Litigation Details for Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2018)

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2018)

Docket		Date Filed	2018-04-30
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Colm Felix Connolly
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	10,071,977; 10,149,829; 10,376,487; 9,060,995; 9,539,234; 9,549,913; 9,730,910; 9,855,241; RE46,604
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2018)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2018-04-30	1		of Vanda’s U.S. Patent Nos. RE46,604 (“the RE604 patent”); 9,060,995 (“the ’995 patent”); 9,539,234 (… V. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT (U.S. PATENT NOS. RE46,604; 9,060,995; 9,539,234; 9,549,913;… U.S. Patent No. 9,060,995 29. Vanda is the owner… (“the ’234 patent”); 9,549,913 (“the ’913 patent”); 9,730,910 (“the ’910 patent”); and Case 1:18-cv-00651…#: 2 9,855,241 (“the ’241 patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”), which, in relevant part,	External link to document
2018-04-30	113	Notice of Service	U.S. Patent No. 10,071,977; (2) Defendants' Amended Invalidity Contentions Regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,149,829…30 April 2018 1:18-cv-00651-CFC 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2018-04-30	114	Notice of Service	Supplemental Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 10,071,977 to Teva; and (2) Vanda's Supplemental Infringement…Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 10,071,977 to MSN filed by Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc..(Fahnestock…30 April 2018 1:18-cv-00651-CFC 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2018-04-30	117	Notice of Service	Invalidity Contentions Concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,071,977 2) Defendants Second Amended Invalidity …Invalidity Contentions Regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,149,829 3) Defendants Third Amended Invalidity Contentions …30 April 2018 1:18-cv-00651-CFC 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2018-04-30	336	Opinion	claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. RE46,604 (the RE604 patent), claim 14 of U.S. Patent No 10,149,829 (the #829 patent… patent), claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,730,910 (the #910 patent), and claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,376,487…The Asserted Patents 1. The RE604 Patent 58) The RE604 patent, titled "…3 of the RE604 patent and that claim 3 of the RE604 patent, claim 4 of the #829 patent, claim 14 of the… #487 patent). Defendants have stipulated to infringement of claim 5 of the #487 patent. They	External link to document
2018-04-30	4		Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) RE46,604 ;9,060,995 ;9,539,234 ;9,…30 April 2018 1:18-cv-00651-CFC 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2018)

Last updated: April 24, 2026

What did Vanda Pharmaceuticals win (and lose) in Vanda v. Teva (1:18-cv-00651-CFC), and what does the case signal for future exclusivity and generic entry?

Case posture

• Court / case: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Docket: 1:18-cv-00651-CFC
• Caption: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
• Parties (as pleaded): Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (plaintiff) vs. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (defendant)

Is this a Hatch-Waxman patent case tied to a marketed Vanda product?

No usable record-level content is available in the provided inputs to determine:

• which Vanda product or active ingredient was at issue,
• whether the action was brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) as an ANDA infringement suit,
• which specific asserted patents were listed in the infringement complaint,
• whether Teva’s filing triggered a Paragraph IV notice under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j),
• whether the case involved dismissal, summary judgment, trial verdict, a consent judgment, or a stipulated stay.

Because the prompt includes only the case identifier and no docket text, court order excerpts, settlement documents, or patent list, producing an accurate litigation summary is not possible under the operating constraints.

What patents were asserted, and what claims/validity issues were litigated?

Not determinable from the information provided.

A complete and accurate litigation analysis requires, at minimum, the asserted patent numbers (and publication/patent family context), the specific claim terms each side disputed, and the procedural outcomes (e.g., claim construction rulings, validity findings, infringement findings, and any appeal or post-judgment motions). None of that is present in the input.

What was the final outcome in the federal case?

Not determinable from the information provided.

A litigation summary that is “hard data” requires the actual dispositive rulings (e.g., grant/denial of summary judgment, trial judgment, JMOL, final judgment entry, or dismissal with prejudice) and any effective dates tied to generic entry or licensing. None of that is available here.

Key analytic dimensions typically assessed in Vanda vs. generic defendants

These dimensions cannot be populated without docket/order content:

• Claim construction (especially method-of-treatment or dosing regimen language, if present)
• Infringement (ANDA label carve-outs, bioavailability, dosing schedules, and “intended use” arguments)
• Validity (anticipation, obviousness, written description/enablement, and indefiniteness)
• Statutory defenses and procedural constraints (e.g., venue, standing, limitation/estoppel)
• Remedy (injunctive relief or damages)
• Timeline effects (automatic stay duration, any stipulated carve-outs, and generic launch dates)

Business and investment relevance

Even without case specifics, the business relevance of a Hatch-Waxman infringement case depends on concrete inputs: which patents, which claims, the likelihood of success on infringement vs. validity, and whether the court’s result narrows future exclusivity or delays. The provided inputs do not support a credible, numbered factual analysis.

What can be concluded from the docket identifier alone?

Only this:

• The litigation exists in the federal system under the cited docket number.
• No reliable statement can be made about outcome, asserted patents, or legal reasoning.

Key Takeaways

• The provided information does not contain enough record-level detail to produce a complete, accurate litigation summary or patent-focused analysis for Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (1:18-cv-00651-CFC).
• No determinate conclusions can be drawn on: asserted patents, claim construction, infringement or validity findings, dispositive outcomes, or exclusivity implications.

FAQs

1. Is this case about an ANDA and a specific Vanda product?
   The inputs provided do not identify the product, ANDA, or the asserted patent list.

2. Which Vanda patents were asserted against Teva?
   The inputs provided do not include asserted patent numbers.

3. What was the court’s final decision?
   The inputs provided do not include the final judgment or dispositive orders.

4. Did the ruling affect Teva’s ability to launch a generic?
   The inputs provided do not include any injunction, settlement terms, or effective entry dates.

5. What precedent did the case create for future exclusivity litigation?
   The inputs provided do not include the legal holdings needed to assess precedential impact.

---

References

[1] U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00651-CFC.