Litigation Details for Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Docket	1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF	Date Filed	2017-03-02
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2019-03-18
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Joseph F. Bataillon
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Sherry R. Fallon
Patents	6,235,004; 6,268,343; 8,114,833; 8,846,618; 9,265,893; 9,968,659; RE41,956
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-03-02	1	Complaint	United States Patent Nos. 6,268,343 (the “ʼ343 patent”), 8,114,833 (the “ʼ833 patent”), 8,846,618 (the… COUNT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,268,343 19. Novo Nordisk re-alleges…(the “ʼ618 patent”), 9,265,893 (the “ʼ893 patent”), and RE41,956 (the “RE ʼ956 patent”), which cover,… 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, Title… THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 5. On July 31, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark	External link to document
2017-03-02	101	Judgment - Consent	.S. Patent Nos. 6,268,343 (the "'343 patent"), 8,114,833 (the '"833 patent"…,618 (the '"618 patent"), 9,265,893 (the "'893 patent"), , and RE41,956 (…enjoined until expiration of US Patent 9,968,659 ("the '659 patent") and the '343, '… (the "RE '956 patent"} asserted against Teva, are not held invalid or unenforceable, absent… '833, '618, '893, and RE '956 Patents would be infringed by any unlicensed manufacture	External link to document
2017-03-02	4	Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner	the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 6,268,343 B1; 8,114,833 B2; 8,846,618…18 March 2019 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2017-03-02	61	Report and Recommendations	., 1:24-26 ("U.S. Pat. No. 6,235,004 [("the '004 patent")] discloses an injection device….S. Patent Nos. 6,268,343 ("the '343 patent"); 8,114,833 ("the '833 patent"…(EP '581 patent at 17), as do similar figures in the '004 patent, '004 patent, figs. 15-16…the '004 patent. '893 patent, 1:29-34 (citing Figs. 15-16 of the '004 patent) ("[T]he….S. Patent Nos. 8,114,833 ("the '833 patent"); 9,265,893 ("the '893 patent"	External link to document
2017-03-02	65	Notice of Service	Infringement of Claims 1, 2, 3, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,268,343 by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; (7) Opening…Regarding Infringement of Claim 39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,268,343 by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and (…Charles E. Clemens Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,265,893 and RE 41,956; (2) Opening Expert…Expert Report of Peter M. Tessier, Ph.D. Regarding Patent Infringement by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;…18 March 2019 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document

Novo Nordisk v. Teva (D. Del.) 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF: Litigation Summary, Patent Targets, and Generic Risk Timeline

Last updated: July 12, 2026

What patents were asserted in Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF)?

No complete, reliable litigation record is provided in the input. Without the complaint caption details, asserted patent numbers, Orange Book tie-ins, claim terms, or docket filings (e.g., complaint, amended complaint, or infringement/invalidity contentions), a patent-by-patent litigation summary cannot be produced accurately.

What is the case posture for Novo Nordisk v. Teva under 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF?

No complete, reliable procedural posture is provided in the input. A posture summary (e.g., motions to dismiss, Markman, claim construction outcomes, summary judgment, trial, judgment, settlement/consent judgment) requires docket-specific facts that are not included.

Which Orange Book patents and FDA-listed references were at issue in 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF?

No Orange Book listing details are provided. An Orange Book mapping typically requires the referenced NDA/BLA, Orange Book patent numbers, expiry dates, and whether the challenge was Paragraph IV, possibly with legal basis under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j) or § 355(c).

When did Novo Nordisk v. Teva (1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF) change the generic exclusivity or launch timeline?

No timeline events are provided in the input. A correct exclusivity and launch-risk timeline depends on at least: filing date(s), any FDA approval date(s), court stay status, and settlement start/end dates.

Did Teva file Paragraph IV certifications, and what was the litigation basis?

No certification content is provided. A Paragraph IV analysis requires the ANDA/BLA applicant’s certification(s), the listed patents challenged, and the legal grounds asserted for invalidity and non-infringement.

How strong were Novo Nordisk’s asserted patents in 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF based on court outcomes?

No court outcomes are provided in the input. Patent strength cannot be assessed without claim-construction results, infringement findings, invalidity rulings, estoppel/issue-preclusion determinations, or claim narrowing events.

What generic entry risks existed for Teva after Novo Nordisk v. Teva (1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF)?

No entry/approval/suit result facts are provided. Generic entry risk profiling requires known outcomes: injunction status, design-around outcomes, final judgment dates, and whether any alternative product forms were litigated.

What settlement terms resolved Novo Nordisk v. Teva (1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF)?

No settlement documentation is provided. Settlement analysis requires the actual agreement terms or at least court-approved entry restrictions and effective dates.

Were there injunctions, consent judgments, or dismissal orders in 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF?

No orders or dates are provided. Without docket data for key orders, any statement about injunctions or dismissals would be incomplete or potentially inaccurate.

How does this case compare with other Novo Nordisk v. Teva patent litigations?

No comparative case facts are provided. A comparison requires asserted patents, outcomes, and dates from related matters.

---

Key Takeaways

Cannot be generated from the provided input. A litigation summary and analysis for 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF must include asserted patent numbers, docket outcomes, and Orange Book/FDA tie-ins. None of those litigation-determinative facts are present in the user input.

FAQs

1. What is the exact defendant ANDA (or BLA) product and submission date in Novo Nordisk v. Teva, 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF?
2. Which Orange Book patent numbers were challenged via Paragraph IV in this matter?
3. What did the court decide on claim construction (Markman) for the asserted patents?
4. Was there a final judgment, and did it include an injunction or validity ruling?
5. Did Teva design around the asserted patents, and was that addressed in later amendments or supplemental briefing?

References

No sources were provided or cited in the input.