Last updated: July 7, 2026
Executive summary
Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., case no. 1:13-cv-01461 (D.N.J.) is a patent infringement dispute tied to Reckitt’s pharmaceutical portfolio and Par’s competing products. The case sits in the Paragraph IV era (2013 filing). The litigation record, injunction/claim construction posture, and the settlement or terminal outcome are not provided in the prompt, so a complete litigation summary (claims asserted, patents-in-suit, procedural milestones, and final disposition) cannot be produced from the available information without adding unverified case facts.
What patents were asserted in Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. (1:13-cv-01461)?
A litigation summary requires identification of the patents-in-suit (patent numbers), asserted claims, and the asserted products (Orange Book listed drug(s) and the generic/manufacturing entity). Those details are not included in the provided input, so the asserted patent estate and claim scope cannot be accurately summarized.
Which Reckitt patents were in suit?
Patent number(s) and assignees are not provided. Without them, the following cannot be stated reliably:
- Patent identifiers and priority/filing timelines
- Expiration dates
- Claim-by-claim infringement theories
- Validity challenges raised (35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112)
Which Par product(s) were accused?
The specific Par product(s), NDA/ANDA, strength(s), and dosage form(s) are not provided. A litigation analysis depends on:
- Whether the accused product is the ANDA “reference listed drug” match
- Whether the asserted claims target formulation, method of use, or manufacturing
- Whether the case targets bioequivalence-exempt aspects (formulation/process claims)
What was the procedural timeline for case 1:13-cv-01461 (D.N.J.)?
A credible timeline must include complaint filing date, answer and counterclaims, claim construction schedule, expert deadlines, dispositive motions, and trial/bench events. Those dates and filings are not included, so the timeline cannot be reconstructed.
Key docket milestones that are required
A litigation summary normally reports:
- Complaint and service timing
- Patent infringement contentions and invalidity contentions
- Markman hearing date and claim construction order date
- Motions: e.g., summary judgment on infringement/validity, Daubert rulings
- Settlement or final judgment date
None of these are provided.
How did claim construction affect infringement and validity in Reckitt v. Par?
Claim construction is typically outcome-determinative in pharma patent cases. Without the claim terms construed and the resulting interpretation, analysis cannot be completed.
Which claim terms drove the dispute?
Missing inputs include:
- The specific construed terms
- The asserted dependent claims
- Whether construction narrowed the scope to avoid prior art
- Whether the court’s construction aligned with the accused Par product design
What were the main validity challenges?
A litigation analysis must identify:
- Prior art references asserted
- Enablement/indefiniteness disputes
- Obviousness grounds and secondary considerations, if any
No validity arguments or art are included in the prompt.
What was the infringement theory for Reckitt’s asserted claims?
A complete infringement analysis requires:
- Product mapping (element-by-element)
- Whether Par’s submission was treated as an infringing “process” or “product” under ANDA theories
- Whether the case depended on equivalence, exact composition match, or functional ranges
The prompt provides no claim-to-product mapping.
Did Par challenge the patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, or 112?
Patent litigation outcomes usually turn on which grounds were actually litigated and how the court ruled. The grounds asserted, and any PTAB parallel proceedings, are not provided.
Was there PTAB involvement (IPR/PGR)?
No information is included about inter partes review petitions, institution, or final written decisions.
What did the court decide: injunction, damages, or case dismissal?
A litigation summary needs the final disposition:
- Final judgment entered (infringement found vs no infringement)
- Validity upheld vs claims invalidated
- Injunction issued or dissolved
- Damages awarded and any accounting
- Attorneys’ fees and costs
- Whether the case ended by settlement
No final disposition is included in the prompt.
Was there a settlement agreement and did it affect generic entry?
Settlement analysis requires:
- Settlement date
- Terms (typical: design-around carveouts, launch dates, royalty-bearing licenses, agreed stipulations)
- Whether exclusivity/ANDA launch was stayed
- Any “consent to judgment” language
None of these terms are included.
What is the Orange Book status of the relevant Reckitt product(s) for this case?
Orange Book status analysis requires:
- The reference listed drug (RLD)
- Listed patents and their expiration dates
- Listing type (drug substance, drug product, method of use, therapeutic equivalence)
- Listed patent expiration and exclusivity codes
The prompt does not identify the RLD or Orange Book patents associated with the case.
How many patents were in the Reckitt estate and which were most litigated?
Counting and classifying patents requires:
- Patents-in-suit list
- Related asserted but not-in-suit patents (if a litigation network exists)
No patent list is included.
What generic entry risks existed for Par after (or during) the case?
Entry risk hinges on:
- Whether the court enjoined launch
- Whether patents were found invalid or not infringed
- Whether the settlement provided an agreed launch date
No injunction/settlement status is provided.
How does this Reckitt v. Par dispute compare with other 2013-era pharma Paragraph IV litigations?
A comparison requires a set of peer cases with shared patterns:
- Shared technologies (formulation vs method of use)
- Court patterns in D.N.J. pharma litigation
- Similar settlement structures
The prompt includes only the single case number and parties.
What commercial impact could the litigation have had for Reckitt and Par?
Commercial impact depends on:
- Brand revenue exposure
- ANDA launch timing changes
- Market share outcomes following injunction lifting or settlement
No commercial metrics are included.
Key Takeaways
- A complete litigation summary and analysis requires patents-in-suit, accused product(s), procedural milestones, and final disposition.
- Those inputs are not included in the prompt, so the case cannot be accurately summarized to a business-useful standard.
FAQs
- What information from a D.N.J. pharma case docket is essential to summarize a Paragraph IV litigation?
- How do settlements in ANDA patent cases typically affect generic launch dates and design-arounds?
- What claim types (formulation, method-of-use, manufacturing) most often drive claim construction outcomes in pharma?
- How does Orange Book patent listing scope change litigation strategy in generic challenges?
- What indicators in the docket signal whether a case will end in summary judgment versus trial?
References
- (Not enough case-specific source data was provided in the prompt to cite.)
