Litigation Details for Indivior Inc. v. Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2015)

Indivior Inc. v. Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2015)

Docket	5:15-cv-00350	Date Filed	2015-07-21
Court	District Court, E.D. North Carolina	Date Terminated	2023-03-09
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	James C. Dever III
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To
Parties	INDIVIOR INC.
Patents	6,159,498; 7,579,019; 8,147,866; 8,603,514; 8,703,177; 8,765,167; 9,522,188; 9,655,843; 9,931,305
Attorneys	AURORA CASSIRER
Firms	McCarter & English, LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Indivior Inc. v. Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-07-21				External link to document
2015-07-21	101	Opening Claim Construction Brief	Indivior Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Patent 8,765,167, # 2 Exhibit B - Pather Declaration, # 3 Exhibit… Exhibit E - Patent 5,881,476, # 6 Exhibit F - Rounds Declaration, # 7 Exhibit G - Patent 5,393,528, #…2010 Response to Office Action, # 9 Exhibit I - Patent 7,425,292) (Evans, E.) (Entered: 11/18/2021) … 21 July 2015 5:15-cv-00350 830 Patent Both District Court, E.D. North Carolina	External link to document
2015-07-21	103	Responsive Claim Construction Brief	U.S. Patent 8,603,514 B2, # 4 Exhibit M - U.S. Patent 8,900,497 B2, # 5 Exhibit N - U.S. Patent 9,931,305…2015 9 March 2023 5:15-cv-00350 830 Patent Both District Court, E.D. North Carolina	External link to document
2015-07-21	109	Exhibit Q - 2022.02.19 Gelwicks Email	1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A - U.S. Patent 8,765,167, # 3 Exhibit B - Aquestive's First Set of …identified by the patent claimant in its Local Civil Rule 303.1(c) chart,’ as required by Local Patent rule 303.4…identified by the patent claimant in its Local Civil Rule 303.1(c) chart,” as required by Local Patent rule 303.4…best, a fundamental misunderstanding of the local patent rules, or, at worst, a flagrant violation of those…document production clearly satisfies the local patent rules. Each of the claims charted in Plaintiffs	External link to document

Last updated: July 4, 2026

ecutive summary
No litigation-summary or analysis can be produced from the case identifier alone (“Indivior Inc. v. Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc., 5:15-cv-00350”). A complete and accurate response requires the docket-specific record: the court (district, judge), asserted patents and claims, parties, procedural posture, scheduled deadlines, infringement/non-infringement or invalidity theories, any Markman or claim construction rulings, and the final dispositive outcomes (dismissal, summary judgment, consent judgment, settlement, or judgment after trial). Those case details are not provided here, so a litigation review would be incomplete.

Indivior v. Biodelivery 5:15-cv-00350 litigation summary: what happened and how it ended?

What patents were asserted in Indivior v. Biodelivery (5:15-cv-00350)?

Where was the case filed, and what judge handled it?

What were the key procedural milestones (motions to dismiss, preliminary injunction, claim construction)?

Did the parties reach a settlement, consent judgment, or final judgment?

What remedies were sought (injunction, damages, attorneys’ fees)?

What claims did Indivior allege against Biodelivery in 5:15-cv-00350?

Infringement theory: product-by-process vs. direct infringement

Validity defenses: obviousness, anticipation, written description, enablement

Equivalents and prosecution history estoppel arguments

How did Indivior frame notice and “specific” infringement allegations?

Patent estate impact: how does Indivior’s patent portfolio relate to the asserted claims?

Which drug delivery platform was at issue (formulation, device, method of treatment)?

Core claim scope and likely “design-around” pressure points

Family strategy: continuation and claim amendments

How strong was claim construction leverage in the case outcome?

How does this litigation affect generic or competitor entry for the relevant Indivior product?

Orange Book and FDA pathway relevance to launch timing

Paragraph IV risk: what would have been required to trigger a challenge

Settlement terms typically governing entry dates and licensing

Manufacturing/IP barriers: process parameters and formulation constraints

What legal issues did the court address in Indivior v. Biodelivery (5:15-cv-00350)?

Claim construction outcomes: narrowing vs. broadening

KSR/obviousness framework and Graham factors

Summary judgment vs. trial posture

Preemption, jurisdiction, or venue issues (if raised)

Settlement and license analysis: what did Biodelivery agree to in 5:15-cv-00350?

Entry-forbearance vs. co-existence licensing

Royalties and field-of-use limits

Non-infringement covenants and mutual release structure

Dismissal scope: with or without prejudice

Timeline and outcome table for Indivior v. Biodelivery (5:15-cv-00350)

Date	Event	Procedural posture	Outcome/impact
(not provided)	Complaint filed	Initial pleading stage	Indivior’s asserted patents and relief not specified
(not provided)	Answer filed / responsive pleadings	Early case	Biodelivery’s defenses not specified
(not provided)	Claim construction schedule	Markman prep	Claim terms not specified
(not provided)	Claim construction ruling	Interpreting key terms	Scope shift not specified
(not provided)	Dispositive motion(s)	Summary judgment or similar	Rulings not specified
(not provided)	Final outcome	Judgment/settlement	No disposition details provided

Which companies and products were positioned as direct competitors in 5:15-cv-00350?

Named defendants/related parties beyond Biodelivery

Co-defendants or related suits (if any)

Other market entrants impacted by the asserted patent scope

How does Indivior v. Biodelivery compare with other Indivior patent fights?

Common claim themes across Indivior litigation

Consistency of court outcomes (construction, invalidity, infringement)

Whether the result tends to favor brand or generic strategies

Key Takeaways

No litigation summary or analysis can be generated from the case caption and docket number alone. A fact-based review requires docket-specific inputs (asserted patents, court/judge, procedural record, and disposition), and those are not present in the prompt.

FAQs

1. What patents were asserted in Indivior Inc. v. Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc., 5:15-cv-00350?
2. What was the court’s claim construction in 5:15-cv-00350, and did it narrow or broaden asserted terms?
3. Did the parties settle in Indivior v. Biodelivery, and what did the settlement require for market entry?
4. What defenses did Biodelivery raise (invalidity grounds and non-infringement theories) in 5:15-cv-00350?
5. How did the case outcome affect FDA-related launch timing for competitors?

References (APA)

1. Not available from the provided prompt.