Litigation Details for ARAGON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ZYDUS WORLDWIDE DMCC (D.N.J. 2024)

« Back to Dashboard

ARAGON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ZYDUS WORLDWIDE DMCC (D.N.J. 2024)

Docket		Date Filed	2024-09-12
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2024-11-27
Cause	15:1126 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Stanley R. Chesler
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Leda Dunn Wettre
Parties	ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED
Patents	10,052,314; 10,702,508; 10,849,888; 11,963,952; 8,445,507; 8,802,689; 9,388,159; 9,481,663; 9,884,054; 9,987,261
Attorneys	KEITH J. MILLER
Firms	Robinson Miller LLC, Ironside Newark
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for ARAGON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ZYDUS WORLDWIDE DMCC (D.N.J. 2024)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2024-09-12				External link to document

Last updated: July 18, 2026

ecutive summary Aragon Pharmaceuticals’ suit against Zydus Worldwide DMCC (SDNY, No. 2:24-cv-09134) is a 2024 Hatch-Waxman patent dispute framed as patent infringement tied to Zydus’s FDA drug application. The case posture, claims asserted, and the likely infringement theory cannot be reproduced here because the underlying complaint, patents listed, and the FDA reference/product details are not included in the provided matter reference.

What patent infringement claims are at issue in Aragon Pharmaceuticals v. Zydus Worldwide DMCC (2:24-cv-09134)?

Answer: The asserted patents, claim numbers, and infringement theories are not available from the case caption alone. A litigation-grade infringement summary requires the complaint’s “Patents in Suit” section and the asserted “counts” aligned to each patent claim.

Which patents are “in suit” in 2:24-cv-09134?

A litigation summary must map:

• Patent numbers listed in the complaint
• Statutory bases (35 USC §271(a), §271(e)(2), willful infringement allegations)
• Claim set (independent vs. dependent) and product/application coverage

None of these details are contained in the input citation.

What product/application does Zydus allegedly seek to market?

For Hatch-Waxman cases, the product is identified via:

• The FDA application type (ANDA/BLA) and submission timing
• The reference listed drug (RLD) and NDA/ANDA number
• The Orange Book “listed patents” at issue

Those specifics are not provided in the matter reference.

What defenses does Zydus typically raise in Paragraph IV pharma suits?

A complete litigation analysis normally covers:

• Non-infringement (non-covered formulation/process)
• Invalidity (anticipation/obviousness/indefiniteness, written description enablement)
• Statutory limitations and equitable defenses
• Early/late RLD or patent listing challenges

No defense record is available in the supplied information.

When was 2:24-cv-09134 filed, and what is the procedural posture?

Answer: Filing date is not stated in the input, and no docket events (motions to dismiss, preliminary injunction briefing, Markman scheduling, scheduling order, transfer motions, settlement, or dismissal) are included.

Key docket milestones to extract for a true case timeline

A professional litigation timeline should enumerate:

• Complaint filed date
• Service date
• Answer/Rule 12 deadlines
• Rule 12(b)(6)/12(c) motion dates
• Any preliminary injunction request and hearing dates
• Claim construction (Markman) dates
• Case management/scheduling order
• Settlement agreement notices or voluntary dismissal dates

None of these are included.

Has the case moved beyond pleadings?

A factual answer depends on docket entries (e.g., amended complaint, stipulations, discovery orders). No docket entries are provided.

What remedies are Aragon seeking in 2:24-cv-09134?

Answer: The relief sought (injunction scope, damages, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs) cannot be determined from the caption alone. Hatch-Waxman complaints generally request:

• Permanent injunction under 35 USC §283
• A court order preventing FDA approval and/or commercial marketing during exclusivity/patent term
• Damages for acts of infringement up to the judgment date (if applicable)
• Enhanced damages for willfulness (rarely without a willfulness narrative in the complaint)
• Attorneys’ fees under 35 USC §285

The exact prayer for relief in this case is not available.

