Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Cipla Ltd. et al.
settled/terminated- Docket:
- 1:14-cv-00427
- Filed:
- 2014-04-07
- Terminated:
- 2015-10-27
Patents:7947725
D. Del. action asserting the '725 patent against Cipla. Settled/terminated.
Defendant
Cipla USA, Inc.
1 case as defendant.
- Cases
- 1
- Active
- 0
- 1 closed
- Filed
- 2014
- Top venue
- D. Delaware
- 1 case
Company profile
I'll research this company before writing the profile.
Cipla USA, Inc. — Company Profile
Overview. Cipla USA, Inc. is the U.S. operating subsidiary of Cipla Limited, an Indian pharmaceutical company founded in 1935 and headquartered in Mumbai. Cipla Limited is publicly listed (BSE: 500087; NSE: CIPLA), with roughly 30,000+ employees globally and FY2024-25 revenue of about ₹272 billion (~US$3.2B); its North America business recorded US$934 million in FY25 (Cipla FY25 annual report). Cipla USA is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey, with U.S. operations in Hauppauge, NY and Fall River, MA, and employs roughly 800 people in the U.S. Corporate disclosure filings state Cipla USA Inc. is a 100%-owned subsidiary of InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., itself wholly owned by Cipla (EU) Limited, which is wholly owned by Cipla Limited.
Products / operations. Cipla USA is a commercial-stage generic and specialty pharmaceutical business — an operating company, not a licensor or shell. It develops, distributes and markets generics and differentiated products across respiratory (metered-dose inhalers, respules), anti-infectives, cardiology, CNS, urology and HIV/ARV therapies, and holds ANDA/NDA regulatory responsibility for its U.S. portfolio. Cipla's 2015 acquisition of InvaGen and Exelan (~US$550M) gave it U.S. tablet/capsule manufacturing, R&D and institutional-market access. The U.S. subsidiary's turnover was reported at US$581.6 million for FY2022-23 in an Indian stock-exchange merger filing.
Litigation posture. Cipla USA appears in the tracked data as a defendant only (0 plaintiff cases, 1 defendant case) — the profile of an operating company being sued, not a patent assertion entity. The single tracked matter is a Hatch-Waxman Paragraph IV action, the standard mechanism by which brand manufacturers sue generic filers. The case sits in the District of Delaware, a common venue for ANDA litigation, not in plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas venues.
Notable case. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Cipla Ltd. et al. (D. Del., filed 2014-04-07) was brought by Helsinn and Roche Palo Alto against Cipla Ltd. and Cipla USA over U.S. Patent Nos. 8,598,218 and 8,598,219 (liquid palonosetron formulations), following Cipla's Paragraph IV certification on an ANDA for a generic version of Helsinn's Aloxi® IV solution. Both patents were invalidated in related proceedings. No representation about case merits is made here.