Neurelis, Inc. v. Strides Pharma Global PTE Limited et al.

I'll research this case and its surrounding context.

Now let me dig into the specific patents, the IPR proceedings, and the Strides entity details.

Case Overview — Neurelis, Inc. v. Strides Pharma Global PTE Limited, No. 1:26-cv-00947-MN (D. Del.)

The parties. Neurelis, Inc. is a San Diego–based, privately held neuroscience company (a Delaware corporation; principal place of business 3430 Carmel Mountain Rd., Suite 300, San Diego) founded in 2007 by co-founder/CEO Craig Chambliss. It is a classic operating company / innovator, not an NPE: it holds NDA No. N211635 for VALTOCO® (diazepam nasal spray), approved by FDA on January 10, 2020 for seizure clusters in patients 6+, and expanded in April 2025 to patients 2 years and older; the intranasal route was granted orphan-drug exclusivity as clinically superior to rectal diazepam gel. Neurelis reported estimated 2025 net revenue of $295–300M with 30%+ EBITDA margins, >12,000 patients aged 2–5 already prescribed, and ex-U.S. licensing of VALTOCO to China Medical System (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Macau — CMS Holdings is the affiliate named in Neurelis's Rule 7.1 disclosure) and Aculys Pharma (Australia/SE Asia). The defendants are Strides Pharma Global PTE Limited (Singapore) and Strides Pharma, Inc. — the generic-drug arms of India-based Strides Pharma Science Limited (Bangalore), a long-standing ANDA filer in the U.S. market (e.g., it was recently the defendant in a D.N.J. Hatch-Waxman case over Suflave®). The accused conduct is Strides's submission of ANDA No. 221329, a generic diazepam nasal spray copy of VALTOCO; Neurelis received Strides's Paragraph IV notice on June 18, 2026 and sued 43 days later (D.I. 1, filed July 31, 2026), preserving a 30-month stay to December 18, 2028 per the court's ANDA reporting form. (Docket, Compl.; Neurelis 1/12/26 release.)

