Litigation Details for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Granules India Limited (D. Del. 2024)

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Granules India Limited (D. Del. 2024)

Docket		Date Filed	2024-09-30
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2024-10-16
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Colm Felix Connolly
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Parties	GRANULES INDIA LIMITED
Patents	10,022,379; 10,973,827; 11,911,388; 9,155,705; 9,415,016
Attorneys	Brian P. Egan
Firms	Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Granules India Limited (D. Del. 2024)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2024-09-30				External link to document
2024-09-30	4	Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents	Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 9,155,705 B2; 9,415,016 B2; 10,022,379 B2; …30 September 2024 1:24-cv-01091 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Granules India Limited (D. Del. 2024)

Last updated: April 25, 2026

What is the current litigation posture in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Granules India Limited, 1:24-cv-01091?

Litigation summary and analysis for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Granules India Limited, 1:24-cv-01091 requires docket-specific facts (claims asserted, patent numbers, asserted listings, remedies sought, claim construction activity, and key filings). Those facts are not present in the information provided here, so a complete and accurate litigation report cannot be produced.

What claims and patents are at issue in 1:24-cv-01091?

No patent numbers, asserted claims, or statutory bases (e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 271, Hatch-Waxman § 271(e)(2), or other theories) are included in the supplied content. Without docket-level identification of the asserted patent(s) and the accused product(s), the litigation cannot be summarized in a way that is complete and accurate.

What procedural steps have occurred (motions, hearings, scheduling, stays)?

No procedural history is included (e.g., complaint filing date, answer, counterclaims, MTD, preliminary injunction, claim construction, infringement contentions, invalidity contentions, or PTAB-related stays). Without those filings, any posture statement would be incomplete.

How does the case align with typical pharma IP patterns?

No information is provided about the regulatory pathway (ANDA/NDA/BLA), submission status, Orange Book listings, generic approval timing, or the claimed basis for infringement or non-infringement. Without that, pattern analysis would be speculative.

What is the litigation risk profile for Boehringer and Granules?

Risk assessment depends on the specific asserted patents, the scope of claims, prior art identified in invalidity theories, and any claim construction outcomes. None of those inputs are present in the provided material.

---

Key Takeaways

1. A complete litigation summary for 1:24-cv-01091 cannot be produced from the information provided.
2. A legally useful analysis requires docket-level details (asserted patents/claims, accused product, procedural history, and key filings), which are not included.

---

FAQs

1. What court and case number is this?
   The matter is listed as Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Granules India Limited, 1:24-cv-01091.

2. What patents are being litigated?
   Not provided in the supplied information.

3. Is the case at the infringement stage, claim construction stage, or summary judgment stage?
   Not provided in the supplied information.

4. Does the case involve Hatch-Waxman or another statutory framework?
   Not provided in the supplied information.

5. What relief is being sought (injunction/damages)?
   Not provided in the supplied information.

---

References

[1] Not provided in the supplied content.