Litigation Details for Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. (D. Del. 2015)

Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. (D. Del. 2015)

Docket		Date Filed	2015-02-20
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Richard Gibson Andrews
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	8,450,338; 8,481,083
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. (D. Del. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-02-20	133		Final Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,450,338 and 8,481,083 filed by Ferring International…20 February 2015 1:15-cv-00173-RGA Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2015-02-20	142		Final Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,450,338 and 8,481,083 filed by Ferring International…20 February 2015 1:15-cv-00173-RGA Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2015-02-20	143		Final Invalidity Contentions for U. S. Patent Nos. 8,450,338 and 8,481,083 filed by Par Pharmaceutical…20 February 2015 1:15-cv-00173-RGA Patent None District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document

Ferring v. Par (1:15-cv-00173-RGA) Litigation Summary and Patent/Exclusivity Analysis

Last updated: July 4, 2026

Executive summary

• Case: Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., 1:15-cv-00173-RGA (D. Del., Judge Richard G. Andrews).
• Core posture: Patent infringement dispute tied to Par’s FDA-approval pathway for a Ferring product (specific asserted patents and product details depend on the pleadings and Orange Book mapping in the case docket).
• Decision/injunction status: Not enough docket-level decision data is provided here to state what claims survived, whether an injunction issued, or the final outcome.
• Business relevance: The case is likely a license/settlement or narrowing matter affecting launch timing, market share, and generic entry risk for Par against Ferring.

Content note This litigation summary requires docket-specific facts (asserted patent numbers, asserted counts, claim construction outcomes, trial/bench decision, and any settlement agreement terms). With only the caption and docket number supplied, a complete and accurate analysis cannot be produced.