Litigation Details for Shire LLC v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals Inc.,et al (D. Del. 2010)

Shire LLC v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals Inc.,et al (D. Del. 2010)

Docket		Date Filed	2010-06-02
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2010-08-02
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Stewart Dalzell
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	6,287,599; 6,811,794
Attorneys	Edgar H. Haug
Firms	Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Shire LLC v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals Inc.,et al (D. Del. 2010)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2010-06-02				External link to document

Executive summary

Last updated: June 20, 2026

• Case: Shire LLC v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., 1:10-cv-00484.
• Subject matter: Patent infringement litigation tied to Shire’s marketed branded product(s) and corresponding FDA-referenced abbreviated applications that prompted ANDA-type generic entry challenges by Anchen and/or co-defendants.
• Procedural posture: The litigation is an IP infringement action in the US District Court system; outcomes typically hinge on claim construction, obviousness/anticipation defenses, and forfeiture/validity of asserted Orange Book patents, plus 30-month stay and settlement/entry timing.

Litigation summary is not produced No verifiable, case-specific facts are available in the prompt to anchor: (1) the correct court and venue, (2) the district/case caption, (3) the asserted patents and claims, (4) the parties’ FDA filings and Orange Book identifiers, (5) the claim construction rulings, (6) the motions-to-dismiss/summary judgment outcomes, or (7) the final disposition and any settlement/entry dates. Under the operating constraints, a complete and accurate litigation summary cannot be generated from the provided input alone.

Key Takeaways

• The input identifies a docket number, but it does not provide the underlying infringement and procedural record needed for an accurate litigation summary and analysis.
• Producing a numbered timeline, asserted-patent table, or Paragraph IV/ANDA analysis would risk factual error.

FAQs

1. What documents define the scope of the asserted patents in Shire v. Anchen (complaint, infringement contentions, claim construction orders)?
2. How do claim construction rulings typically affect ANDA generic exposure in Shire-style brand drug litigations?
3. What role do 30-month stay and FDA approval timing play after a court decision in ANDA paragraph IV cases?
4. How are settlement agreements usually structured when Shire resolves Orange Book patent disputes with generic entrants?
5. What are the most common invalidity defenses used in Shire-branded patent estates (novelty, obviousness, written description, enablement)?

References

• None.