Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • T
  • Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Novartis P…Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
From our private database of 16,600+ case briefs...

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
482 F.3d 1330 (2007)


Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (“Novartis”) (defendant) held the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for three strengths of the drug Famvir and listed five patents related to the drug in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) Orange Book. One of the patents, the ‘937 patent, was the active ingredient in Famvir called famciclovir, while remaining four patents detailed the methods of use for Famvir. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) (plaintiff) filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA for a generic version of Famvir, with an included paragraph IV certification that its drug did not infringe any of Novartis’ five listed Orange Book patents. Teva’s paragraph IV certification constituted technical infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Accordingly, Novartis had 45 days in which to file an infringement suit against Teva to invoke a mandatory 30-month stay of approval of Teva’s ANDA. Novartis brought suit against Teva for infringement of only its ‘937 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. After Novartis filed suit, Teva brought a declaratory judgment action on the four remaining therapeutic use patents under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(C) and 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(5) to establish “patent certainty.” Novartis moved to dismiss Teva’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Teva had no reasonable apprehension that it would be sued by Novartis for infringing the remaining four patents. The district court dismissed Teva’s declaratory judgment action after applying the two-prong “reasonable-apprehension-of-imminent-suit” test set forth in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 395 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2005). Teva appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Gajarsa, J.)

Concurrence (Friedman, Sr. C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 435,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,600 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial