apotex Inc., was represented by Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly Falanga LLP, with attorneys including Liza M. Walsh and Christine Intromasso Gannon.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

• Date Filed: July 21, 2023.
• Venue: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, a common forum for pharmaceutical patent cases.
• Procedural Posture: The docket indicates no substantive pre-trial rulings (e.g., Markman orders) occurred before termination against Apotex.
• Duration: 566 days from filing to closure, consistent with pre-trial settlement timing.
• Date Closed: February 6, 2025.

The Outcome & Legal Analysis

Outcome
The claims against Apotex Inc. were terminated via a Stipulated Dismissal Without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The stipulation dismissed all claims and defenses between Jazz and Apotex, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms. The dismissal did not affect claims against other defendants.

💡 Key Insight: A dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41 preserves the right to re-file if settlement terms are breached, offering a strategic safety net in confidential resolutions.

Termination Cause Analysis

• Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Application: This rule enables termination by joint stipulation without court order, signaling a bilateral agreement. The “without prejudice” term is a standard protective measure in settlement agreements.
• Multi-Defendant Litigation Strategy: This reflects a “staggered settlement” approach common in ANDA litigation. Settling with one generic defendant (Apotex) can reduce complexity and costs for the patent holder while continuing against others.
• Absence of Merits Rulings: The lack of claim construction or summary judgment rulings suggests the resolution was based on business/risk assessment, not judicial determination of patent validity or infringement.

Legal Significance & Strategic Takeaways

• ⚖️ For Patent Holders: FRCP 41(a) provides an efficient, confidential path to narrow multi-defendant cases via individual settlements. Strategic Takeaway: Early settlements can conserve resources for litigating against remaining defendants.
• ⚖️ For Generic Defendants: An early settlement may secure favorable launch timing. For non-settling defendants, a co-defendant’s exit increases cost burden and may alter settlement dynamics. Strategic Takeaway: Anticipate potential peer settlements in shared defense groups.
• 🔬 For R&D and IP Teams: This cannabinoid patent infringement case underscores the importance of method-of-use patents in protecting therapeutic markets. FTO (freedom to operate) analysis must scrutinize such patents to mitigate litigation risk. Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP for comprehensive competitive intelligence.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The resolution reflects standard dynamics in pharmaceutical patent challenges. For the broader industry, such staggered settlements in the District of New Jersey are a routine case management tool. The outcome reinforces that business settlements, rather than judicial merits rulings, often resolve ANDA litigation. Companies in competitive therapeutic areas should model their litigation strategies on this pattern of multi-defendant consolidation and sequential resolution.

Key Takeaways

📊 Critical points from this Jazz Pharmaceuticals Teva patent case analysis:

• Procedural Tool: FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) enables clean, efficient termination of settled claims while preserving enforcement rights.
• Multi-Defendant Strategy: Settlements with individual generic defendants can streamline litigation and create leverage.
• Patent Type Importance: Method-of-use patents remain valuable enforcement assets in pharmaceutical patent litigation.
• Settlement Prevalence: The 566-day duration without merits rulings underscores settlement as a primary dispute resolution mechanism in ANDA cases.
• Monitoring: The ongoing case against remaining defendants may follow similar settlement patterns. Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP to monitor developments.

FAQ

What patent was involved in Jazz Pharmaceuticals v. Teva?
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 11,633,369 B2, directed to the “Use of cannabinoids in the treatment of epilepsy.”

What was the basis for dismissal in this case?
The dismissal as to Apotex Inc. was a stipulated dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), indicating a private settlement agreement.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Case outcomes are fact-specific. Consult qualified legal counsel for advice on any particular matter.

Need strategic analysis of pharmaceutical patent litigation? Our team provides tailored intelligence for IP professionals. Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP for deeper insights into litigation strategy and competitive intelligence.