The patents and the accused technology. Seven patents are asserted, all listed in the complaint's Rule 3 report and (per the complaint and Orange Book reporting) all VALTOCO-related: '414 (11,241,414), '786 (11,793,786) and '664 (12,268,664) are formulation claims — a nasal solution of diazepam with tocopherols/tocotrienols, benzyl alcohol/ethanol, and the alkyl-glycoside absorption enhancer n-dodecyl-β-D-maltoside (DDM), i.e., the INTRAVAIL® platform (the '414 and '786 share the title "Administration of Benzodiazepine Compositions"; the '786 issued Oct. 24, 2023, the '414 in 2022, and the '664 is a descendant of both); '852 (12,324,852), '061 (12,337,061), '400 (12,521,400) and '611 (12,599,611) are method-of-treatment claims covering intranasal diazepam for seizure clusters, with the '611 specifically reciting a pediatric method — claim 1 as quoted in the complaint requires treating a 2-to-5-year-old weighing 23–33 kg with a solution at 75 mg/mL diazepam and 0.25% w/v DDM (Compl. ¶¶88–95). That pediatric claim maps directly onto the April 2025 label expansion, and the complaint leans on a § 271(b)/(c) induced/contributory theory: because the ANDA label will carry (or incorporate by reference) the 2–5 pediatric indication, Strides will induce infringing use even if it does not itself administer the drug. Reported Orange Book expiries are March 27, 2029 for the '414/'786/'664/'400 family and 2032 for the '852 (Oct. 16) and '061 (June 13), matching Neurelis's stated goal of exclusivity "into October 2032"; I could not independently verify each individual issue and expiry date, so treat those as reported rather than confirmed.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. The case is assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika (case suffix "-MN"; reassignment docketed Aug. 5, 2026), answered-due Aug. 26, 2026 with service on both defendants Aug. 5, 2026 and an August 25 stipulation extending the answer deadline; pro hac vice admissions were entered in mid-August, and no answer or counterclaim was indexed as of the last docket snapshot I could retrieve. Venue in D. Del. is both conventional and strategic — Delaware is the dominant Hatch-Waxman forum, Neurelis itself is a Delaware corporation, and, more importantly, Judge Noreika is already presiding over the entire consolidated VALTOCO ANDA family (Neurelis v. Padagis, 1:24-cv-00562-MN; Padagis II, 1:25-cv-01228; Padagis III, 1:26-cv-00401; Neurelis v. Lupin, 1:25-cv-00821 and 1:25-cv-01443), so the complaint's "Notice of Related Filings" plugs Strides into an existing coordinated campaign and a single judge's case-management plan. The case is notable on three fronts. First, it is the newest front in an unusually aggressive multi-generational patenting strategy — Neurelis has serially added new continuation/method patents to the Orange Book and sent serial notice letters (a fourth Padagis notice letter, dated March 12, 2026, added the '400), pushing practical exclusivity from 2029 toward 2032. Second, it is tied to live PTAB proceedings: Padagis's IPR2025-00464/-465/-466 target the '546, '414 and '786 patents on the same family and the same Gwozdz prior-art/§ 61/040,558 priority dispute that sank the related '876 patent in IPR2019-00451 (affirmed by the Federal Circuit); Acting Director Stewart's July 16, 2025 decision declining discretionary denial despite an earlier district-court trial date was designated informative by Director Squires on Jan. 9, 2026, and Neurelis's attempt to obtain a certificate of correction adding a joint-research-agreement (pre-AIA § 103(c)(2)(C)) safe-harbor disclosure was rejected by the Board (Paper 36, Feb. 6, 2026) and on rehearing (Paper 39, Mar. 20, 2026), with the '546 being statutorily disclaimed on Jan. 2, 2026. Final written decisions in IPR2025-00465 and -466 (the '414 and '786) were due September 17, 2026 — three days from today — so the validity posture of two patents asserted against Strides could change within days; I did not find a publicly indexed outcome. Third, the market stakes are real: a $300M-annualized branded franchise facing its first wave of generic entry, with a 30-month stay running to December 2028.

Sourcing caveats: party/product/patent/procedural facts above are grounded in the docket, the complaint text, Neurelis press releases and the PTAB record linked inline; I could not verify Strides Pharma Global/Strides Pharma, Inc. corporate addresses or Delaware registration, the identity of Strides's litigation counsel, exact issue dates for the '664/'400/'611, or whether the district court has formally consolidated this action with the Padagis/Lupin cases (the metadata describes them as "coordinated"). Reported trial dates in the related actions have varied across secondary sources (Feb. 9, 2026 in the Director decision; March 1, 2027 in one ANDA bulletin), so I would not rely on any of them without checking the live docket.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the chronological analysis.

I have the docket's early entries. Let me now check the latest docket activity and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Rich context emerging. Let me now probe the newest docket activity, parallel IPRs on the newer patents, and events in the coordinated VALTOCO cases.

Bottom line up front

This case is six weeks old. Neurelis, Inc. v. Strides Pharma Global PTE Limited, No. 1:26-cv-00947-MN (D. Del., filed 2026-07-31, assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika), is still in the pleading phase. As of the most recent docket data I can retrieve (updated through 2026-08-25), there is no answer, no counterclaims, no motion to dismiss/transfer/stay, no Markman order, no trial, and no disposition. Most of the categories you asked about (claim construction, summary judgment, verdict, JMOL, appeal) have not occurred and cannot honestly be reported as if they had.

What is substantive and worth analyzing are (1) the complaint's content and its unusual § 271(b)/(c) pediatric-label theory on the newest patent, and (2) the parallel PTAB proceedings on two of the seven asserted patents, which carry real invalidity risk for this case.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2026-07-31 → 2026-08-25)

Sources: CourtListener docket 73702976; docket feed; DrugPatentWatch entry.

