Last updated: July 25, 2026
Unimed v. Perrigo (1:14-cv-00985) Litigation Summary and Patent Infringement Analysis
Executive summary: The docket 1:14-cv-00985 is a federal patent infringement case brought by Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC against Perrigo Company. Without the case caption details tying the matter to specific Orange Book-listed products, asserted patents, claim construction history, or dispositive orders (dismissal, stay, summary judgment, or trial), a complete, accurate litigation analysis cannot be produced under the requirement to deliver hard data and dates.
What patents are asserted in Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Perrigo (1:14-cv-00985)?
A litigation analysis requires the specific asserted patent numbers, their ownership/assignee chain, the claims asserted, and the accused products. Those items are not present in the provided input.
Which Orange Book-listed drug and NDA is implicated?
To map to FDA exclusivity and generic entry risk, the case must be tied to:
- the reference listed drug (RLD)
- the NDA/BLA number
- the Orange Book patent listing(s) and listed expiration dates
No such linkage is provided in the input.
What claim theories are asserted (infringement, induced, contributory)?
A technical infringement assessment requires:
- independent and dependent claims asserted
- product vs. method-of-manufacture vs. method-of-use theories
- specific paragraphs and mapping (claim chart structure)
No complaint or infringement content is included in the prompt.
What is the procedural posture in 1:14-cv-00985?
A litigation summary must report, at minimum:
- filing date and venue
- parties and roles (plaintiff, defendant, counterclaims)
- service and initial scheduling order
- any amendments to pleadings
- Markman hearing and claim construction outcomes
- dispositive motions (motion to dismiss, summary judgment)
- settlement or final judgment status
None of these events and dates are provided.
Has the case been stayed pending PTO reexamination or IPR?
Patent cases commonly involve:
- IPR petitions (PTAB)
- reexamination
- CANDOR/settlement and stay motions
No PTAB or stay history appears in the input.
Any stipulations, dismissals, or narrowing amendments?
To assess case strength, the record must indicate:
- dismissed asserted patents
- narrowed claim scope
- amended schedules and deadlines
No such data is provided.
When did Unimed v. Perrigo reach key litigation milestones?
A featured-snippet style timeline needs dates for:
- complaint filing
- amended complaint(s)
- claim construction order(s)
- expert disclosures
- Daubert rulings (if any)
- summary judgment motions
- trial date or final disposition
The input provides only the docket number and parties’ names.
What does the court’s rulings say about patent validity and infringement?
A substantive analysis requires outcomes such as:
- validity: §101, §102/§103 anticipation/obviousness, §112 indefiniteness or enablement
- infringement: literal vs. doctrine of equivalents
- injunction or damages posture (if reached)
No ruling text or order outcomes are included.
How strong was Unimed’s patent case based on the court’s analysis?
Strength scoring depends on:
- claim construction results
- summary judgment findings
- survivability of asserted claims
- how the court treated prior art and expert testimony
No judicial analysis is provided.
How did Perrigo attack the asserted patents?
A standard infringement-defense module requires:
- invalidity defenses and prior art references
- non-infringement positions tied to formulation/process differences
- design-around arguments
No defense strategy details are in the prompt.
What settlements or consent judgments occurred in 1:14-cv-00985?
Settlement terms drive:
- license scope and royalties
- carve-outs and authorized generics
- launch timing commitments
- dismissal with/without prejudice and covenant-not-to-sue language
No settlement information is included.
What Orange Book and FDA exclusivity risks existed given the litigation?
Mapping litigation to market timing requires:
- whether the patents are listed under 34-day or 30-month stay triggers
- whether the defendant filed an ANDA with Paragraph IV certifications
- whether there were litigation-driven stays and expiries
No ANDA/Orange Book certifications are provided.
What generic entry risks existed for Perrigo’s product?
Entry risk depends on:
- which patents were asserted (formulation, method-of-use, manufacturing)
- which claims were held valid and infringed
- whether Perrigo received a stay or clearance post-decision
None of those data points are included.
How does Perrigo’s patent position compare with other challengers in the same patent estate?
Comparative analysis requires:
- other defendants
- overlapping asserted patents
- different claim constructions or outcomes
No multi-defendant landscape or related cases are included.
Key takeaways
- A complete litigation summary and analysis for Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Perrigo Company, 1:14-cv-00985 requires case-specific facts (asserted patents, accused products, procedural milestones, and rulings).
- Those facts are not included in the prompt, so a data-backed summary cannot be produced.
FAQs
- Which patents were asserted in Unimed v. Perrigo (1:14-cv-00985) and what claims were alleged to be infringed?
- Did the case involve a Paragraph IV ANDA certification and what FDA stay timeline applied?
- Were any patents dismissed or narrowed through amended pleadings in the 1:14-cv-00985 case?
- Did the court issue Markman claim construction rulings that drove the infringement/validity outcome?
- Were any settlement agreements or consent judgments entered, and what launch or licensing constraints resulted?
References
No sources were cited because no case documents, orders, or patent numbers were provided in the prompt.
