Litigation

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. et al. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. et al.

judgment (invalidated on appeal; Supreme Court affirmed)

3:11-cv-03962

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Filed: 2011-07-08

Patents at issue (4)

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (5)

Summary

Consolidated Hatch-Waxman ANDA action in D.N.J. (lead case 3:11-cv-03962, consolidated with 3:11-cv-05579 and 3:13-cv-05815) asserting the '724, '725, '424, and '219 patents. District court found claims valid and infringed, but the Federal Circuit reversed under the on-sale bar and the Supreme Court affirmed invalidity.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7960424-3-11-cv-03962 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Narrow your claim during prosecution and you presumptively give up the equivalents in between. The presumption is rebuttable, but in practice the prosecution history is a defendant's gold mine.
Patent term and expiration
Patents don't last forever. They don't even reliably last 20 years. The expiration date that actually matters depends on the earliest filing date, the maintenance schedule, and any USPTO or FDA delays the patent owner can claim back.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
Pre-TC Heartland, plaintiffs sued in plaintiff-friendly E.D. Tex. by default. Post-TC Heartland, venue is a real defense — and Delaware is where most U.S. patent cases land.
Patent reviews: IPR, PGR, and reexamination
Suing in district court to invalidate a patent costs $3-5M and takes years. The USPTO's post-grant review system does it for $200-500k and 12-18 months. For a defendant facing a weak patent, the choice is usually obvious.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012)
The two-step framework defendants now recite from memory comes from Mayo, not Alice. Mayo is the often-overlooked but doctrinally essential ancestor of every modern § 101 motion.

All resources →