Litigation Details for FWK Holdings LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. (D. Mass. 2021)

FWK Holdings LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. (D. Mass. 2021)

Docket		Date Filed	2021-06-25
Court	District Court, D. Massachusetts	Date Terminated
Cause	15:1 Antitrust Litigation	Assigned To	Myong J. Joun
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	Mary Page Kelley
Parties	ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.
Patents	6,414,016; 6,583,174; 6,982,283; 7,064,148; 7,417,067; 7,795,312; 8,026,393; 8,071,613; 8,088,934; 8,097,649; 8,097,653; 8,114,890; 8,338,639; 8,389,542; 8,748,481; 8,779,187
Attorneys	Aakruti G. Vakharia
Firms	Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin and Schiller
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for FWK Holdings LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. (D. Mass. 2021)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2021-06-25				External link to document
2021-06-25	1	Complaint	283 patent”);38 7,795,312 (the “’312 patent”); 6,414,016 (the…’016 patent, the ’613 patent, the ’653 patent, the ’542 patent, the ’312 patent, the ’481 patent, the…the ’283 patent, the ’393 patent, the ’639 patent, and the ’187 patent. 190. Of the seven… acquired patent is not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in an earlier patent (and no exception…developing the patent portfolios for their profitable drugs. 77. The first patent or patents in a branded	External link to document
2021-06-25	28	Amended Complaint	6,414,016 (the “‘016 patent”); 8,071,613 (the “‘613 patent”); and …developing patent portfolios for their profitable drugs. 25. The first patent or patents in a branded…earlier-obtained patents. These narrower, later- obtained patents reflect, correspondingly, patents that are …challenge patents ostensibly covering the branded drug. A patent infringement lawsuit by the patent holder…The ‘858 patent was the Amitiza drug substance, or compound, patent and the strongest patent in the	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: FWK Holdings LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. (D. Mass. 2021)

Last updated: April 25, 2026

What Happened in FWK Holdings LLC v. Takeda (D. Mass., 1:21-cv-11057) and What It Means for Patent Risk?

What is the case and where is it filed?

Case: FWK Holdings LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd.
Docket: 1:21-cv-11057
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Filed: 2021 (civil action number indicates 2021 filing)
Parties:

• Plaintiff: FWK Holdings LLC
• Defendant: Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd.

What claims and patent theories are alleged?

No complete allegation-level details (asserted patent numbers, claims-by-number, product/ANDA/510(k) linkage, manufacturing or infringement theory, or pleaded inequitable conduct basis) are available in the provided input. A litigation-grade summary requires the complaint, asserted patents, and the claim construction or infringement analysis to be accurate.

What procedural posture and key events are established from the provided information?

No docket events, motions (Rule 12, summary judgment, transfer, stay, PI), claim construction orders, or trial schedule details are included in the provided input. A reliable “litigation summary and analysis” also requires those timestamps and holdings.

What did the court rule?

No rulings, orders, or dispositive outcomes are provided in the input (e.g., dismissal, settlement without public terms, summary judgment, denial of injunctive relief, claim construction outcome, or patent validity determinations). Without the decision text or docketed orders, a litigation holding cannot be stated.

What is the practical patent-risk takeaway?

A business-facing patent-risk takeout for a specific case depends on at least one of the following:

• which patents were asserted and whether they were narrowed, invalidated, or survived;
• whether the court entered an injunction or denied one;
• whether the case ended via dismissal tied to jurisdiction/pleading defects or ended after claim construction;
• whether a stipulation of non-infringement/invalidity or a settlement resolved enforceability.

Those elements are not present in the provided input, so a case-specific risk view cannot be produced without inventing facts.

---

Key Takeaways

• The case identification is clear: FWK Holdings LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., D. Mass., 1:21-cv-11057.
• The provided input does not include the operative complaint allegations, asserted patents, infringement theory, procedural docket history, or any court orders.
• Without those items, a litigation summary that states claims, rulings, and business implications would be incomplete.

---

FAQs

1) What patents were asserted in FWK Holdings LLC v. Takeda (1:21-cv-11057)?

Not provided in the input.

2) Did the court issue a claim construction order?

Not provided in the input.

3) Was there a motion for preliminary injunction or a stay?

Not provided in the input.

4) How did the case end (dismissal, summary judgment, settlement, or trial)?

Not provided in the input.

5) What does the outcome mean for Takeda’s product and infringement exposure?

Not provided in the input.

---

References

[1] FWK Holdings LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., No. 1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass. filed 2021).