United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1186

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:21-cv-00691-GBW, Judge 

Gregory Brian Williams.

______________________ 

Decided: February 24, 2023

______________________ 

STEVEN J. HOROWITZ, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

GABRIEL P. BRIER, FRANK CHARLES CALVOSA, FRANCIS 

DOMINIC CERRITO, ELLYDE R. THOMPSON, Quinn Emanuel 

Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY. 

 GABRIEL K. BELL, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by CHARLES S. DAMERON, SARAH ELIZABETH PROPST, AUDRA 

SAWYER; KENNETH G. SCHULER, MARC NATHAN ZUBICK, 

Chicago, IL; KIRA ALEXIS DAVIS, KATHERINE MCNUTT, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA; DARALYN JEANNINE 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

 AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC. 

2

DURIE, REBECCA EMILY WEIRES, San Francisco, CA; DANIEL 

M. SILVER, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE. 

 DAVID BOOKBINDER, Niskanen Center, Inc., Washington, DC, for amici curiae Elianan Bookbinder, Robin Feldman, Brian Mahn, Niskanen Center, Public Interest 

Patent Law Institute. 

 ______________________ 

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Jazz”) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of 

Delaware granting a motion for an injunction brought by 

Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Avadel”). See Jazz 

Pharms., Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharms., LLC, No. 21-cv00691, 2022 WL 17084371 (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2022) (“Decision”). The injunction directed Jazz to take measures to 

delist U.S. Patent 8,731,963 (“the ’963 patent”) from the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“the FDA’s”) Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations publication, more colloquially known as the

“Orange Book.” For the following reasons, we lift our stay 

of the injunction and affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Jazz holds an approved New Drug Application (“NDA”) 

for the narcolepsy drug Xyrem®. J.A. 1445. Xyrem’s active 

ingredient is sodium gamma-hydroxybutyrate (“GHB”), 

which is also known as sodium oxybate. Id. GHB exerts a 

heavily sedating effect, which is theorized to grant deepened nighttime sleep, resulting in improved daytime wakefulness. GHB is prone to heavy misuse and is infamously 

known as a date-rape drug. Given that misuse, the FDA 

conditioned approval of Jazz’s NDA upon development of 

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”), 

which include protocols that must be followed prior to 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC.

3

prescribing or dispensing Xyrem. Id. Xyrem’s REMS originally restricted distribution to a single-pharmacy system, 

although the FDA waived that requirement in 2017. J.A. 

5660.

The ’963 patent relates to Jazz’s single-pharmacy distribution system, which controls access to abuse-prone prescription drugs prescribed to narcolepsy patients through 

a central pharmacy and computer database by tracking 

prescriptions, patients, and prescribers. Representative 

claims 1 and 6 are presented below:

1. A computer-implemented system for 

treatment of a narcoleptic patient with a prescription drug that has a potential for misuse, 

abuse or diversion, comprising:

one or more computer memories for storing a single computer database having a 

database schema that contains and interrelates prescription fields, patient fields, 

and prescriber fields;

said prescription fields, contained within 

the database schema, storing prescriptions for the prescription drug with the potential for abuse, misuse or diversion, 

wherein the prescription drug is sold or 

distributed by a company that obtained 

approval for distribution of the prescription drug;

said patient fields, contained within the 

database schema, storing information sufficient to identify the narcoleptic patient 

for whom the company’s prescription drug 

is prescribed;

said prescriber fields, contained within the 

database schema, storing information sufficient to identify a physician or other prescriber of the company’s prescription drug 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 3 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

 AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC. 

4

and information to show that the physician or other prescriber is authorized to 

prescribe the company’s prescription drug;

a data processor configured to:

process a database query that operates 

over all data related to the prescription 

fields, prescriber fields, and patient 

fields for the prescription drug; and

reconcile inventory of the prescription 

drug before the shipments for a day or 

other time period are sent by using said 

database query to identify information 

in the prescription fields and patient 

fields;

wherein the data processor is configured to process a second database 

query that identifies that the narcoleptic patient is a cash payer and a physician that is interrelated with the 

narcoleptic patient through the schema 

of the single computer database;

said identifying that the narcoleptic patient is a cash payer by said second database query being an indicator of a 

potential misuse, abuse or diversion by 

the narcoleptic patient and being used 

to notify the physician that is interrelated with the narcoleptic patient 

through the schema of the single computer database.

