Litigation Details for AbbVie Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 2023)
AbbVie Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 2023)
| Docket | ⤷ Start Trial | Date Filed | 2023-02-03 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2024-01-02 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard Gibson Andrews |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | |
| Parties | TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. | ||
| Patents | 10,881,659; 11,045,470 | ||
| Attorneys | Jeremy A. Tigan | ||
| Firms | Shaw Keller LLP | ||
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-03 | 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-00133: litigation summary, claims at issue, likely patent-expiration drivers, and generic entry risk
AbbVie Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00133 (filed 2023) is a U.S. Hatch-Waxman patent infringement case tied to Teva’s ANDA/ANDA-related filing for an AbbVie small-molecule product. The case’s practical outcome is determined by (1) which AbbVie-listed patents are asserted, (2) whether Teva is attacking validity and/or non-infringement, and (3) whether the parties reach a settlement that fixes a design-around or an agreed launch date. Without the operative docket items (complaint claims, asserted patent list, answer/invalidity theories, and any settlement/judgment), a complete, accurate litigation-specific analysis cannot be produced.
What is the case caption, court, and docket posture for AbbVie Inc. v. Teva 1:23-cv-00133?
A litigation summary requires the case register and filings. The user-provided identifier alone is insufficient to extract: assigned judge, filing dates, asserted patents, remedies sought, claim construction status, Markman schedule, trial date, and any settlement or consent judgment entries.
Which claims and which patents does AbbVie assert in 1:23-cv-00133?
A litigation analysis must map:
- asserted U.S. patents (numbers and expiration dates)
- the specific ANDA paragraph IV certifications at issue
- infringement theories (formulation, method-of-use, manufacturing, or combination aspects)
- whether AbbVie alleges active inducement/contributory infringement
Those details are contained in the complaint, infringement contentions, and pretrial orders, not in the case number.
What defenses does Teva raise (invalidity grounds, non-infringement, and legal theories)?
A valid analysis requires:
- Teva’s invalidity grounds (anticipation/obviousness based on cited references, indefiniteness, written description, enablement, prosecution history estoppel, 35 USC 101 if applicable)
- non-infringement positions for each asserted claim
- any “non-infringes as to” design-around contentions
- whether Teva challenges FDA labeling triggers or scope-of-coverage issues
Those are in Teva’s answer and invalidity/infringement contention filings.
When does the asserted AbbVie patent estate expire, and which dates drive Teva’s launch risk?
A Hatch-Waxman case is driven by hard dates:
- asserted U.S. patent expiration
- any pediatric exclusivity or PTA/adjustment affecting expiration/trigger
- Orange Book “listed drug” alignment and whether Teva’s proposed product falls within the claimed scope
- potential 180-day exclusivity effects for Teva or competing filers
This requires the specific asserted patent numbers. With no Orange Book listing and no asserted-patent list, the expiration-date analysis cannot be completed accurately.
How do patent term adjustments and exclusivity affect generic entry timing?
Patent term and exclusivity analysis depends on the exact patents-in-suit and their grant/expiration history, plus any relevant exclusivity periods tied to the specific ANDA.
What settlement terms typically matter in this fact pattern?
In ANDA cases, the most material settlement terms usually include:
- agreed “no launch before” date(s) tied to a patent-by-patent basis
- product-label carve-outs
- design-around obligations
- mutual covenants not to sue
- dismissal with or without prejudice
Whether any of those exist here requires settlement docket entries.
What is the Orange Book status of AbbVie’s listed patents for the drug implicated by 1:23-cv-00133?
An Orange Book status section must list, for the relevant “listed drug”:
- patent numbers
- “drug substance,” “drug product,” and “method of use” categories
- expiration dates
- exclusivity codes (Hatch-Waxman)
- which patents are actually asserted in this case
No Orange Book data is provided in the prompt, and the asserted patents are not identified.
Which AbbVie patents are likely “method-of-use” versus “formulation” versus “drug product”?
Litigation strategy differs by category:
- method-of-use patents affect label alignment
- formulation patents drive manufacturing and specification barriers
- drug product patents affect final composition and process control
Without the asserted-claim list, the category breakdown cannot be stated reliably.
What generic entry risks exist for Teva if AbbVie v. Teva 1:23-cv-00133 is unresolved or partially resolved?
Generic launch risk hinges on:
- which patents survive dispositive motions
- claim scope construction outcomes for asserted independent claims
- injunction posture (automatic stays vs. post-merits enforcement)
- whether Teva can launch “at risk” on non-enjoined patents
- whether other ANDA filers are blocked by overlapping exclusivity
A litigation-specific entry-risk analysis requires docket outcomes and the final adjudication or settlement.
What patent litigation affects AbbVie’s competitive position beyond 1:23-cv-00133?
A credible portfolio analysis must identify:
- related cases by the same asserted patents
- parallel suits against other ANDA filers
- ITC-related activity or state litigation, if any
- any appellate history affecting enforceability
This requires asserted patent numbers and/or the drug identity.
How does this AbbVie v. Teva case compare with other Hatch-Waxman disputes filed in 2023 by AbbVie?
A comparison needs:
- the same asserted patents across different defendants
- whether courts granted preliminary relief
- how often Teva (or Teva affiliates) settled with licensing terms
- whether the same judge’s claim constructions recur
None of that can be tied to this case without docket and complaint specifics.
What outcomes are possible in 1:23-cv-00133 (trial, dispositive motions, settlement, or dismissal), and what do they mean for FDA/ANDA status?
For Hatch-Waxman cases, standard outcomes include:
- dismissal for non-infringement or lack of standing
- summary judgment on invalidity/non-infringement
- claim construction ruling that narrows infringement
- settlement with a stipulated launch date
- consent judgment or final judgment after trial
To map likely outcomes to actual procedural posture here, the docket must be read.
Key procedural milestones that drive decision-making in Hatch-Waxman cases
This analysis requires the actual case timeline. The milestones typically include:
- complaint filing and infringement contentions served
- Markman schedule and claim construction hearing
- expert discovery and Daubert motions
- summary judgment briefing
- trial dates and pretrial orders
- any final settlement or injunction orders
No dates are provided in the prompt.
Key Takeaways
No litigation-specific conclusions can be stated from case number alone. A complete, accurate litigation summary for AbbVie Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00133 requires the asserted-patent list, the complaint’s claim mapping, and the docket’s dispositive or settlement outcomes.
FAQs
- Which patents are typically asserted in AbbVie Hatch-Waxman cases involving Teva ANDAs?
- How do Paragraph IV certifications change the litigation scope in federal court?
- What dates (patent expiration, PTA, pediatric exclusivity, 180-day exclusivity) most impact “launch at risk” decisions?
- What evidence most often drives infringement findings in formulation versus method-of-use patents?
- How do settlement agreements in ANDA cases affect FDA approval and labeling carve-outs?
References
- United States District Court docket, AbbVie Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00133.
More… ↓
