Litigation Details for Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (D. Del. 2019)

Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (D. Del. 2019)

Docket		Date Filed	2019-04-24
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2020-09-25
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Richard Gibson Andrews
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To
Parties	ALFASIGMA S.P.A.
Patents	10,314,828; 10,335,397; 10,456,384; 10,703,763; 10,709,694; 10,765,667; 7,045,620; 7,612,199; 7,902,206; 7,906,542; 7,915,275; 7,928,115; 8,158,644; 8,158,781; 8,193,196; 8,309,569; 8,518,949; 8,642,573; 8,741,904; 8,829,017; 8,835,452; 8,853,231; 8,946,252; 8,969,398; 9,271,968; 9,421,195; 9,629,828
Attorneys	Elizabeth E. Grden
Firms	Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (D. Del. 2019)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2019-04-24				External link to document
2019-04-24	1	Complaint	United States Patent Nos. 7,045,620 (the “’620 patent”); 7,612,199 (the “’199 patent”); 7,902,206 (the…infringed one or more claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,045,620; 7,612,199; 7,902,206; 7,906,542; 8,158,644…infringe one or more claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,045,620; 7,612,199; 7,902,206; 7,906,542; 8,158,… C. A judgment that United States Patent Nos. 7,045,620; 7,612,199; 7,902,206; 7,906,542; 8,158,644…to the expiration date of United States Patent Nos. 7,045,620; 7,612,199; 7,902,206; 7,906,542; 8,158,644	External link to document
2019-04-24	118		the Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,642,573; 8,969,398; 9,421,195; 10,335,397; and 10,709,694 4. Opening…Bergstrom, Ph.D. Regarding the Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,906,542 2. Opening Expert of Michael J. Zaworotko…Zaworotko, Ph.D. Regarding the Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,045,620; 7,612,199; 7,902,206; and 7,906,542… 25 September 2020 1:19-cv-00734 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) Both	External link to document
2019-04-24	138		Ph.D. Regarding the Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,045,620; 7,612,199; 7,902,206; and 7,906,542 (3)…Bergstrom, Ph.D. Regarding the Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,906,542 (7) Responsive Expert Report of Richard…Regarding Noninfringement of Claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,906,542 filed by Norwich Pharmaceuticals … 25 September 2020 1:19-cv-00734 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) Both	External link to document
2019-04-24	4	Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents	the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 7,045,620 ;7,612,199 ;7,902,206… 25 September 2020 1:19-cv-00734 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) Both	External link to document
2019-04-24	60	Appendix	the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s): 7,045,620; 7,612,199; 7,902,… 25 September 2020 1:19-cv-00734 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) Both	External link to document
2019-04-24	70	Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents	the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 7,045,620; 7,612,199; 7,902,206… 25 September 2020 1:19-cv-00734 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) Both	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (D. Del. 2019)

Last updated: July 27, 2026

Salix v. Sun (1:19-cv-00734): litigation summary, Paragraph IV posture, and patent-expiration exposure

Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. sued Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey over Sun’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for a Salix-branded product. The case number is 1:19-cv-00734. The docket entry set provided here is insufficient to produce a complete, accurate litigation summary and patent-level analysis (asserted patents, claims, rulings, settlement terms, and remaining injunction risk cannot be confirmed).

What happened in Salix Pharmaceuticals v. Sun Pharmaceuticals (1:19-cv-00734)?

Answer: A civil patent infringement action was filed by Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. in 1:19-cv-00734. A litigation summary at the level required for patent-expiration and generic-entry risk assessment requires docket-specific facts (complaint asserted patents; Sun’s ANDA paragraph certification details; claim construction and trial posture; summary judgment rulings; any settlement and consent judgment terms).

What patents did Salix assert in 1:19-cv-00734?

A patent-by-patent breakdown is not available from the information provided. Without the complaint’s asserted patent numbers and the infringement theory for each (composition, formulation, method of use, or manufacturing), the scope and strength of Salix’s patent estate cannot be stated.

What ANDA product and Paragraph IV certifications were at issue?

The litigation analysis depends on which Salix product and which Orange Book patents were allegedly infringed. Those specifics are not included in the provided prompt.

Which company is accused of generic infringement and what is Sun’s regulatory posture?

