2:24-cv-11308 GENENTECH, INC. et al v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED
Order Reassigning Case
Genentech has filed a patent infringement case against Natco Pharma in New Jersey federal court under docket 24-cv-11308, and the case has been reassigned to a new judge. Genentech is a major biopharmaceutical company with an extensive patent portfolio; Natco is an Indian generic drug manufacturer with a U.S. presence that has challenged branded drug patents before. The reassignment is procedural. Genentech's suits against generic manufacturers typically arise under the Hatch-Waxman framework, where a Paragraph IV certification by the generic triggers automatic litigation. New Jersey's District Court is one of the busiest venues for pharmaceutical patent disputes in the country.
Latest development
Order · April 20, 2026
The court issued an order.
description View filingGenentech, Inc. and its co-plaintiffs filed suit against Natco Pharma Limited in case number 24-cv-11308, a patent dispute that follows the well-worn path of brand-name pharmaceutical companies challenging a generic manufacturer's attempt to enter the market.
The case is active, and as of April 20, 2026, the court issued a reassignment order — meaning a new judge has taken the wheel, though no judge is yet named on the public docket.
Natco Pharma is an Indian generic drug company with a history of filing Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) that trigger Hatch-Waxman patent litigation.
When a generic manufacturer certifies that a brand's patent is invalid or will not be infringed — a so-called Paragraph IV certification — the brand has 45 days to sue and freeze FDA approval for up to 30 months. That clock and that dynamic almost certainly explain why this case exists.
Genentech is a Roche subsidiary and one of the more aggressive patent holders in the biologics and small-molecule drug space. The specific drug or patent claims at issue are not yet detailed in the available docket entries, but the reassignment order suggests the case is moving through early administrative stages rather than sitting dormant.
The reassignment itself is procedurally routine — courts shift cases for workload balance, recusal, or random draw — but it resets the clock on any scheduling orders the prior judge may have contemplated. Until a new judge is formally assigned and a scheduling conference is set, the parties are in a holding pattern on discovery and claim construction.
Order Reassigning Case
Open original open_in_newJuryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.
The court issued an order.
Order Reassigning Case
Sources tracked
1 outlet · 1 article
Timeline events
1 record on file
Last updated
4 hours, 9 minutes ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.