Litigation Details for UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (D. Del. 2019)

UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (D. Del. 2019)

Docket		Date Filed	2019-03-06
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	10,130,589; 6,699,498; 6,884,434; 7,413,747; 8,246,979; 8,246,980; 8,617,591; 9,925,150
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (D. Del. 2019)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2019-03-06				External link to document
2019-03-05	135	Opinion - Memorandum Opinion	claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,130,589 (the "'589 Patent"), the patent asserted by the… regarding related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,884,434 (the "'434 Patent") and 8,232,…quot;'414 Patent"), and held the '414 Patent invalid and the '434 Patent valid and … Book patents related to Neupro® to determine whether any of them were 'blocking patents[,]"…and fourth, UCB's other patents did not function as blocking patents. (D.I. 110 at 4-5.)	External link to document
2019-03-05	18	Notice of Service	Initial Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 10,130,589 B2 filed by LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme… 6 March 2019 1:19-cv-00474 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2019-03-06	196	Judgment	2, 3, 7, 10, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,130,589 (the '589 Patent) are invalid.. Signed by Judge …3, 7, 10, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,130,589 (the '589 Patent) are invalid. SO…for relief requested in Plaintiffs' Complaint for Patent Infringement D.I. 1 are denied with prejudice; …relief requested in Plaintiffs' Complaint for Patent Infringement (D.I. 1) are denied with prejudice… 6 March 2019 1:19-cv-00474 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2019-03-05	25	Notice of Service	Invalidity Contentions with Respect to U.S. Patent No. 10,130,589 filed by Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc..(… 6 March 2019 1:19-cv-00474 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2019-03-05	4	Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents	the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 10,130,589 B2. (nmg) (Entered… 6 March 2019 1:19-cv-00474 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (D. Del. 2019)

Last updated: April 26, 2026

UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (1:19-cv-00474): Litigation Summary, Posture, and Patent-Case Signposts

What is the case and what court posture is reflected in the docket?

UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., case number 1:19-cv-00474 is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and is styled as a patent dispute between UCB, Inc. (plaintiff) and Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (defendant). The matter is docketed under a federal civil case number 1:19-cv-00474 (Judge and patent-in-suit details are not reflected in the information available in this prompt).

What filings or merits content are required for a true litigation analysis, and what is missing here?

A litigation summary and patent-analysis in this matter requires, at minimum, the following case-critical items from the docket (PACER or docket text):

• The asserted patent(s) (patent numbers) and expiration/adjustment facts
• The specific claims and infringement theories pled in the complaint
• The ANDA/Hatch-Waxman framework (if applicable), including ANDA number, FDA paragraph certifications, and the Orange Book listing ties
• Procedural milestones: motions to dismiss, summary judgment, Markman claim construction, preliminary injunction, trial scheduling
• Claim construction outcomes and how they map to infringement/noninfringement positions
• Settlement terms (if the case resolved) or final judgment (if adjudicated)

The user request does not provide any of the above docket or merits content, and without it, a complete and accurate litigation summary and patent-case analysis cannot be produced.

What can be stated from the provided identifier alone?

From the identifier UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.|1:19-cv-00474, the only accurate, non-inferential facts available are:

• Case name: UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.
• Docket identifier: 1:19-cv-00474

No further litigation content can be stated without introducing inaccuracies.

What business-relevant signals cannot be produced without docket specifics?

For investors and R&D leaders, the following decisions hinge on docket specifics that are not present here:

• Whether UCB prevailed on infringement or validity
• Whether the case turned on claim construction and specific claim elements
• Whether the asserted patents were narrowed, invalidated, or avoided via non-infringement
• Timing implications tied to listed patent expirations, PTAB activity, or GSK/UCB portfolio strategy
• The likelihood that Actavis successfully entered or designed around UCB’s claims (common postures: settlement, design-around, consent judgment, or dismissal)

Case analysis framework (what the analysis must cover when docket data is available)

A proper litigation analysis for a UCB vs. Actavis ANDA-style dispute typically covers:

1. Asserted patents and Orange Book linkage
2. ANDA paragraph certifications and relevance to 180-day exclusivity or other triggered events
3. Infringement allegations mapped to specific drug formulation, dosage form, or method-of-use features
4. Non-infringement positions tied to laboratory tests or product design differences
5. Validity challenges: anticipation, obviousness, written description/enablement, indefiniteness
6. Procedural posture: Markman, summary judgment, injunction motions
7. Disposition: final judgment, settlement, or procedural termination
8. Portfolio and competitive impact: post-disposition design-around feasibility and launch timing

No docket text is provided, so none of these can be executed for this specific case without fabricating facts.

---

Key Takeaways

• Only the case name and docket number are verifiable from the provided input: UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., 1:19-cv-00474.
• A litigation summary and patent litigation analysis requires asserted patent numbers, filings, claims, and procedural outcomes, none of which are included in the prompt.
• Producing any further case narrative or patent conclusions without docket merits content would risk factual error, so the response cannot be completed.

---

FAQs

1. What is UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (1:19-cv-00474)?
   A federal patent dispute identified by the case name and docket number.

2. Which patents were asserted?
   Not stated in the information provided.

3. Was the case litigated to judgment or resolved by settlement?
   Not stated in the information provided.

4. Was it an ANDA/Hatch-Waxman dispute?
   Not stated in the information provided.

5. What is the strategic impact for UCB and Actavis?
   Cannot be determined from docket-level outcomes and patent-specific facts, which are not included.

---

References

[1] U.S. District Court, District of Delaware. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., 1:19-cv-00474. (Case identified by docket number provided in prompt.)