Share This Page
Litigation Details for AbbVie, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 2023)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
AbbVie, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 2023)
| Docket | ⤷ Start Trial | Date Filed | 2023-04-03 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2023-10-05 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard Gibson Andrews |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | |
| Patents | 11,542,239 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in AbbVie, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Details for AbbVie, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 2023)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-03 | External link to document | |||
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
Litigation summary and analysis for: AbbVie, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 2023)
AbbVie v. Teva (1:23-cv-00374) Litigation Summary, Claims at Issue, and Patent-Strength Analysis
AbbVie’s suit against Teva under 1:23-cv-00374 is a US Hatch-Waxman patent infringement case tied to Teva’s generic development for an AbbVie pharmaceutical product. The record posture indicates the matter is a filed district-court infringement action with procedural steps that typically follow an FDA ANDA (Paragraph IV or related certification). Key business impact will hinge on (1) whether AbbVie asserts Orange Book patents for which Teva carved a non-infringement/invalidity theory, (2) the court’s claim construction and dispositive motions schedule, and (3) any settlement that ends in a consent judgment or stipulated dismissal with a negotiated launch date.
No litigation claim-level details, asserted patent numbers, drug name, or claim lists are provided in the input. Without those specifics, a complete and accurate litigation summary (including which patents are asserted, what Teva’s defenses are, and what rulings or settlements occurred) cannot be produced.
What is AbbVie Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. 1:23-cv-00374 about?
Featured answer: The case is a federal Hatch-Waxman patent infringement suit brought by AbbVie against Teva in the Northern or generic federal district (per case number format), typically challenging a Teva ANDA and asserting one or more Orange Book-listed patents covering the reference listed drug.
Which AbbVie drug and which patents are asserted in 1:23-cv-00374?
No asserted-drug identity or asserted-patent list is included in the provided information, so the litigation scope cannot be mapped.
What is Teva’s FDA filing posture tied to the lawsuit?
No ANDA, Orange Book certification basis (Paragraph IV vs. Section viii carve-out vs. 505(b)(2) pathway), or certification text is included, so the FDA-patent link cannot be stated.
What patents protect the AbbVie product that Teva seeks to market?
Featured answer: The protectable landscape in Hatch-Waxman cases usually includes composition/formulation patents, method-of-use patents, and manufacturing or stability patents listed in the Orange Book for the reference product.
How many patents are typically asserted in AbbVie v. Teva cases?
Not determinable from the input. Hatch-Waxman complaints vary widely in the number of asserted patents and claim lists.
What patent families usually drive AbbVie exclusivity in ANDA litigations?
Not determinable from the input.
When does the AbbVie exclusivity end, and when could Teva launch?
Featured answer: Launch timing depends on patent expiration dates and whether any statutory exclusivities (if applicable) are still in force.
When does each asserted patent expire?
No asserted patent numbers or expiration dates are provided.
What exclusivity periods could extend beyond patent expiration?
No Orange Book exclusivity codes, pediatric exclusivity status, or PTA/OTR effects are provided.
What defenses does Teva raise in AbbVie v. Teva 1:23-cv-00374 (non-infringement, invalidity, unenforceability)?
Featured answer: In Hatch-Waxman, Teva’s defenses typically include one or more of:
- Non-infringement of the asserted claims
- Invalidity (anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of enablement, or improper priority)
- Unenforceability (inequitable conduct, prosecution history issues)
- Procedural defenses (standing, estoppel, timing, jurisdiction)
What specific invalidity grounds are pled?
Not included in the input.
What claim construction issues are usually outcome-determinative here?
Not included in the input.
What does claim construction likely change in AbbVie v. Teva?
Featured answer: In ANDA litigations, claim construction frequently narrows the asserted claim elements and can determine whether the proposed generic formulation or method falls inside or outside the claim scope.
Method-of-use vs. formulation claims: how claim construction typically shifts infringement risk
Not determinable without the asserted claims.
What is the Orange Book status of the AbbVie patents in this case?
Featured answer: AbbVie’s complaint in Hatch-Waxman cases ordinarily asserts patents shown as listed in the FDA Orange Book for the reference listed drug.
Which patents are listed and what are their listed expiration dates?
Not provided.
Is there a pediatric exclusivity or other Orange Book exclusivity code involved?
Not provided.
What Paragraph IV litigation timelines apply to 1:23-cv-00374?
Featured answer: Standard Hatch-Waxman schedules include:
- Complaint and infringement contentions
- Claim construction procedures
- Summary judgment motions
- Trial or stipulated settlements leading to launch dates
Has the case reached Markman, summary judgment, or trial?
No docket milestones, rulings, or scheduling orders are included in the input.
What patent litigation outcomes could change AbbVie’s exclusivity (settlement, consent judgment, dismissal)?
Featured answer: Typical outcomes that affect commercial launch:
- Stipulated dismissal after settlement
- Consent judgment with a firm “entry-at” date
- Trial verdict sustaining or invalidating asserted claims
- Partial summary judgment limiting asserted claims or narrowing infringement theories
Is there a settlement date or agreed launch date in 1:23-cv-00374?
Not included in the input.
How strong is the patent estate in AbbVie v. Teva based on typical factors?
Featured answer: Patent strength in Hatch-Waxman depends on enforceability and infringement likelihood:
- Claim breadth and objective boundaries
- Priority and prosecution history support
- Whether the asserted claims are close to known prior art
- Strength of enablement and written description
- Whether generic substitutes design around
What prior art and expert battle is likely relevant here?
Not included in the input.
What specific asserted claims are most vulnerable (composition, method, or manufacturing)?
Not included in the input.
How does AbbVie v. Teva compare with other AbbVie ANDA litigations (strategy, settlement patterns, frequency of reversals)?
Featured answer: AbbVie’s ANDA litigation strategy usually emphasizes Orange Book listed patents and sustained enforcement through case management and claim construction. Settlement patterns commonly depend on the court’s early claim construction and the perceived invalidity risk.
Comparable cases and trends
No comparable case data is provided.
What generic entry risks exist for Teva in this lawsuit?
Featured answer: Teva’s generic entry risk rises if:
- Claims are construed narrowly in its favor
- AbbVie’s claims face weak validity positions
- Teva can design around formulation/method constraints
- Settlement does not include a delayed entry commitment
What FDA launch barriers remain even if patents fall?
Not determinable without the drug identity and regulatory posture.
What is the commercial exposure for AbbVie if Teva launches?
Featured answer: Commercial exposure scales with reference product revenue, share, and customer switching friction, and depends on whether the generic is permitted to enter before full patent expiration.
Revenue and market share figures
Not included in the input.
Key Takeaways
- AbbVie v. Teva (1:23-cv-00374) is a federal patent infringement action in a Hatch-Waxman-type posture, typically tied to an FDA ANDA seeking market entry for an AbbVie reference product.
- A complete litigation summary requires the asserted patent list, the drug name, and docket milestones. None of those details are present in the provided input.
- The commercial and litigation outcome will turn on claim construction, validity/infringement rulings, and any settlement-driven entry date.
FAQs
- What court procedures control Hatch-Waxman timing in cases like 1:23-cv-00374?
- Do AbbVie complaints usually assert multiple Orange Book patents (composition, method, and formulation)?
- How do design-around options affect Teva’s infringement risk in FDA ANDA cases?
- What types of claim construction outcomes most often decide generic ANDA patent cases?
- How do stipulated dismissals or consent judgments typically work in Paragraph IV disputes?
References (APA)
- AbbVie, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1:23-cv-00374 (filed in U.S. District Court).
More… ↓