The accused product: ANDA No. 221329, diazepam nasal spray at 5 mg/spray, 7.5 mg/spray, and 10 mg/spray — i.e., a full-strength-range generic of VALTOCO®.

The complaint's substantive thrust (from the complaint text):

• Counts under § 271(e)(2)(A) as to each asserted patent, plus § 271(a)/(b)/(c) theories as to post-approval conduct.
• The '611 patent (12,599,611) count is the unusual one: it asserts claims 1–33, directed to methods of treating intermittent, stereotypic seizure episodes in a pediatric subject 2–5 years old and 23–33 kg, using a solution at 75 mg/mL diazepam with 0.25% w/v dodecyl maltoside. Because Strides' label will not itself instruct a § 271(a) act by Strides, Neurelis pleads induced and contributory infringement premised on (i) label language instructing pediatric use in patients under 6, and/or (ii) Strides' label incorporating by reference Neurelis' VALTOCO® approved pediatric labeling ("additional pediatric use") — a "skinny-label"/label-carve-out dispute that is likely to be the central fight on that patent. See complaint, D.I. 1.
• Related-case coordination: the complaint's Notice of Related Filings identifies the earlier-filed Neurelis VALTOCO actions — 1:25-cv-01443-MN (lead), Lupin Inc., 1:26-cv-00258-MN; Amneal Pharm. LLC, 1:26-cv-00261-MN; and Padagis LLC, 1:26-cv-00401-MN — and appears to state those are consolidated under 1:25-cv-01443-MN. So '947 is effectively a fifth front in the same consolidated VALTOCO campaign before Judge Noreika. (Earlier siblings in the same family of cases: Padagis I, 1:24-cv-00562-MN; Lupin I, 1:25-cv-00821-MN; Padagis III, 1:25-cv-01228-MN, per paragraphfour.com.)
• No jury demand was made (consistent with a bench trial in an ANDA case) per DrugPatentWatch.

Answer/counterclaims — not yet confirmed. The 2026-08-25 stipulation extended the answer deadline, but the new date is not visible in the sources I could retrieve. Given the pattern in the sibling cases (Lupin answered with invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims and § 285 fee requests; Padagis answered with §§ 101/102/103/112 and ODP defenses), Strides would be expected to answer with mirror-image declaratory-judgment counterclaims — but I cannot confirm that as of today. Treat it as pending.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• None yet. No motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR appears on the '947 docket through 2026-08-25. The only motion-type activity is the pro hac vice applications.
• Historically significant for this campaign: in the Padagis branch, Neurelis statutorily disclaimed claims 1–16 and 18–21 of the '546 patent, leaving only claims 17 and 22 — a defensive trimming move reflected in the IPR record (Neurelis EX2072, IPR2025-00464).
• Stay risk for '947: the Acting Director's decision denying discretionary denial in the Padagis IPRs expressly cited evidence that "a stay may be granted in the related district court case if an IPR is instituted" (PTAB Litigation Blog / Lexology, 2026-03-19). Because two of the IPRs ('414 and '786) target patents asserted against Strides in '947, expect Strides to move to stay '947 (or at least the '414/'786 counts) pending those FWDs.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman order exists in '947 — and none could; the case is six weeks old. I found no reported claim-construction ruling in the coordinated VALTOCO actions either, so any construction positions in this family remain unverified. (Sibling-case milestones like final infringement/invalidity contentions, fact discovery and claim construction were described as complete/underway in the Padagis case as of late 2025, per Neurelis' preliminary response in IPR2025-00464, but I could not retrieve the underlying Markman order or constructions.) This is a gap in the public record I can access, not a finding that nothing happened.

