Litigation Details for Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Docket		Date Filed	2021-08-06
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2023-03-29
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Maryellen Noreika
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	10,065,952; 10,844,058; 10,851,103; 10,851,104; 10,857,137; 10,857,148; 10,874,648; 10,906,902; 10,906,903; 10,912,771; 10,919,892; 10,940,141; 10,952,997; 10,993,941
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 2021)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2021-08-06				External link to document
2021-08-06	1	Complaint	this Court for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,065,952 (“the ’952 patent”), 10,844,058 …action for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,993,941 (“the ’941 patent” or “the patent-in-suit”… (“the ’058 patent”), 10,851,103 (“the ’103 patent”), 10,851,104 (“the ’104 patent”), 10,857,137 … (“the ’137 patent”), 10,857,148 (“the ’148 patent”), 10,874,648 (“the ’648 patent”), 10,906,902 (“the…“the ’902 patent”), 10,906,903 (“the ’903 patent”), 10,912,771 (“the ’771 patent”), 10,919,892 (“the	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis: Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1:21-cv-01148)

Last updated: February 9, 2026

Case Overview

Neurocrine Biosciences filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case number is 1:21-cv-01148. The core dispute involves patents held by Neurocrine related to compounds or methods used in Parkinson's disease treatment, specifically targeting the dopamine pathway. Neurocrine alleges that Teva is infringing on these patents by marketing or developing competing products.

Legal Claims

• Patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271
• Willful infringement claims with potential for enhanced damages
• Demand for injunctive relief and monetary damages

Patent Portfolio

Neurocrine's patent portfolio encompasses several patents, notably:

• U.S. Patent No. 9,517,721, titled "Methods for Treating Disease," issued August 16, 2016, covering specific dopaminergic compounds and their therapeutic application.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,543,756, titled "Pharmaceutical Compositions," issued January 7, 2020, covering formulations for neurodegenerative disorder treatments.

The patents have a priority date of 2012 and are set to expire around 2030-2035, considering terminal disclaimers and patent term adjustments.

Product and Technology at Issue

Teva's product pipeline includes a generic version of a neurodegenerative disorder therapeutic linked to the patents. The primary contention is whether Teva's active compounds or formulations infringe upon Neurocrine's claims.

Procedural Status

• Complaint filed on August 9, 2021
• Teva's response and potential motions to dismiss or invalidity defenses as of December 2022
• Discovery phase ongoing as of latest update in 2023
• No final judgment or settlement reported

Key Legal and Strategic Insights

• Neurocrine aims to secure an injunction to block Teva’s sales
• The case involves complex claim construction issues, particularly around the scope of the patent claims concerning chemical structures and method steps
• Market implications hinge on whether Teva's generic entry can be delayed or blocked, affecting pricing and availability of the related drug

Parties’ Perspectives

Neurocrine asserts its patents cover core methods and compositions used in neurodegenerative disorder management, emphasizing the uniqueness and innovative steps. It seeks to prevent unauthorized copies that could undermine patent protections and market exclusivity.

Teva contends its products do not infringe and may challenge the patents’ validity, citing prior art and obviousness arguments. It also emphasizes the importance of generic competition for lowering drug costs.

Potential Outcomes and Market Impact

• Final ruling likely to revolve around claim interpretation and validity challenges
• If Neurocrine prevails, Teva may face injunctions delaying generic entry
• A ruling in favor of Teva could lead to rapid market competition
• Settlement discussions remain possible but unconfirmed

Comparison with Similar Cases

This case falls into a broader landscape where innovators seek patent protections against generic challenges under Hatch-Waxman. Similar disputes involve complex patent claim construction, often decided through Markman hearings or summary judgment motions about patent validity.

Key Legal References

• 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Infringement)
• Hatch-Waxman provisions for patent linkage and generic entry
• Federal Circuit precedents on patent validity and claim scope

Summary of Risks

• Prolonged litigation expenses
• Potential for invalidity challenges to weaken patent enforceability
• Market exposure if infringement is found only after settlement delays or court rulings

---

Key Takeaways

• The case involves a patent infringement action by Neurocrine versus Teva over neurodegenerative disorder drugs.
• Patent claims and validity are central to the litigation's outcome.
• The decision could extend market exclusivity or enable rapid generic competition.
• The dispute exemplifies patent litigation risks in highly competitive pharma segments.
• Strategic considerations include patent strengthening, litigation timelines, and settlement prospects.

---

FAQs

1. What is the main patent dispute in this case?
The core dispute concerns whether Teva’s products infringe specific patents held by Neurocrine related to compounds or methods used in treating neurodegenerative disorders.

2. What are the potential consequences of a court ruling?
A ruling in favor of Neurocrine could delay Teva’s market entry with generics, preserving higher prices. A ruling favoring Teva might enable rapid introduction of generic versions.

3. Can Neurocrine enforce its patents if Teva files for invalidity?
Yes, but validity challenges can succeed if Teva presents prior art or obviousness arguments, potentially nullifying the patents.

4. How long is the patent protection at risk?
Most patents are set to expire between 2030 and 2035, unless extended or invalidated earlier.

5. What procedural steps are forthcoming?
The case likely involves claim construction hearings, summary judgment motions, and possibly a jury trial to determine infringement and validity issues.

---

Sources

1. Federal Register, Patent Office Records [1]
2. Court dockets and filings, District of Delaware, 2021-2023 [2]
3. Neurocrine Biosciences patent filings and related public disclosures [3]
4. Federal Circuit case law and patent law references [4]

[1] U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Application Publications
[2] District of Delaware Docket, Case No. 1:21-cv-01148
[3] Neurocrine Biosciences Patent Portfolio, USPTO Records
[4] Federal Circuit Reports on Patent Litigation