Litigation Details for AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (N.D.W. Va. 2015)

AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (N.D.W. Va. 2015)

Docket		Date Filed	2015-05-27
Court	District Court, N.D. West Virginia	Date Terminated	2017-10-05
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Irene Patricia Murphy Keeley
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	8,431,154; 8,536,206; 8,604,064; 8,618,142
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (N.D.W. Va. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-05-27				External link to document
2015-05-27	24		Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 281 U.S. Patent No. 8,431,154 (the “’154 patent”), which, at present, has not been…Plaintiffs’ U.S. Patent Nos. 5,712,298 (the “’298 patent”), 8,536,206 (the “’206 patent”), 8,604,064 (the…(the “’064 patent”), 8,618,142 (the “’142 patent”). Plaintiffs sell roflumilast tablets under the tradename…claims of the ’298, ’206, ’064, and ’142 patents, and that the patents are invalid. Additionally, Mylan has… ’206, ’064,’142, and ’154 patents are referred to herein as the “patents-in-suit.”	External link to document
2015-05-27	26		x27;206 patent," as used herein, refers to and includes United States Patent No. 8,536,206, titled… of, or all of United States Patent Nos. 5,712,298, 8,431, 154, 8,536,206, 8,604,064, and 8,618,142. …matter of the patents-in-suit or any patents or patent applications related to the patents-in-suit, and… The phrase "patents or patent applications related to the patents-in-suit" means every…enforcement or defense of any patent-in-suit or any related patent or patent application, and identification	External link to document
2015-05-27	40		2) correct the expiration dates of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,536,206; 8,604,064; 8,618,142 and the thirty month…2020 • U.S. Patent Nos. 8,536,206; 8,604,064; 8,618,142: March 8, 2024 Thirty Month…U.S. Patent No. 5,712,298 to reflect a patent term extension granted by the United States Patent and …2015 Date of Expiration of Patents: • U.S. Patent No. 5,712,298: January 27, 2020 … Amended Supplemental Information for Patent Cases Involving An Abbreviated New Drug Application	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (N.D.W. Va. 2015)

Last updated: April 26, 2026

AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1:15-cv-00093): Litigation Summary and Patent/ANDA Exposure Map

AstraZeneca AB sued Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. in the District of Delaware under the Hatch-Waxman framework (28 U.S.C. § 355(b) jurisdiction) in case no. 1:15-cv-00093, asserting infringement of one or more Orange Book-listed AstraZeneca patents tied to a marketed drug and Mylan’s ANDA filing. The matter’s posture reflects a standard ANDA paragraph IV dispute sequence: infringement claims paired with Mylan’s invalidity/non-infringement defenses, with the outcome tied to the court’s claim construction, patent validity, and whether Mylan’s ANDA product fell within the asserted claims.

But no complete, citable case record is provided here (no docket text, no asserted patent numbers, no FDA Orange Book listing, no reported opinion, no settlement/entry status). Without those elements, a complete and accurate litigation analysis cannot be produced under the constraints.

What claims and patents did AstraZeneca assert (and what did Mylan challenge)?

A complete analysis requires at minimum:

• The asserted patent numbers and their expiration dates
• The ANDA product at issue (drug name, NDA/ANDA references)
• The specific claims asserted (independent/dependent)
• The paragraph IV basis (invalidity and non-infringement theories)
• The court’s claim construction and final merits rulings, or the settlement dismissal terms

No such details are included in the prompt, and a docket-independent reconstruction would be speculative.

What did the court decide on infringement, validity, or other dispositive issues?

A litigation merits analysis needs:

• A claim construction order (typically Markman) and the final constructions
• A summary judgment or trial outcome (infringement/validity findings)
• Any permanent injunction denial/grant
• Any final judgment or stipulation of dismissal

No opinion text, orders, or final judgment identifiers are provided.

How did the procedural timeline shape the commercial risk?

For ANDA cases, commercial exposure typically tracks:

• Filing and service dates
• Whether a 30-month stay applied or expired
• Whether preliminary injunctions issued (rare post-Waxman but possible depending on timing and findings)
• Whether the case resolved via settlement (common) with entry triggers

No timeline anchors (order dates, stay events, settlements, FDA approval dates) are provided.

Key patent and regulatory facts needed for a defensible exposure map

A business-grade patent exposure map for this case requires the following factual inputs, none of which are supplied:

• Drug name and reference listed drug (RLD)
• Listed patents and their Orange Book codes
• Patent families (application numbers/priority and continuations if any)
• FDA approval status and launch timing for Mylan’s ANDA
• Any licensing/settlement agreement dates and entry provisions

Case outcome: status and effect on exclusivity

A credible outcome summary requires the final docket disposition, such as:

• “Judgment for AstraZeneca” (and which patents/claims)
• “Judgment for Mylan” (invalidity findings or non-infringement)
• “Settlement and dismissal with/without prejudice”
• “Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction” or other threshold disposition

No disposition details are included.

---

Key Takeaways

• A litigation-summary and patent-analysis for AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1:15-cv-00093) cannot be completed accurately without the asserted patent numbers, the ANDA product/drug identity, and the docket outcomes (orders and final judgment).
• Under Hatch-Waxman practice, the value of the analysis depends on what patents were asserted and what the court ruled on (construction, infringement, validity) or whether the case ended in settlement with specific entry triggers. Those core facts are not present.

---

FAQs

1) What is the procedural framework for AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1:15-cv-00093)?

It is an ANDA patent litigation under the Hatch-Waxman model, typically built around paragraph IV allegations tied to Orange Book-listed patents. The prompt does not provide the asserted patent and drug-specific particulars required for a specific procedural characterization.

2) Which patents were asserted against Mylan in 1:15-cv-00093?

The prompt does not list the asserted patent numbers or Orange Book identifiers, so a definitive list cannot be produced.

3) Did the court rule on claim construction and validity?

The prompt provides no orders or opinion text, so the claim construction and validity posture cannot be stated.

4) Was the case resolved by settlement or final judgment?

No docket disposition or termination filing is included in the prompt, so the resolution mechanism cannot be stated.

5) How should investors use this case if they are underwriting future market entry risk?

Market risk hinges on (a) which patents were enforced, (b) whether they were found valid and infringed, or (c) settlement entry terms. Those specifics are not supplied here.

---

References (APA)

1. No sources were provided or citable in the prompt.