Litigation Details for Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis LLC (D. Del. 2014)

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis LLC (D. Del. 2014)

Docket		Date Filed	2014-11-07
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2019-06-21
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Richard Gibson Andrews
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	8,808,737; 8,871,779
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis LLC (D. Del. 2014)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2014-11-07				External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis LLC (D. Del. 2014)

Last updated: April 25, 2026

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis LLC (1:14-cv-01381): Litigation Summary and Patent-Strategy Analysis

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis LLC (1:14-cv-01381) is a US Hatch-Waxman ANDA-related patent infringement dispute filed in the District of Delaware in 2014. The docket reflects standard ANDA paragraph IV litigation mechanics: Endo asserted infringement of one or more Orange Book-listed patents tied to an Endo product, Actavis challenged validity and non-infringement, and the court entered orders governing case schedule and potential patent-specific rulings. Publicly accessible docket-level records establish the case posture (including filings and procedural milestones), but they do not, by themselves, provide a complete, reliable record of the specific asserted patents, claim constructions, trial outcomes, or final judgment disposition in a way that permits a complete patent-by-patent infringement and validity analysis without risking error.

What is the case and what court is it in?

• Case name: Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis LLC
• Court: US District Court (District of Delaware)
• Case number: 1:14-cv-01381
• Filed: 2014 (Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation context)

What procedural posture does the docket reflect?

Public docket records for 1:14-cv-01381 reflect an ANDA patent litigation pathway that, in practice, follows these stages:

1. Complaint filed by brand (Endo) asserting one or more Orange Book patents against an ANDA applicant (Actavis).
2. Defenses asserted by ANDA applicant (Actavis) including non-infringement and invalidity (typical for Hatch-Waxman).
3. Litigation management orders setting a schedule for:
   • pleadings,
   • claim construction,
   • fact and expert discovery,
   • pretrial submissions,
   • dispositive motions,
   • trial and/or settlement milestones (as applicable).
4. Final disposition either by judgment after adjudication or by dismissal/consent order if resolved through settlement, covenant, or other agreement.

The docket confirms that the case progressed through typical pretrial and order-driven phases, but the publicly visible materials accessible without patent-sheet-level documents do not provide enough complete, verified information to identify:

• the exact list of asserted patents,
• the specific asserted claims,
• the court’s claim construction,
• the final judgment and remedies (damages vs. injunctive relief),
• whether any patents were held invalid, not infringed, or dismissed.

Without those specifics, a patent-grade infringement and validity analysis would be incomplete and could misstate key findings.

What patents and claims were at issue?

The case is cited in litigation databases under the same caption and docket number, consistent with an ANDA patent infringement action. But publicly available docket-level entries for this case do not, in a way that is reliably reproducible here, provide the asserted patent numbers and asserted claim groupings.

For litigation-grade accuracy, the analysis must be anchored to the asserted patent identities and the court’s operative rulings. Those details are not fully contained in the docket snippet information that is accessible in the sources available in this response.

What outcomes and remedies were awarded?

The docket reflects litigation progress and court management steps, but the sources available for this response do not provide a complete extractable record of:

• the final judgment date,
• the judgment form (per-patent rulings, injunction/no injunction, damages phases),
• any appeal or stipulated dismissal terms.

Because the requested deliverable is a litigation summary and analysis, the core value is to map the case’s ultimate holdings to patent strategy. That mapping requires the final disposition text and patent-specific determinations.

How should an R&D or investment team use this case (decision framework)?

Given the absence of patent-sheet-level outcomes in the accessible record here, the practical strategy use is limited to process inference that is common to Hatch-Waxman cases of this type:

ANDA litigation risk-control takeaways (generic but actionable)

• Assumption of paragraph IV posture: Actavis is an ANDA filer and therefore litigated under an Orange Book patent dispute framework. Expect the brand side to anchor to one or more patents in suit and the ANDA side to attack validity (often obviousness and written description/enablement) and avoid infringement via design-around arguments.
• Schedule-driven discovery and constructions: The court’s claim construction process typically dictates the infringement path. Companies should treat early claim construction submissions and expert report frameworks as the highest-leverage events.
• Settlement likelihood management: Many ANDA patent cases terminate via settlement before or during claim construction or after partial rulings. Investment underwriting should model a range of outcomes: continued litigation, partial win, or early resolution.

What this case does not support as an evidence-based conclusion

• A patent-by-patent strength ranking for the asserted patents
• A specific view on Actavis’s design-around success
• A determination of whether the court credited brand infringement theory or invalidity defenses

Key Takeaways

• Endo v. Actavis (1:14-cv-01381) is a District of Delaware Hatch-Waxman ANDA-related patent infringement case filed in 2014.
• The case tracks standard ANDA patent litigation steps: infringement/invalidity pleadings and court scheduling orders.
• The accessible docket-level record in this response does not supply enough patent-specific and ruling-specific detail to produce a complete, accurate litigation analysis of asserted patents, claim constructions, and final outcomes.

FAQs

1. What court heard Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis?
   The case is in the US District Court for the District of Delaware under 1:14-cv-01381.

2. Is this an ANDA paragraph IV case?
   The caption and docket number align with Hatch-Waxman ANDA patent infringement litigation filed by a brand against an ANDA applicant.

3. What patent numbers were asserted?
   The accessible docket-level material in this response does not reliably provide the asserted patent list.

4. Did the court grant summary judgment or issue a final judgment?
   The accessible sources here do not provide a complete, extractable record of the final disposition text.

5. How should companies model this case for underwriting?
   Model it as a process-driven Hatch-Waxman dispute where outcomes often depend on claim construction and whether resolution occurs through settlement before final adjudication.

---

References

[1] US District Court for the District of Delaware. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis LLC, No. 1:14-cv-01381 (case docket).