Last updated: July 18, 2026
Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC v. Tolmar, Inc. (1:17-cv-01086) Litigation Summary, Claims, and Case Posture
Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC v. Tolmar, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01086, is a U.S. patent infringement dispute tied to Tolmar’s pharmaceutical activities involving an FDA-regulated product and asserted patent rights owned (or licensed) by Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC. The public docket record supports a litigation posture consistent with typical Hatch-Waxman-style disputes, but the available record excerpt does not include the asserted patent numbers, claim language, filing/answer dates, Markman outcomes, or settlement/disposition terms needed to produce a complete, defensible litigation analysis.
What patents did Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC sue Tolmar over in 1:17-cv-01086?
A complete infringement analysis requires the specific asserted patents and asserted claims. The case identifier alone (1:17-cv-01086) is insufficient to reliably determine:
- the asserted patent numbers,
- whether the case followed a Paragraph IV theory,
- whether allegations were directed to formulation, method-of-use, or process/manufacturing,
- and which FDA product (ANDA/NDA/BLA) the allegations mapped to.
Which USPTO application and patent families were asserted?
Without the complaint’s exhibits and the docket’s “Patent(s)-Related” entries, it is not possible to list asserted families, priority dates, prosecution histories, or continuations that would materially affect claim construction, enforceability defenses, or infringement scope.
How did Tolmar respond in 1:17-cv-01086 (dismissal, invalidity, noninfringement)?
A litigation posture analysis depends on what Tolmar filed after service, typically:
- a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or lack of standing,
- invalidity defenses (anticipation/obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description),
- noninfringement contentions tied to ANDA/NDA labeling or manufacturing process.
The publicly available information in the provided prompt does not contain the operative response filings, so a statement about specific defenses, claim charts, or legal theories cannot be made without risking inaccuracy.
Were there claim construction (Markman) proceedings?
Markman outcomes drive the practical value of the patent estate for both litigation and licensing. No claim construction record is available in the prompt details to support a concrete summary.
What was the schedule and key litigation milestones in 1:17-cv-01086?
A credible milestone timeline requires docket entries with dates for:
- complaint filing,
- service,
- answer or responsive motion,
- early Rule 12 motions,
- scheduling order,
- Markman,
- expert reports,
- dispositive motions (summary judgment),
- trial date and any final judgment or stipulations.
No milestone data is included in the prompt, so a timeline cannot be accurately constructed.
What generic entry risks did Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC allege against Tolmar?
Hatch-Waxman-style disputes typically focus on preventing approval or launch of a generic or product substitution before a patent expires or before an exclusivity cutoff. To analyze entry risk, the following must be identified:
- the FDA application number (ANDA/NDA),
- the drug strength and dosage form at issue,
- the earliest launch date under FDA exclusivities,
- whether the case alleged launch-before-expiration or after final approval.
The prompt does not provide the FDA application linkage, so entry risk cannot be quantified.
What is the Orange Book status of the patents-in-suit in this case?
Orange Book analysis requires:
- the drug product name,
- the NDA holder and reference listed drug (RLD),
- listed patents and their expiration dates,
- whether patents are “drug substance,” “drug product,” or “method of use,”
- and whether listing is tied to therapeutic indication exclusivity.
No Orange Book listing details are included in the provided input, so the exclusivity and expiration framework cannot be computed.
How strong is the patent estate for Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC in this case?
Patent strength analysis depends on:
- claim scope (independent claim elements),
- prosecution history and disclaimers,
- cited prior art,
- infringement mapping to product features,
- validity challenges that survived early motion practice.
The prompt does not include asserted claims, so strength cannot be evaluated.
Were there settlements, consent judgments, or stipulated dismissals in 1:17-cv-01086?
Settlement and disposition materially affect:
- “at-risk” launch timing,
- the scope of any covenant-not-to-sue,
- delayed launch commitments,
- payment terms (if any),
- and whether remaining claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.
No docket disposition data is provided in the prompt, so settlement status cannot be stated.
How does Tolmar’s position in 1:17-cv-01086 compare with its other Hatch-Waxman litigations?
A comparative posture assessment needs:
- product at issue,
- venue and case type (ANDA versus NDA),
- typical defenses used,
- frequency of settlements or adverse outcomes,
- and whether Tolmar faced repeat plaintiffs with similar patent families.
None of that context is available from the prompt.
Key Takeaways
- The case caption and docket number identify the dispute, but the provided information does not include asserted patent numbers, FDA application linkage, or docket milestones needed to produce a complete litigation summary and claims-based analysis.
- A high-confidence infringement, validity, and exclusivity impact assessment cannot be completed from the prompt alone.
FAQs
- What does the case number 1:17-cv-01086 indicate about the filing type?
- Can a Paragraph IV or Orange Book linkage be inferred from the caption alone?
- What docket entries typically control litigation leverage in patent cases like this?
- How do Markman rulings usually affect settlement value in Hatch-Waxman disputes?
- What disclosures in the complaint identify the patents and the accused product?
References
- United States District Court, docket No. 1:17-cv-01086 (Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC v. Tolmar, Inc.).
