Litigation Details for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Torrent Pharma Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Torrent Pharma Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Docket	1:21-cv-01330	Date Filed	2021-09-20
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2024-07-08
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Richard Gibson Andrews
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Parties	DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD.
Patents	11,058,667; 11,135,192; 8,101,659; 8,796,331; 8,877,938; 9,388,134; 9,517,226; 9,937,143
Attorneys	Nirav N. Desai
Firms	Perkins Coie LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Torrent Pharma Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2021-09-20				External link to document
2021-09-20	210	Redacted Document	of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938”) (emphasis added). Put simply, the MSN ’731 patent did not need to …Example-1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938”); col. 12, ll. 32–34 (asserting that “[t]he present…Example-1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938 and characterized the obtained glossy [sic, glassy…process disclosed in Example-1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938”), col. 12, ll. 32– 34 (asserting that “[t…process disclosed in Example-1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938 and characterized the obtained glossy [sic	External link to document
2021-09-20	214	Redacted Document	of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938”) (emphasis added). Put simply, the MSN ’731 patent did not need to …Example-1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938”); col. 12, ll. 32–34 (asserting that “[t]he present…Example-1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938 and characterized the obtained glossy [sic, glassy…process disclosed in Example-1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938”), col. 12, ll. 32– 34 (asserting that “[t…process disclosed in Example-1 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,877,938 and characterized the obtained glossy [sic	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Torrent Pharma Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Last updated: June 29, 2026

Novartis v. Torrent Pharma (1:21-cv-01330) Litigation Summary and Patent/Regulatory Analysis

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Torrent Pharma Inc., case number 1:21-cv-01330, is a Hatch-Waxman patent litigation matter filed in the U.S. District Court (District of New Jersey per docket numbering conventions), with Novartis as plaintiff and Torrent as defendant. The case is litigation over patent rights listed for a Novartis product in the FDA Orange Book tied to a generic or biosimilar-competitive filing by Torrent, typically brought through a Paragraph IV strategy.

Litigation posture and core issues to analyze in this docket class:

• Validity and infringement challenges: Torrent typically disputes one or more asserted Orange Book patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (infringement) and § 282 (invalidity), most often citing anticipation/obviousness and non-infringement based on label/carveout and/or manufacturing process.
• Relief sought: Novartis seeks an injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) to bar final FDA approval until patent expiry, plus declaratory relief on infringement/validity.
• Regulatory trigger: The litigation is tied to FDA review timing and a potential at-risk launch if the court finds the patents invalid or not infringed.

Required: case-specific claims, asserted patents, decision dates, and outcome are not present in the provided input, so a complete and accurate litigation summary cannot be produced.