Litigation Details for FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC v. MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED (D.N.J. 2017)

FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC v. MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED (D.N.J. 2017)

Docket	2:17-cv-10140	Date Filed	2017-10-30
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2018-02-09
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Esther Salas
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Michael A. Hammer
Parties	ALLERGAN USA, INC.
Patents	8,481,598; 8,865,937; RE43,879
Attorneys	ELEONORE OFOSU-ANTWI
Firms	Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Pc
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC v. MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED (D.N.J. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-10-30				External link to document
2017-10-30	1		United States Patent Nos. 8,481,598 (“the ’598 patent”), 8,865,937 (“the ’937 patent”), and RE43,879…(A), MSN infringed United States Patent Nos. 8,481,598, 8,865,937, and RE43,879 by submitting…products before United States Patent Nos. 8,481,598 and RE43,879 expire, would …expiration date of United States Patent Nos. 8,481,598, 8,865,937, and RE43,879, including any …210805 until United States Patent Nos. 8,481,598, 8,865,937, and RE43,879 expire, including	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC v. MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED (D.N.J. 2017)

Last updated: July 29, 2026

FOREST LABORATORIES v. MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED (D. Mass. 2:17-cv-10140): Litigation Summary, Patent Scope, and Generic Risk Analysis

Executive summary: In Forest Laboratories, LLC v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited, No. 2:17-cv-10140, the dispute targets proposed generic manufacture and FDA marketing under the Hatch-Waxman framework. The litigation posture indicates a Paragraph IV-type infringement dispute that typically pairs (1) FDA Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) readiness with (2) infringement/validity challenges against Orange Book-listed patents tied to Forest’s branded product. The case is assessed by (a) whether the asserted patents are formulation, method-of-use, or process patents; (b) whether MSN’s proposed labels and ANDA product design fall within claim scope; and (c) settlement or court resolution timing that drives generic launch risk.

Limits: No case document text, docket entries, claim charts, court orders, or Orange Book/ANDA identifiers were provided in the prompt. Without docket-level specifics (asserted patents, ANDA number, product strength/dosage form, and procedural outcomes), an accurate, claim-level litigation analysis cannot be produced.

Output: