Litigation Details for Galderma Laboratories LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Galderma Laboratories LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Docket		Date Filed	2017-12-11
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2020-03-12
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Richard Gibson Andrews
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To
Parties	ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT INC.
Patents	6,133,310; 7,550,440; 8,080,530; 8,093,219; 8,415,311; 8,470,788; 8,815,816; 9,089,587; 9,233,117; 9,233,118; 9,782,425
Attorneys	Christopher T. Jagoe
Firms	Shaw Keller LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Galderma Laboratories LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-12-11				External link to document
2017-12-11	1	Exhibit(s) C - US Patent No. 9,089,587	US Patent No. 8,362,069, # 2 Exhibit(s) B - US Patent No. 8,815,816, # 3 Exhibit(s) C - US Patent No.…9,089,587, # 4 Exhibit(s) D - US Patent No. 9,233,117, # 5 Exhibit(s) E - US Patent No. 9,233,118, # 6 Cover …2017 12 March 2020 1:17-cv-01783 830 Patent Plaintiff District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2017-12-10	124		argues for a construction drawn from U.S . Patent No . 6,133,310 ("Parks"), which is incorporated…six patents from three patent families against Defendant. (D.I. 110 at 1). The ' 587 Patent, the…the ' 117 Patent, the ' 118 Patent, and the '425 Patent are members of the Jacovella …history of the '249 Patent, a patent extrinsic to the ' 069 Patent, provides at least some support…of multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,815,816 (the "' 816 Patent"), 8,362,069 (the "	External link to document
2017-12-11	128		of U.S. Patent No. 8,815,816 (the “’816 Patent”), as well as Claims 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,362,069…, and IV be entered as to U.S. Patent No. 8,815,816, and U.S. Patent No. 8,362,069, as set forth in the…8,362,069 (the “’069 Patent”). Each of the asserted dependent claims in the ’816 Patent depend from independent…; and the asserted dependent claims in the ’069 Patent depend (directly or indirectly) from independent…”); WHEREAS Claims 2 and 11 of the ’816 Patent require, among other things, “a mixture of solvents	External link to document
2017-12-11	190		Betensky, Ph.D. on the Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,587, 9,233,117, and 9,233,118; 2) Opening Expert…Gallo M.D., Ph.D. on the Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,587, 9,233,117, and 9,233,118; 3) Expert Report…Todd Plott, M.D. on the Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,587, 9,233,117, and 9,233,118 filed by Teva …2017 12 March 2020 1:17-cv-01783 830 Patent Plaintiff District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2017-12-11	192		Todd Plott, M.D. on the Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,587, 9,233,117, and 9,233,118 3) Rebuttal Expert…Concerning the Non- Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,587, 9,233,117 and 9,233,118 4) Rebuttal Expert…Concerning the Non- Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,587, 9,233,117, and 9,233,118 5) Expert Report…2017 12 March 2020 1:17-cv-01783 830 Patent Plaintiff District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2017-12-11	194	Notice of Service	Ph.D. Concerning the Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,587, 9,233,117, and 9,233,118; 2) Reply Expert…Rebecca Betensky, Ph.D. Concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,587, 9,233,117, and 9,233,118; and 4) Reply …Todd Plott, M.D. on the Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,587, 9,233,117, and 9,233,118 filed by Teva …2017 12 March 2020 1:17-cv-01783 830 Patent Plaintiff District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Galderma Laboratories LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Last updated: July 28, 2026

Galderma v. Teva 1:17-cv-01783 Litigation Summary: What Claims Were Asserted, What Courts Ruled, and What It Means for Generic Entry

Galderma Laboratories LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01783 (filed 2017) is a patent infringement dispute tied to Teva’s generic-facing path for a Galderma branded dermatology product. A litigation timeline, asserted patent set, claim construction outcomes, and any settlement terms are required to assess entry risk and remaining enforceable IP. No case docket, complaint, claim chart, or order text is provided in the prompt, so an accurate, evidence-backed litigation summary and analysis cannot be produced.

What is Galderma Laboratories LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 1:17-cv-01783 about?

A complete litigation summary requires at least one of the following: the case caption identifying the asserted Galderma product and NDA/ANDA linkage, the complaint alleging the patent list, or the specific Orange Book patents and FDA application number(s) tied to Teva’s filing. Without docketed record details, the infringement theory (e.g., composition, formulation, method of use, or process) and the patent numbers cannot be stated.

What product and NDA/ANDA linkage does the case concern?

The case title alone does not identify the specific Galderma drug, strength(s), dosage form(s), or the Teva ANDA/NDA number. Those items are necessary to map infringement assertions to FDA regulatory status and exclusivity/launch timing.

Which patents were asserted?

A litigation analysis must list the asserted patents with numbers, assignee, and expiration dates, and then tie them to the accused Teva product. The prompt provides no patent list.

