Case Summary
**Case Summary: Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Docket No. 7082641)**
**Court:** United States District Court for the District of Delaware
**Date:** [Insert Date of Filing]
**Docket Number:** 7082641
**Overview:**
This case involves a patent dispute between Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. and Roxane Laboratories, Inc. The primary issue at hand is the alleged infringement of Acorda's patents related to a pharmaceutical product that is indicated for the treatment of neurological conditions, specifically targeting patients with multiple sclerosis.
**Parties Involved:**
- **Plaintiff:** Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.
Acorda is a biopharmaceutical company that specializes in the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for neurological diseases.
- **Defendant:** Roxane Laboratories, Inc.
Roxane is a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer that is seeking to enter the market with its version of Acorda’s patented drug.
**Key Facts:**
- Acorda holds patents covering the formulation and use of a specific active ingredient that addresses the symptoms of neurological disorders.
- Roxane filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA, seeking approval to market a generic version of Acorda's product before the expiration of Acorda’s patents.
- Acorda alleges that Roxane’s ANDA infringes on its patents by including formulations and uses that fall under Acorda's proprietary claims.
**Legal Issues:**
- The primary legal issue focuses on whether Roxane's submission of its ANDA constitutes patent infringement under U.S. patent laws.
- Additional considerations include the validity of Acorda's patents and whether Roxane can successfully argue that the patents are invalid or unenforceable.
**Relief Sought:**
Acorda seeks:
- A declaration that Roxane’s ANDA infringes its patents.
- An injunction to prevent Roxane from launching its generic product until after the expiration of Acorda's patents.
- Monetary damages for any infringement that may have occurred.
**Current Status:**
[Insert current status, such as whether the case is still pending, if a resolution has been reached, or if there have been any notable rulings.]
**Significance:**
This case highlights the ongoing tensions between brand name pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers, particularly in the context of neurological therapies. The outcome could have significant implications for market access of generic drugs and the protection of intellectual property in the pharmaceutical industry.
**Note:** For complete case details, including developments and outcomes, consult official court documents or public legal databases.