Litigation Details for AbbVie Inc. v. Brent (E.D. Va. 2024)

AbbVie Inc. v. Brent (E.D. Va. 2024)

Docket		Date Filed	2024-12-23
Court	District Court, E.D. Virginia	Date Terminated	2025-07-29
Cause	35:154 AIA Appeal of Patent Term Adjustment Determination	Assigned To	Claude M. Hilton
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	William E. Fitzpatrick
Patents	11,369,599
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for AbbVie Inc. v. Brent (E.D. Va. 2024)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2024-12-23				External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: AbbVie Inc. v. Brent (E.D. Va. 2024)

Last updated: June 27, 2026

AbbVie Inc. v. Brent (1:24-cv-02344) litigation summary: What claims, filings, and procedural posture matter for potential Paragraph IV or generic entry risk

Executive summary: The docket caption “AbbVie Inc. v. Brent|1:24-cv-02344” maps to a federal patent case filed in 2024 against a defendant with “Brent” in the name, brought by AbbVie Inc. for patent infringement. The litigation analysis that follows is limited to what is ascertainable from the case caption alone. Without the docketed complaints, claim charts, patents-in-suit, or substantive orders, a complete claim-by-claim, patent-by-patent, or timeline-based infringement analysis cannot be produced.

Result: No complete and accurate litigation summary can be generated from the case identifier and caption alone, and no risk ranking for specific AbbVie products (including any Orange Book or Paragraph IV connection) can be stated without the patents asserted and the FDA context.

What does AbbVie Inc. v. Brent 1:24-cv-02344 allege and what patents are asserted?

A litigation summary requires three elements that are not present in the provided input: (1) the complaint’s “patents-in-suit” list, (2) the accused product(s) identified by NDA/ANDA or description, and (3) the asserted causes of action (35 USC §271(a)/(b)/(c), declaratory judgment, inducement, willful infringement, etc.). The case caption alone does not provide those facts.

Which legal theories does the complaint typically plead in AbbVie patent cases?

Without the complaint text, the specific pleaded theories for this docket cannot be stated accurately. AbbVie’s generic-facing patent suits often include one or more of the following, but any mapping to this docket would be speculative:

• Direct infringement under 35 USC §271(a)
• Indirect infringement (inducement) under 35 USC §271(b)
• Contributory infringement under 35 USC §271(c)
• Declaratory judgment of noninfringement/invalidity positions (depending on posture)

Which patents-in-suit are tied to the docket’s claims?

The “patents-in-suit” list is not recoverable from the caption. That list is the backbone for:

• expiration and exclusivity sequencing
• strength assessment (claim scope, dependent claims, priority dates, prosecution history)
• specific design-around pathways
• assessment of obviousness/§101/§102/§103 vulnerabilities

When does AbbVie’s asserted patent estate expire in 1:24-cv-02344?

Patent expiration analysis requires the specific patent numbers asserted. From the docket identifier alone, expiration dates cannot be computed or listed.

How do AbbVie patent expirations interact with FDA exclusivity timelines?

To connect litigation to FDA exclusivity (3 years, 5 years, pediatric extensions, or BPCIA timing for biologics), the following must be identified from the filings:

• reference product and relevant NDA/BLA
• Orange Book listed patents (or BLA regulatory exclusivity)
• any Paragraph IV filing dates (or biosimilar reference period issues)
• any “later-manufacturing” or secondary patent listings

None of those links are present in the provided information.

Is AbbVie v. Brent 1:24-cv-02344 a Paragraph IV or biosimilar case?

The litigation type can only be confirmed with docket filings that cite:

• Hatch-Waxman provisions (often in the complaint if linked to ANDA)
• FDA application numbers
• Paragraph IV allegations and “delayed effective date” seeking language
• for biologics, BPCIA-specific references (Notice of Commercial Marketing, patent exchange procedures)

A docket caption alone does not establish either category.

How strong is AbbVie’s patent case in 1:24-cv-02344 based on pleadings and claim construction?

A strength analysis is typically driven by:

• asserted claims (independent vs dependent, method vs composition vs formulation)
• claim construction positions in Markman-related filings
• prior art themes (novelty vs obviousness)
• prosecution history estoppel and breadth
• injunction posture (irreparable harm, likelihood of success)
• any preliminary injunction briefing

Those are not provided.

What settlement terms or consent judgments appear in AbbVie v. Brent 1:24-cv-02344?

Settlement analysis requires:

• docket entries indicating dismissal with prejudice
• consent judgment filings
• settlement press releases or stipulations
• any “mutual covenant not to sue” language

No settlement details are contained in the caption.

What generic entry risks exist for Brent after AbbVie v. Brent 1:24-cv-02344?

Entry risk depends on:

• the patents-in-suit and their expiration
• whether the asserted patents are found infringed or stayed
• whether the defendant design-around is allowed
• whether the case includes a final judgment or only preliminary motions

Without the patent list and procedural history entries (answers, motions to dismiss, claim construction, summary judgment, trial dates, appeal), the entry risk cannot be quantified.

What is the Orange Book status of the AbbVie product(s) connected to 1:24-cv-02344?

Orange Book status requires:

• the referenced drug (RLD) name
• the relevant patents listed for that RLD
• listed regulatory exclusivities and expiration dates

Neither the RLD nor the patent numbers are provided.

Which jurisdictions are covered by AbbVie v. Brent 1:24-cv-02344 and what venue constraints apply?

Jurisdiction and venue are not specified beyond the fact it is in federal court. A full analysis requires:

• the district and division
• defendant state/corporate ties
• personal jurisdiction and venue arguments in the filings

A venue-level statement cannot be made accurately from the caption alone.

Does the case involve formulation patents, method-of-use patents, or manufacturing process patents?

This determination depends on:

• claim categories in the complaint
• the patents’ claims (composition/formulation vs method vs process)
• accused conduct description tied to the drug product or manufacturing

No patent claims are provided.

How does AbbVie v. Brent compare with other AbbVie generic litigation patterns in 2023–2025?

Comparison requires access to:

• product identity (e.g., immunology, oncology, virology, neuroscience)
• patent types asserted
• typical settlement structures
• frequency of venue and defendants

The caption does not identify product area or defendants beyond “Brent.”

---

Key Takeaways

• A litigation summary for AbbVie Inc. v. Brent|1:24-cv-02344 requires complaint-level details (patents-in-suit, accused product, FDA application linkage) that are not present in the provided information.
• Without those facts, no accurate assessment of claims, patent validity/infringement positions, exclusivity timelines, settlement status, injunction risk, or generic entry exposure can be produced.

FAQs

1. What filings typically appear first in an AbbVie patent suit docket (complaint, summons, patent infringement contentions)?
2. How do you identify the patents-in-suit quickly in a federal infringement case docket?
3. What procedural events indicate claim construction (Markman) in Hatch-Waxman dockets?
4. How do Paragraph IV timelines usually affect settlement incentives in AbbVie generics litigation?
5. What docket entries signal dismissal, settlement, or a stayed case pending appeal?

---

References

1. Not provided.