---

4. Discovery milestones

None yet in '947. No scheduling order, no Rule 26(f) report, no discovery motions on the docket. Strategically, the two dates that matter most right now are:

• 2026-12-18 — expiration of the 30-month Hatch-Waxman stay of FDA approval of ANDA No. 221329 (calculated from the 2026-06-18 notice letter), unless earlier resolution extends it.
• Orange Book expirations on the asserted patents (per paragraphfour.com): '414/'786/'664/'400 → 2029-03-27; '061 → 2032-06-13; '852 → 2032-10-16. Note the mismatch: the 30-month stay (Dec. 2028) expires before the latest-listed patent expirations, so the stay alone will not carry Neurelis to judgment on the '852/'061 patents — an important driver of settlement leverage and of any preliminary-injunction/at-risk-launch calculus.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. Nothing has occurred in '947. For context on the broader campaign: the Padagis branch was reported as having a district-court trial date of 2026-02-09 (cited in Neurelis' IPR preliminary response and the Director's decision), while a third-party tracker lists a bench trial in the consolidated VALTOCO actions set for 2027-03-01 (paragraphfour.com). Those two data points conflict, and I could not verify any trial outcome, verdict, or post-trial motion in any Neurelis VALTOCO case. Do not treat either date as established for '947.

---

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal

None. Present posture: active, pre-answer. No settlement, no consent judgment, no Rule 41 dismissal, no notice of appeal. The only "final disposition" events anywhere in this patent family are on patents not asserted against Strides (see below).

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

This is where the real risk to '947 lives.

(a) IPR2019-00451 — the family's foundational loss (not on a '947 patent).
Aquestive Therapeutics petitioned against U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876 ("the '876 patent"). The Board's Final Written Decision of 2020-08-06 held claims 1–36 unpatentable as obvious over Gwozdz PCT in view of Meezan, after finding the '558 provisional (No. 61/040,558, filed 2008-03-28) did not provide written-description support for the "alkyl glycoside" limitation — breaking priority and making Gwozdz prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36. Sources: IPR2025-00464 Institution Decision, 2025-09-16; Neurelis preliminary response.

(b) IPR2025-00464 / -00465 / -00466 — the Padagis IPRs (filed 2025-01-17).
Filed by Padagis US LLC against, respectively, '546 (8,895,546), '414 (11,241,414), and '786 (11,793,786) — sole ground: obviousness over Gwozdz PCT in view of Meezan. '414 and '786 are two of the seven patents asserted against Strides in '947.

• Neurelis sought discretionary denial (Fintiv/§ 314(a)), stressing the Feb. 2026 district-court trial and a deficient Donovan expert declaration allegedly copied from Aquestive's earlier experts.
• The Acting Director declined to deny and referred the petitions back to the Board, reasoning that the examiner's contrary priority finding created a concern of material error by the Office under Advanced Bionics, that '414/'786 are recent (2022/2023) so settled expectations were weak, and that a stay might be granted in the district court case. Director John Squires designated the decision informative on 2026-01-09. (PTAB Litigation Blog; Lexology, 2026-03-19.)
• Institution decisions issued 2025-09-16 (at least for IPR2025-00464; the Board instituted on all challenged claims under SAS), with the final written decision due roughly 2026-09-16/17 — i.e., imminent as of today's date (2026-09-14). A third-party tracker lists the PTAB trial date as 2026-06-16. (Institution Decision; paragraphfour.com.)

Effect on '947 — three mechanisms:

1. Invalidity overlap, not estoppel. Strides did not file these IPRs, so § 315(e) estoppel does not bind Strides. But a Board holding that '414/'786 claims are unpatentable would be highly persuasive on the district court and would very likely trigger stipulated dismissal of those counts; a Federal Circuit affirmance would be effectively dispositive.
2. Priority vulnerability is systemic. The '664, '852, '061, '400, and '611 patents sit in the same family and, on Neurelis' own account, share the '558-provisional priority question that the Board already resolved against the patentee once. Expect Strides (and Amneal/Padagis/Lupin) to press invalidity on that same footing.
3. Stay pressure. The Director's decision affirmatively credited the possibility of a district-court stay upon institution — leverage Strides can now use.

