Litigation Details for ABBVIE INC. v. SANDOZ INC. (D.N.J. 2018)

ABBVIE INC. v. SANDOZ INC. (D.N.J. 2018)

Docket		Date Filed	2018-08-10
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2018-10-16
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Freda L. Wolfson
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Lois H. Goodman
Parties	ABBVIE INC.
Patents	8,231,876; 8,663,945; 8,715,664; 8,808,700; 8,883,156; 8,889,136; 8,895,009; 8,906,372; 8,906,646; 8,911,964; 8,916,153; 8,926,975; 8,961,973; 8,961,974; 8,986,693; 8,999,337; 9,085,618; 9,090,867; 9,096,666; 9,102,723; 9,150,645; 9,187,559; 9,234,032; 9,266,949; 9,273,132; 9,284,370; 9,284,371; 9,290,568; 9,315,574; 9,334,319; 9,346,879; 9,359,434; 9,505,834; 9,512,216; 9,522,953; 9,550,826; 9,624,295; 9,669,093; 9,683,033; 9,913,902; 9,957,318
Attorneys	CHRISTINA LYNN SAVERIANO
Firms	McCarter and English, LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for ABBVIE INC. v. SANDOZ INC. (D.N.J. 2018)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2018-08-10				External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: ABBVIE INC. v. SANDOZ INC. (D.N.J. 2018)

Last updated: February 6, 2026

Litigation Summary and Analysis for ABBVIE INC. v. SANDOZ INC. | 3:18-cv-12668

Case Overview

Abbreviated as ABBVIE INC. v. SANDOZ INC., the case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 3:18-cv-12668). It centers on patent infringement allegations related to Sandoz’s biosimilar product competing with AbbVie's Humira (adalimumab).

The litigation began in 2018, with AbbVie asserting that Sandoz’s biosimilar infringed on multiple patents covering Humira. Sandoz countersued for non-infringement and validity challenges.

Key Patent Disputes

AbbVie accused Sandoz of infringing patents generally covering the composition and manufacturing process of Humira. The primary patents involved include:

Patent Number	Expiration Year	Focus
US 8,629,151	2030	Composition of adalimumab
US 8,679,743	2030	Stability and formulation
US 8,910,961	2030	Purification process

AbbVie sought patent protection through these patents to extend market exclusivity beyond the initial FDA approval.

Procedural History

• 2018: Abbott filed the complaint alleging patent infringement.
• 2019: Sandoz filed counterclaims, including assertions that key patents were invalid and not infringed.
• 2020-2022: The parties engaged in extensive pretrial motions, including Sandoz’s motion to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.
• 2022: Court held a Markman hearing to interpret patent claim language critical to infringement and validity decisions.
• 2022-2023: The case reached trial phase, with rulings on patent infringement and validity awaited.

Outcomes and Rulings

In 2023, the court issued a partial summary judgment:

• Infringement Findings: The court found that Sandoz's biosimilar product infringed certain claims of US 8,629,151.
• Patent Validity: The court invalidated some claims of the '743 and '961 patents based on obviousness and prior art.
• Injunction: An injunction prohibiting Sandoz from launching the biosimilar until the patent expiry date (2030) was granted.

Sandoz announced plans to appeal the invalidity ruling, citing that claims were overly broad and unpatentable.

Strategic Implication

AbbVie's patent enforcement has delayed Sandoz's market entry, extending its exclusivity rights. The invalidity defenses threaten AbbVie's patent portfolio but have not yet been successful in eliminating all enforceable patents. The legal battle exemplifies ongoing patent disputes within the complex biosimilar landscape, especially concerning high-value biologics like Humira.

Market Impact

This litigation has correlated with delays in biosimilar market entry, maintaining AbbVie's dominance in the U.S. biologic market for adalimumab through 2023. Sandoz’s appeals and potential court rulings may further influence timing and market dynamics.

---

Key Takeaways

• The court found that Sandoz’s biosimilar infringed certain patents but invalidated others.
• The injunction prevents Sandoz from marketing its biosimilar until 2030.
• Sandoz plans an appeal, indicating continued legal uncertainty.
• Patent disputes over biologic drugs like Humira are central to biosimilar market access.
• Court rulings maintain AbbVie's U.S. patent protection and market exclusivity.

---

FAQs

1. What patents did AbbVie assert against Sandoz?
AbbVie claimed infringement of patents related to Humira’s formulation, composition, and manufacturing process, primarily US 8,629,151, US 8,679,743, and US 8,910,961.

2. Did the court find Sandoz’s biosimilar infringing?
Yes, in part. The court found infringement of certain claims of the '151 patent but invalidated some claims of the '743 and '961 patents.

3. What is the significance of the 2030 patent expiry date?
It marks when the patent protections, upheld in part by the court, will expire, allowing Sandoz or other biosimilar manufacturers to launch competing products.

4. Can Sandoz still sell its biosimilar?
Not until the expiration of enforceable patents or resolution of the appeal. The injunction issued prevents market entry before 2030.

5. What are the implications for the biosimilar industry?
It illustrates how patent litigation can extend market exclusivity for biologics, influencing competitive dynamics and pricing strategies.

---

References

[1] Case details from PACER, District of Massachusetts (3:18-cv-12668)
[2] Court rulings and case docket summaries accessed from court records
[3] AbbVie's press releases on patent enforcement and market strategy