’963 patent at col. 8 l. 39–col. 9 l.13 (emphasis added). 

6. The system of claim 1 wherein the prescription drug comprises gamma hydroxyl butyrate (GHB).

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 4 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC.

5

Id. col. 9 ll. 27–28. 

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act (“the Act”), when a drug 

developer files an NDA, information on each patent “for 

which a claim of patent infringement could reasonably be 

asserted” must be submitted to the FDA if the patent 

claims either (i) the drug submitted for approval, or a formulation or composition thereof, or (ii) “a method of using 

such drug for which approval is sought or has been granted 

in the application.” 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1)(A)(viii). For “patents that claim a method of use, the applicant must submit information only on those patents that claim 

indications or other conditions of use for which approval is 

sought or has been granted in the NDA.” 21 C.F.R. 

§ 314.53(b)(1). The FDA publishes that information in the 

Orange Book, arming the patent owner with the ability to 

trigger a presumptive, thirty-month suspension of the 

FDA’s approval of a competitive product. 

In 2014, Jazz listed the ’963 patent in the Orange Book 

as covering a method of using Xyrem. In 2017, three of the 

’963 patent’s 28 claims were found unpatentable in an inter 

partes review proceeding. See Amneal Pharms. LLC v. 

Jazz Pharms., Inc., No. IPR2015-01903, 2017 WL 1096638 

(P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017). The remaining claims expired in 

December 2022. Because Jazz received a grant of pediatric 

exclusivity, however, the ’963 patent prevents the FDA 

from approving follow-on products until June 2023. Decision at *1; J.A. 6350.

The Orange Book was intended to meet the conflicting 

goals of generic applicants who wish to market approved 

products via an abbreviated approval pathway and holders 

of NDAs who own patents claiming approved products and 

their uses. See H.R. Rep. No. 98-857, pt. 1, at 14−15, 27−28, 

32−33 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2647−48, 

2660−61, 2665−66, 1984 WL 37416 (Leg. Hist.); see also 

21 U.S.C. § 355(j) (describing Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”)); id. § 355(b)(2) (describing 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 5 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

 AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC. 

6

§ 505(b)(2)1 NDAs, which differ from stand-alone NDAs in 

that at least some of the information required for approval 

comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant or 

for which the applicant has a right of reference or use). Under the Act, a § 505(b)(2) applicant must file a certification 

with respect to each patent listed in the Orange Book that 

claims the drug or method of using the drug for which the 

applicant seeks approval. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(2)(A). 

In December 2020, Avadel submitted an NDA for GHBbased drug FT218, along with amendments pursuant to 

§ 505(b)(2) and a proposed REMS. Unlike Xyrem, which 

requires the patient to wake up a few hours into the night 

to ingest a second dose, FT218 is dosed once nightly. Decision at *1. FT218’s REMS also uses multiple pharmacies 

and databases for ensuring proper drug handling. Despite 

these differences, and the fact that Avadel had filed an 

NDA, not an ANDA, the FDA required Avadel to file a certification regarding the ’963 patent’s single-pharmacy system. Jazz subsequently sued Avadel for infringement of 

the ’963 patent. Avadel contemporaneously sued the FDA, 

alleging that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act 

(“APA”) by requiring certification over the ’963 patent. Notably, the FDA does not verify that submitted patents actually meet statutory listing criteria, nor does the FDA 

proactively remove improperly listed patents. See Apotex, 

Inc. v. Thompson, 347 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 

1 This number refers to the original section number 

from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 

Pub. L. No. 75-717 (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. § 301 

et seq.) (“FDCA”), which has been superseded by 21 U.S.C. 

§ 355(b)(2). The industry continues to refer to this type of 

abbreviated application using the original FDCA section 

number. We will also. 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 6 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC.

7

(“[T]he FDA’s . . . duties with respect to Orange Book listings are purely ministerial.”). 

