Litigation Details for Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (D. Del. 2017)

Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (D. Del. 2017)

Docket	1:17-cv-00462	Date Filed	2017-04-21
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2020-09-02
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Timothy Belcher Dyk
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Parties	ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
Patents	7,157,456; 7,585,860; 7,592,339; 9,415,053; 9,539,218
Attorneys	Daniel R. Evans
Firms	Abrams & Bayliss LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (D. Del. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-04-21				External link to document
2017-04-21	102	Stipulation-General (See Motion List for Stipulation to Extend Time)	Proposed] Order Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 by Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC. (Myer, … 2 September 2020 1:17-cv-00462 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2017-04-21	108	Stipulation-General (See Motion List for Stipulation to Extend Time)	Proposed] Order Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 by InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. (Myer,… 2 September 2020 1:17-cv-00462 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2017-04-21	109	Order	1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 ("the Asserted Claims of the '218 Patent"), provided…and Order Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7… INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,539,218 Plaintiff Bayer Intellectual Property…infringement of the Asserted Claims of the '218 Patent, provided the claim at issue is not proven invalid…infringement of the Asserted Claims of the '218 patent. 4. Nothing in this stipulation shall	External link to document
2017-04-21	150	Pretrial Order	assert all four claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 (“the ’218 patent”). 2. By letter dated…the ’218 patent. Plaintiffs timely filed complaints alleging infringement of the ’218 patent against …Legible, accurate copies of United States patents and foreign patents, as well as their corresponding prosecutions… 1. This is a consolidated action for patent infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Plaintiffs…rivaroxaban tablets prior to the expiration of the ’218 patent. Mylan’s letter also notified BIP and Janssen	External link to document
2017-04-21	156		on U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456 (“the ’456 patent”), which is not prior art. The ’456 patent issued from…The patents covering Xarelto 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg tablets are U.S. Patent Nos 7,157,456, 7,… 1/2/2007 Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456 B2 Kubitza…JOINT_RIV0000346 – 1/2/2007 U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456 …reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication	External link to document
2017-04-21	157	Opinion	tablet” in claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,539,218 (“the ’218 patent”). Before the court are Joint Pretrial… to the expiration of the ’218 patent.1 Claim 1 of the ’218 patent recites: 1. A method of treating…012897, which is referenced in the ’218 patent. The ’218 patent specification states that “[p]reparation… reference.” ’218 patent, col. 8, ll. 28–30. Mylan points out that the patent cites “the wrong number…well-settled that, in a patent infringement suit, a district court can construe a patent to correct an obvious	External link to document

Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v. Taro (1:17-cv-00462): Litigation Summary, Patent Issues, and Generic Entry Risk

Last updated: July 26, 2026

Executive summary: Public court records for Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. under case no. 1:17-cv-00462 are not provided in the input. Without the underlying complaint, claim chart, Markman rulings, operative scheduling orders, docket events, and any settlement or final judgment entries, a complete and accurate litigation summary cannot be produced.

What patents did Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH assert against Taro in 1:17-cv-00462?

No asserted patent list, patent numbers, or asserted claims are included in the provided information. A litigation analysis that ties infringement allegations to specific Orange Book-listed patents or 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) theories cannot be completed.

Was this an ANDA Paragraph IV case under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)?

No ANDA number, FDA reference product, or Paragraph IV notice details are provided.

Which drug and active ingredient were at issue?

The input does not specify the Bayer product, active ingredient, or dosage form, so the scope of asserted subject matter cannot be mapped.

What did Taro argue in its defenses in 1:17-cv-00462?

No responsive pleadings, invalidity theories (anticipation/obviousness/§112), noninfringement arguments, or procedural defenses are included in the input.

What were the likely invalidity bases (anticipation, obviousness, §112, nonstatutory subject matter)?

No invalidity content is provided.

What were the likely claim-construction disputes?

No Markman schedule, claim terms, or construction outcomes are provided.

How has the case progressed procedurally (motions, claim construction, trial, or dismissal) in 1:17-cv-00462?

No docket timeline or milestone events are provided (for example: complaint filing, motion to dismiss, amended complaint, Markman order, summary judgment, trial setting, or final judgment).

Key procedural dates and docket events

None are provided.

Were there stays pending USPTO reexamination, IPR, or concurrent PTO proceedings?

No IPR/PGR/reexamination references are included.

What is the current status of Bayer v. Taro 1:17-cv-00462 (active, stayed, settled, or resolved)?

The input does not include current docket status or any settlement/judgment entry. A status statement and enforcement posture cannot be produced.

Did the parties enter a settlement agreement affecting generic launch dates?

No settlement details are provided.

Was there a stipulated dismissal without prejudice or with prejudice?

No dismissal outcome is provided.

What generic entry risks does 1:17-cv-00462 create for Taro and competitors?

A generic entry risk analysis requires: (1) the specific patents-in-suit, (2) infringement/validity rulings or settlement terms, and (3) the Orange Book exclusivity and remaining expiration dates tied to the asserted patents. None of these inputs are provided.

When does the asserted patent estate expire (patents and any PTA/PTE)?

No patent expiration dates are provided.

What is the risk for design-around, launch-at-risk, or later generic entry?

No operative claims, design-around pathways, or enforceable injunction posture is provided.

What is the Orange Book status of the patents asserted in 1:17-cv-00462?

No Orange Book patent identifiers, listed claims, or regulatory status are included.

Which Orange Book patents were listed for the reference drug?

Not provided.

Do any exclusivities (5-year NCE, 7-year, pediatric exclusivity) apply?

Not provided.

How does this litigation compare with other Bayer vs. generic cases involving Taro or related parties?

No comparative record, similar Bayer/Taro disputes, or cross-case themes are provided.

Which companies are the main competitors affected by this dispute?

Not provided.

Are there parallel cases in other districts or consolidated actions?

Not provided.

What does the patent portfolio analysis imply for enforceability and licensing leverage in 1:17-cv-00462?

A portfolio analysis requires the asserted claim sets and their validity/enforcement history. Those details are not provided.

How strong is the asserted patent estate (based on available prior art, prosecution history, and prior litigations)?

Not provided.

What licensing positions would typically follow from this posture?

Not provided.

Key Takeaways

• No litigation-specific record (asserted patents, docket events, rulings, settlement, or final disposition) is included in the provided input for Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (1:17-cv-00462).
• A litigation summary and analysis cannot be produced to a high-integrity standard without the underlying court filings and docket outcomes.

FAQs

1. What patents were in-suit in Bayer v. Taro 1:17-cv-00462?
2. Was 1:17-cv-00462 an ANDA Paragraph IV challenge, and what FDA submission triggered it?
3. What claim terms were construed in the Markman phase for 1:17-cv-00462?
4. Did the parties settle, and what were the terms tied to generic launch?
5. Which Orange Book patents and exclusivities governed the commercial timeline in 1:17-cv-00462?

References

1. Not available from the provided input.