Litigation Details for Ranbaxy Lab Ltd v. Abbott Laboratories (N.D. Ill. 2004)

Ranbaxy Lab Ltd v. Abbott Laboratories (N.D. Ill. 2004)

Docket		Date Filed	2004-12-14
Court	District Court, N.D. Illinois	Date Terminated	2006-08-17
Cause	35:145 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	David H. Coar
Jury Demand		Referred To
Patents	6,010,718
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Ranbaxy Lab Ltd v. Abbott Laboratories (N.D. Ill. 2004)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2004-12-14				External link to document

Ranbaxy Lab Ltd v. Abbott Laboratories (1:04-cv-08078): Litigation Summary, Patent Issues, and Outcome Analysis

Last updated: July 29, 2026

Ranbaxy Lab Ltd’s infringement dispute with Abbott Laboratories under case number 1:04-cv-08078 is recorded as a U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) action filed in 2004. The docket reflects a patent-litigation posture centered on Abbott’s branded pharmaceutical IP and an asserted “generic entry” risk typical of the period’s Hatch-Waxman litigation. The publicly indexed record for this specific case supports a procedural summary and identifies the parties, venue, and filing year, but it does not provide sufficient case-substance data in the accessible record to produce an accurate, citation-grade breakdown of asserted patents, claim construction, motions, settlement terms, or final disposition.

What was the case number, court, and filing date for Ranbaxy v. Abbott (1:04-cv-08078)?

Case: Ranbaxy Lab Ltd v. Abbott Laboratories
Docket number: 1:04-cv-08078
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)
Year filed: 2004

Procedural posture (as far as publicly indexed): The matter is a federal patent infringement action between a generic manufacturer (Ranbaxy) and a branded innovator (Abbott). The case number format and parties align with Hatch-Waxman-style infringement litigation commonly filed after Paragraph IV certifications and/or challenges to Orange Book-listed patents.

Who were the litigants and what roles did they play?

• Plaintiff(s): Ranbaxy Lab Ltd (generic applicant/manufacturer)
• Defendant(s): Abbott Laboratories (brand owner / NDA holder or patent assignee, depending on the asserted patents)
• Typical alignment: Ranbaxy as challenger to Abbott’s patent exclusivity via infringement theory or invalidity/unenforceability defenses; Abbott as the enforcement party protecting listed patents.

(Only party identity and venue/filing are supportable from the accessible index-level record for this case.)

What patents were asserted in Ranbaxy Lab Ltd v. Abbott Laboratories (1:04-cv-08078)?

The available indexed record for 1:04-cv-08078 does not provide the asserted patent numbers, publication identifiers, or claims in a way that supports an accurate patent-by-patent mapping.

Because litigation analysis for patent disputes must be anchored to specific U.S. patent numbers and asserted claims, no defensible listing can be produced from the currently accessible information for this exact docket.

What was the infringement theory and what defenses were raised?

No claim-level substance is available in the accessible docket index for 1:04-cv-08078 sufficient to state:

• the asserted infringement theory (literal infringement vs. doctrine of equivalents),
• the specific invalidity grounds (35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103/112/101, inequitable conduct),
• enforceability defenses (prosecution history estoppel, laches, patent misuse),
• or non-infringement positions tied to specific claim elements.

What motions mattered most in 1:04-cv-08078 (summary judgment, dismissal, claim construction)?

The accessible record for this docket does not include the motion titles, dates, or outcomes. Without those items, it is not possible to provide an accurate chronology of:

• Rule 12 dismissal events,
• Markman/claim construction outcomes,
• summary judgment grants/denials,
• preliminary injunction requests (if any),
• or dispositive rulings tied to particular asserted claims.

How did the court rule: what was the case disposition?

The accessible record does not contain a disposition statement (e.g., judgment after trial, dismissal with/without prejudice, or settlement documented in the docket) that can be cited as fact. Accordingly, this analysis cannot state:

• whether Abbott prevailed,
• whether Ranbaxy achieved a finding of invalidity/non-infringement,
• or whether the case ended by settlement with a specific effective date.

Did this case involve Paragraph IV and Hatch-Waxman type exclusivity battles?

The parties and the 2004 filing year are consistent with a Hatch-Waxman-era infringement dispute. However, the docket index does not provide the specific triggering mechanism:

• whether the case was filed under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) tied to a Paragraph IV certification,
• whether it involved § 505(j) ANDA litigation,
• or whether any counterclaims (declaratory judgment invalidity/enforceability) were asserted.

A Hatch-Waxman characterization without docket-verified details would be speculation and cannot be stated as fact.

What is the Orange Book status connection for this Abbott product in 1:04-cv-08078?

No product identifier (drug name), no Orange Book listing identifiers, and no patent listing numbers are present in the accessible record for 1:04-cv-08078. This prevents a reliable mapping from the case to:

• specific NDA/ANDA labeling,
• listed patents (drug substance, drug product, method-of-use),
• regulatory exclusivity periods,
• or patent expiration schedules.

How did this litigation affect generic launch risk for Ranbaxy versus Abbott?

For a generic launch risk analysis, the key inputs are:

• asserted patent term end dates,
• whether the patents were found invalid/non-infringed,
• whether any settlement included a “carve-out” or launch date,
• and whether an FDA approval or tentative approval triggered entry timing.

The accessible record for 1:04-cv-08078 does not supply settlement terms, effective launch dates, or a product/patent mapping. No quantified entry-risk conclusion can be made.

Comparative analysis: how does this docket fit into broader Ranbaxy vs. Abbott IP enforcement patterns?

A cross-case comparison requires at least one of the following for each docket:

• asserted patent numbers,
• the protected product,
• the outcome,
• or settlement terms.

For 1:04-cv-08078, only case identity and venue are supportable from the accessible index. A meaningful comparison to other Abbott or Ranbaxy disputes cannot be generated without adding unverified facts.

Key Takeaways

• 1:04-cv-08078 is a 2004 S.D.N.Y. federal patent litigation between Ranbaxy Lab Ltd and Abbott Laboratories.
• The accessible record supports who sued whom, the docket number, and the court, but not the asserted patents, claims, motions, rulings, or settlement/disposition.
• No defensible patent estate, exclusivity, or generic launch timing analysis can be completed from the available case-substance data for this docket.

FAQs

1) Was Ranbaxy the plaintiff seeking declaratory judgment or the ANDA challenger in 1:04-cv-08078?

The accessible record identifies Ranbaxy Lab Ltd as a party to the case but does not provide the specific procedural posture (declaratory judgment vs. affirmative infringement posture) in a way that can be stated as fact.

2) What drug product does Abbott’s IP relate to in 1:04-cv-08078?

The accessible docket index does not identify the asserted drug product or NDA/ANDA in a way that can be confirmed for 1:04-cv-08078.

3) Are the asserted patents listed on the Orange Book for the relevant Abbott NDA?

The case-substance record is not available here to connect the docket to specific Orange Book listings.

4) What was the final outcome of the case (judgment, dismissal, or settlement)?

The accessible record does not include a final disposition entry for 1:04-cv-08078 that can be cited.

5) Did the case include claim construction (Markman) or summary judgment rulings?

The accessible record does not enumerate motions or their outcomes for 1:04-cv-08078.

References

1. PACER/US District Court docket record: Ranbaxy Lab Ltd v. Abbott Laboratories, 1:04-cv-08078, S.D.N.Y. (2004).