No IPR or PGR on 12,268,664; 12,324,852; 12,337,061; 12,521,400; or 12,599,611 has been confirmed to me. My searches for those returned no petition record before I ran out of search steps. Note the practical point: because these are recently issued patents (e.g., '400 issued 2026-01-13, '611 very recently), any Strides IPR petitions would ordinarily be filed within one year of service — so a Strides IPR wave could still be filed later in 2026 or 2027. This is the single highest-value item to monitor.

---

8. Where this leaves the case — and what to watch

Chronology of verified events, 1:26-cv-00947-MN:

1. 2026-06-18 — Strides' Paragraph IV notice letter to Neurelis (per D.I. 3).
2. 2026-07-31 — Complaint filed; seven patents asserted; ANDA No. 221329 (5/7.5/10 mg diazepam nasal spray); Notice of Related Filings pointing to consolidated 1:25-cv-01443-MN.
3. 2026-08-05 — Service on both Strides entities.
4. 2026-08-11 / 08-13 — Pro hac vice admissions.
5. 2026-08-25 — Defendant appearances/7.1 disclosure; stipulated answer extension granted; answer deadline reset (new date not confirmed).
6. Pending: answer + counterclaims; likely motion to stay (or for coordinated consolidation) in light of IPR2025-00465/-00466; scheduling order.
7. Key external deadlines: 2028-12-18 (30-month stay expiry); ~2026-09-16/17 (FWDs due in IPR2025-00464/-00465/-00466).

Watch list, in priority order:

• The imminent '414/'786 final written decisions — a loss there reshapes '947 immediately.
• Whether '947 is formally consolidated into 1:25-cv-01443-MN and whether Judge Noreika sets a single case schedule/Markman for the whole VALTOCO group.
• Whether Strides files its own IPRs on the '664/'852/'061/'400/'611 patents within the § 315(b) window.
• The answer and counterclaims — specifically whether Strides pleads the '558-provisional priority attack and an inequitable-conduct/unenforceability defense (a lever already floated in the family).

Unsourced/unverified in this report (flagged deliberately): the extended answer date; the identity of Strides' counsel; whether an answer or motion to dismiss/transfer has since been filed; any Markman ruling or trial outcome in the coordinated cases; and any IPR on the five newer asserted patents. I did not fabricate any of these.

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel in this case, building on the pro hac vice activity already identified in the prior sections.

Now let me dig into the specific docket entries and the pro hac vice motions referenced earlier.

Important lead: the PTAB record shows Michael Sitzman's email moving to McDermott ("msitzman@mwe.com") and a "Valtoco-MWE" distribution list. Let me pin down the appearances in '947 itself.

I hit my search-step ceiling mid-verification. Here is what I can support, with confidence levels stated and gaps flagged rather than filled.

Bottom line

Plaintiff Neurelis, Inc. is represented in 1:26-cv-00947-MN by McDermott Will & Emery LLP (MWE) — the same firm that has run Neurelis's consolidated VALTOCO campaign against Padagis, Lupin and Amneal before Judge Noreika. The verified Delaware-facing name on the '947 docket is Ethan H. Townsend (MWE, Wilmington), and the firm-level attorney records independently corroborate MWE's role. A second, out-of-state team (admitted pro hac vice) is also on the docket, but I could not retrieve the caption page or signature block of the complaint or the text of the pro hac vice motions, so I cannot give you an exhaustive, docket-verified roster. I am not going to guess names to fill that gap.

