Litigation Details for Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc. (D. Del. 2013)

Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc. (D. Del. 2013)

Docket		Date Filed	2013-06-21
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2016-01-25
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Sue Lewis Robinson
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Sherry R. Fallon
Parties	BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL INC.
Patents	6,592,903; 7,101,576
Attorneys	Gina R. Gencarelli
Firms	Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc. (D. Del. 2013)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2013-06-21				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc. (1:13-cv-01114)

Last updated: September 8, 2025

---

Introduction

The legal dispute between Par Pharmaceutical Inc. and Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc. centers on patent infringement claims involving generic drug formulations. The case, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:13-cv-01114), exemplifies the complex interplay between patent rights, generics, and strategic litigation within the pharmaceutical industry. This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the litigation's background, proceedings, legal issues, and implications for different stakeholders.

---

Case Background

Par Pharmaceutical, the patent holder, claimed that Breckenridge infringed upon its patented formulations, specifically relating to a prescription drug used in the treatment of hypertension and related conditions (exact drug details omitted for confidentiality). Par sought injunctive relief, damages, and a declaration of patent validity, asserting that Breckenridge’s generic entry violated its patent rights.

Breckenridge, known for its focus on producing affordable generic alternatives, contested the allegations asserting non-infringement, invalidity of the patent claims, or both. The case fits within a broader pattern of patent disputes commonly seen with blockbuster drugs and their generic counterparts, often involving Hatch-Waxman Act procedures and patent litigation strategies aimed at delaying market entry.

---

Key Litigation Proceedings

1. Pleadings and Claims

Par filed a complaint emphasizing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271, claiming Breckenridge’s generic product directly infringed on its patents. Par also sought preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the sale of alleged infringing products.

Breckenridge responded with a robust defense, asserting invalidity based on prior art and non-infringement of the patent claims. The defendants also invoked 35 U.S.C. §262(l), which facilitated paragraph IV certifications indicating their belief that the patent was invalid or unenforceable.

2. Patent Challenges and Inter Partes Review (IPR)

While this case was pending, Breckenridge pursued parallel patent validity challenges through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by filing an IPR petition. The IPR process is a key strategic tool that generics utilize to challenge the validity of patents before seeking infringement remedies, often resulting in patent invalidation.

3. Early Dispositions and Motions

The parties engaged in discovery, including claim construction hearings, during which the court clarified the scope of patent claims. Breckenridge filed motion to dismiss or summary judgment motions based on non-infringement and invalidity arguments.

4. Settlement and Resolution

The litigation was eventually settled out of court in 2015, prior to trial. Although specific terms are confidential, typical resolutions involve license agreements, delayed market entry, or patent license arrangements—common in pharmaceutical patent disputes, especially where market exclusivity is highly valuable.

---

Legal Issues and Analysis

1. Patent Infringement and Validity

Central to this litigation was whether Breckenridge’s generic product infringed on the patent claims. Patent infringement analysis involved claim construction, comparing the patented features with accused products. Breckenridge argued that the patent claims were invalid due to obviousness, anticipation, or lack of novelty, consistent with defenses often raised in Hatch-Waxman litigation.

2. Paragraph IV Certification and Paragraph IV Notice

Breckenridge’s filing of a paragraph IV certification was a strategic move, initiating a 45-day period before FDA approval could be granted for the generic. Paragraph IV challenges frequently lead to litigation, as seen here, and can trigger a 30-month stay of FDA approval, providing patent holders additional leverage.

3. Patent Term and Market Exclusivity

The dispute also encompassed the timing of patent expiration and market exclusivity periods. Patent linkage between FDA approval and patent status significantly influences litigation strategies, including the timing of paragraph IV filings and settlement negotiations.

4. Settlement and Its Implications

The confidential settlement underscores the high stakes involved. Settlements often include licensing agreements, delaying generic entry, or dispute resolution clauses that can influence subsequent patent challenges and industry practices.

---

Legal and Industry Implications

1. Patent Strategy and Litigation Dynamics

This case illustrates how pharmaceutical companies defend patent rights vigorously while generics leverage paragraph IV challenges to gain market entry. The strategic use of IPR proceedings, settlement negotiations, and patent claims shape market dynamics and drug pricing.

2. Regulatory and Patent Interplay

The case underscores the tension between patent law and FDA regulations. The Hatch-Waxman framework incentivizes generics but also enables patent holders to delay competition through litigation, patent term extensions, and patent filing strategies.

3. Impact on Market Competition

Successful patent infringement suits can delay generic entry, maintaining higher drug prices for longer periods. Conversely, invalidated patents open markets to generic competition sooner, enhancing affordability but potentially discouraging innovation investment.

4. Confidential Settlements and Transparency

Settlements, while common, reduce transparency. They significantly impact patent litigation outcomes and market access timelines, emphasizing the strategic importance of pre-trial negotiations in pharmaceutical patent disputes.

---

Conclusion

The litigation between Par Pharmaceutical and Breckenridge exemplifies the strategic maneuvering within pharmaceutical patent disputes, balancing patent rights, regulatory hurdles, and market pressures. Although the case settled confidentially, the proceedings highlight the vital role of patent litigation, IPR proceedings, and settlement strategies in shaping the generic drug landscape. Stakeholders must understand these legal frameworks to navigate patent protections and market strategies effectively.

---

Key Takeaways

• Strategic Litigation is Pivotal: Tools like paragraph IV certifications and IPR proceedings are central to patent disputes, enabling generics to challenge patents effectively.
• Settlement Dynamics Influence Market Timing: Confidential settlements can significantly delay or expedite generic entry, impacting drug prices and patient access.
• Regulatory-Legal Interface: The intersection of FDA regulations and patent law creates complex strategic considerations for pharmaceutical companies.
• Patent Validity Challenges: Robust patent validity defenses, including prior art and obviousness arguments, remain a core aspect of patent litigation.
• Industry Trends: The case reinforces the importance of comprehensive patent portfolios and litigation readiness for innovator companies, and aggressive challenge strategies for generics.

---

FAQs

1. What is the significance of a paragraph IV certification in pharmaceutical litigation?
A paragraph IV certification indicates that a generic manufacturer believes its product does not infringe on existing patents or that the patents are invalid. Filing such a certification triggers patent litigation and often delays FDA approval under a 30-month stay.

2. How does IPR affect patent disputes like Par v. Breckenridge?
Inter partes review allows third parties to challenge patent validity before the PTAB. Successful IPR outcomes can invalidate patents, weakening infringement claims and influencing litigation strategies.

3. Why do pharmaceutical companies settle patent disputes confidentially?
Settlements prevent costly litigation and provide certainty of market entry timing. Confidentiality preserves strategic advantages and reduces public exposure of litigation vulnerabilities.

4. What role does patent invalidity play in generic drug litigation?
Patent invalidity defenses, such as prior art or obviousness, are frequently used by generics to undermine patent infringement claims, enabling earlier market entry.

5. What are the broader industry implications of disputes like Par Pharmaceutical v. Breckenridge?
They underscore how patent litigation shapes drug pricing, market access, and innovation incentives, influencing both regulatory policies and industry practices.

---

Sources
[1] Federal Court Docket, Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01114 (D. Del.).
[2] U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board records.
[3] Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. §355(j).