Last updated: July 19, 2026
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (1:17-cv-00998) | Litigation Summary, Patent Claims, and What It Means for Generic Entry
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA in 2017 in case no. 1:17-cv-00998 (U.S. District Court). The matter is a patent infringement dispute tied to a brand-to-generic contest under the Hatch-Waxman framework. The record indicates a Paragraph IV-style posture, with infringement claims directed to one or more listed patents covering the relevant marketed drug and/or its approved dosage forms, but the specific asserted patent numbers, claims, and product link are not stated in the information provided here.
Because the case caption and docket number alone do not include the asserted patent estate, FDA product reference, or the procedural posture needed to produce an accurate infringement-and-expiration analysis, a complete litigation summary cannot be generated without introducing inaccuracies.
What patents did Mitsubishi Tanabe assert against Teva in 1:17-cv-00998?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Which patents were listed in the Orange Book and asserted in the complaint?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
What dosage form and FDA reference product were at issue?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
What was the procedural timeline in Mitsubishi Tanabe v. Teva (1:17-cv-00998)?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
When was the complaint filed and which court division handled the case?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Were there claim construction, injunction motions, summary judgment, or trial?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Did the parties reach a settlement, and did it trigger a consent judgment or stipulated dismissal?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Was there a 30-month stay issue or a “carve-out” settlement?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Did Teva launch at risk or enter under a settlement (launch date impact)?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
How does this litigation affect Teva’s generic entry risk for the challenged drug?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
What is the “at-risk” window based on the asserted patent expirations?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Are method-of-use, formulation, or manufacturing patents in the asserted estate?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
What is the Orange Book status of the patents tied to this dispute?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Which Orange Book listings matter (drug substance, drug product, and method-of-use)?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
When do the listed patents expire and when do exclusivity periods end?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
How strong is Mitsubishi Tanabe’s patent estate based on the asserted claims in 1:17-cv-00998?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Were asserted claims likely to survive typical validity and noninfringement arguments?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Did Teva challenge validity via invalidity counterclaims or equitable defenses?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Which companies were involved (parties, counsel, co-defendants) and what is the real competitive landscape?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Was this Teva Pharmaceuticals USA only, or did other affiliates hold the ANDA and file the certification?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Which other generics could be affected by the same patent-to-ANDA linkage?
Answer: Not determinable from the provided inputs.
Key Takeaways
No litigation-specific conclusions (asserted patents, claim scope, procedural outcome, settlement terms, or entry-impact timing) can be stated accurately from the provided information: caption + case number only.
FAQs
- What is case no. 1:17-cv-00998?
- Was Mitsubishi Tanabe’s lawsuit based on Paragraph IV certifications?
- Did the court enter an injunction or a consent judgment in 1:17-cv-00998?
- What Orange Book patents were at issue in the dispute with Teva?
- When could generic entry occur if the asserted patents expired or were narrowed?
References (APA)
- Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00998 (U.S. District Court) (case docket).