Counsel identified

What the docket itself shows

The CourtListener docket entry text I could retrieve includes, in the Aug. 11–14, 2026 window: "Appear Pro Hac Vice," a "District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee – 01 Attorney" payment, and a "District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee – 05 Attorneys" payment, plus an "Add Attorneys – PHV only" entry (docket 73702976). That is consistent with a multi-attorney out-of-state team (up to five PHV attorneys) plus one or more Delaware-bar attorneys — the standard MWE (or any national-firm) structure. It is an inference from fee-payment entries, not a list of names.

Explicit gaps and caveats

• I could not open the complaint's signature block or the pro hac vice motions (D.I. 9, 12) themselves. Those are the authoritative sources for the full roster and for who is designated lead counsel. My best retrieval of the docket captured only summary entry text, not the filings.
• A genuine conflict exists on Sitzman's firm. paragraphfour.com's tracker for the earlier Padagis case lists "Plaintiff Lawyer/Firm: Michael Sitzman/DLA Piper" (paragraphfour), while the 2025 PTAB correspondence shows an msitzman@mwe.com address and the same thread copies a DLA-Neurelis@us.dlapiper.com distribution list. The most likely reading is that Sitzman (and possibly the engagement) moved from DLA Piper to McDermott, with DLA Piper emails persisting on an old distribution list — but I cannot confirm the move from a firm website or a formal announcement, so treat the McDermott attribution as well-evidenced but not airtight. If Sitzman remains at DLA Piper, then Neurelis is running two firms in this campaign; flagging rather than resolving.
• Office locations are from Law360's attorney directory (Townsend: Wilmington) and the email domain (Sitzman, Noorassa); I could not verify which MWE office is designated as lead on the '947 pleadings. McDermott's patent-litigation depth spans D.C., Chicago, Boston, the Bay Area and Wilmington, so the team is likely cross-office — a detail I could not source.
• No in-house counsel for Neurelis appears in any record I retrieved. Neurelis is a privately held company; if its GC or IP counsel is directing the case, that person is not of record in the materials I could access. I did not find a name and will not invent one.
• I also did not verify whether the answer/counterclaims have since been filed or whether MWE's appearance list has been supplemented since Aug. 25, 2026 — the last docket snapshot available to me.

Single highest-value next step: pull D.I. 1 (signature block), D.I. 9 and D.I. 12 (the PHV motions, which name each out-of-state attorney and the lead-counsel designation), and the notice of appearance entries in the Aug. 11–25 window from PACER. That set will convert the roster above from "strongly evidenced" to docket-verified.

I'll research defendant-side counsel. Let me start with the docket and firm-level searches.

Now let me find the defendant-side appearances specifically.

Good lead: Taft Stettinius & Hollister and a repeat Strides defense. Let me pursue.

I hit my search-step ceiling before I could pull the text of the defendant-side filings. Here is what I can support, with the central gap flagged rather than papered over.

Bottom line

I could not obtain a docket-verified name for any defendant's counsel in 1:26-cv-00947-MN. The docket establishes that defense counsel has appeared — but the filing that would name them (D.I. 14, Notice of Appearance, entered 2026-08-25) is one whose document text my searches did not surface. I am not going to fill that gap with guesses.

This is a genuine retrieval limitation, not a finding that no counsel exists.

What the docket does establish about the defense side

Source: CourtListener docket 73702976 and its docket feed. The feed captures only entry titles for these items, which is why I have event-type confirmation but not names.

Note also that a third-party case-profile page exists with a "Defendant — Party / Attorney" block (Ex Parte case page 1:26-cv-00947), but the attorney field did not render in the search result I retrieved — it may be populated, and it is the fastest free check.

Answer/counterclaims status: still unconfirmed. As of the last docket snapshot available to me (2026-08-25), no answer, counterclaim, or motion appears — consistent with the prior section's finding. So the lead defense counsel for the merits has not yet made a substantive appearance in a pleading.

Candidates with actual evidentiary support (not confirmed for this case)

I flag confidence explicitly. None of these should be stated as counsel of record in '947.

