Litigation Details for ALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

✉ Email this page to a colleague

ALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

Docket	3:15-cv-05756	Date Filed	2015-07-24
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2018-09-26
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Peter G. Sheridan
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Douglas Arpert
Parties	DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC.
Patents	6,284,804; 6,359,016; 9,402,805
Attorneys	PETER LOUIS GIUNTA
Firms	Crowell and Moring LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Small Molecule Drugs cited in ALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC.

The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Start Trial .

Details for ALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

+ Get email alerts for changes to this table

Glossary

Subscribe to access the full database, or Start Trial
Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-07-24				External link to document
2015-07-24	135		regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,284,804 (“the ’804 patent”), 6,359,016 (“the ’016 patent”) and 9,402,805…Joint Claim Construction regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,284,804, 6,359,016 and 9,402,805. Signed by Judge… recited in the preamble of claim 1 of the 6,284,804 patent is to be given its plain, ordinary and customary… The Patent Family The Patents-In-Suit include the ’804 patent, the ’016 patent and the …the ’805 patent. The ’016 patent is a continuation1 of the ’804 patent, and as such shares the same specification	External link to document
2015-07-24	67		AND ORDER Regarding Infringement re U.S. Patent Nos 6,284,804 and 6,359,016. Signed by Judge Peter G. … 26 September 2018 3:15-cv-05756 830 Patent None District Court, D. New Jersey	External link to document
2015-07-24	87		MARKMAN OPENING BRIEF Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,402,805 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of M. Jayne… 26 September 2018 3:15-cv-05756 830 Patent None District Court, D. New Jersey	External link to document
>Date Filed	>Document No.	>Description	>Snippet	>Link To Document

Executive summary Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-05756 (N.D. California): the record indicates a patent infringement dispute tied to Alcon’s FDA commercial product(s) and Dr. Reddy’s generic development. The litigation’s core procedural path and outcome are not reproducible from the information provided in the prompt alone, so no accurate infringement, settlement, or claim-construction analysis can be produced without pulling the docket, complaint, asserted patents, and final orders.

Litigation summary and analysis for Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. (3:15-cv-05756)

Last updated: July 26, 2026

What patents were asserted in Alcon v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (3:15-cv-05756)?

No reliable list of asserted patents (numbers, titles, priority claims, or owners) is available from the provided input.

Which Alcon patents likely drive the Orange Book listing for this case?

No Orange Book drug identification, NDA/BLA number, or listed patents can be stated from the provided input.

What claims were alleged to be infringed (method-of-use vs composition vs formulation)?

No claim chart allegations, infringement theory, or claim scope data is available from the provided input.

What was the case timeline in 3:15-cv-05756?

A factual timeline requires docket-stamped dates (complaint filing date, answer, amendment dates, claim construction schedule, expert deadlines, and dispositive orders). Those dates are not contained in the prompt.

Key procedural milestones that should be verified on the docket

No docket-backed milestones can be stated from the provided input, including:

initial complaint and patent list filing
amended complaints (if any)
stipulations regarding claim terms
PTAB activity or stays
Markman/claim construction hearings
summary judgment motions
trial dates or consent judgments
judgment and costs

How did claim construction affect infringement risk in this case?

Claim construction analysis depends on the actual Markman order and the court’s constructions. That order is not identified in the provided input.

Which claim terms were construed?

No term-by-term construction can be reported without the Markman decision text.

Did the court narrow or broaden key limitations (e.g., particle size, formulation parameters, ocular dosing regimens)?

No construction-to-infringement mapping can be performed without the claim constructions and the accused product description.

What is the status of infringement findings, injunctions, or dismissal in 3:15-cv-05756?

The prompt does not include the judgment or final disposition.

Was there a settlement, consent judgment, or dismissal with prejudice?

No settlement agreement terms, timeline, or dismissal posture is available from the provided input.

Did the court grant an injunction or deny requested relief?

No injunction findings can be stated without final orders or consent terms.

How did this case interact with Paragraph IV certifications and FDA exclusivity?

Paragraph IV litigation and FDA pathway status must be tied to a specific NDA and the Orange Book’s “patent-to-certification” mapping.

No NDA number, ANDA number, FDA submission identifiers, or certification types are provided in the prompt.

Was the case based on Paragraph IV, Section viii carve-outs, or a non-Orange Book theory?

No certification basis is available from the provided input.

What exclusivity was at issue (NCE, 5-year, 3-year, pediatric, orphan, market exclusivity)?

No exclusivity basis can be stated without the relevant FDA reference product and exclusivity dates.

What generic entry risks did Dr. Reddy’s face from the asserted Alcon patent estate?

A forward-looking risk analysis requires:

the asserted patent expiration dates
whether the patents are foundational or dependent
whether the case resolved in Alcon’s favor
whether the generic is enjoined or design-around possible

None of these facts are available from the provided input.

How many patents typically fall in the relevant Alcon estate for this product?

No patent-count estimate can be derived without identifying the product and Orange Book family.

How strong were the asserted patents based on the court’s rulings?

No strength analysis can be grounded without claim construction, summary judgment, or trial outcomes.

Which companies were involved on each side (including any co-defendants) and what were their roles?

Parties and roles can only be confirmed from the docket.

The prompt only names Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., without confirming additional defendants, parent/subsidiary entities, or assignment of patents.

How did this litigation compare with other Alcon vs generic company cases?

Comparative analysis depends on identifying the specific Alcon asset and the similar litigations in the same patent family, with docket outcomes and settlements.

No product or patent family is specified in the prompt, so no meaningful comparison can be produced.

Key Takeaways

The prompt does not include docket outcomes, asserted patents, claim constructions, or final orders for Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-05756.
Accurate litigation summary and infringement risk analysis cannot be generated from the provided input alone without the complaint/patent list and the final disposition/orders.

FAQs

What is the docket status of Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., 3:15-cv-05756?
Which asserted patents were listed in the complaint for 3:15-cv-05756?
Did the court issue a Markman/claim construction order in 3:15-cv-05756, and what were the key constructions?
Was 3:15-cv-05756 resolved by settlement, injunction, or dismissal, and on what dates?
How does the outcome of 3:15-cv-05756 affect FDA generic entry for the relevant Alcon product NDA/ANDA?

References

(No cited sources were provided in the prompt.)

More… ↓

⤷ Start Trial