Last updated: July 10, 2026
Allergan Sales LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (1:15-cv-01032): litigation summary, claims at issue, and exclusivity/patent-entry risk
Allergan Sales LLC sued Aurobindo Pharma Limited in U.S. District Court case 1:15-cv-01032. The litigation is a generic entry dispute tied to Allergan’s branded drug patent estate. Without the docket’s underlying complaint, asserted patent list, claim construction, and court outcomes, a complete litigation summary cannot be produced with accuracy.
What happened in Allergan v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (1:15-cv-01032) and what did the complaint allege?
A litigation summary requires, at minimum, the case caption details, Nature of Suit, patents asserted in the complaint, counts (e.g., 35 USC § 271(e)(2)), and the filed ANDA/BLA reference product. Those specifics are not provided here, so the allegations and legal theories cannot be stated reliably.
Which patents and claims were asserted in 1:15-cv-01032?
A credible patent-assertion analysis needs the specific patent numbers, expiration dates, and asserted claims (independent and dependent). No asserted-patent identifiers are included in the prompt, so this cannot be completed.
What was the procedural posture: TRO, preliminary injunction, summary judgment, or dismissal?
Procedural analysis requires docket events such as:
- service and answer dates
- claim construction schedule
- Markman decision
- summary judgment rulings
- settlement terms (if any)
- dismissal with or without prejudice
- final judgment
Those docket events are not included.
How did the court construe key claim terms and what impact did that have on infringement?
A claim-construction impact review requires:
- the exact claim-construction orders
- the court’s interpretations of limitations
- mapping to Aurobindo’s ANDA product
No orders or Markman findings are provided.
Did Aurobindo challenge validity (obviousness, anticipation, indefiniteness) and what were the outcomes?
Validity analysis requires the asserted invalidity grounds and the court’s rulings. The prompt provides none.
Was this an ANDA Paragraph IV or other Hatch-Waxman pathway dispute?
Determining whether the case is a Paragraph IV ANDA (35 USC § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)) or another filing type requires the complaint’s ANDA reference and paragraph designation. That information is not provided.
What was the Orange Book status and exclusivity exposure during the case?
Orange Book analysis requires:
- listing of each Orange Book patent with expiry dates
- the exclusivity type (NCE, 5-year, orphan, pediatric, etc.)
- which patents were the basis for the suit
No Orange Book identifiers or expiration timelines are provided.
When did Allergan’s patents or exclusivity end, and when could Aurobindo have launched?
Exclusivity timelines require:
- patent expiration dates (and potential PTA/PTE)
- statutory exclusivity end dates
- any district court “effective date” outcomes from settlement
None of these dates are included.
How many patents cover the formulation, method-of-use, and manufacturing for the disputed product?
A coverage map needs the full asserted and related patent estate. Without patent numbers or product identifiers, coverage counts cannot be computed.
What settlement or consent judgment terms were reached?
Settlement analysis requires:
- settlement agreement dates
- covenants not to sue scope
- launch dates
- design-around obligations (if any)
- dismissal/with prejudice status
No settlement details are provided.
What generic entry risks remain after 1:15-cv-01032?
Post-litigation risk assessment depends on the final judgment and remaining unexpired patents and exclusivity. That requires case outcome details.
Which other companies faced similar Allergan patent challenges at the same time?
Competitive landscape mapping requires:
- parallel ANDA litigation in the same window
- shared asserted patents
- co-defendants or other generic filers
No related cases are provided.
Key Takeaways
- A litigation summary and analysis for Allergan Sales LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, 1:15-cv-01032 cannot be completed accurately from the information given.
- A defensible analysis requires the docket’s asserted patent list, procedural milestones, and final disposition.
- No asserted patents, claim positions, Orange Book listings, or settlement/outcome details are included in the prompt, preventing an exact litigation and market-entry risk assessment.
FAQs
- What is the statutory basis typically used in Allergan vs generic ANDA litigation (e.g., 35 USC § 271(e)(2))?
- How do Paragraph IV settlements usually shift generic launch timing relative to Orange Book patent expiry?
- What claim-construction patterns most often decide Hatch-Waxman patent infringement outcomes for generics?
- Which Orange Book exclusivities commonly overlap with patent expiry to delay generic entry?
- How do covenant-not-to-sue terms affect later “carve-out” design-around strategies?
References (APA)
No sources are included because no docket, court opinion, or asserted-patent data was provided in the prompt.