Sources: CourtListener parties page, Forest Labs v. Strides, 1:17-cv-01394 (Ormerod = LEAD ATTORNEY "to be noticed," Belgam = Smith Katzenstein, Choi = PHV); IAM Patent 1000 firm profile, Taft Stettinius & Hollister (Auten/Strides statement).

Structural facts I can state without naming anyone

• Two-layer representation is near-certain. D. Del. local rules require a member of the Delaware bar, so the defense team will comprise at least one Wilmington firm plus out-of-state (pro hac vice) counsel — typically the client's national Hatch-Waxman firm. The Aug. 25 Notice of Appearance is the event that begins this.
• Both Strides entities are jointly represented on the face of the docket. D.I. 14–16 are single defendant-side entries covering both Strides Pharma Global PTE Ltd and Strides Pharma, Inc.; there is no indication of separate counsel for the Singapore and New Jersey entities.
• The pro hac vice fee entries in the Aug. 11–14 window should not be attributed to the defense. The prior section read those (one 01-attorney and one 05-attorney PHV fee, plus "Add Attorneys – PHV only") as the plaintiff's out-of-state MWE team, and that reading is consistent with the timing — plaintiff's counsel was the only side on the docket then. I have no evidence of any defense PHV application yet. If defense out-of-state counsel appear later, expect matching $ PHV fee entries.
• No in-house counsel is identified for either Strides entity in any record I could retrieve. Strides Pharma Inc. is at 200 Crossing Blvd., Suite 110, Bridgewater, NJ (per the complaint), and Strides Pharma Science Ltd. is the Indian parent; whether either employs a U.S.-bar IP litigation counsel of record is unknown to me.
• The complaint is expressly about repeat-player defendants in D. Del. Neurelis pleaded personal jurisdiction partly on Strides having "previously been sued in this district and has not challenged personal jurisdiction," citing Forest Labs v. Strides, No. 17-01394; Amgen v. Strides; and Takeda v. Strides, No. 17-01690 (D. Del.) (complaint ¶12). Those prior dockets are the best available proxy for who Strides regularly retains in Delaware — and they point to Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins for the local role.

Related Strides ANDA litigation worth checking for the same team

The prior section noted Strides as a recent D.N.J. Hatch-Waxman defendant over Suflave® — that is Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Strides Pharma, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-16717 (D.N.J.), with a complaint filed 2025-10-17 after a 2025-09-03 notice letter (Ex Parte complaint analysis, 3:25-cv-16717). That docket's defense-side appearance entries are the single best independent source for identifying Strides's current Hatch-Waxman trial team, since it is roughly contemporaneous with '947. I ran out of search budget before I could retrieve its counsel list — I have not verified who represents Strides there, and I am not assuming it is the same firm.

Explicitly not verified / not fabricated

• Names of any attorney on D.I. 14 (Notice of Appearance) in '947.
• Names of the signatory on D.I. 15 or D.I. 16.
• Whether Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, or any other firm is retained in '947.
• The new answer deadline set by the Aug. 25 minute entry.
• Whether the answer/counterclaims have since been filed.
• Any in-house counsel for Strides Pharma Global PTE Ltd or Strides Pharma, Inc.

Fastest path to a docket-verified roster

1. PACER → D.I. 14 (Notice of Appearance) — names each defense attorney, firm, and Delaware bar number, and designates lead counsel.
2. PACER → D.I. 16 (Stipulation to Extend Time) — signature block gives firm, office address, and phone for each counsel.
3. D.I. 15 (Rule 7.1 disclosure) — confirms who is filing for the Strides entities, which nails down joint-representation.
4. Cross-check the Braintree v. Strides, 3:25-cv-16717 (D.N.J.) defense appearances for the current trial team.
5. If PACER is unavailable, the free shortcuts are the CourtListener RECAP page for D.I. 14 (if anyone has uploaded the PDF) and the Ex Parte attorney block, which renders party counsel when populated.