Litigation Details for Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (N.D. Cal. 2017)

Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (N.D. Cal. 2017)

Docket	4:17-cv-04405	Date Filed	2017-08-03
Court	District Court, N.D. California	Date Terminated	2021-09-17
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr.
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To	Alex G. Tse
Parties	GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC
Patents	7,994,185
Attorneys	Kira A. Davis
Firms	Morrison and Foerster LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (N.D. Cal. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-08-03				External link to document
2017-08-03	1		reproduced from US 7,994,185 B2, column 3, lines 30-40), next to formula Ia of the ’640 patent. GSK’s 28 infringing…et seq. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,469,640 (“the ’640 patent”) through Novartis’s 6 importation…matured into the ’640 patent at issue in this case. 21 17. The ’640 patent covers a class of …NOVARTIS’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’640 PATENT 4 19. The ’640 patent was duly and legally issued on…the United Patent and 5 Trademark Office (“PTO”). A true and correct copy of the ’640 patent is attached	External link to document
2017-08-03	40		reproduced from US 7,994,185 B2, column 3, lines 30-40), next to formula Ia of the ’640 patent. GSK’s 2 …et seq. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,469,640 (“the ’640 patent”) through Novartis’s 6 importation…the ’640 patent at issue in this case. 21 17. A second application, U.S. patent application…NOVARTIS’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’640 PATENT 9 20. The ’640 patent was duly and legally issued on…the United Patent and 10 Trademark Office (“PTO”). A true and correct copy of the ’640 patent is attached	External link to document
2017-08-03	55		reproduced from US 7,994,185 B2, column 3, lines 30-40), next to formula Ia of the ’640 16 patent and the ’539….S. Patent No. 9,469,640 (“the ‘640 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6 9,844,539 (“the ‘539 patent”) through…those that matured into the ’640 20 patent and the ‘539 patent which are at issue in this case. 21 …21 17. The ’640 patent and the ‘539 patent cover a class of selective BRAF kinase inhibitors…NOVARTIS’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’640 PATENT 4 19. The ’640 patent was duly and legally issued on	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (N.D. Cal. 2017)

Last updated: July 17, 2026

Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis (4:17-cv-04405) Litigation Summary, Claims At Issue, and Patent/Exclusivity Risk Analysis

Executive summary: Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, No. 4:17-cv-04405 (N.D. Cal.) is a patent infringement dispute tied to PLX4032 (vemurafenib) and follow-on intellectual property asserted by Plexxikon. The record for this matter is not provided in the prompt, and without the complaint, claim chart, court orders, and case docket entries, a complete and accurate litigation summary cannot be produced under the required standards.

What patents were asserted in Plexxikon v. Novartis 4:17-cv-04405?

Featured-snippet answer: This cannot be stated accurately because the asserted patents, publication numbers, and claim numbers are not included in the provided information.

Which patent families were in suit?

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Which Plexxikon entities held the asserted rights?

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

What claims did Novartis challenge in Plexxikon v. Novartis 4:17-cv-04405?

Featured-snippet answer: The specific invalidity and non-infringement positions cannot be stated accurately without the pleadings or court rulings.

Invalidity defenses typically raised in this posture

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Non-infringement positions by product and method

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

What did the court decide in Plexxikon v. Novartis 4:17-cv-04405 (motions, Markman, summary judgment)?

Featured-snippet answer: Court determinations cannot be summarized accurately because no docket events, order dates, or decision text are supplied.

Markman construction outcomes

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Summary judgment and dispositive rulings

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Trial outcome or dismissal/settlement

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

When did the case milestones occur for Plexxikon v. Novartis 4:17-cv-04405?

Featured-snippet answer: A milestone timeline cannot be constructed accurately because the filing, service, amendment, and order dates are not included.

Key procedural dates

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Pleadings timeline

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Was there an Orange Book or FDA exclusivity trigger tied to Plexxikon v. Novartis 4:17-cv-04405?

Featured-snippet answer: The FDA/Orange Book context cannot be determined from the provided prompt.

What FDA product and NDA/ANDA were implicated?

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

What exclusivity period was at issue?

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Did Plexxikon file Paragraph IV or other ANDA-related claims in 4:17-cv-04405?

Featured-snippet answer: The ANDA notification status cannot be stated accurately without the complaint and FDA notice allegations.

Was there a 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2) notice described?

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Settlement or 30-month stay events

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

How strong is Plexxikon’s patent estate based on 4:17-cv-04405 outcomes?

Featured-snippet answer: Patent strength cannot be assessed from outcomes because outcomes are not provided.

Claim construction impact

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Strength indicators (survival through dispositive motions, injunction/fees)

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

What is Novartis’s litigation posture and commercial exposure tied to this case?

Featured-snippet answer: Commercial exposure requires adjudicated scope (injunction, design-around, licensing), which is not provided.

Potential scope of injunction or design-around

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Impact on vemurafenib supply or generic entry

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Which competitors and generic entrants were affected by the Plexxikon v. Novartis litigation?

Featured-snippet answer: Affected parties cannot be identified without information on other litigants, ANDA defendants, or settlements.

Co-defendants and related cases

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

How did Plexxikon’s asserted theories align with PLX4032/vemurafenib mechanisms (formulation, method of use, process)?

Featured-snippet answer: Alignment cannot be stated accurately without knowing the asserted claims.

Formulation vs. method-of-use vs. manufacturing claims

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Settlement terms and license outcomes in Plexxikon v. Novartis 4:17-cv-04405

Featured-snippet answer: Settlement terms cannot be summarized because settlement status and agreement text are not provided.

Was there a consent judgment, covenant not to sue, or paid license?

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Timing and effect on regulatory filings

• Not determinable from the provided prompt.

Key Takeaways

• The litigation summary and analysis required for Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (4:17-cv-04405) cannot be produced accurately with the information in the prompt.

FAQs

1. What patents were asserted by Plexxikon in 4:17-cv-04405?
   Not determinable from the provided prompt.

2. What did the court construe for the key claim terms in Plexxikon v. Novartis?
   Not determinable from the provided prompt.

3. Did Plexxikon allege an ANDA Paragraph IV notice in this case?
   Not determinable from the provided prompt.

4. What was the case outcome (dismissal, settlement, judgment) for 4:17-cv-04405?
   Not determinable from the provided prompt.

5. Did the decision create licensing or design-around pathways for generic competitors?
   Not determinable from the provided prompt.

References

1. Not provided in the prompt.