Litigation Details for Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Docket	1:17-cv-00944-JFB-SRF	Date Filed	2017-07-13
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	9,119,876; 9,295,657
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-07-13	189	Order - -Memorandum and Order	expiration of Par’s patents covering Adrenalin®, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,119,876 (“the ’876 patent”) and 9,295,657…,657 (“the ’657 patent”) (together, “the Patents-in-Suit”) (Exs. 1-2). Par contends that Hospira’s ANDA…contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed…112 of the Patent Act requires that the claims themselves set forth the limits of the patent grant, but… ANDA Product infringes the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), and that the manufacture, use	External link to document
2017-07-13	190	Order - -Memorandum and Order	expiration of Par’s patents covering Adrenalin®, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,119,876 (“the ’876 patent”) and 9,295,657…9,295,657 (“the ’657 patent”) (together, “the Patents-in- Suit”) (D.I. 1, Exs. 1-2). The patents-in-suit are …letter request for sanctions (D.I. 124). This is a patent infringement case arising under the Hatch-Waxman…the conditions specified by claims 12-19 of the patents-in-suit.” D.I. 54. While the parties were…13 July 2017 1:17-cv-00944-JFB-SRF Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA)	External link to document
2017-07-13	191		expiration of Par’s patents covering Adrenalin®, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,119,876 (“the ’876 patent”) and 9,295,657…,657 (“the ’657 patent”) (together, “the Patents-in-Suit”) (D.I. 1, Exs. 1- 2). Par alleges that Hospira…509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993) (D.I. 149).1 This is a patent infringement case arising under the Hatch-Waxman…Hospira’s ANDA Product infringes the Patents-in-Suit under 35 1 Also pending is a request for oral argument…importation of Hospira’s ANDA Product will infringe the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and/or	External link to document
2017-07-13	197	Order - -Memorandum and Order	;876 patent”) and 9,295,657 (“the ‘'''657 patent") (together, the "patents-in-suit…expiration of the patents-in-suit. In its complaint, Par Pharma alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,119,876… four additional patent applications claiming priority to one of the asserted patents to show that “the…Claim Term “About.” D.I. 193. This is an action for patent infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.…the subsequent related prosecution of additional patents to assert that the term “about” refers to a particular	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (D. Del. 2017)

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (1:17-cv-00944-JFB-SRF): Litigation Summary, Claims at Issue, and Patent/ANDA Risk Analysis

Executive summary: The case captioned Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 1:17-cv-00944-JFB-SRF is a U.S. Hatch-Waxman patent dispute tied to Hospira’s FDA submissions for a Par-owned drug product and its associated Orange Book-listed patents. The litigation posture, claim-scope mechanics, and settlement posture determine the practical generic/biosimilar entry window risk for Par’s portfolio. Based on the case number and docket linkage, the matter proceeds through the standard paragraph-IV dispute framework, with the core business question focused on (i) which specific Orange Book patents were asserted, (ii) which claims were found infringed and/or invalid, and (iii) whether a settlement triggered an agreed launch date or stipulated noninfringement/invalidity concessions.

Actionable bottom line: Without the case-specific complaint, asserted-patent list, claim construction orders, infringement/invalidity rulings, and any settlement/judgment entries, a complete and accurate litigation summary cannot be produced.