Litigation Details for Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc. (D. Del. 2015)

Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc. (D. Del. 2015)

Docket	1:15-cv-00479	Date Filed	2015-06-11
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2015-08-06
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Sue Lewis Robinson
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	8,268,299; 8,323,630; 8,388,941
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc. (D. Del. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-06-11				External link to document
2015-06-11	4		the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,268,299 B2; 8,323,630 B2; 8,388,941…2015 6 August 2015 1:15-cv-00479 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2015-06-11	8		the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,268,299 B2; 8,323,630 B2; 8,388,941…2015 6 August 2015 1:15-cv-00479 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc. (D. Del. 2015)

Last updated: June 30, 2026

Litigation summary and analysis for Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc., 1:15-cv-00479

Alcon Research Ltd. sued Akorn Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Hatch-Waxman. The case was docketed as 1:15-cv-00479 and involves patent challenges tied to Akorn’s FDA-abbreviated NDA process for a branded ophthalmic product in Alcon’s portfolio. No litigation merits disposition is stated in the input provided, so a complete, accurate infringement/invalidity and settlement analysis cannot be produced from the available record here.

What is the case background for Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc. 1:15-cv-00479?

Answered facts from the provided prompt only

• Caption: Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc.
• Docket number: 1:15-cv-00479

Not provided

• Court division, judge, and filing date
• Asserted patents (numbers, titles, expiry dates)
• Drug name(s) and NDA/ANDA numbers
• Claims asserted (infringement) and defenses asserted (invalidity, noninfringement, unenforceability)
• FDA submission pathway (505(b)(2), ANDA, amendment history)
• Procedural posture (Hedrick/Roth/TEVA-type timeline, TRO/discovery schedules)
• Any final judgments, consent judgments, or settlement dates
• Any listed patents in the Orange Book tied to the suit

What patents were at issue in Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc.?

Not provided

• Patent numbers
• Assignees (Alcon entity owning each patent)
• Claim scope (independent claims and limitation mapping)
• Alleged infringement theory (product-by-process vs. composition vs. method)
• Patent validity theories and cited prior art

Who challenged what FDA application and what was the regulatory trigger?

Not provided

• Which Alcon “brand” or reference listed drug (RLD) Akorn sought to copy
• The ANDA or 505(b)(2) application number
• The paragraph certification(s) (IV vs. I/II vs. III) and which patents were certified
• FDA application approval or “tentative approval” timing
• Any 30-month stay and whether it was stayed, lifted, or dismissed

What claims were alleged and how did Akorn respond?

Not provided

• Complaint causes of action (23 U.S.C. § 355(j) standard Hatch-Waxman relief)
• Infringement allegations by patent
• Akorn’s invalidity and unenforceability defenses
• Motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, claim construction, or Daubert rulings
• Evidentiary schedule and trial dates

What was the litigation procedural path and what happened to the case?

Not provided

• Case disposition (dismissed, settled, consent judgment, summary judgment, or trial verdict)
• Entry of final judgment and whether it included a permanent injunction or “carve-outs”
• Whether any patents were found invalid or not infringed
• Whether a settlement required license terms, exclusivity waivers, supply terms, or timing commitments

Was there a settlement or consent judgment and what were its business terms?

Not provided

• Existence of settlement
• Start date for generic launch (or delayed launch)
• Design-around obligations (formulation/labeling/device changes)
• Royalties or lump sums
• Patent-by-patent covenants not to sue
• Stipulations on FDA changes or manufacturing controls

How does this matter compare with other Alcon versus generic ophthalmic patent cases?

Not provided

• Any cross-reference to parallel suits
• Any pattern of asserted patent families
• Any known settlement archetype (e.g., “launch on X date, for Y strength, Z formulation change”)

What does this case imply for generic entry risk in ophthalmic products?

Not provided

• The drug and formulation type at issue (e.g., suspension, solution, gel, preservative-free)
• Strength/dosage form scope
• Whether the asserted claims covered manufacturing process, formulation, or method of use
• Whether the case outcome affects specific Orange Book listings

---

Key Takeaways

• The prompt identifies only the parties and docket number: Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc., 1:15-cv-00479.
• The input contains no patent list, FDA submission details, procedural history, or disposition.
• A complete litigation summary and analysis (asserted patents, legal theories, construction, outcome, and business impact) cannot be generated accurately from the provided information.

---

FAQs

1. What court handled Alcon Research Ltd. v. Akorn Inc. 1:15-cv-00479?
2. Which patents were listed as asserted in the complaint for 1:15-cv-00479?
3. What NDA/ANDA or Orange Book listing was the Hatch-Waxman trigger for 1:15-cv-00479?
4. Did 1:15-cv-00479 end in settlement, dismissal, or judgment?
5. If there was a settlement, what was the launch timing and scope for the accused Akorn product?

---

References

1. (No citations provided in the prompt.)