Last updated: July 20, 2026
What is the case caption and docket for Depomed v. Banner?
Depomed, Inc. v. Banner Pharmacaps Inc. is docketed as 2:13-cv-04542. The case record is in the federal district court identified by the “2:” prefix, with the matter initiated in 2013.
What patents were at issue in Depomed v. Banner (2:13-cv-04542)?
No complete, case-specific patent-identification data is available in the provided input, including which Orange Book patents or asserted claims were pled in the complaint, which patents were later narrowed, and whether the dispute involved (i) Paragraph IV equivalence, (ii) non-infringement, (iii) invalidity, or (iv) infringement of specific method-of-use claims.
What stage did the litigation reach and how did it end?
No reliable outcome data is available from the provided input, including:
- whether the case was dismissed (with or without prejudice),
- whether there was a summary judgment ruling,
- whether trial occurred,
- whether the parties entered a settlement,
- whether an exclusivity-triggered drug launch was enjoined or allowed,
- or whether the case reached appeal.
How does this litigation map to Paragraph IV generic entry risk for Depomed products?
No product-to-litigation mapping is available from the provided input. As a result, a precise generic entry risk analysis cannot be stated without knowing:
- the specific Depomed listed drug (NDA/RLD),
- the FDA application(s) involved (ANDA/sponsor),
- the asserted Orange Book patents (drug substance, drug product formulation, or method-of-use),
- the entry timing posture (180-day exclusivity, forfeiture triggers, or later-filed carve-outs),
- and whether the case involved at-risk launch versus a stipulated launch date.
Which Depomed drug and formulation is implicated by this case?
No Depomed asset is identified in the provided input, including whether the dispute concerns Depomed’s ER platforms (such as once-daily or twicedaily dosage forms) or other product lines.
What claims were likely alleged in a Depomed ER patent suit against an ANDA filer?
This cannot be stated accurately from the provided input. Generic-side patent suits in Depomed’s domain often involve one or more of:
- infringement of ER formulation parameters,
- infringement of controlled-release method-of-manufacture features,
- infringement of method-of-use dosing regimens,
- or infringement of specific composition claims tied to release profiles.
But without the complaint’s asserted claims, any claim-level analysis would not be grounded in the record.
What did Banner’s defenses focus on (non-infringement, invalidity, carve-outs)?
No defense content is available from the provided input, including:
- claim construction positions,
- obviousness or anticipation theories,
- prosecution history estoppel arguments,
- design-around or alternative formulation arguments,
- or regulatory alignment defenses.
What is the regulatory timeline impact if the case settled or was decided on the merits?
No settlement dates or decision dates are available in the provided input. Without those, the effect on FDA approval timing, launch timing, and the enforceability of any stipulated injunction cannot be stated.
Did the case include an agreed label design or “carve-out” from patent coverage?
No docket-level or agreement-level details are available in the provided input. A carve-out materially changes infringement exposure by limiting the ANDA label to non-infringing subject matter.
What would investors and licensors look for in this docket, and what is missing from the input?
Key dossier elements cannot be produced from the provided input, including:
- asserted patent numbers and their expiration dates,
- claim charts or infringement theory summary,
- the court’s claim construction rulings,
- any summary judgment or Daubert decisions,
- final judgment terms,
- and the presence or absence of appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The only reliable artifact provided is the docket identifier 2:13-cv-04542 and the parties Depomed, Inc. and Banner Pharmacaps Inc.
- No patent list, infringement theories, procedural history, or end-state disposition can be provided from the input.
- A litigation outcome cannot be translated into generic entry timing, licensing value, or patent strength without asserted-patent and dispositive-event details.
FAQs
1) Which Depomed Orange Book patents were asserted in 2:13-cv-04542?
Not determinable from the provided input.
2) Did the court grant a preliminary injunction in Depomed v. Banner?
Not determinable from the provided input.
3) Was Banner’s ANDA granted, stayed, or otherwise affected by this litigation?
Not determinable from the provided input.
4) What were the claims construction outcomes and how did they affect infringement?
Not determinable from the provided input.
5) Did this case settle, and if so, what launch date or agreement terms were included?
Not determinable from the provided input.
References
- Docket reference: Depomed, Inc. v. Banner Pharmacaps Inc., 2:13-cv-04542.
