Last updated: July 27, 2026
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical (1:17-cv-00019) | Litigation Summary, Patent Claims, and Generic Risk Analysis
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC’s U.S. patent infringement suit against Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. under case number 1:17-cv-00019 is a Paragraph IV-type competitive dispute tied to Breckenridge’s FDA generic development for a Sanofi product. The record for this specific matter is not contained in the information available in this session, so a complete, accurate litigation summary (asserted patents, filing chronology, claim construction posture, motions, rulings, settlement terms, and outcome) cannot be produced.
What happened in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. 1:17-cv-00019?
A litigation summary requires case-specific docket and merits information: the asserted patent list, the district court and judge, the complaint and amended complaint dates, Breckenridge’s ANDA number and generic drug identification, infringement contentions, non-infringement/invalidity positions, claim construction orders, dispositive motion outcomes, trial or final judgment entry, and any settlement or consent judgment.
That data is not present here.
What court handled 1:17-cv-00019 and what procedural milestones mattered?
A credible summary must tie milestones to dates and docket events (e.g., complaint filing, answer, Rule 12 motions, Markman order schedule, summary judgment orders, injunction findings, and any stipulations). No docket content is available in this session.
Which patents were asserted in the case?
Patent-by-patent identification is required to analyze strength and generic entry risk. No asserted-patent numbers are provided in this session.
Which patents protect the branded drug at issue in 1:17-cv-00019?
To answer this correctly, the branded active ingredient, dosage form (tablet, injection, etc.), and the specific FDA application (ANDA for the generic) must be identified so that the asserted Orange Book patents can be mapped to the claims in the infringement complaint.
Those case linkages are not available in this session.
What is the Orange Book status of the product tied to 1:17-cv-00019?
Orange Book status analysis needs:
- drug product (RLD) name,
- ANDA-to-RLD mapping,
- Orange Book listed patents,
- expiration dates,
- regulatory exclusivity (NCE, pediatric, 180-day exclusivity),
- listing types (drug substance, drug product, method of use),
- and any delistings tied to litigation.
No Orange Book listing inputs are available here.
When does exclusivity or patent protection for the drug in 1:17-cv-00019 expire?
A timing analysis requires the actual patent expiration dates and exclusivity end dates for the relevant listed patents. Without the product and asserted patent numbers, the timeline cannot be computed.
How strong was Sanofi’s patent estate in 1:17-cv-00019?
Patent strength analysis requires:
- claim scope (independent claim elements),
- whether invalidity theories were argued (102/103 anticipation/obviousness, 112, written description, enablement, definiteness),
- whether the court issued claim construction favorable to Sanofi,
- and any summary judgment or trial findings.
No merits decisions are available in this session.
What generic entry risks existed for Breckenridge after filing in 1:17-cv-00019?
Generic entry risk analysis depends on injunction status, design-around feasibility, and whether any patents were found infringed and upheld, including potential carve-outs via stipulated non-infringement or non-covered product changes.
No infringement findings or settlement posture is available in this session.
Was there a Paragraph IV challenge and what did it target?
Paragraph IV analysis requires:
- the ANDA certification paragraph (IV),
- the specific patents challenged,
- and the certification notice content.
No certification targets are provided in this session.
What did the court decide in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical (1:17-cv-00019)?
A complete decision analysis must state:
- whether Sanofi won on infringement,
- whether patents were held invalid,
- any permanent injunction terms,
- any damages findings,
- and whether there was a final judgment or dismissal with/without prejudice.
No decision outcome is available in this session.
Did the parties reach a settlement in 1:17-cv-00019, and what were the terms?
Settlement analysis requires:
- entry date of settlement agreements,
- delayed launch commitments,
- scope of injunction/consent judgment,
- labelling or product changes,
- and any appellate dismissal mechanics.
No settlement terms are available in this session.
How does 1:17-cv-00019 compare with other Sanofi-Aventis v. Breckenridge patent litigations?
Comparison requires identifying other case captions and outcomes, mapping asserted patents and products, and evaluating litigation strategy consistency across cases.
No related case list is available in this session.
Key Takeaways
- A litigation summary for Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (1:17-cv-00019) cannot be completed with accuracy from the information provided in this session.
- An accurate analysis requires asserted patent identification, procedural timeline, claim construction and merits outcomes, and any settlement or consent judgment terms.
- Without those case-specific docket facts, generic entry risk and patent-strength conclusions would be speculative.
FAQs
- What is the case outcome of Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical (1:17-cv-00019)?
- Which Orange Book patents were litigated in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical (1:17-cv-00019)?
- Did the court enter an injunction or stay in 1:17-cv-00019?
- What ANDA and Paragraph IV certifications were at issue in 1:17-cv-00019?
- Were there any post-judgment appeals or dismissals tied to settlement in 1:17-cv-00019?
References (APA)
- Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00019 (Docket and filings not provided in this session).
