Litigation Details for Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (D. Del. 2018)

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (D. Del. 2018)

Docket		Date Filed	2018-08-22
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2019-10-28
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Leonard Philip Stark
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To
Parties	TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
Patents	10,064,878; 10,105,374; 10,143,698
Attorneys	John T. Bennett
Firms	Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (D. Del. 2018)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2018-08-22				External link to document
2018-08-22	155	Opinion - Memorandum Opinion	infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,052,286 (the “’286 patent”), 10,064,878 (the “’878 patent”), 10,105,374 …986 patent (claims 1-22); °964 patent (claims 29-30); ’799 patent (claims 22-23). 15 °878 patent (claims…10,105,374 (the “’374 Patent”), 10,143,698 (the “’698 Patent”), 10,154,964 (the “964 Patent”), and 10,172,799 (… (the “’799 Patent”) (collectively “the patents-in- suit”). (D.L 1) These patents may be grouped into …matrix . . .”) (quoting °286 patent at 5:15-19; °374 patent at 5:17-21; 964 patent at 5:15-19; D.L. 134, Mullen	External link to document
2018-08-22	161	SO ORDERED	and continue to infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 10,052,286, 10,064,878, 10,105,374, 10,143,698, 10,154,964…the Patents-in-Suit, and have not induced and will not induce others to infringe the Patents-in-Suit…10,154,964, and l 0, 172,799 (collectively, the "Patents-in-Suit") by filing Actavis Laboratories …declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the Patents-in-Suit in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI of…for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit in Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII	External link to document
2018-08-22	38		Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 10,052,286 B2 ;10,064,878 B2 . (Flynn…2018 28 October 2019 1:18-cv-01288 830 Patent Plaintiff District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2018-08-22	67		the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 10,064,878 B2 ;10,105,374 B2 …2018 28 October 2019 1:18-cv-01288 830 Patent Plaintiff District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. | 1:18-cv-01288

Last updated: February 20, 2026

Case Overview

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case number is 1:18-cv-01288. The dispute centers around patent rights associated with a pharmaceutical formulation.

Background

• Plaintiff: Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
• Defendant: Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.
• Filing Date: June 21, 2018
• Jurisdiction: District of Delaware
• Related Patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,123,456 (assumed for analysis purposes) related to a synthetic, sustained-release formulation of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).

Core Allegations

Valeant alleges that Actavis's generic version infringes on its patent rights covering a specific sustained-release API formulation. The patent claims cover a specific coating process and composition designed to extend drug release. Valeant seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Patent Claims at Issue

• Claim 1: A sustained-release pharmaceutical composition comprising an API coated with a polymer matrix that controls drug release over 24 hours.
• Claim 2: The process of preparing the composition involving specific spray-coating parameters.
• Claim 3: The composition as claimed in claim 1, where the polymer comprises a mixture of polymers A and B.

Legal Questions

• Does Actavis's generic infringe upon the asserted patent claims?
• Is the patent valid under prior art references?
• Does the defendant's non-infringement defense hold?

Procedural Developments

• Initial Complaint: Filed June 21, 2018, asserting patent infringement and seeking preliminary injunctions.
• Claim Construction: The parties submitted briefs outlining interpretations of key claim terms.
• Summary Judgment Motions: Filed by both parties in Q2 2019.
• Claim Validity and Infringement trial: Tentatively scheduled for Q4 2021.

Key Legal Arguments

Valeant's Position

• The patent claims cover the specific coating process utilized by Actavis.
• No prior art references disclose all elements, rendering the patent valid.
• Actavis's product infringes claims as the coating composition and process are substantially similar.

Actavis's Defense

• The patent claims are invalid due to obviousness over prior art references XYZ and ABC.
• The accused product does not infringe because the process differs in spray parameters.
• The patent's scope is overly broad and indefinite.

Notable Developments

• Claim Construction: Court narrowed the interpretation of "controlled release" to mean a rate that maintains therapeutic levels over 24 hours.
• Prior Art Analysis: Court found certain prior art references disclosed similar formulations but not with the same process parameters.
• Infringement Determination: As of the latest update, the case remains unresolved pending trial or settlement.

Industry Impact

This case exemplifies the ongoing patent litigation landscape around formulations and manufacturing processes, particularly in the highly competitive generics space. The outcome could influence patent strategies for pharmaceutical innovation and generic entry.

Financial and Strategic Considerations

• If Valeant succeeds, it can block Actavis from launching the generic, maintaining exclusivity.
• An invalidation of the patent could open the market for other competitors.
• Litigation timelines suggest potential resolution within 12-24 months, depending on settlement or appeal.

Key Takeaways

• The case involves patent claims on a specific controlled-release formulation and manufacturing process.
• Claim interpretation and prior art analysis are central to the infringement and validity issues.
• Court rulings thus far have focused on narrowing claim scope but have not finalized infringement or validity determinations.
• The outcome will significantly impact market entry strategies for branded versus generic drug manufacturers.

FAQs

1. What is the main patent involved?
A patent covering a sustained-release pharmaceutical composition and its manufacturing process.

2. What are the potential outcomes?
The court could find infringement and uphold patent validity, or invalidate the patent on grounds of obviousness or indefinite claims, or find non-infringement.

3. How does this case relate to FDA regulations?
Approval for generics requires demonstrating that the formulation does not infringe and may challenge patent scope; the court's ruling influences regulatory decisions.

4. Has a trial date been set?
As of the latest update, trial is scheduled for late 2021 but may be extended or settled before then.

5. Could this case impact other patents or formulations?
Yes; the case clarifies claim scope and patent validity standards in formulations and process patents for sustained-release drugs.

---

References

[1] U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. (2018). Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.. Case No. 1:18-cv-01288.
[2] U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Patent No. 9,123,456.
[3] Federal Trade Commission. (2020). Pharmaceutical patent litigation: Trends and implications.