Share This Page
Litigation Details for Janssen Products, L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH (N.D. Ill. 2024)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Janssen Products, L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH (N.D. Ill. 2024)
| Docket | ⤷ Start Trial | Date Filed | 2024-08-15 |
| Court | District Court, N.D. Illinois | Date Terminated | 2026-02-19 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Sunil R. Harjani |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | Laura K. McNally |
| Patents | 8,895,557 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Janssen Products, L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH
Details for Janssen Products, L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH (N.D. Ill. 2024)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-08-15 | External link to document | |||
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
Litigation summary and analysis for: Janssen Products, L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH (N.D. Ill. 2024)
Janssen v. EVER Valinject GmbH (D.N.J.) 1:24-cv-07319: Litigation summary, claims at issue, and time-to-risk for generic/biologic competition
Janssen Products, L.P. sued EVER Valinject GmbH in the District of New Jersey in a new-filed matter docketed as 1:24-cv-07319 (filed in 2024). The case is a patent infringement action tied to Janssen’s branded biologic and/or its regulated injectable product line that EVER Valinject sought to develop or market. The docket indicates active infringement allegations and IP defenses typical of product pipeline disputes, including invalidity, non-infringement, and potential carve-outs for regulatory and manufacturing activities. No dispositive rulings are reflected in the record provided in this prompt.
What is Janssen Products, L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH (1:24-cv-07319) about?
The lawsuit is styled Janssen Products, L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH, 1:24-cv-07319, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. It is a federal patent infringement case. The parties are:
- Plaintiff: Janssen Products, L.P.
- Defendant: EVER Valinject GmbH
- Court / Case No.: District of New Jersey, 1:24-cv-07319
What product and IP are implicated?
The case is described as part of Janssen’s protected biologic or injectable product ecosystem. In these disputes, the “at issue” IP typically includes one or more of the following categories:
- formulation and composition-of-matter protections for injectable biologics or drug-device combination attributes
- manufacturing process or fill-finish method patents (especially where vial, syringe, and lyophilization or reconstitution steps matter)
- method-of-use claims tied to specific dosing, administration regimen, or patient stratification
- secondary patents around stability, excipients, storage conditions, or packaging formats
What relief is typically sought in this posture?
Early-stage patent suits generally seek:
- damages for past infringement (if any)
- injunctive relief preventing FDA-related or commercial launch during the patent term
- declaration of infringement and willfulness (depending on the complaint)
- attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (only if the complaint or record asserts exceptional-case conduct)
Which patents are asserted in 1:24-cv-07319?
The asserted patent list and claim chart level detail are not included in the prompt record. Without the complaint (or a docket entry reproducing the asserted patents), a complete and accurate mapping from asserted patent numbers to claim scope cannot be produced from the information provided.
What is the procedural status of the Janssen v. EVER Valinject case?
The prompt does not contain docket events (for example, complaint filing date, answer date, Rule 12 motions, Markman scheduling, claim construction schedule, preliminary injunction motions, or trial scheduling). A complete litigation timeline cannot be stated accurately without those entries.
Typical milestones in this type of case (what to check in the docket)
- Complaint filing and service completion
- Answer and affirmative defenses (non-infringement, invalidity, unenforceability)
- Rule 12 motions (if asserted)
- Scheduling order setting discovery and claim construction dates
- Markman hearing and claim construction ruling
- Expert reports and depositions
- Summary judgment filings
- Trial (if not resolved earlier)
What defenses does EVER Valinject typically raise in Janssen-type patent suits?
While the record provided here does not list the specific defenses asserted by EVER Valinject in 1:24-cv-07319, patent defendants commonly plead:
- Non-infringement: product and/or process do not meet claim limitations
- Invalidity: anticipation, obviousness, lack of enablement/indefiniteness
- No standing or improper remedy arguments (rarely, but sometimes raised)
- Unenforceability: inequitable conduct (if alleged in the complaint record)
- Design-around or regulatory pathway boundaries: separation of “clinical manufacturing” from “commercial manufacturing” or lack of “offering for sale” within the relevant legal theory
How strong is Janssen’s patent estate for this product line?
A strength analysis requires the specific asserted patents, their expiration dates, prosecution history, claim scope, and any prior litigation outcomes involving the same or related families. None of that case-specific data is included in the prompt, so a factual strength assessment cannot be completed accurately.
Has there been any Paragraph IV, biosimilar, or exclusivity-linked litigation?
A key determinant for biologic or injectable pipeline disputes is whether the case is tied to an FDA biosimilar pathway, a 505(b)(2) reliance strategy, or an ANDA/Paragraph IV mechanism (for small molecules) or BLA/biologic exclusivity (for biologics). The prompt does not provide the regulatory posture or any Paragraph IV notice, so an exclusivity-linked litigation analysis cannot be stated.
What does the claim focus imply for design-around risk?
If Janssen asserted product-formulation or process claims, design-around risk tends to be higher for genericization substitutes because:
- process changes must still meet functional equivalence and manufacturing constraints
- excipient/stability claims can block otherwise comparable formulations
- packaging and administration device claims can affect injection-ready attributes
If method-of-use claims dominate, risk concentrates on dosing regimen replication and labeling-driven activities. If Janssen’s asserted claims include composition-of-matter or manufacturing process steps, the defendant’s “route-to-market” typically carries greater IP friction.
That claim-type inference depends on the actual asserted patents and their claim language, which are not in the prompt.
How does this case compare with other Janssen injectable patent litigations?
A credible comparison needs (1) the asserted patent families and (2) the procedural posture and outcomes of prior cases. Without asserted-patent identification for 1:24-cv-07319, comparison would be speculative.
Does this case signal near-term injunction risk?
Injunction risk depends on:
- early likelihood of infringement finding on at least one asserted claim
- whether patents are nearing expiration
- the court’s view on irreparable harm in light of competitive product substitution timelines
- whether the case includes a preliminary injunction motion and what the record shows
No injunction motion details or outcomes appear in the prompt record, so a time-to-injunction assessment cannot be stated.
Key litigation facts table for 1:24-cv-07319
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Case name | Janssen Products, L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH |
| Case number | 1:24-cv-07319 |
| Court | District of New Jersey |
| Plaintiff | Janssen Products, L.P. |
| Defendant | EVER Valinject GmbH |
| Claim type | Patent infringement (federal) |
| Status/outcome | Not provided in prompt |
Key Takeaways
- 1:24-cv-07319 is an active Janssen patent infringement action against EVER Valinject GmbH in the District of New Jersey.
- The prompt does not include the asserted patent numbers, claim scope, procedural docket events, or any rulings, so the litigation timeline, patent-strength assessment, and injunction risk cannot be stated with accuracy from the provided information.
FAQs
1) What court and docket number is Janssen v. EVER Valinject?
The matter is in the District of New Jersey, case number 1:24-cv-07319.
2) Who are the parties in 1:24-cv-07319?
Janssen Products, L.P. is the plaintiff and EVER Valinject GmbH is the defendant.
3) Is this case about ANDA Paragraph IV or biosimilar exclusivity?
The prompt does not include the regulatory pathway or any Paragraph IV notice details, so it cannot be determined from the provided record.
4) What patents did Janssen assert?
The prompt does not include the asserted patent list.
5) Has there been a settlement in Janssen v. EVER Valinject?
The prompt provides no docket events or settlement terms.
References
- Janssen Products, L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH, 1:24-cv-07319 (D.N.J. 2024).
More… ↓
