Litigation Details for ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. MSN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (D.N.J. 2020)

ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. MSN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (D.N.J. 2020)

Docket		Date Filed	2020-04-09
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2022-01-14
Cause	15:1126 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Renee Marie Bumb
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Sharon A. King
Parties	MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Patents	7,205,302; 8,791,122; 9,284,280
Attorneys	LAUREN BROPHY COOPER
Firms	Rivkin Radler LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. MSN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (D.N.J. 2020)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2020-04-09				External link to document
2020-04-09	1		infringement of United States Patent No. 7,205,302 (“the ’302 patent”), United States Patent No. 8,791,122 (“the…the ’122 patent”), and United States Patent No. 9,284,280 (“the ’280 patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit… ’302, ’122, and ’280 patents. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT … assignee of the patents-in-suit. Actelion is an exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit. …of the ’302 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 87. The ’122 patent was duly and	External link to document
2020-04-09	100	Letter	collectively, “Zydus”) as to remaining U.S. Patent No. 7,205,302. If the Stipulation and Proposed…regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,791,122 (“the ’122 patent”) and 9,284,280 (“the ’280 patent”) and defendants…against Alembic with respect to the ’122 patent and the ’280 patent will be voluntarily dismissed, and that…2020 14 January 2022 1:20-cv-03859 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2020-04-09	101	~Util - Add and Terminate Parties AND Stipulation and Order	expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,791,122 (“the ’122 patent”) and 9,284,280 (“the ’280 patent”); and …Plaintiffs and Alembic concerning the ’122 and ’280 patents are dismissed without prejudice, and each party…attorney fees with respect to the ’122 and ’280 patents; 2. The case caption should be…2020 14 January 2022 1:20-cv-03859 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2020-04-09	19	Text of Proposed Order	PageID: 277 one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,791,122 and 9,284,280 are not invalid and/or unenforceable…2020 14 January 2022 1:20-cv-03859 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2020-04-09	88	Letter	proceed against Zydus as to remaining U.S. Patent No. 7,205,302. These stipulations do not concern…regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,791,122 (“the ’122 patent”) and 9,284,280 (“the ’280 patent”) and certain …collectively, “Zydus”) with respect to the ’122 patent and the ’280 patent will be voluntarily dismissed. The Lawsuit…VGYAAN”), which had involved only the ’122 and ’280 patents, will be voluntarily dismissed from the Lawsuit…2020 14 January 2022 1:20-cv-03859 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document

Executive summary

Last updated: July 17, 2026

• The docket 1:20-cv-03859 is an Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. patent dispute filed in 2020 in U.S. District Court (jurisdiction not specified in the prompt).
• A litigation summary and IP-risk analysis requires a record-specific dataset (claims asserted, patents-in-suit, asserted Orange Book listings, Paragraph IV filing date(s), claim construction, Markman outcomes, settlement terms, and status/disposition).
• No court-provided filings, order text, patent numbers, or procedural milestones were included in the prompt, so a complete and accurate summary cannot be produced.

ACTELION vs MSN Pharmaceuticals 1:20-cv-03859 litigation summary: what patents were asserted and what happened in court?

What is the procedural history of Actelion v. MSN Pharmaceuticals (1:20-cv-03859) and what motions shaped the case?

No case-specific procedural history is available in the prompt (no docket events, motion list, or order content provided).

Which patents were “patents-in-suit” in 1:20-cv-03859 and what claims were asserted?

No patent numbers, publication identifiers, or “patent(s)-in-suit” list is provided in the prompt.

How do the asserted patents map to dosage forms and use claims?

No asserted claim set or product/dosage-form linkage is provided in the prompt.

When did MSN file its ANDA or paragraph IV certification that triggered Actelion’s suit (1:20-cv-03859)?

No ANDA number, FDA filing date, Paragraph IV date, or Orange Book trigger is provided in the prompt.

What did the court decide on claim construction or validity (actelion v. msn 1:20-cv-03859)?

No claim construction, invalidity analysis, infringement rulings, or damages/standard-of-proof outcomes are provided in the prompt.

How did the case end: dismissal, injunction, trial verdict, or settlement in 1:20-cv-03859?

No disposition status, settlement terms, consent judgment, or injunction language is provided in the prompt.

Were there any appeal events or Federal Circuit activity?

No appellate docket entries are provided in the prompt.

What does the litigation signal for generic entry risk against Actelion’s brand in this category?

No information is provided on the product targeted, the patents that survived, or the injunction/settlement scope.

---

Actelion vs MSN Pharmaceuticals 1:20-cv-03859 IP landscape: strength, barriers, and licensing implications

How strong was Actelion’s patent estate in this case and what defenses did MSN raise?

No patents, invalidity theories, or litigation positions are provided in the prompt.

What Orange Book listings and FDA status were tied to the suit (Orange Book status and exclusivity)?

No Orange Book listings, exclusivity periods, or FDA approval pathway details are provided in the prompt.

What generic launch scenario was blocked or permitted by the litigation outcome?

No injunction or settlement restriction details are provided in the prompt.

---

Key Takeaways

• The prompt does not include the core record needed to generate an accurate litigation summary for 1:20-cv-03859: patents-in-suit, Orange Book/FDA trigger details, docket events, claim construction rulings, dispositive orders, and final disposition.
• A litigation analysis without these inputs would be incomplete and not case-accurate.

---

FAQs

1. What patents are typically asserted in Actelion generic-entry litigation against ANDA filers under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)?
2. How does claim construction usually influence infringement outcomes in ANDA Hatch-Waxman cases like 1:20-cv-03859?
3. What settlement structures commonly determine whether a generic can launch immediately after a district court decision?
4. How do exclusivity periods interact with patent term expirations in generic entry planning?
5. What litigation milestones most affect timeline and risk for Paragraph IV challengers?

---

References

(No sources were provided in the prompt.)