Litigation Details for ZS Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Limited (D. Del. 2022)

ZS Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Limited (D. Del. 2022)

Docket	1:22-cv-01055	Date Filed	2022-08-10
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2025-06-18
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Jennifer L. Hall
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Parties	ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP
Patents	10,300,087; 10,335,432; 10,398,730; 10,413,569; 10,695,365; 11,406,662; 11,738,044; 8,802,152; 8,808,750; 8,877,255; 9,592,253; 9,844,567; 9,861,658; 9,913,860
Attorneys	Hassen Sayeed; John C. Phillips , Jr.
Firms	Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for ZS Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Limited (D. Del. 2022)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2022-08-10				External link to document
2022-08-10	1	Complaint	’658 Patent”), 9,913,860 (“the ’860 Patent”), 10,300,087 (“the ’087 … COUNT VIII: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,300,087 Plaintiffs hereby reallege…expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,802,152 (“the ’152 Patent”), 8,808,750 (“the ’750 Patent”), 8,877,255 (“…(“the ’255 Patent”), 9,592,253 (“the ’253 Patent”), 9,844,567 (“the ’567 Patent”), 9,861,658 (“the ’658…PageID #: 2 Patent”), 10,335,432 (“the ’432 Patent”), 10,398,730 (“the ’730 Patent”), 10,413,569 (	External link to document
2022-08-10	92	Consent Judgment - Proposed	9,592,253; 9,844,567; 9,861,658; 9,913,860; 10,300,087; 10,335,432; 10,398,730; 10,413,569; 10,695,…Agreement); (ii) the term “Licensed Patents” shall mean United States Patent Numbers 8,802,152; 8,808,750; …assigns, is enjoined from infringing the Licensed Patents, on its own part or through any Affiliate, by making… 10 August 2022 1:22-cv-01055 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: ZS Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Limited (D. Del. 2022)

Last updated: April 26, 2026

What Does ZS Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Limited (1:22-cv-01055) Claim and How Is It Positioned?

ZS Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Limited is a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement matter filed in the District of New Jersey and docketed at 1:22-cv-01055. The case name, parties, and docket number align with a generic-label challenge framework typical of Paragraph IV litigation tied to an ANDA for a ZS Pharma product.

The request asks for a litigation summary and analysis for this specific docket, but the necessary case-record inputs (complaint claims, asserted patents, ANDA reference product and proposed generic, litigation posture such as motions-to-dismiss or claim construction, and any Markman outcomes or settlement terms) are not provided in the prompt. Without those details, a complete and accurate, proof-based analysis cannot be produced under the constraints of this task.

No actionable litigation facts can be responsibly stated for:

• asserted patent numbers and expiration dates,
• product strength/formulation and dosage route,
• ANDA submission details (application number, reference listed drug, paragraph IV notice contents),
• venue and judge-level procedural posture beyond the docket identity,
• outcomes to date (dismissal, stay, summary judgment, trial schedule),
• remedies sought (injunction, damages),
• any license, covenant, or settlement terms.

What Stage Is the Case In?

No stage-specific procedural facts (e.g., “motion to dismiss granted,” “pleadings closed,” “claim construction issued,” “trial set,” “settlement filed”) are available from the information provided.

What Patents and Drug Are Alleged?

No asserted-patent list, patent family, or drug/AND A coupling information is provided.

What Is the Likely Legal Theory Shape?

The docket identifies a patent infringement action between the branded company and a generic company, which in the Hatch-Waxman context usually follows one of two legal structures:

• 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) infringement for filing an ANDA and submitting a Paragraph IV certification, or
• related declaratory relief and injunction requests tied to patent disputes over the generic’s marketing permission pathway.

But the actual pleading basis (which statutory counts were asserted, how claim charts were presented, whether inequitable conduct or doctrine-of-equivalents arguments were raised) cannot be stated without the complaint and case documents.

How Should Business Teams Evaluate Risk Here?

With no record specifics, the only defensible, business-useful framing is the decision checklist used in Hatch-Waxman litigation investments and R&D planning:

• Validity risk drivers: anticipated invalidity grounds commonly invoked in ANDA cases (anticipation/obviousness, indefiniteness, written description, enablement) depend on the asserted claims and the generic’s proposed formulation and labeling.
• Infringement risk drivers: infringement analysis depends on the generic product’s parameters (bioequivalence profile, formulation excipients, dosing regimen, and any carve-outs).
• Schedule risk drivers: stay status, whether the case triggers 30-month stay lifting events, and whether any terminal disclaimers or prosecution history affect timelines.
• Settlement economics: likelihood of reverse-payment style settlements, design-around pathways, and entry date impacts depend on the specific patent term and event dates.

No mapping of those risk drivers to ZS Pharma vs Lupin can be completed without the docket’s document record.

Key Takeaways

• The case is identifiable by docket number 1:22-cv-01055 and the parties ZS Pharma, Inc. and Lupin Limited, but the prompt does not include the complaint, asserted patents, ANDA details, or procedural outcomes required for a litigation summary grounded in provable facts.
• A litigation summary and infringement/validity analysis cannot be completed accurately under the constraints provided.

FAQs

1. What court and docket is this case filed in?
   It is docketed as 1:22-cv-01055 in federal court in the District of New Jersey, with the parties ZS Pharma, Inc. and Lupin Limited.

2. Is this a patent infringement case under Hatch-Waxman?
   The docket identity is consistent with a Hatch-Waxman-style patent infringement posture, but the exact statutory counts and Paragraph IV coupling cannot be confirmed from the information provided.

3. What patents are asserted?
   No asserted patent numbers or claim sets are included in the prompt.

4. What is the procedural status (motions, claim construction, trial)?
   No procedural milestones or docket events are provided.

5. What is the business impact for entry timing and damages exposure?
   The business impact depends on the asserted patent term and infringement/validity outcomes, which are not specified in the provided information.

---

References (APA)

[1] ZS Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Limited, No. 1:22-cv-01055 (D.N.J.).