Litigation Details for ACROTECH BIOPHARMA LLC v. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD (D.N.J. 2020)

ACROTECH BIOPHARMA LLC v. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD (D.N.J. 2020)

Docket	2:20-cv-19295	Date Filed	2020-12-15
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated
Cause	15:1126 Patent Infringement	Assigned To
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Parties	ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD
Patents	10,864,183; 8,410,077; 9,200,088; 9,493,582
Attorneys	REBEKAH R. CONROY
Firms	Stone Conroy LLC
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for ACROTECH BIOPHARMA LLC v. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD (D.N.J. 2020)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2020-12-15				External link to document
2020-12-14	1	Complaint	claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,410,077 (the “’077 patent”); 9,200,088 (the “’088 patent”); 9,493,582 (the…action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the Food and Drug Laws and Patent Laws of the… THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 32. On December 15, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark… lawfully issued United States Patent No. 10,864,183 (“the ‘183 patent”), entitled “Injectable Nitrogen…copy of the ‘183 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 33. The ‘183 patent is assigned to	External link to document

Executive summary

Last updated: July 19, 2026

• Case: ACROTECH BIOPHARMA LLC v. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD, No. 2:20-cv-19295 (D.N.J.).
• Core issue: Patent infringement litigation tied to Hatch-Waxman/ANDA generic entry of a marketed branded drug held by Acrotech Biopharma LLC, with Alembic asserting regulatory and/or non-infringement defenses.
• Outcome analysis: A complete litigation summary cannot be produced from the case identifier alone. The docket number does not reveal the brand name, asserted patents, filing dates, claim constructions, procedural posture, settlement terms, or final judgment.

Litigation summary and analysis for ACROTECH BIOPHARMA LLC v. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD (2:20-cv-19295): What happened in the case?

A complete, accurate litigation summary requires at least the asserted patent numbers, the drug/ANDA number, and the disposition (dismissal, settlement, consent judgment, or trial verdict). Those details are not present in the case caption or docket number provided.

Which patents were asserted in ACROTECH BIOPHARMA LLC v. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD (2:20-cv-19295)?

The asserted-patent set cannot be identified from the identifier 2:20-cv-19295 alone. Patent numbers, expiration dates, and claim scopes are essential to assess validity/infringement strength and to map the IP landscape to generic entry risk.

How many Orange Book listed patents typically anchor this kind of dispute?

Not determinable without the relevant listed drug (RLD) and the specific patents Acrotech relied on in the infringement complaint.

What was the ANDA and Paragraph IV trigger for 2:20-cv-19295?

Paragraph IV-based Hatch-Waxman disputes track the generic applicant’s ANDA filing and the notice of certification against listed patents. Those specifics are not contained in the docket number alone, so the regulatory trigger and timeline cannot be established.

What procedural steps shaped ACROTECH v. ALEMBIC (2:20-cv-19295)?

A litigation-stage analysis depends on docket events such as:

• complaint and patent service dates,
• Alembic’s responsive pleadings,
• claim construction orders,
• expert reports and Daubert rulings,
• motions to dismiss or for summary judgment,
• preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order (if sought),
• final disposition or settlement filing.

These events are not identifiable from the case number provided.

How strong were Acrotech’s infringement and validity positions?

Patent strength analysis requires the following:

• asserted independent claims and theory of infringement,
• generic label vs. proposed product characteristics,
• technical record (infringement contentions),
• validity challenges (anticipation/obviousness/indefiniteness/§101),
• claim construction outcomes.

None of these are available from the docket identifier alone.

What defenses did Alembic raise in 2:20-cv-19295?

A defensibility assessment requires identifying whether Alembic argued:

• non-infringement (no practice of claimed features),
• invalidity (prior art, obviousness, lack of enablement),
• procedural defenses (improper venue, failure to state a claim),
• regulatory-licensing defenses (e.g., FDA approval status impacts).

Those defenses are not discoverable from the information provided.

Did the parties settle, and what did the settlement mean for launch timing?

Settlement terms determine:

• any agreed launch dates,
• carve-outs for specific strengths/formulations,
• covenant-not-to-sue scope,
• payment structure (if any) and linkage to court-enforced entry restrictions.

No settlement/consent judgment details are available from the docket number alone.

What was the final outcome of ACROTECH BIOPHARMA LLC v. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD?

Final outcome (dismissed, stayed, consent judgment, or adjudicated infringement/invalidity) cannot be determined from 2:20-cv-19295 alone.

Key takeaways

• The case identifier 2:20-cv-19295 is not sufficient to produce an accurate litigation summary or business-impact analysis.
• A credible litigation analysis must link the docket to: (1) RLD/drug, (2) ANDA and Paragraph IV certifications, (3) asserted patent numbers, (4) procedural milestones, and (5) final disposition or settlement terms.

FAQs

1. What RLD and ANDA are at issue in 2:20-cv-19295?
2. Which patents are listed in the infringement complaint for ACROTECH v. ALEMBIC?
3. Did the court issue claim construction orders in this case?
4. Was there a settlement or consent judgment, and what launch restrictions applied?
5. What is the downstream impact of 2:20-cv-19295 on generic entry risk?

References

1. ACROTECH BIOPHARMA LLC v. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD, No. 2:20-cv-19295 (D.N.J.).