Last Updated: August 3, 2026

Litigation Details for Alza Corporation v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (D. Del. 2016)


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Small Molecule Drugs cited in Alza Corporation v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷  Start Trial .

Details for Alza Corporation v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (D. Del. 2016)

Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document
2016-10-07 External link to document
2016-10-07 3 expiration of U.S. Patent No. 8,163,798 ("the '798 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 9,144,549 …United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") issued U.S. Patent No. 8,163,798. A true and…x27;798 Patent and the '549 Patent are invalid, that claims 8 and 10 of the '798 Patent are not…the '798 Patent or the '549 Patent, prior to the dates that the '798 Patent and the '…#x27;798 Patent or the '549 Patent, until after the expiration of the '798 Patent or the &# External link to document
2016-10-07 6 the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,163,798; 9,144,549. (nmg) (…2016 27 July 2017 1:16-cv-00914 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware External link to document
2016-10-07 60 the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,163,798; 9,144,549. (Attachments…2016 27 July 2017 1:16-cv-00914 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware External link to document
>Date Filed >Document No. >Description >Snippet >Link To Document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Alza Corporation v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (D. Del. 2016)

Last updated: July 27, 2026

Executive summary

Alza Corp. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (N.D. Ill., No. 1:16-cv-00914) is a patent-infringement case tied to Amneal’s FDA generic submission for a branded drug associated with ALZA’s drug-delivery IP. The record in this matter is not provided here (docket text, complaint, asserted patents, claim construction, infringement contentions, final judgment, and any settlement terms). Without those case-specific inputs, a complete litigation summary and infringement/validity analysis cannot be produced accurately.

Alza Corporation v. Amneal 1:16-cv-00914: what patents were asserted and what were the key claims?

No complete, accurate answer can be produced.

Which ALZA patents were listed in the complaint?

Not available.

What product/dosage form and delivery mechanism were at issue?

Not available.

What theory did ALZA plead (infringement of drug, method of use, formulation, manufacturing, or composition claims)?

Not available.

What happened procedurally in Alza v. Amneal (N.D. Ill. 1:16-cv-00914)?

No complete, accurate answer can be produced.

What were the initial motion rulings (12(b)(6), transfer/venue, preliminary injunction)?

Not available.

Were there claim construction and Markman proceedings?

Not available.

What did the infringement contentions require Amneal to answer?

Not available.

How did the court analyze infringement in Alza Corp. v. Amneal?

No complete, accurate answer can be produced.

What claim elements were contested?

Not available.

Was infringement decided on summary judgment or trial?

Not available.

Did the court narrow claims via construction?

Not available.

How did the court analyze invalidity (anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, written description) in Alza v. Amneal?

No complete, accurate answer can be produced.

Which prior art references were used?

Not available.

Was there a PTAB interplay (post-grant reviews/inter partes reviews) affecting the case?

Not available.

Which statutory grounds did Amneal use?

Not available.

What was the outcome of Alza v. Amneal 1:16-cv-00914?

No complete, accurate answer can be produced.

Did ALZA win a final judgment?

Not available.

Did the case terminate by dismissal, consent judgment, or settlement?

Not available.

Were there attorneys’ fees or costs awarded?

Not available.

Did the case involve Hatch-Waxman paragraph IV certifications and what was the FDA exclusivity timing impact?

No complete, accurate answer can be produced.

Which FDA application and product label were implicated?

Not available.

What was the Paragraph IV posture (notice, timing, regulatory stay, forfeiture risks)?

Not available.

Did the litigation align to a generic approval or a tentative approval timeline?

Not available.

What settlement terms affected market entry for Amneal and other generics?

No complete, accurate answer can be produced.

Was there a license, co-existence agreement, or paid-upfront settlement?

Not available.

Were there market carve-outs, supply limitations, or launch dates?

Not available.

Did any other firms get pulled into the resolution?

Not available.

How strong is the ALZA patent estate implied by this litigation (strength, coverage, enforceability)?

No complete, accurate answer can be produced.

Were the asserted patents composition, formulation, or delivery-system claims?

Not available.

Were there multiple families and overlapping priority dates?

Not available.

Were any patents found not infringed or invalid?

Not available.

How does Amneal’s generic risk profile change based on the litigation posture in 1:16-cv-00914?

No complete, accurate answer can be produced.

What remaining patents would typically survive if some claims failed?

Not available.

What design-around options were available (different polymers, layers, membranes, release profiles)?

Not available.

Did the case create precedent on ALZA’s drug-delivery claim scope?

Not available.

Key Takeaways

No litigation-specific conclusions can be provided without the asserted-patent record and case disposition.

FAQs

  1. What patents were asserted in Alza Corp. v. Amneal (1:16-cv-00914)?
    Not available.

  2. Did Alza v. Amneal result in an injunction or a final finding of infringement?
    Not available.

  3. What was the court’s claim construction in Alza v. Amneal?
    Not available.

  4. Did Amneal challenge the asserted patents for obviousness or anticipation using specific prior art?
    Not available.

  5. How did the case affect FDA approval and generic launch timing?
    Not available.

References

No sources were provided in the prompt.

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.