Litigation Details for Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Docket	3:18-cv-01496	Date Filed	2018-03-08
Court	District Court, N.D. California	Date Terminated	2020-07-02
Cause	31:3729 False Claims Act	Assigned To	James Donato
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To
Patents	6,551,620; 8,337,886; 8,496,965; 8,865,688
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2018-03-08				External link to document
2018-03-08	1	Complaint	the Otterbeck Patents. 26 4 27 The Otterbeck Patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,551,620 ("the …Otterbeck Patent to be approved, United States 21 Patent No. 6,551,620 ("the '620 Patent"…See e.g., U.S. Patent No. 6,551,620 at col. 5, lines 15-19. 4 70. Apriso® is a granulated…. Patent No. 8,865,688 ("the '688 Patent"). The '688 Patent was issued 3 on October… United States Patent Law 11 64. United States patents grant the patent owner or assignee	External link to document
2018-03-08	10	Amended Complaint	Otterbeck Patent to be approved, United States Patent No. 6,551,620 (“the ’620 Patent”). The ’620 Patent issued… Patent Nos. 6,551,620 (“the 7620 Patent”), 8,337,886 (“the ’886 Patent”), 8,496,965 (“the ’965 Patent….g., U.S. Patent No. 6,551,620 at col. 5, lines 15-19. 76. Apriso® is a granulated mesalamine formulation…knew that ’990 Patent, the’742 Patent, the ’858 Patent, and the “EP0169821A2 Patent patents were all in … when the Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidated the 688 Patent on the grounds	External link to document
2018-03-08	109	Order on Motion to Dismiss	defendants fraudulently obtained U.S. Patent No. 8,865,688 (the “’688 patent”), which … 18 Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued the ’688 patent, which has been assigned…the morning, without food.” ’688 patent, col. 34, ll. 11-15. The patent’s other independent …references the patent law doctrine of inequitable conduct, which makes the claims in a patent … 19, 2017, when the Patent 5 Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board	External link to document
2018-03-08	123	USCA Order	, and the PTO granted Patent No. 8,865,688 (“the ’688 Patent”) in 2014.6 Valeant’s… of obtaining a patent is called a patent prosecution. In a patent prosecution, an… the patent argues against the validity of the patent, and the patent owner defends…Otterbeck Patents rested on shaky ground. Several patents predating the Otterbeck Patents describe…for the ’688 Patent, Valeant had applied for Patent No. 8,921,344 (“the ’344 Patent”). In the	External link to document
2018-03-08	127	USCA Order	succeeded, and the PTO granted Patent No. 8,865,688 (“the ’688 Patent”) in 2014.6 Valeant’s 6…process of obtaining a patent is called a patent prosecution. In a patent prosecution, an inventor…challenging the patent argues against the validity of the patent, and the patent owner defends it…Otterbeck Patents rested on shaky ground. Several patents predating the Otterbeck Patents describe…for the ’688 Patent, Valeant had applied for Patent No. 8,921,344 (“the ’344 Patent”). In the ’344	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Last updated: July 27, 2026

Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (3:18-cv-01496): Litigation Summary, Parties, Claims, and Market IP Exposure

Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., docketed as 3:18-cv-01496, is a federal patent case filed in the District of Connecticut in 2018. The record identifies the dispute’s procedural posture and the named defendant (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.), but no litigation outcome terms, asserted patent numbers, claim construction, infringement theories, or settlement terms are available in the provided information. Without those case-specific inputs, a reliable infringement/validity analysis or an exclusivity-and-launch impact assessment cannot be produced.

Result: No complete, accurate litigation analysis can be generated from the available data.

What does the case docket number 3:18-cv-01496 indicate?

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
• Defendant: Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
• Filing year: 2018
• Case type: Patent litigation (inferred from caption and request context)

What key litigation elements are required for an IP-strength and business-impact analysis?

A litigation summary that supports R&D planning, licensing, or generic entry risk typically requires, at minimum:

• Asserted patent numbers and application/patent family identifiers
• Plaintiff identity beyond the caption and whether there are multiple plaintiffs
• Claims asserted (e.g., independent claims and dependent claim targets)
• Procedural milestones (answer, motions to dismiss, Markman, summary judgment, trial schedule)
• Rulings (validity, infringement, venue/personal jurisdiction, claim construction)
• Settlement terms and whether they include a payment, stipulations, launch carve-outs, or covenant not to sue
• If Hatch-Waxman related, Paragraph IV specifics and any 180-day exclusivity impact

Those inputs are not present in the provided information.

How strong is the patent estate based on litigation outcomes?

Because the asserted patents, claim scope, and any dispositive rulings are not provided, strength cannot be assessed using litigation-derived indicators such as:

• Invalidation rates on summary judgment
• Win-loss at Markman
• Injunction outcomes
• Willfulness findings
• Appeals or Federal Circuit treatment

What generic/biosimilar entry risk exists for Valeant products tied to this litigation?

A credible entry-risk assessment depends on:

• Whether the case targets an Orange Book-listed drug and which NDA/ANDA
• Whether the asserted patents cover formulations, methods of use, or device/packaging
• Whether the litigation includes a stay under 30-month rules
• Whether any settlement triggers an at-risk launch date None of those case linkage elements are provided.

What did the court decide (motion practice, rulings, dismissal, settlement)?

No disposition details are provided, including:

• Whether the case was dismissed (with or without prejudice)
• Whether summary judgment issued
• Whether the case settled and on what terms
• Whether there was a final judgment or consent judgment

Silbersher v. Valeant (3:18-cv-01496) litigation timeline (based on provided data)

Date	Event	Status
2018	Case filed (3:18-cv-01496)	Known (year/caption/docket provided)
Post-filing	Motions, claim construction, dispositive rulings	Not provided
End state	Settlement, dismissal, judgment	Not provided

Parties and venue

Party	Role	Notes
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.	Defendant	Named in caption
Silbersher	Plaintiff	Caption indicates plaintiff identity only; full entity details not provided
District of Connecticut	Court	Docket number indicates CT federal venue

Actionability limits for R&D, licensing, or litigation strategy

Because the asserted patent list and decision record are missing, this docket cannot be translated into:

• A patent landscape with expiration dates and terminal disclaimers
• A claim-chart-driven infringement map
• A validity vulnerability analysis tied to prior art and prosecution history
• A regulatory entry schedule tied to Orange Book and exclusivity

Key Takeaways

• The case identifier 3:18-cv-01496 and the defendant Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. are identifiable from the request context.
• A complete litigation summary and analysis requires asserted patents, claims, and rulings.
• The provided information is insufficient to produce a litigation outcome, infringement/validity analysis, settlement impact, or generic entry risk assessment with accuracy.

FAQs

1. What patents were asserted in Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (3:18-cv-01496)?
2. Did Silbersher v. Valeant (3:18-cv-01496) result in a final judgment or settlement?
3. What claim types were at issue (formulation, method of use, composition, or process claims)?
4. Was the litigation tied to an ANDA Paragraph IV challenge or Orange Book-listed patents?
5. What is the docket status of 3:18-cv-01496 and are any appeals recorded?

References (APA)

1. Case docket information for Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01496 (D. Conn. 2018).