Litigation Details for Teijin Limited v. Hetero USA Inc. (D. Del. 2014)
Teijin Limited v. Hetero USA Inc. (D. Del. 2014)
| Docket | ⤷ Start Trial | Date Filed | 2014-02-07 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2015-03-18 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Sue Lewis Robinson |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | |
| Patents | 6,225,474; 7,361,676; 8,372,872 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Teijin Limited v. Hetero USA Inc.
Details for Teijin Limited v. Hetero USA Inc. (D. Del. 2014)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-02-07 | External link to document | |||
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
Litigation Summary and Analysis: Teijin Limited v. Hetero USA Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00166
Executive summary: Teijin Limited’s infringement action against Hetero USA Inc. in case 1:14-cv-00166 (D. Del.) proceeds from an FDA/Orange Book-linked patent dispute. The docket indicates active litigating positions by both sides, with Teijin asserting infringement and Hetero contesting validity, infringement, and/or enforceability. Without the case docket text, complaint/patent list, asserted claims, claim constructions, and any final judgment or settlement filings, a complete litigation summary that maps to specific asserted patents, dates, and outcomes cannot be produced from the information available.
What patents did Teijin assert against Hetero USA Inc. in 1:14-cv-00166?
Answer: Not enough case-specific information is available to identify the asserted patents, listed patents in the Orange Book, or which claim(s) Teijin asserted in 1:14-cv-00166.
Which patent numbers and expiration dates were at issue?
No patent numbers, expiration dates, or patent families can be stated for Teijin Limited v. Hetero USA Inc., 1:14-cv-00166 without access to the complaint, the infringement contentions, or the docket’s exhibit list.
Which drug and NDA/ANDA linkage drove the dispute?
The case caption alone does not specify the product or the FDA application type (ANDA vs. NDA), so the relevant Orange Book listing cannot be identified.
How did Hetero USA respond to Teijin’s infringement claims?
Answer: The procedural posture suggests standard Hatch-Waxman-style defenses (validity and non-infringement), but the docket-level specifics (invalidity grounds, inequitable conduct allegations, or prosecution history arguments) are not available.
What non-infringement positions did Hetero take?
No claim-by-claim non-infringement arguments can be stated without the claim charts or infringement contentions.
What validity challenges did Hetero raise?
No obviousness, written description, enablement, indefiniteness, or double patenting theories can be attributed to 1:14-cv-00166 without the briefs or the court’s orders.
Were there enforceability defenses (inequitable conduct, prosecution laches)?
No enforceability allegations can be confirmed from the limited data.
What claim construction rulings did the court make in Teijin v. Hetero USA?
Answer: Claim construction outcomes cannot be provided without claim construction orders, Markman transcripts, or the claim construction section of the docket.
Did the court narrow claim scope for the asserted claims?
Not determinable without the claim construction record.
Did the court resolve disputes on means-plus-function or indefiniteness?
Not determinable without the relevant orders.
What procedural milestones occurred in 1:14-cv-00166?
Answer: Milestone dates (e.g., complaint filing, answer, scheduling conference, expert deadlines, summary judgment motions, trial dates, Daubert rulings) cannot be listed without the docket.
Timeline-style summary (required for litigation analytics)
Not possible to produce a verified timeline without court docket entries.
How did summary judgment and trial activity affect Teijin v. Hetero USA?
Answer: The presence or absence of summary judgment, dispositive rulings, jury trial outcomes, or post-trial motions cannot be stated without the judgment/closings documents.
Did the court find infringement?
Not determinable.
Did the court invalidate one or more patents?
Not determinable.
What settlement or consent judgment terms applied, if any?
Answer: No settlement terms (license scope, payment, timing of generic entry, covenants not to sue, dismissal language) can be stated without settlement filings or the final stipulation/case disposition order.
Was there a license agreement or entry-forbidden period?
Not determinable.
Did the case end via dismissal, consent judgment, or adjudication?
Not determinable.
What is the Orange Book status of the drug at issue in Teijin v. Hetero USA?
Answer: The Orange Book listing(s) tied to Teijin’s asserted patents cannot be identified from the case caption alone.
Which patents are listed for each dosage form and strength?
Not determinable.
Which patents are “method of use” vs. formulation vs. manufacturing?
Not determinable.
When did exclusivity or patent expiration occur relative to filing of 1:14-cv-00166?
Answer: Patent expiration timelines cannot be provided without the asserted patent numbers and their expiration dates, plus the Orange Book entry dates.
Does the case align with a Paragraph IV certification?
Not determinable without the ANDA Paragraph IV notice and the certification details.
What was the generic entry date risk window?
Not determinable without FDA approval dates and court/settlement timing.
How does this Teijin v. Hetero USA case compare with other Teijin patent disputes?
Answer: Comparisons require identifying the drug, the patent families, and outcomes. Those cannot be extracted from the available information.
Key litigation analytics that investors and licensors need
Answer: A complete litigation analytics package (asserted patent strength, litigation posture, probability-weighted outcomes, entry risk, and licensing leverage) cannot be compiled without:
- asserted patent list and claims,
- court claim construction results,
- motion outcomes,
- final disposition (judgment vs. settlement),
- any stay or injunction terms,
- FDA approval and Orange Book date alignment.
Key Takeaways
- Case identification is known (Teijin Limited v. Hetero USA Inc., 1:14-cv-00166), but the asserted patent list, drug/ANDA linkage, claim scope, and disposition are not available in the provided information.
- A litigation summary with specific legal and commercial impacts cannot be produced without the underlying docket text and filings that define the dispute.
FAQs
- What does case 1:14-cv-00166 indicate about Teijin’s patent strategy against Hetero?
- Were any Teijin patents held invalid or not infringed in the D. Del. proceedings?
- Did Teijin obtain an injunction or stay of FDA approval tied to 1:14-cv-00166?
- Which Orange Book patents were implicated by Teijin’s infringement allegations?
- How would a settlement in 1:14-cv-00166 typically affect generic entry timing for Hetero?
References
- (No sources can be cited because no court docket, filings, or patent lists were provided.)
More… ↓
