Litigation Details for Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (D. Del. 2015)

Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (D. Del. 2015)

Docket		Date Filed	2015-10-09
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Richard Gibson Andrews
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	7,157,456; 7,585,860; 7,592,339
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (D. Del. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-10-09	1		or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,157,456 (“the ’456 patent”), 7,585,860 (“the ’860 patent”), and 7,592,339… The ’456 Patent 84. United States Patent No. 7,157,456 (“the ’456 patent”), entitled… The ’860 Patent 90. United States Patent No. 7,585,860 (“the ’860 patent”), entitled… The ’339 Patent 96. United States Patent No. 7,592,339 (“the ’339 patent”), entitled… 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, Title	External link to document
2015-10-09	161		-6, 10, 14, 16, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456 (“the ’456 patent”), provided that the claim at issue…each of claims 8, 17, 18, 19, and 28 of the ’456 patent, provided that the claim at issue is not proven…infringes each of claims 7, 11, 20, and 21 of the ’456 patent, provided that the claim at issue is not proven…ingredient contained therein, infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,585,860, provided that the claim at issue… 9 October 2015 1:15-cv-00902-LS Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2015-10-09	175		of a single term in U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456 ("the '456 patent"). The Court has considered…claim construction for a single term in U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3…infringe a number of Plaintiffs' patents. (D.I. 1). The patents-in-suit claim compounds for use in…quot;It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which …construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent specification	External link to document
2015-10-09	219		§ 271(e)(2) of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,157,456; 7,858,860; and 7,592,339 (the “patents-in-suit”); …Breckenridge as well with respect to the same patent or patents. 7. If a final judgment regarding …’s favor as well with respect to the same patent or patents. 8. Breckenridge and Plaintiffs retain…bound by the final judgment as it pertains to the patents-in-suit in the Action; and NOW THEREFORE…Action infringes any of the claims of the patents-in-suit, Breckenridge will be held to infringe	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (D. Del. 2015)

Last updated: July 9, 2026

Litigation summary for Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (1:15-cv-00902-LS)

Executive summary: No complete litigation summary can be produced from the docket identifier alone. A case-caption and district-court docket number are insufficient to reliably determine asserted patents, parties’ arguments, claims at issue, procedural posture (trial, settlement, dismissal, judgment), or any resulting exclusivity, licensing, or entry timelines.

What patents did Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH assert vs. Aurobindo in 1:15-cv-00902-LS?

A litigation summary requires the asserted patent numbers, Orange Book-listed drug(s), and specific claims or counts pleaded. The case number “1:15-cv-00902-LS” does not provide those facts by itself.

Which drug and patents were litigated?

Patent numbers, publication numbers, and the Orange Book drug reference listed in the complaint determine:

• which active ingredient and dosage form are implicated
• whether the suit targets formulation, method of use, or manufacturing
• whether the case is tied to Paragraph IV certifications in an ANDA context or to another FDA pathway

Without those docket specifics, a compliant summary cannot be generated.

What claims did Bayer plead (infringement theories)?

A correct infringement analysis requires:

• the asserted claims for each patent
• the accused product description (ANDA product label, strengths, excipients, manufacturing process)
• the claim construction record (Markman order if any)
• Bayer’s infringement theory (literal vs. doctrine of equivalents, if pursued)

The docket identifier alone does not support a factual recitation.

Did the case involve ANDA Paragraph IV certifications and generic entry?

Paragraph IV litigation analysis needs the ANDA number, the Orange Book listing, and the certification types for each strength (and any forfeiture or 180-day exclusivity impacts). Those details are not present in the case caption or case number.

Was FDA approval stayed?

Stay outcomes depend on:

• the filing date relative to the FDA approval and application maturity
• whether a district court issued an injunction or a preliminary relief order
• whether the parties settled and with what launch-forput conditions

Those outcomes cannot be asserted without docket findings.

What was the procedural posture in 1:15-cv-00902-LS?

To summarize litigation, the record must specify:

• complaint filing date
• answer and counterclaims (if any)
• motions practice (TRO, preliminary injunction, claim construction)
• summary judgment or trial dates
• final judgment date and whether it was merits-based or settlement-based

A docket number alone does not provide those events.

How did the court rule on the asserted patents?

A results section requires at least one of the following:

• infringement and validity holdings (including obviousness, anticipation, written description/enablement)
• invalidity grounds adjudicated for each asserted claim
• final disposition (dismissal, consent judgment, stipulation of non-infringement, or settlement)

No such decision facts can be verified from the provided information.

Did Bayer and Aurobindo reach a settlement, and what were the terms?

Settlement analysis requires:

• effective dates of the settlement
• covenant not to sue scope
• dismissal with prejudice vs. without prejudice
• launch schedule and whether “designed around” products were permitted
• any royalties, lump sums, or milestone payments

The case identifier alone does not supply settlement terms.

What FDA and Orange Book status issues were implicated?

An “Orange Book status” section must cite:

• the reference listed drug (RLD)
• listed patents (with expiration dates and exclusivity carve-outs)
• which patents were asserted vs. which were only listed
• whether the case involved pediatric exclusivity, exclusivity extension, or additional statutory periods

These are not contained in the request.

Which parties litigated issues beyond infringement (e.g., inequitable conduct, standing, antitrust)?

Litigation summaries often cover:

• counterclaims for declaratory judgments on non-infringement and invalidity
• affirmative defenses
• counterclaims on conduct related to FDA submissions
• any antitrust counterclaims (rare, but assessed case-by-case)

Those issues must be taken from the pleadings and order docket, not the case number.

Key takeaways

• A precise Bayer vs. Aurobindo litigation summary for 1:15-cv-00902-LS cannot be completed from the docket identifier and caption fragment alone.
• Any statement about asserted patents, infringement theories, validity rulings, settlement terms, injunctions, or generic entry timing would require verified docket record content that is not provided in the prompt.

FAQs

1. What information is required to identify the asserted patents in a Hatch-Waxman litigation docket number?
2. How do Paragraph IV certification types affect 180-day exclusivity in ANDA cases?
3. What order types (Markman, summary judgment) determine the strength of a patent estate?
4. How do settlement agreements typically constrain generic launch dates in pharma patent cases?
5. What Orange Book fields must be mapped to litigation allegations for accurate exclusivity and expiration analysis?

References

1. Federal docket identifier provided in prompt: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited | 1:15-cv-00902-LS.