What relief was requested (injunction vs. damages)

Relief depends on the stage of litigation and the asserted claims. Without pleadings or orders, the requested remedies cannot be described correctly.

What patents does Galderma rely on in this dispute, and how strong is the estate?

Patent estate strength is assessed through (1) asserted claims and claim scope, (2) whether claims survived dispositive motions, (3) whether validity was challenged (anticipation/obviousness) and any PTAB/ITC parallel proceedings, and (4) any narrowing claim construction results.

How do validity arguments typically map to the asserted claim types?

• Composition/formulation claims usually face non-infringement and obviousness arguments around prior art formulations and ingredients.
• Method-of-use claims turn on prescribing/labeling interpretation and whether the generic’s intended use triggers infringement under applicable doctrines.
• Manufacturing/process claims hinge on production steps actually used or that the ANDA label implies.

No such mapping can be done for this specific case without the asserted patent set and the court’s constructions.

How does the court’s claim construction affect infringement in Galderma v. Teva 1:17-cv-01783?

Claim construction usually drives outcomes by narrowing term scope and limiting infringement theories. A litigation summary must include:

• the key disputed claim terms,
• the court’s constructions,
• whether any terms were resolved via summary judgment,
• and how constructions aligned with the Teva formulation and label.

No orders or claim construction record is provided.

What happened procedurally in the case (motions, hearings, stays, summary judgment)?

Procedural posture determines the practical risk to generic entry. Required items include:

• dates of key motions (dismissal, transfer, stay pending PTO, preliminary injunction),
• decision dates for dispositive rulings,
• and whether any settlement stayed entry.

The prompt does not include docket events.

Was there a Paragraph IV notice, and what FDA filing does it relate to?

In Hatch-Waxman litigation, the core linkage is:

• Teva’s ANDA number,
• the Orange Book listed patents,
• the Paragraph IV certifications,
• and the statutory trigger for the 30-month stay.

Without the complaint’s ANDA/NDA reference or the Paragraph IV certifications, the FDA pathway cannot be stated.

When does the relevant patent estate expire, and when does exclusivity end?

A business-grade answer must compute:

• earliest expiration among asserted patents,
• any PTA/adjustments,
• and any triggering exclusivity (e.g., pediatric exclusivity or formulation exclusivity) tied to the NDA history.

No asserted patent numbers or drug NDA are provided, so no expiration timeline can be generated.

What were the litigation outcomes: who won and what were the final judgments?

A litigation summary must identify:

• whether infringement was found,
• whether the court held claims invalid,
• whether an injunction issued,
• and whether judgment was on the pleadings or after trial.

No final judgment or dispositive outcome is provided.

Did the parties settle, and what were the settlement terms that affect generic entry?

Settlement analysis requires:

• effective settlement date,
• agreed entry date,
• permitted launch carve-outs (e.g., certain strengths, pack sizes),
• licensing fees or covenants not to sue,
• and whether the settlement is linked to stipulated dismissal.

No settlement documentation is provided.

What is the current Orange Book status of the Galderma patents in this dispute?

Orange Book status should be reported as:

• listed patents by number and patent type (drug substance, drug product, method of use),
• listed expiration dates,
• and whether patents are still active for the relevant NDA.

No Orange Book listing identifiers or patent numbers are provided.

How does this case compare with other Galderma vs. generic dermatology patent disputes?

A comparative analysis requires at least one of:

• similar asserted patent families,
• similar court outcomes,
• repeated defendants or syndication patterns,
• or consistent settlement structures.

The prompt does not provide any comparative case references.

What generic entry risks exist for Teva (or other ANDA filers) after 1:17-cv-01783?

Entry risk is determined by:

• remaining enforceable patents post-judgment,
• whether an injunction scope covers the exact generic dosage form/strength,
• and whether “design-around” strategies were accepted by the court.

Without asserted patents, rulings, and any settlement terms, entry risk cannot be quantified.

Key Takeaways

• The prompt does not include the complaint, docket events, claim construction orders, final judgments, or settlement documentation for Galderma Laboratories LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01783.
• Without asserted patent numbers and procedural outcomes, no accurate litigation summary or patent-viability analysis can be produced.
• A business-useful answer must tie asserted patents and claim constructions to FDA-linked ANDA activity and remaining exclusivity/expiration dates.

FAQs

1. What patents were asserted in Galderma Laboratories LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 1:17-cv-01783?
2. Did Teva file a Paragraph IV certification in 1:17-cv-01783, and what ANDA number was involved?
3. What did the court construe in Galderma v. Teva, and how did constructions impact infringement?
4. Did the parties reach a settlement in 1:17-cv-01783, and what entry date was agreed?
5. Which Orange Book patents remained active after the litigation, and when do they expire?

References

(No sources were provided in the prompt.)