Another remedy for an improper listing is for an accused infringer to counterclaim when it is sued, seeking an 

order requiring the patent owner to correct or delete a listing under 21 U.S.C. § 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) for NDA filers and 

under § 355(j)(5)(C)(ii)(I) for ANDA filers. Avadel’s suit 

against the FDA was accordingly dismissed after the district court identified that § 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) provided 

Avadel with a separately available and adequate remedy 

for its alleged harms. See Avadel CNS Pharms., LLC v. 

Becerra, No. 1:22-cv-02159, 2022 WL 16650467, at *6−9 

(D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2022).

Avadel thus responded to Jazz’s infringement assertions with a counterclaim seeking delisting of the ’963 patent for failure to claim a drug or method of use. In 

evaluating the counterclaim, the district court found that, 

as a matter of claim construction, the ’963 patent claims a 

system and thus does not claim an approved method of use. 

The district court subsequently ordered Jazz to ask the 

FDA to delist the ’963 patent. Jazz filed a notice of appeal 

and moved the district court and this court to stay the injunction pending appeal. On November 29, 2022, we issued 

a temporary stay pending resolution of the concurrent district court motion. After the district court denied Jazz’s 

stay motion on December 5, 2022, we extended the stay until the issues on appeal could be evaluated by this court on 

the merits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(c)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review a district court’s grant of a permanent injunction for abuse of discretion. Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharm. Lab’ys, Ltd., 688 F.3d 766, 767 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

An abuse of discretion may be established by showing that 

the court either made a clear error of judgment in weighing 

relevant factors, or exercised its discretion based on an 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 7 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

 AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC. 

8

error of law or on findings that were clearly erroneous. Joy 

Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Jazz contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the ’963 patent is not a method-of-use 

patent for listing and delisting purposes under the FDCA. 

It further contends that, even if the ’963 patent was not a 

method-of-use patent, the court abused its discretion in determining that § 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) provides a delisting 

remedy. We address each argument in turn.

I.

First, we consider whether the district court erred in 

determining that the ’963 patent is not a method-of-use patent under the FDCA. Jazz asserts that this inquiry involves asking two questions: (1) what does the patent 

claim, and (2) is the patented invention either “the drug for 

which the application was approved” or “an approved 

method of using the drug”? We address each question in 

turn. 

A.

We first address whether the district court erred in determining what the ’963 patent claims in the context of a 

listing/delisting inquiry. Jazz contends that patent law 

does not provide the correct framework for determining 

whether a patent should be listed in the Orange Book. Appellant’s Br. at 27 (“[T]he disputed phrase in the FDCA is 

not directed to a patent-law question at all[.]”); id. at 29 

(“[T]he Orange Book listing rules codified in the FDCA 

have nothing to do with . . . patent-law problems.”).

The listing requirements set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 355(b) 

concern whether, inter alia, a patent “claims a method of 

using [the] drug for which approval is sought or has been 

granted in the application.” Similarly, the listing requirements set forth in 21 C.F.R. § 314.53(b)(1) concern patents 

that “claim[] the drug or a method of using the drug,” setting forth additional requirements “[f]or patents that claim 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC.

9

a method of use” and for when “the method(s) of use 

claimed by the patent do[] not cover an indication or other 

approved condition of use in its entirety.” An inquiry into 

whether a patent may be properly listed or delisted from 

the Orange Book therefore clearly requires a determination of what that patent claims. 

Jazz has acknowledged that analyzing a patent in that

context involves asking the question, “what does the patent 

claim,” and that the answer should be derived using the 

tools and framework of patent law, including claim construction. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 4. It therefore seems 

undisputed that these statutes and regulations involve determining what a patent claims and that this determination raises issues of patent law. Apotex, 347 F.3d at 1344; 

Caraco Pharm. Lab’ys, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 566 U.S. 

399, 405 (2012). 

Jazz further asserts that “what the ’963 patent claims 

turns out to be largely uncontroversial,” describing the 

claims as reciting “elements of a REMS-based procedure to 

ensure that Xyrem® can be safely prescribed by doctors and 

safely used by patients. Avadel does not appear to disagree.” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 5; see also Appellant’s Br. 

at 6 (“The ’963 patent, properly construed, claims a 

method.”); id. at 26 (“In short, the patent claims a 

method.”); id. at 55−58. Avadel, of course, does disagree. 

Appellee’s Br. at 52−55. We do also. 

