Litigation Details for Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Laurus Labs Ltd. (D. Del. 2018)

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Laurus Labs Ltd. (D. Del. 2018)

Docket	1:18-cv-01748	Date Filed	2018-11-06
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2018-11-15
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Richard Gibson Andrews
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	6,642,245; 6,703,396; 8,592,397; 8,716,264; 9,457,036; 9,744,181
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Laurus Labs Ltd. (D. Del. 2018)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2018-11-06				External link to document
2018-11-05	4		the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 6,642,245 B1 ;US 6,703,396 … 15 November 2018 1:18-cv-01748 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2018-11-05	8		the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 6,642,245 B1; US 6,703,396 … 15 November 2018 1:18-cv-01748 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Laurus Labs Ltd. (D. Del. 2018)

Last updated: July 10, 2026

Gilead v. Laurus Labs Ltd. (1:18-cv-01748) Litigation Summary and Patent/Exposure Analysis

Executive summary: In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Laurus Labs Ltd. (E.D.N.Y. No. 1:18-cv-01748), Gilead asserted patent infringement against Laurus tied to Gilead’s HIV antiretroviral franchise and Laurus’s FDA ANDA/Hatch-Waxman pathway product. The docket reflects a standard Paragraph IV-style dispute structure: Gilead’s asserted U.S. patents are tested against Laurus’s noninfringement/invalidity defenses and any claimed carve-outs, with the litigation posture driven by the asserted-claims schedule, claim construction, and dispositive motions.

What this means commercially: the outcome governs whether Laurus can launch its generic product at risk, whether a settlement blocks launch until specific patent/expiration or exclusivity dates, and whether any regulatory-market entry is permitted for less-than-full-label scope (for example, alternative strengths, dosage forms, or labeling positions).

Important constraint: no docket-verified details (asserted patent numbers, claims, motion outcomes, dates, settlement terms, or judgment) are present in the provided input. A complete litigation summary requires those specifics.