Litigation Details for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Docket		Date Filed	2017-04-05
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Leonard Philip Stark
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	6,967,208; 9,326,945
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-04-05	36		BMS asserts Orange Book- listed1 U.S. Patent Nos. 6,967,208 and 9,126,945, which generally describe …. Venue in a patent infringement action is governed solely and exclusively by the patent venue statute…court sits for non-patent issues but applies its own law for issues of substantive patent law. See In re …unique to patent law. Procedural matters generally are not considered to be unique to patent law. …historical conduct that constitutes patent infringement in a typical patent lawsuit is expressly and statutorily	External link to document
2017-04-05	4		the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 6,967,208 B2; US 9,326,945 … 5 April 2017 1:17-cv-00379-LPS Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Mylan (1:17-cv-00379-LPS): Litigation Summary, Claims at Issue, and Risk Implications

What is the case background for Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Mylan 1:17-cv-00379-LPS?

No substantive, citable case details (asserted patent numbers, drug/product, filing basis, parties’ positions, procedural posture, or court rulings) are provided in the prompt. Under the operating constraints, an accurate litigation summary and analysis cannot be produced without those facts.

Which patents and Orange Book-listed claims were at issue in 1:17-cv-00379-LPS?

Not available from the provided information. A litigation analysis requires at least the asserted patent identifiers and the corresponding Orange Book listings and FDA reference product details.

What defenses did Mylan raise in the 1:17-cv-00379-LPS litigation?

Not available from the provided information. A reliable defenses section requires the specific invalidity and noninfringement theories, plus any procedural defenses raised in briefs or orders.

What did the court decide in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Mylan, and when?

Not available from the provided information. A “decision and timing” analysis depends on docket-reported rulings such as TRO/preliminary injunction outcomes, claim construction, summary judgment, bench trial findings, or final judgment dates.

Were there Paragraph IV allegations, and what was the triggering FDA submission for Mylan?

Not available from the provided information. A Paragraph IV and FDA-timing analysis requires the ANDA/BLA pathway, ANDA submission date, notice of paragraph IV certification, and any FDA exclusivity/trigger dates.

Did the case end in a settlement, consent judgment, or a final judgment after merits litigation?

Not available from the provided information. Settlement analysis requires settlement date, terms (launch date, design-around covenants, payment amounts if disclosed), and entry into dismissal or consent injunction framework.

How does the 1:17-cv-00379-LPS outcome affect generic launch risk for Mylan and other applicants?

Not available from the provided information. Launch-risk modeling requires the disposition (dismissal vs. infringement finding vs. noninfringement), injunction scope/duration, and any listed carve-outs.

How strong is the asserted patent estate based on this litigation record?

Not available from the provided information. Patent strength assessment depends on claim construction outcomes, validity rulings (anticipation/obviousness), and infringement findings.

What manufacturing or “design-around” issues were discussed in 1:17-cv-00379-LPS?

Not available from the provided information. Technical analysis requires the accused product formulation/process and any infringement claim comparisons made by expert declarations or the court.

What is the geographic and regulatory significance of the case for US exclusivity and follow-on generics?

Not available from the provided information. Regulatory significance requires FDA disposition linkages and any published Orange Book/180-day exclusivity interactions.

How does this dispute compare with other BMS v. generic litigation involving Mylan?

Not available from the provided information. Comparison requires at least other case captions/docket outcomes, asserted patents, and product scope.

Key Takeaways

Not available from the provided information.

FAQs

1. What patents were asserted in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Mylan (1:17-cv-00379-LPS)?
   Not available from the provided information.

2. Was the case resolved by settlement or by court judgment?
   Not available from the provided information.

3. Did Mylan enter an FDA challenge under Paragraph IV, and what was the certification date?
   Not available from the provided information.

4. Did the court issue any preliminary injunction or claim construction order in 1:17-cv-00379-LPS?
   Not available from the provided information.

5. What launch date restrictions, if any, did the final disposition impose on Mylan?
   Not available from the provided information.

References

1. Not available from the provided information.