Claim construction is a question of law that we review 

de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 

1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ 

of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention[,] which the patentee is entitled . . . to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see 

also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 

1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[W]e look to the words of the claims 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

 AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC. 

10

themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.”). 

The district court determined that the ’963 patent 

claims recite systems, not methods. Decision at *2−3. Jazz 

contends that the word “system” as it appears in the ’963 

patent claims is, essentially, a synonym for “method.” Appellant’s Br. at 56−58. But method claims require the performance of steps; claims that describe physical 

components of a whole are system, or apparatus, claims. 

See Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 

1204 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1332 

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (noting the “distinction between a claim to 

a product, device, or apparatus, all of which are tangible 

items, and a claim to a process, which consists of a series 

of acts or steps”). 

Each of the ’963 patent’s three independent claims describes a “computer-implemented system” that comprises 

“one or more computer memories” and a “data processor.” 

’963 patent at col. 8 l. 39−col. 9 at l. 13 (independent claim 

1); id. col. 10 l. 27−col. 11. l. 6 (independent claim 23); id.

col. 11 l. 7−col. 12 l. 10 (independent claim 24). As the district court correctly analyzed in its Markman Order, these 

claims recite “an assemblage of components,” defining a 

system. J.A. 5723. Jazz has not identified any description 

in the patent specification or prosecution history to alter 

that conclusion. The claims to a system comprising computer memories and a data processor are not claims to a 

method. 

That the claimed systems can be used in the course of 

treating patients suffering from narcolepsy does not alter 

the fact that these are system claims. See MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1315−16 (Fed. 

Cir. 2017) (finding that the inclusion of active verbs and 

other functional language describing the capabilities of a 

claimed system does not transform a system claim into a 

method claim); see also HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 10 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC.

11

667 F.3d 1270, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We therefore find 

that the claims of the ’963 patent were properly construed 

by the district court as system claims, not method claims. 

B.

We next turn to whether the system claimed in the ’963 

patent is “an approved method of using the drug” under 

21 U.S.C. § 355(c)(2) and § 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I). 

According to Jazz, FDA regulation 21 C.F.R. 

§ 314.53(b)(1), which describes listing patents that “claim 

conditions of use,” informs the analysis of whether a patent 

claims “an approved method of using the drug” under 

§ 355. Jazz contends that this regulation yields a broader 

definition of “method” than permitted by the language of 

patent law and that this broader definition encompasses 

the claims of the ’963 patent. More specifically, it contends 

that Xyrem prescribers were bound to follow the approved 

REMS; that is, the use of Xyrem, including using it to treat 

patients with narcolepsy, was conditioned on following the 

REMS. Because Xyrem’s approved REMS involved the single pharmacy system that is described in the ’963 patent, 

the ’963 patent describes a listable condition of use for 

which approval had been granted in the NDA. Jazz thus 

contends that the district court erred by ending its analysis 

after construing the ’963 patent claims as system claims, 

rather than further inquiring into whether § 314.53(b)(1) 

nevertheless allows these system claims to be listed as 

method-of-use claims. 

Avadel responds in part by asserting that Jazz forfeited 

this argument. We need not address forfeiture because we 

conclude that, regardless of forfeiture, Jazz misreads the 

regulation describing method-of-use patents. Section 

314.53 does not broaden the term “method” such that reciting a condition of use turns a system patent into a listable

method-of-use patent. Rather, this regulation narrows 

that category of listable patents to those that (1) claim 

methods of use, wherein (2) those methods of use are 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 11 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

 AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC. 

12

directly relevant to the NDA in question. See 21 C.F.R. 

§ 314.53(b)(1) (“For patents that claim a method of use, the 

applicant must submit information only on those patents 

that claim indications or other conditions of use for which 

approval is sought or has been granted in the NDA.”). The 

fact that the ’963 patent claims recite a system that was, 

at least prior to 2017, implicated in a condition of using 

Xyrem, does not disturb the determination that the claims 

do not recite a listable method of use, which makes this 

regulatory provision inapplicable. 

