Last updated: July 15, 2026
SUCAMPO AG’s infringement case against Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (Teva) (D.N.J., case no. 3:17-cv-07451) is filed as a U.S. patent suit tied to a generic challenger’s FDA-facing activity. The docket number alone does not supply the asserted patent(s), claim scope, procedural posture, or any final merits outcome. Without those case-specific identifiers, a litigation summary cannot be produced accurately.
What patents were asserted in SUCAMPO AG v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 3:17-cv-07451?
No asserted-patent list is available from the provided case identifier. A litigation summary requires the specific patent numbers and the claim(s) alleged infringed, since those control both claim construction and validity/infringement analysis.
Which SUCAMPO patents were named as infringed?
Not provided.
Which Teva product was accused?
Not provided.
Were method-of-use or formulation patents asserted?
Not provided.
What is the procedural timeline for SUCAMPO AG v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 3:17-cv-07451?
A timeline requires docket events (complaint filing, answer, case management conference, Markman, motions to dismiss/transfer, summary judgment, trial dates, settlement or dismissal dates). The docket number alone does not establish those events.
When did the case get filed and what was the case posture at key milestones?
Not provided.
Were Paragraph IV or other FDA-related theories pled?
Not provided.
Did the parties stipulate to dismissal or enter settlement?
Not provided.
How did the court rule on key motions in SUCAMPO AG v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 3:17-cv-07451?
A motion ruling analysis requires the motion docket and the court’s orders. Those items are not included in the provided information.
What happened to Teva’s defenses (noninfringement, invalidity, unenforceability)?
Not provided.
Any claim construction (Markman) outcomes?
Not provided.
What does the SUCAMPO v. Teva litigation indicate about patent strength and generic entry risk?
This depends on outcomes tied to asserted patents, including:
- invalidity findings or survival at summary judgment,
- infringement findings,
- injunctive relief or denial,
- settlement terms that shift market-entry timing.
None of those outcome data points are provided.
Did SUCAMPO win any patents or claims?
Not provided.
Did Teva launch at risk or delay entry?
Not provided.
Was a consent judgment or license entered?
Not provided.
What FDA and Orange Book status likely drove SUCAMPO’s infringement allegations?
An FDA-facing narrative requires the drug name, the Orange Book listing(s), the NDA/ANDA numbers, and the specific patent listing(s) at issue. The case identifier does not supply those.
What is the Orange Book status of the relevant SUCAMPO-listed patents?
Not provided.
Which regulatory pathway was implicated (ANDA, 505(b)(2), 351(k))?
Not provided.
Which companies were aligned with Teva in SUCAMPO AG v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 3:17-cv-07451?
Party alignment and co-defendants (if any) are essential for enforcement and cross-licensing analysis. The provided information does not list additional parties.
Was there a co-defendant manufacturer or distributor?
Not provided.
Were there related suits in other districts?
Not provided.
Settlement and licensing: what terms did SUCAMPO and Teva agree to?
Settlement terms include effective dates, launch/royalty mechanics, cross-licenses, dismissal scope, and any ongoing stipulations tied to regulatory exclusivities. No settlement record is provided.
Did the case end in settlement, dismissal, or final judgment?
Not provided.
Were there non-admission clauses or covenants not to sue?
Not provided.
How strong was the asserted patent estate for SUCAMPO in this dispute?
Patent estate strength analysis depends on:
- prosecution history and cited references,
- surviving claims and court rulings,
- continuation family breadth (if any),
- enforceability findings.
None of this is available from the provided identifier.
How many patents were in the asserted family?
Not provided.
Were related continuation or device/process patents also asserted?
Not provided.
Key takeaways
- A litigation summary for SUCAMPO AG v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (3:17-cv-07451) cannot be completed from the docket number alone.
- High-stakes analysis of asserted patents, court rulings, and generic entry impact requires the complaint’s asserted patent list and the docket’s dispositive outcomes, which are not present in the provided information.
FAQs
- What is the fastest way to identify the asserted patents in a D.N.J. ANDA patent case?
- How do Markman claim construction outcomes typically shift generic noninfringement defenses?
- What settlement terms usually determine the effective launch date in Hatch-Waxman suits?
- How does an Orange Book patent listing map to Paragraph IV litigation scope?
- What evidence most often drives summary judgment on enablement in pharma patent cases?
References
(No sources were provided in the prompt text to cite.)
