Last updated: July 12, 2026
OHEMO LIFE SCIENCES v. TEVA (2:19-cv-10464): Litigation summary, claims at issue, and impact on Teva generic risk
Ohemo Life Sciences, Inc. sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 2:19-cv-10464 in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case centers on patent infringement allegations tied to Teva’s generic pharmaceutical product under the Hatch-Waxman Act framework (Paragraph IV-style litigation posture). The litigation status, the specific asserted patents, and the exact claim construction outcomes are not provided in the input record, so a complete, accurate claims-and-timeline analysis cannot be produced.
What patents does Ohemo Life Sciences assert against Teva in 2:19-cv-10464?
A litigation summary that identifies the asserted U.S. patents, inventors, assignees, expiration dates, and the specific independent claims requires access to the complaint and the parties’ claim charts or court orders. The provided input does not include any of that case content, so the patent list and claim scope cannot be stated accurately.
Which patent numbers are listed in the complaint for 2:19-cv-10464?
Not provided.
Are the asserted patents method-of-use, formulation, or composition of matter?
Not provided.
What drug product is implicated in the Orange Book listing?
Not provided.
What is the litigation timeline for OHEMO v. TEVA (2:19-cv-10464)?
A correct timeline must cite dates for: service of complaint, Teva’s answer, infringement and invalidity contentions, Markman scheduling, claim construction order, dispositive motion rulings, and final judgment or settlement. None of those dates are included in the input record.
Filing, service, and first responsive pleadings
Not provided.
Claim construction (Markman) milestones
Not provided.
Summary judgment and trial posture
Not provided.
Final disposition or settlement agreement
Not provided.
What did the court decide on claim construction in OHEMO LIFE SCIENCES v. TEVA?
Court interpretations of disputed claim terms drive freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis for generic entry. Without docket text or orders, claim construction results cannot be stated.
Which claim terms were disputed
Not provided.
Which claims were narrowed or affirmed
Not provided.
Has Teva launched “at risk” in OHEMO LIFE SCIENCES v. TEVA (2:19-cv-10464)?
Launch-at-risk risk depends on whether the case ended in a judgment for Teva, dismissal, settlement with non-infringement or invalidity positions, or issuance of an injunction. The input record contains no launch or injunction information.
Is there an injunction in effect
Not provided.
Does any settlement bar launch until a stated date
Not provided.
What Paragraph IV defenses did Teva raise in 2:19-cv-10464?
Common Hatch-Waxman defenses include non-infringement, invalidity under §§102/103/112/101, inequitable conduct, and non-assertion of certain claims. The input record does not include Teva’s defenses.
Invalidity grounds (102/103/112/101)
Not provided.
Best mode, enablement, definiteness
Not provided.
Indefiniteness or written description
Not provided.
Which infringement theories did Ohemo pursue against Teva’s proposed generic in 2:19-cv-10464?
Infringement theories typically map to the asserted drug label, manufacturing process, formulation, dosage form, and/or method-of-use. The input record does not include the infringement contentions.
Direct infringement based on ANDA product
Not provided.
Induced/contributory infringement
Not provided.
Doctrine of equivalents vs literal infringement
Not provided.
What is the regulatory status of the ANDA implicated in OHEMO v. TEVA?
A regulatory analysis requires the relevant ANDA number, FDA approval status, Orange Book patent list, CFR/label details, and 180-day exclusivity or changes. None are included in the input record.
Which ANDA is at issue
Not provided.
Orange Book listed patents tied to the NDA
Not provided.
180-day exclusivity holder
Not provided.
Does this case involve a settlement agreement that shifts generic launch dates for Teva?
Whether a settlement exists, whether it is a standard Hatch-Waxman entry-forgotten settlement, and the precise entry dates requires docket documents and settlement terms. Not provided.
Entry date and carve-outs
Not provided.
Court-approved vs private settlement
Not provided.
How strong is OHEMO’s patent estate relative to typical generic defenses in the District of Massachusetts?
Strength depends on the specific patents-in-suit, their claim scope, prosecution history, and prior art landscape. Without the asserted patents and claim constructions, patent-strength analysis cannot be made.
Patent expiration and remaining enforceable term
Not provided.
Prior art and obviousness risk
Not provided.
Claim breadth vs likely non-infringement design-arounds
Not provided.
What generic entry risks exist for Teva after 2:19-cv-10464?
Posture depends on outcome and whether any remaining patents are asserted or listed in the Orange Book for the relevant reference listed drug. The input record does not contain the disposition or remaining patent schedule.
Risk of design-around
Not provided.
Risk of additional injunctions from other patents
Not provided.
Risk of future litigation with other ANDA filers
Not provided.
Key Takeaways
- Case identified: OHEMO LIFE SCIENCES, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 2:19-cv-10464 in the District of Massachusetts.
- Litigation centered on: Hatch-Waxman-type patent infringement allegations involving Teva’s generic pharmaceutical entry, but the asserted patent numbers, claims, court rulings, and settlement/judgment terms are not present in the provided input.
- Actionable analysis not computable from record provided: patent lists, expiration and exclusivity impact, claim construction outcomes, and launch timing cannot be stated accurately.
FAQs
- What court orders are most determinative for Teva’s launch risk in 2:19-cv-10464?
- How do claim construction outcomes typically affect Paragraph IV generic cases like OHEMO v. TEVA?
- Which patents usually remain after settlement in Hatch-Waxman litigations in the District of Massachusetts?
- What docket events signal dismissal vs a final judgment in patent infringement cases?
- How does Orange Book listing completeness affect later “work-around” or subsequent litigation?
References
- Case docket: OHEMO LIFE SCIENCES, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 2:19-cv-10464 (D. Mass.).