Are there claims for willful infringement?

A willfulness allegation is normally pleaded with specific factual predicates. Without the complaint text, this cannot be stated.

How strong is Aragon’s patent position in the Zydus DMCC case?

Answer: Strength requires the specific patents and independent claim content plus Zydus’s invalidity assertions. Those inputs are not present.

What do litigation-strength indicators depend on?

A standard analysis uses:

• Claim scope breadth and objective boundaries (structure, ranges, process parameters, dosage regimen)
• Prior art landscape for novelty/obviousness
• Whether claims have been litigated before (PTAB outcomes, prior invalidity judgments, terminal disclaimers)
• Whether the asserted claims are design-around resistant

None of this can be performed without the patents in suit and claim language.

What generic entry risks does Zydus face from 2:24-cv-09134?

Answer: Entry risk is determined by:

• Which patents are asserted and whether they are composition, method-of-use, or formulation/process
• Whether the asserted patents are likely to expire before or after any stipulated FDA approval date
• Settlement terms, if any, including launch design-outs and “carve-out” dates

No patent expiration or settlement details are provided.

Paragraph IV timing: what matters for launch

A credible launch-risk summary depends on:

• The patent expiration dates and any adjusted expiration
• FDA approval timelines tied to ANDA acceptance and labeling design
• Whether the case is stayed, expedited, or subject to a preliminary injunction

These data are not in the input.

What settlement outcomes typically resolve Aragon–Zydus disputes?

Answer: Whether a settlement exists, and its terms (e.g., agreed trigger date, no-royalty vs. running royalty, market allocation, patent-specific carve-outs) cannot be concluded without docket updates or a settlement filing.

What to look for in a filed settlement in SDNY Hatch-Waxman cases

Settlement artifacts usually include:

• Stipulation of dismissal with prejudice
• Court-approved consent order
• Confidential agreement terms summarized in public filings
• Notice of dismissal of specific counts/patents

No settlement information is supplied.

What Orange Book status drives the legal theory in this case?

Answer: The Orange Book listing status (listed patents for the relevant RLD) and which patents were found infringed under Zydus’s certification are central to Hatch-Waxman. Those Orange Book details are not included.

Which Orange Book listings are typically litigated

Courts usually see:

• Drug substance (composition) patents
• Drug product (formulation) patents
• Method-of-use patents (indications or dosage regimens)
• Manufacturing/process patents (less common for ANDA product claims)

No RLD identity is provided.

How does Aragon’s estate compare with other challengers to the same RLD?

Answer: Comparative estate strength requires the RLD and the patent families listed for it. Without the product identity, no meaningful comparison is possible.

What comparison would be performed in a full report

A complete competitive analysis maps:

• Patent-family overlap across generics
• Number of “active” patents remaining vs. those expired or disclaimed
• Litigation participation across multiple ANDA filers
• Prosecution history that narrows claim scope

Product identity and patent list are absent.

Key Takeaways

1. The case reference (Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Zydus Worldwide DMCC, 2:24-cv-09134) is insufficient to produce a litigation-grade summary of the patents-in-suit, claims asserted, procedural posture, or relief sought.
2. A defensible infringement and invalidity analysis requires complaint and docket information that are not provided in the input.
3. Launch-risk and Orange Book-driven exclusivity impact cannot be quantified without identifying the RLD, the ANDA/BLA application, and the listed patents at issue.

FAQs

1. What patents are typically asserted in Aragon Pharmaceuticals Hatch-Waxman suits filed in 2024?
2. How do SDNY courts handle motions to dismiss in Paragraph IV pharmaceutical cases?
3. What factors determine whether a preliminary injunction is granted for ANDA patent disputes?
4. How do settlement dismissals affect generic entry dates in Hatch-Waxman litigation?
5. What Orange Book certification types (Paragraph IV, V) most often drive infringement theories?

References

1. Case citation provided in prompt: Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Zydus Worldwide DMCC, No. 2:24-cv-09134.