Last updated: July 12, 2026
Galderma Laboratories LP sued Actavis Laboratories UT Inc in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on May 5, 2017 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01076). The action is a patent infringement dispute tied to Galderma’s dermatology portfolio and Actavis’s FDA-facing generic drug development. The case procedural posture and the asserted patents, claims, venue assignments, and disposition details are not provided in the input, so a complete litigation summary tied to specific patents and dates cannot be produced.
What are the key facts in Galderma Laboratories LP v. Actavis Laboratories UT Inc (3:17-cv-01076)?
Answer (what can be stated from the case identifier alone):
The matter is a federal civil patent case in D. Utah, filed in 2017, between Galderma Laboratories LP (plaintiff) and Actavis Laboratories UT Inc (defendant), docketed as 3:17-cv-01076.
Case basics that typically drive the analysis
- Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
- Case number: 3:17-cv-01076
- Parties: Galderma Laboratories LP v. Actavis Laboratories UT Inc
- Filing year: 2017
What cannot be stated from the provided input
- Asserted patent numbers and expiration dates
- Specific product and NDA/ANDA at issue
- Whether the case followed Paragraph IV (Hatch-Waxman) filing triggers
- Claim construction rulings, injunction posture, or settlement terms
- Final judgment outcome (dismissal, stipulation, trial, or consent judgment)
Which patents were asserted in Galderma v. Actavis UT (3:17-cv-01076)?
Answer: Not available from the input.
Patent estate mapping for litigation (what must be known)
- Patent family members (composition, formulation, method-of-use, manufacturing)
- Expiration and pediatric exclusivity (if any)
- Terminal disclaimer status
- Continuations and intervening rights concerns
- Whether claims were narrowed through construction
What stage was the case in 2017, and how did the litigation evolve?
Answer: Not available from the input.
Typical milestones to document (none provided here)
- Complaint filing (May 2017)
- Answer and Rule 16 scheduling
- Markman/hearing or claim construction briefing
- Summary judgment motions
- Trial date setting
- Joint stipulations on dismissal or non-infringement/invalidity
- Consent injunction or settlement trigger language
Did Galderma win, settle, or get dismissed in 3:17-cv-01076?
Answer: Not available from the input.
Settlement analysis that requires disposition facts
- Whether the parties reached a license agreement
- Whether Actavis withdrew its ANDA or agreed to design-around
- Launch date commitments by “skinny label” or carveouts
- Stipulated judgment entry terms
- Payment structure and confidentiality provisions
What generic entry risks did Actavis face from Galderma’s patents?
Answer: Not available from the input.
Generic launch risk framework (what must be tied to docket details)
- Patent-by-patent risk: composition vs method-of-use vs formulation
- Whether the court granted partial summary judgment
- Whether remaining claims stayed enforceable past the 30-month stay
- Whether court enjoined “at-risk” launch or allowed continued development
How does this case compare with other Galderma vs generic litigation?
Answer: Not available from the input.
Comparison dimensions requiring case-specific facts
- Same drug and same patent family or different assets
- Same district and judge or different forum strategies
- Similar settlement patterns (design-around vs license vs dismissal)
- Same therapeutic area (acne, dermatologic inflammation, psoriasis, etc.)
What is the Orange Book status impact for the Galderma product at issue?
Answer: Not available from the input.
Orange Book data needed for exclusivity risk
- Listed patents (drug substance, drug product, and method-of-use)
- Expiration dates and statutory/regulatory exclusivities
- Whether patents were “delisted” or “changed” after filing
- Whether Actavis certified under Paragraph IV for specific listed patents
Key Takeaways
- Case identified: Galderma Laboratories LP v. Actavis Laboratories UT Inc, D. Utah, 3:17-cv-01076 (filed in 2017).
- A complete litigation summary with asserted patents, procedural history, and outcome cannot be generated from the provided input alone.
- Patent infringement and generic entry risk analysis depends on the asserted patent list, claim constructions, and disposition timeline, none of which are included in the input.
FAQs
- What does docket number 3:17-cv-01076 indicate about court jurisdiction and venue?
- How do Paragraph IV filings typically map to infringement claims in Hatch-Waxman cases like Galderma v. Actavis?
- What litigation documents (complaint, answer, claim construction orders) usually control the patent risk assessment?
- How do method-of-use versus formulation patents change generic “design-around” feasibility?
- What settlement terms most commonly affect a generic launch date in dermatology patent disputes?
References
No citable sources were provided in the prompt.
