Last updated: July 24, 2026
Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC v. Tolmar, Inc. (1:17-cv-01086-LPS): Litigation Summary, Patent Issues, and Entry Risk Analysis
Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC sued Tolmar, Inc. in the District of Delaware (case number 1:17-cv-01086-LPS) in 2017, asserting patent infringement related to a pharmaceutical product covered by the plaintiff’s patent estate and seeking to block generic or other competition. The matter is a Hatch-Waxman style dispute track, with Paragraph IV-type infringement allegations expected based on the parties’ typical roles and the procedural posture, and it affects Tolmar’s ability to launch an at-risk product.
What patents are asserted in Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC v. Tolmar, Inc. (1:17-cv-01086-LPS)?
Patent asserted: Not determinable from the provided record.
Asserted claims / patent numbers: Not determinable from the provided record.
Active ingredient or product covered: Not determinable from the provided record.
A complete and accurate litigation summary requires the asserted patent(s), claim set, and the specific Tolmar product accused. The case caption alone does not establish those elements, and no case docket details, complaint excerpts, or published opinions were provided.
What is the case timeline for 1:17-cv-01086-LPS (filing, amendments, rulings, settlement)?
Filing year: 2017 (from case number and caption context).
Court: United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Judge: LPS (Leonard P. Stark).
Case type: Patent infringement (likely Hatch-Waxman) based on the litigants and Delaware venue.
Specific docket milestones: Not determinable from the provided record.
This includes:
- Complaint filing date
- Service date
- Answer / defenses
- Amended pleadings
- Claim construction
- Dispositive motions
- Trial schedule
- Settlement or consent judgment date
- Dismissal date and whether dismissal was with or without prejudice
What did Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC allege against Tolmar in the complaint?
Core allegation: Patent infringement of one or more asserted patents by Tolmar’s manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of a competing pharmaceutical product.
Likely infringement theory: If the suit is Hatch-Waxman, Horatio Washington Depot Technology LLC would typically plead that Tolmar submitted an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV certification for the Orange Book-listed reference product, triggering infringement.
Specific allegations: Not determinable from the provided record.
A litigation-usable analysis requires:
- the ANDA number (if Hatch-Waxman)
- the Orange Book-listed patents asserted
- the Paragraph IV certification details
- the specific product dosage form and strength
- the alleged infringement acts and marketing/launch intent
What defenses did Tolmar raise in 1:17-cv-01086-LPS?
Typical defenses in this dispute class:
- Non-infringement (literal and doctrine of equivalents)
- Invalidity (anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description/enablement, etc.)
- Statutory bar arguments or prosecution history-based limitations
- Unenforceability defenses (inequitable conduct) where applicable
Specific defenses: Not determinable from the provided record.
A precise litigation summary depends on the actual Rule 12/56 motions and the invalidity contentions served under a case schedule.
Were there claim construction rulings in the case?
Claim construction status: Not determinable from the provided record.
Delaware paragraph IV cases typically produce Markman rulings that materially affect infringement and invalidity outcomes. Without docket documents or a court order, no accurate claim-construction analysis can be produced.
What was the outcome: infringement finding, summary judgment, or settlement?
Outcome: Not determinable from the provided record.
Key outcome elements required for a business analysis are missing:
- Whether the court entered summary judgment for plaintiff or defendant
- Whether the case settled
- Whether there was an injunction or consent judgment
- Whether dismissal followed a settlement and the terms that govern launch timing
Without those, the launch and generic entry risk cannot be tied to enforceable constraints.
Did the parties reach a settlement that affects Tolmar’s launch date?
Settlement terms: Not determinable from the provided record.
Business-critical settlement terms include:
- launch date
- “carve-out” or allowable entry design changes (label, formulation, dosage form)
- cross-licenses (if any)
- payment structure (reverse payment or other)
- covenants not to sue
No settlement documentation was provided.
How strong is the patent estate asserted in this case?
Patent estate strength: Not determinable from the provided record.
A strength assessment needs:
- the asserted patent family and remaining term
- prosecution history
- claim scope and whether it covers the Tolmar product
- prior art landscape at the relevant priority dates
- any litigation record or PTAB decisions tied to the same patents
No asserted patent information was provided.
What generic entry risks exist for Tolmar based on 1:17-cv-01086-LPS?
Entry risk: Not determinable from the provided record.
An accurate risk model would require, at minimum:
- the Orange Book patents tied to the reference listed drug
- the scheduled patent expirations and exclusivity milestones
- whether the asserted patents were invalidated or narrowed
- whether a settlement imposed a delayed launch date
Those elements are absent.
What is the Orange Book status of the patents at issue in the Tolmar dispute?
Orange Book listings: Not determinable from the provided record.
The Orange Book status must be mapped to:
- Orange Book reference listed drug
- listed patent numbers
- expiration dates (including pediatric exclusivity effects)
- exclusivity type (NCE, BLA 12-year, 5-year, method-of-use)
- whether any listed patents were later withdrawn
No drug identity or listed patents were provided.
Did PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR) affect this litigation?
PTAB status: Not determinable from the provided record.
Litigated paragraph IV disputes sometimes include:
- IPR petitions challenging asserted claims
- motions to stay under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)
- final written decisions that can trigger settlement or consent judgments
No PTAB record was provided.
How does this case compare with other Depot Technologies v. generic defendant disputes?
Comparative assessment: Not determinable from the provided record.
A comparison requires:
- the same asserted patent families across cases
- similar claim constructions and outcomes
- consistent settlement structures or injunction terms
- any pattern in venue (Delaware) and timing
No asserted patents or outcomes are included here.
Jurisdiction and litigation posture: Why Delaware and what does LPS matter for strategy?
Venue: District of Delaware.
Judge: LPS (Leonard P. Stark).
In Delaware paragraph IV cases, the judge’s scheduling and claim construction practices often drive:
- early resolution posture on key claim terms
- expedited discovery on infringement and validity themes
- motions timing that can influence settlement leverage
However, specific posture and any court-issued schedule orders are not included in the provided record.
Key Takeaways
- Case identity is clear (Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC v. Tolmar, Inc., 1:17-cv-01086-LPS, D. Del., LPS).
- Litigation merits cannot be summarized accurately from the provided information because the asserted patents, product identity, and docket outcomes are not included.
- Business impact cannot be quantified (launch timing, design-around viability, or enforceable barriers) without the asserted patent list and procedural outcome.
FAQs
-
What is the product and reference listed drug (RLD) at issue in 1:17-cv-01086-LPS?
Not determinable from the provided record.
-
Which asserted patent numbers does Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC claim against Tolmar?
Not determinable from the provided record.
-
Was the case dismissed, settled, or decided on summary judgment?
Not determinable from the provided record.
-
Did the court issue a claim construction order that narrowed infringement scope?
Not determinable from the provided record.
-
Did PTAB IPRs or final written decisions influence the litigation outcome?
Not determinable from the provided record.
References (APA)
No citable sources were provided in the prompt.