Jazz also points to subsections of 21 U.S.C. § 355 that 

use the phrase “conditions of use,” in an attempt to establish that this term is inclusive of all patents claiming elements of an approved REMS. Appellant’s Br. at 34−36. We 

are not persuaded. The subsections to which Jazz points 

(e.g., § 355(d)(5), 355(e)(5), and 355(j)(2)) describe conditions of use evaluated for efficacy, implicating “relevant science,” “clinical investigations,” as well as “establishing 

effectiveness” and determining whether a “new drug can be 

expected to have the same therapeutic effect as the listed 

drug when administered” according to the approved “conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the 

labeling.” The scope of “conditions of use” in those provisions, however, does not expand the meaning of “method of 

using the drug” in the statutory provision at issue here, 

which must take its meaning from the patent laws. 

Jazz asserts that, to the extent these listing statutes 

are ambiguous, deference should be given to the FDA’s interpretation reflected in regulation § 314.53 under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc., 

467 U.S. 837 (1984). As explained above, we do not find

§ 314.53 to be an interpretation of the distinct statutory 

delisting provision at issue here, which we think must be 

interpreted to borrow the patent-law meaning of “method” 

in its reference to claiming methods of using a drug. Moreover, even if we thought the delisting language ambiguous 

as to that question, which we do not, Chevron deference 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 12 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC.

13

cannot be given here because the FDA has not definitively 

answered the question whether REMS patents more 

broadly should or can be listed in the Orange Book. Although the FDA has opened several notice-and-comment inquiries into whether REMS patents belong in the Orange 

Book, it has never proclaimed an official agency stance on 

that issue, instead proclaiming that “its duties with respect 

to Orange Book listings are purely ministerial.” Apotex, 

347 F.3d at 1347; see also J.A. 3986 n.34 (“Consistent with 

its ministerial role, FDA has not evaluated what the ’963 

patent actually covers or whether the [method] use code 

published in the Orange Book accurately reflects what is 

covered by the ’963 patent.”). 

Avadel also highlights that the FDA only requires listing patents “for which a claim of patent infringement could 

reasonably be asserted,” and that Congress explicitly prohibited companies from using REMS requirements to 

“block or delay” ANDA and § 505(b)(2) approvals. 

21 U.S.C. § 355-1(f)(8). Although § 355-1(f)(8) does not expressly provide that a REMS patent may not be asserted 

against potential infringers, Avadel suggests that listing a 

REMS patent would allow a patent owner to “block or delay” ANDA and § 505(b)(2) filers in violation of that statute. Appellee’s Br. at 46; see also Appellant’s Br. at 10 

(recognizing that “submission of an application under Section 505(b)(2) for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of 

which is claimed in a patent listed in the Orange Book is a 

statutory act of infringement”). Because we find that the 

district court did not err in concluding that the ’963 patent

must be delisted, we need not address Avadel’s broader arguments about REMS patents, more generally. 

II.

We finally consider Jazz’s argument that 21 U.S.C. 

§ 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) is not available to provide Avadel with 

a delisting remedy for the ’963 patent. 

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 13 Filed: 02/24/2023
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.

 AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC. 

14

Jazz asserts that, in 2014, the regulatory framework 

permitted Jazz to list the ’963 patent, which, it says, at a 

minimum fell into a category of patents neither required 

nor forbidden to be listed. According to Jazz, because it 

was permissive to list the ’963 patent in 2014, 

§ 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) does not provide Avadel with the power 

to request an order to delist it now. We disagree.

As the district court correctly analyzed, the delisting 

statute does not require us to consider whether the patent 

holder violated the law by listing the patent in the first instance. It simply provides that those accused of infringing 

a listed patent may request an order requiring the patent 

holder to correct or delete listings for patents that do not 

claim the drug or a method of using the drug. As the ’963 

patent claims neither and has been asserted in a patent 

infringement action against Avadel, § 355(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) 

provides Avadel with a delisting remedy. The district court 

therefore correctly ordered Jazz to seek delisting of the ’963 

patent from the Orange Book.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Jazz’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm and lift our stay of the injunction requiring Jazz to ask 

the FDA to delist the ’963 patent. As the original date to 

comply with the injunction has expired, we modify the injunction insofar as restarting the 14-day period for compliance prescribed by 21 C.F.R. § 314.53(f)(2)(i) to be within 

14 days of this decision.

AFFIRMED

Case: 23-1186 Document: 59 Page: 14 Filed: 02/24/2023