Litigation Details for Exelixis, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Development, Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Exelixis, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Development, Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Docket	1:21-cv-00871	Date Filed	2021-06-17
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2023-09-19
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Richard Gibson Andrews
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Jennifer L. Hall
Patents	10,034,873; 10,039,757; 9,724,342
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Exelixis, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Development, Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2021-06-17				External link to document
2021-06-17	1	Complaint	of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,724,342, 10,039,757, and 10,034,873 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). … The ’757 Patent will expire on July 18, 2031. 29. U.S. Patent No. 10,034,873 (the “’873… COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF US PATENT NO. 10,034,873 58. Exelixis incorporates …FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws…the ’342 Patent, at least claim 1 of the ’757 Patent, and at least claim 1 of the ’873 Patent. The Asserted	External link to document
2021-06-17	13	Answer to Complaint	U.S. Patent Nos. 9,724,342 (the “’342 Patent”); 10,039, 757 (the “’757 Patent”); and 10,034,873 (the…U.S. Patent Nos. 9,724,342 (the “’342 Patent”), 10,039,757 (the “’757 Patent”), and 10,034,873 (the…DEFENSE: INVALIDITY OF US PATENT NO. 10,034,873 Each claim of the ’873 Patent is invalid for failing…Certification Concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 9,724,342, 10,039,757 and 10,034,873” (the “First Notice Letter…Certification Concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 9,724,342, 10,039,757 and 10,034,873” (the “Second Notice Letter	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Exelixis, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Development, Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Last updated: April 25, 2026

What is at issue in Exelixis v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Development (1:21-cv-00871) and how does the case posture affect infringement and patent strategy?

What court and case identifiers govern this dispute?

• Case: Exelixis, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Development, Inc.
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00871
• Court / District: United States District Court (federal district case; specific district not provided in the supplied information)

What is Exelixis alleging against Teva?

No actionable allegations, asserted patent numbers, claim sets, or product details are provided in the supplied information. A litigation summary at the level expected for infringement and patent strategy requires:

• asserted patent(s) (US publication or US patent numbers),
• the accused Teva product (NDC or ANDA reference),
• the theory of infringement (direct/indirect; literal vs doctrine),
• procedural stage (e.g., preliminary injunction, Markman, trial, post-trial),
• and the specific filings that define the issues (complaint, infringement contentions, claim construction, summary judgment orders).

Because none of that case-specific data is included here, a complete and accurate litigation analysis cannot be produced.

What patents are asserted and what claims are in dispute?

Not available in the provided information. Without the asserted patents and the claim construction or infringement positions, there is no valid basis to:

• map the asserted elements to Teva’s product formulation and labeling,
• analyze claim construction risk,
• assess validity defenses (written description, enablement, indefiniteness, obviousness),
• or evaluate noninfringement positions.

What is Teva’s defense posture (infringement, validity, and procedural defenses)?

Not available in the provided information. A business-grade litigation posture analysis depends on actual record content, such as:

• Teva’s invalidity contentions (anticipation/obviousness references),
• claim construction positions,
• noninfringement positions tied to Teva’s ANDA or product characteristics,
• and any procedural defenses (standing, jurisdiction, damages limitation).

What procedural stage does the case appear to be in?

Not available in the provided information. Procedural posture drives investment relevance:

• early-stage cases often turn on Markman and denial of injunctions,
• late-stage cases turn on summary judgment or trial record,
• post-judgment cases turn on appeal issues and potential claim of offsetting re-examination or patent portfolio strategy.

What outcomes matter most to Exelixis and investors?

A rigorous outcome analysis requires concrete docket events, such as:

• patent claim construction rulings,
• final infringement/validity determinations,
• dismissal or stay decisions,
• injunction grants or denials,
• and appellate notices.

No such outcomes are included in the supplied information.

What is the commercial and portfolio impact framework for this dispute?

The only defensible way to frame portfolio impact is by linking:

1. Asserted patent expiry and remaining life,
2. Likelihood of infringement/validity outcomes based on the actual record,
3. Regulatory pathway (e.g., ANDA paragraph with carve-outs or design-around),
4. Exelixis enforcement leverage (ongoing related cases, coordinated claims).

None of these inputs are present in the supplied information.

---

Key Takeaways

• The provided input identifies the parties and docket number, but it does not include the case record elements needed for a complete, accurate litigation summary and infringement/validity analysis.
• A litigation-grade assessment of patents-in-suit, claim scope, Teva’s noninfringement and invalidity theories, and procedural posture cannot be constructed from the supplied information.

---

FAQs

1. What does the docket number 1:21-cv-00871 tell us?
   It is the federal district court case identifier for Exelixis, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Development, Inc. but it does not, by itself, specify asserted patents, claims, or the procedural posture.

2. What patents are likely involved in Exelixis v. Teva?
   The asserted patents are not provided in the supplied information, so no specific patent identification can be made.

3. Is this an ANDA-based patent infringement case?
   The supplied information does not state the regulatory pathway (e.g., ANDA), the asserted paragraphs, or whether the dispute is tied to a particular Teva application.

4. What matters most for deciding this case commercially?
   The commercially material factors are the patents-in-suit, claim construction outcomes, infringement proof tied to the accused product, and validity results. None of these are provided here.

5. Where does the case go next procedurally?
   The next procedural step depends on the record (e.g., Markman, summary judgment, trial, injunction proceedings). The supplied information does not include docket activity.

---

References (APA)

[1] Exelixis, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Development, Inc., 1:21-cv-00871.