Litigation Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V. (D.N.J. 2017)

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V. (D.N.J. 2017)

Docket		Date Filed	2017-10-24
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2020-11-02
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	4,839,341; 6,235,004; 7,476,652; 7,713,930; 7,918,833; 8,512,297; 8,556,864; 8,603,044; 8,679,069; 8,992,486; 9,011,391; 9,233,211; 9,408,979; 9,526,844; 9,533,105; 9,561,331; 9,604,008; 9,604,009; 9,610,409; 9,623,189
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Biologic Drugs cited in SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V.

Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V. (D.N.J. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-10-24				External link to document
2017-10-24	1		United States Patent Nos. 7,476,652 (“the ’652 patent”), 7,713,930 (“the ’930 patent”), 7,918,833 (“… Review as to Patent No. 7,476,652 filed on June 5, 2017 with the United States Patent and Trademark… (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 101. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege…Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 173. Plaintiffs repeat and …Sheet, # 4 AO120 Patent Form (I of IV), # 5 AO120 Patent Form (II of IV), # 6 AO120 Patent Form (III of IV	External link to document
2017-10-24	319		Plaintiffs own U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (the “formulation patents”) and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,044…intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history…the ʼ008 patent has no parent application in common with the device patents in the U.S. patent system.…between the ʼ008 patent and the four device patents rests on the fact that all five patents assert a priority…this patent infringement action, the parties seek construction of claim terms in six U.S. Patents. For	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V. | 2:17-cv-09105

Last updated: July 28, 2025

---

Introduction

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mylan N.V. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:17-cv-09105). The litigation centers on the alleged infringement of patents related to Sanofi's blockbuster biologic and biosimilar insulin products. This case exemplifies ongoing legal battles in the rapidly evolving biosimilar landscape, reflecting strategic patent protections and market competition dynamics.

---

Case Background

Sanofi's commercial success with Lantus (insulin glargine) and the subsequent development of biosimilar versions spotlight the critical importance of patent rights in biologic pharmaceuticals. Mylan sought approval for a biosimilar insulin product, challenging Sanofi’s patents, which prompted the company to initiate patent infringement proceedings to defend its intellectual property.

In the complaint filed in 2017, Sanofi claimed Mylan’s biosimilar products infringed several of its patents, including formulations, manufacturing processes, and methods of use. Sanofi sought injunctive relief and damages, arguing that Mylan’s biosimilar infringements undermined Sanofi’s patent protections and potentially caused financial harm.

---

Legal Framework and Patent Disputes

The case intertwines multiple complex legal issues:

• Patent Validity and Infringement: Sanofi challenged Mylan’s biosimilar, alleging infringement of key patents related to insulin formulation and manufacturing processes. Mylan countered, asserting that the patents were invalid or unenforceable, often citing prior art and obviousness.

• Biosimilar Approval and Patent Litigation: This case reflects the broader biosimilar patent dance, as outlined by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) (2010). The court process often involves a 180-day notice of commercial marketing and patent litigation, designed to resolve patent disputes before FDA approval.

• Market Competition and Patent Strategies: Sanofi’s litigation aimed to delay Mylan’s entry into the market and protect lucrative insulin sales, illustrating strategic patent enforcement as a barrier to biosimilar proliferation.

---

Key Developments and Court Proceedings

Over the course of the litigation, the parties engaged in prolonged disputes over patent validity, infringement allegations, and potential settlements. Noteworthy aspects include:

• Patent Office Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): Mylan initiated IPRs at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of Sanofi’s patents, a strategic move common in biosimilar patent disputes to weaken patent defenses.

• Pretrial Motions and Dispositive Motions: Both parties filed motions including motions for summary judgment regarding infringement and patent validity. The outcomes had substantial implications for the case’s direction.

• Settlement Discussions: Similar to other biosimilar patent litigations, the parties explored settlement options, which could involve licensing agreements or patent settlement terms to manage market entry timing.

• Trial and Judgments: As of the last available information, the case had not reached final judgment, but early rulings indicated the court’s focus on patent validity and infringement issues. The courts generally favor robust patent protections to encourage innovation but also scrutinize patent validity.

---

Legal and Business Implications

This litigation exemplifies broader trends:

• Patent Thickets in Biologics: Sanofi’s assertive patent enforcement reflects the strategic creation of a patent thicket to extend market exclusivity, delaying biosimilar entry.

• Regulatory and Patent Interplay: The case underscores the importance of patent litigation in the biosimilar approval process, where successful patent defenses can substantially shift market dynamics.

• Biosimilar Patent Litigation Strategies: Mylan’s initiation of IPRs demonstrates a common approach to weaken patents and potentially neutralize infringement claims early in the litigation.

• Market Impact: The outcome impacts biosimilar competition, pricing, and access, given Sanofi’s dominance in insulin therapeutics.

---

Current Status

As of the latest updates in 2023, the litigation remains unresolved through final judgment, with judicial rulings on patent validity and infringement interpretations forming the core of ongoing dispute resolutions. The case’s outcome could influence biosimilar patent enforcement strategies and FDA approval pathways.

---

Key Takeaways

• Patent Enforcement in Biosimilars: Sanofi’s vigorous patent defenses illustrate the importance of patent rights in safeguarding biologic drug markets against biosimilar competition.

• Strategic Litigation Tactics: Use of IPR proceedings and patent litigations are central tactics used by originators to extend exclusivity and delay biosimilar market entry.

• Regulatory-Patent Interplay: The legal process underscores the necessity for biosimilar developers to navigate complex patent landscapes and legal challenges before market approval.

• Market and Policy Implications: Outcomes influence biosimilar accessibility, pricing, and innovation incentives, shaping future industry strategies and regulatory policies.

• Legal Uncertainty: The case highlights inherent uncertainties in patent validity and infringement decisions, requiring careful legal and technical assessment by stakeholders.

---

FAQs

1. What is the significance of the SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V. case?
   It underscores the strategic use of patent litigation to protect market share in biologic drugs, particularly insulin, and influences biosimilar market entry timelines.

2. How do IPR proceedings impact patent infringement cases?
   IPRs allow challengers to contest patent validity at the PTAB, potentially invalidating patents prior to or during infringement litigation, altering the legal landscape.

3. Why do biosimilar companies often face patent challenges from originator firms?
   Originator firms seek to defend their extensive patent portfolios, creating legal barriers designed to delay biosimilar competition and maintain high market prices.

4. What are the legal risks for biosimilar developers in patent litigation?
   They risk patent infringement liability, invalidation of their own patents, and delays in market entry, which can significantly affect commercial prospects.

5. What is the potential outcome of this litigation for drug pricing and access?
   Successful patent defenses may prolong exclusivity and keep prices high; conversely, a ruling invalidating key patents could pave the way for biosimilar competition and lower prices.

---

References

[1] Court filings and case documentation in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mylan N.V., 2:17-cv-09105, Central District of California.

[2] Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010).

[3] U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings on related patents.

[4] Industry analysis reports on biosimilar patent litigation trends (2020-2023).