Last updated: June 24, 2026
What is Teva Pharma USA Inc v. Abbott Lab|1:04-cv-02436 about?
Teva Pharma USA Inc v. Abbott Laboratories (case no. 1:04-cv-02436) is a US federal patent dispute brought in the context of the Hatch-Waxman regulatory pathway. These matters typically involve an ANDA filer (or intended ANDA entrant) challenging one or more Orange Book-listed patents for a branded drug, often via a Paragraph IV notice.
What claims are typically at issue in cases like this?
- Patent infringement allegations (Abbott’s asserted patent claims covering composition, formulations, or methods).
- Patent invalidity arguments (anticipation, obviousness, lack of enablement/utility, written description).
- Non-infringement arguments (generic manufacturing, formulation differences, or design-arounds).
- Whether the ANDA approval triggers infringement under the statutory framework (35 USC §271(e)(2)).
Which patents are asserted in Teva v. Abbott 1:04-cv-02436?
Featured litigation analysis depends on identifying:
- the specific Orange Book patents asserted,
- their publication and patent numbers,
- the date Teva filed its ANDA or sent its Paragraph IV notice,
- the asserted counts and claim limitations.
No asserted-patent list is present in the information provided here. Without the underlying docket filings or pleadings, a precise patent-by-patent litigation summary would risk incorrect mapping of patents, claim scopes, or outcomes.
What procedural milestones occurred in Teva v. Abbott 1:04-cv-02436?
A complete litigation timeline requires docket-level events such as:
- complaint filing date and service,
- responsive pleading dates,
- motions to dismiss,
- Markman scheduling and claim construction orders,
- dispositive motion rulings,
- trial scheduling or case disposition,
- any stay/unscheduled dismissal or FDA-related procedural triggers,
- settlement filings.
The details necessary to produce a case-accurate procedural record are not included in the information provided here.
How do claim construction and infringement theories typically drive Hatch-Waxman outcomes?
For Paragraph IV disputes involving small-molecule drugs, outcome-critical issues usually include:
- whether generic product steps fall within process/method claims,
- whether formulation patents require specific excipients, ratios, particle sizes, or dissolution profiles,
- whether composition claims are limited to crystalline forms, salts, polymorphs, or specific drug release characteristics,
- whether Abbott’s claims are written to cover broad ranges or narrow embodiments.
A claim-construction and theory-based analysis is not possible to do accurately without the pleadings and orders from this docket.
What is the litigation posture: summary judgment, trial, or settlement?
A credible answer requires one or more of:
- docket “judgment” or “final order” entries,
- an “order of dismissal” with prejudice or without prejudice,
- a Rule 54(b) certification, if applicable,
- court-stated settlement terms or an entry of settlement and dismissal.
No outcome disposition details are included here.
What does the case imply for Orange Book exclusivity and generic entry timing?
In Hatch-Waxman litigation, the practical impact is determined by:
- which patents were found not infringed/invalid,
- whether the parties entered a settlement with an agreed launch date,
- whether the court entered a permanent injunction or it was mooted by later FDA actions,
- whether regulatory exclusivity periods (and any pediatric exclusivity) affected timing.
A binding analysis requires case-specific answers (which patents, and what ruling/settlement date). Those facts are not available in the provided prompt.
How does Teva v. Abbott compare with similar Paragraph IV disputes against Abbott-branded products?
To compare strength and risk across Abbott patent estates, you’d need:
- the asserted patent types (composition vs method vs formulation),
- typical claim constructions Abbott seeks,
- frequency of settlements and launch calendars,
- typical district court outcomes in contemporaneous filings.
The prompt does not provide asserted patent categories or a list of related cases.
Key takeaways
- The matter is a US Hatch-Waxman style patent dispute between Teva Pharma USA Inc and Abbott Laboratories under case no. 1:04-cv-02436.
- Accurate litigation summary and infringement/validity analysis require docket-specific information (asserted patents, claim construction, dispositive rulings, and disposition).
- The information provided is not sufficient to produce a case-true outcome summary (e.g., settlement date, judgment, or which patents survived).
FAQs
What court heard Teva Pharma USA Inc v. Abbott Laboratories 1:04-cv-02436?
The case is in the US federal district court system under the docket number 1:04-cv-02436. The specific district and division are not stated in the provided prompt.
Was Teva’s challenge a Paragraph IV ANDA notice?
This case type is consistent with Paragraph IV challenges, but the specific Paragraph IV notice facts are not included in the provided information.
Did the case involve formulation, method-of-use, or composition patents?
The prompt does not identify the asserted patent categories.
What was Abbott’s asserted patent portfolio in this case?
The prompt does not list the patents asserted.
What launch date or settlement calendar resulted from the litigation?
No settlement or launch timing is provided in the information available here.
References
- Teva Pharma USA Inc v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 1:04-cv-02436 (US District Court docket).
