Last Updated: August 3, 2026

Litigation Details for Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (D. Del. 2018)


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (D. Del. 2018)

Docket 1:18-cv-00699 Date Filed 2018-05-08
Court District Court, D. Delaware Date Terminated 2020-09-11
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement Assigned To Leonard Philip Stark
Jury Demand None Referred To
Patents 6,841,716; 8,231,906; 9,724,310; 9,730,900; 9,833,419
Link to Docket External link to docket
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷  Start Trial .

Details for Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (D. Del. 2018)

Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document
2018-05-08 External link to document
2018-05-08 112 Opinion - Memorandum Opinion infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,730,900 (the "' 900 Patent"), 9,724,310 (the '"…quot; 310 Patent"), and 9,833 ,419 (the '" 419 Patent") (collectively, "patents-in-suit…-suit" or "asserted patents"). (D.I. 83 at 3) The patents-in-suit relate "to transdermal…; It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the…reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321 (internal quotation marks omitted). The patent "specification External link to document
2018-05-08 13 Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 6,841,716 . (Wilson, Samantha… 11 September 2020 1:18-cv-00699 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None External link to document
2018-05-08 249 Order - -Memorandum and Order of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,833,419 (the “419 patent”), 9,730,900 (the “’900 patent”), and 9,724,310 (the “°… infringes the °419 patent; (2) Amneal’s product does not infringe the °900 patent under the doctrine … does not infringe the ’310 patent under the DOE; (4) the asserted patents are invalid for lack of enablement…the asserted patents claimed transmucosal patches; (2) the specification of the patents contained no …notified Innovation that the ’140 patent was legally insufficient either as patent ineligible subject matter External link to document
2018-05-08 25 Consent Judgment - Proposed PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,841,716, by Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co. Inc.. (… 11 September 2020 1:18-cv-00699 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None External link to document
2018-05-08 4 Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 9,730,900 ;9,724,310 ;9,833,419. (… 11 September 2020 1:18-cv-00699 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None External link to document
2018-05-08 9 Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,231,906 . (Gaza, Anne) (Entered… 11 September 2020 1:18-cv-00699 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None External link to document
>Date Filed >Document No. >Description >Snippet >Link To Document

Last updated: July 29, 2026

ecutive summary: The case Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (D. Del., No. 1:18-cv-00699) is a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement dispute in which Noven accused Amneal of infringing Orange Book-listed patents tied to Noven’s product(s) and associated FDA-approved uses. The litigation posture, asserted patent set, and any later settlements or PTAB outcomes determine the practical generic entry risk. However, the record needed to produce a complete, accurate litigation summary (asserted patents and claims, procedural milestones, court rulings, and any settlement terms) is not contained in the prompt, and a complete response cannot be generated.

What is Noven Pharmaceuticals v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (1:18-cv-00699) about?

Answer: It is a Delaware Hatch-Waxman patent infringement case brought by Noven against Amneal. The case is indexed as 1:18-cv-00699 and is commonly associated with alleged infringement tied to an FDA-approved drug’s Orange Book patent estate.

Which drug and Orange Book patents were at issue?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input. A litigation summary requires the asserted patent numbers and the FDA product/patent linkage (Orange Book listing) that triggered the infringement claims.

What statute and theory were pled?

Answer: Hatch-Waxman patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and related counts are typical for these actions, but the specific counts and theories for this docket cannot be confirmed from the provided input alone.

What patents protect Noven’s product(s) in the Amneal dispute?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

How many patents were asserted, and what are the key claim themes?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

What are the common infringement pathways in Noven v. Amneal cases?

Answer: Typically include composition, formulation, method-of-use, and/or manufacturing method claims aligned to the Orange Book. Claim-by-claim analysis requires the asserted patent list and the court’s claim construction record, neither of which is present in the prompt.

What happened procedurally in 1:18-cv-00699 (motions, claim construction, trial)?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Dismissals, summary judgment, and claim construction

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Injunctive relief posture

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Appeals

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

How strong was Noven’s patent case versus Amneal’s defenses?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Validity challenges (anticipation, obviousness, written description/enablement)

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Non-infringement and section 271(e)(2) carve-outs

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Did Noven and Amneal reach a settlement, and what terms mattered for generic entry?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Was there a consent judgment or stipulated dismissal?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

What launch date commitments, design-around provisions, or scope limits applied?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

What is the FDA regulatory status tied to the patents in this docket?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Orange Book listing status and Paragraph IV context

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

FDA approval and any relevant FDA supplements

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

How does this litigation affect Amneal’s generic entry risk for Noven’s product?

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Remaining exclusivity after the litigation

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Potential design-around or carve-out pathways

Answer: Not determinable from the provided input.

Key Takeaways

  • The docket number identifies a Hatch-Waxman litigation between Noven and Amneal, but a litigation summary and analysis requires asserted patents, procedural history, and outcomes.
  • No settlement, infringement findings, validity rulings, or launch impacts can be stated without those case record specifics.

FAQs

  1. What asserted patents are listed in Noven v. Amneal (1:18-cv-00699)?
  2. Did the court construe any claims in 1:18-cv-00699, and what were the key constructions?
  3. Was the case resolved by trial, summary judgment, or settlement in 1:18-cv-00699?
  4. How do the asserted patents map to Orange Book listings for Noven’s product(s)?
  5. What is the downstream effect on generic launch timing for Amneal related to this docket?

References

(No sources cited because the prompt does not include the case record details needed to produce a complete and accurate summary.)

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.