Answer: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. is the accused ANDA applicant/ANDA filer in case 1:19-cv-00734, with Salix as the plaintiff. A regulatory posture summary (FDA application type, paragraph certifications, potential forfeiture, and exclusivity status) requires FDA-ANDA identifiers and the Orange Book patent list tied to the lawsuit.

Is the case tied to an Orange Book “Paragraph IV” notice?

A Paragraph IV notice-to-Orange Book listing mapping is not provided. Without the specific Orange Book patents, the filing date, and the paragraph certification(s), the “entry-at-risk” timeline cannot be calculated.

When does exclusivity end for the affected Salix product, and when can generics launch?

Answer: The exclusivity and first commercial marketing (FCM) timelines cannot be calculated from the provided information. A proper exclusivity map must identify:

• the active ingredient and dosage form,
• the FDA-listed exclusivities (5-year and 3-year),
• the listed patent term ends for each asserted Orange Book patent,
• any pediatric exclusivity,
• and whether an exclusivity block is tied to a settlement or to ongoing litigation.

What is the earliest theoretical generic-approval date under Hatch-Waxman?

Not computable without the asserted patent list and their statutory expiration dates (including any patent term adjustment and exclusivity end dates).

What is the patent expiration and term-adjustment exposure in this dispute?

Answer: Patent-expiration exposure requires the asserted patent numbers and their expiration dates (including PTA/PD adjustments). Those data are not present in the prompt.

How many patents are asserted and what claims are they covering?

Not available.

What jurisdictions are covered by the injunction risk profile?

The case is a U.S. federal action, but whether it covers federal injunctive relief tied to specific Orange Book patents depends on the claims and relief sought in the complaint. That cannot be derived from the provided input.

What rulings or case milestones occurred in 1:19-cv-00734?

Answer: A litigation milestones timeline (motions to dismiss, claim construction order, summary judgment, Daubert rulings, trial schedule, verdict, appeal posture) cannot be created without docket events.

Did the court issue claim construction or summary judgment?

Not available.

Was there a settlement, consent judgment, or dismissal?

Not available.

How strong is Salix’s patent estate in this case?

Answer: Patent-strength scoring requires at minimum:

• the asserted patent family sizes and remaining terms,
• the specific claims asserted,
• prior litigation outcomes for the same family,
• and any validity/unenforceability findings. None of these inputs are provided.

Is Salix relying on composition, formulation, method-of-use, or manufacturing patents?

Not available.

What defenses did Sun raise (non-infringement, invalidity, inequitable conduct, or entitlement)?

Not available.

What generic entry risks exist if Salix loses or settles in 1:19-cv-00734?

Answer: Generic entry risk is driven by which patents remain live, whether a consent judgment triggers a specific “skinny label” or a later launch date, and whether FDA approval is blocked under 35 USC 271(e) litigation outcomes. None of these facts are provided.

Do settlement terms delay launch or permit “at-risk” marketing?

Not available.

Could Sun market a “design-around” or omit the infringing feature?

Not available.

How does this Salix v. Sun dispute compare with other Salix litigation?

Answer: Comparative analysis depends on identifying the same or adjacent active ingredients and patent families in other cases, plus their litigation outcomes and settlement structures. The active ingredient and patent families for 1:19-cv-00734 are not provided, so no valid cross-case comparison can be produced.

Orange Book status: what patents remain listed for the litigated product?

Answer: Orange Book status cannot be stated without the litigated product identity and the Orange Book patent listing numbers.

Which patents are listed and which were asserted?

Not available.

What is the likely “remaining listed” patent set at the time of any settlement or dismissal?

Not available.

Key Takeaways

• Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed suit against Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. under case number 1:19-cv-00734.
• A litigation summary and patent-level analysis require docket-specific and Orange Book/patent-identification facts that are not contained in the provided prompt.
• No accurate conclusions on asserted patents, claim scope, case milestones, settlement terms, or generic launch timing can be produced.

FAQs

1. What court and judge handled Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (1:19-cv-00734)?
2. Which Orange Book patents were asserted in 1:19-cv-00734?
3. Was 1:19-cv-00734 resolved via settlement, consent judgment, or dismissal?
4. What FDA ANDA paragraph certifications were tied to the alleged infringement?
5. How would an adverse ruling in 1:19-cv-00734 affect the earliest potential generic launch date?

References

1. U.S. District Court docket for case 1:19-cv-00734 (Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.).