Last updated: June 27, 2026
Executive summary: The docket number 1:21-cv-01152 is a filed civil patent case that pairs Journey Medical Corporation as plaintiff with Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. as defendant. The litigation’s practical impact hinges on (i) what Orange Book patents Journey asserted and (ii) whether the case targets a Paragraph IV generic entry or a different statutory theory. Under the information constraints in the prompt, no case-specific record (complaint counts, asserted patents, asserted products, settlement terms, claim construction orders, or final dispositions) is provided, so a complete and accurate litigation summary cannot be produced.
What is the litigation summary for Journey Medical Corp v. Padagis (1:21-cv-01152)?
A litigation summary requires case-specific facts from the docket, including: the asserted patent list, the accused drug product and dosage form, the legal bases (e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), § 271(a), declaratory judgment), and the procedural posture (motions to dismiss, summary judgment, claim construction, trial, settlement, or dismissal).
Which patents were asserted in Journey Medical v. Padagis 1:21-cv-01152?
A patent-assertion summary requires the complaint’s asserted U.S. patent numbers, patent owners/assignees, and which Orange Book-listed patents were alleged to be infringed or invalid. The prompt contains only the case caption and docket number, which is insufficient to identify the asserted patents.
How many Orange Book patents were at issue?
This requires Orange Book mapping to the asserted NDA/ANDA and the complaint’s infringement allegations. No NDA/ANDA identity or asserted patent list is included in the prompt.
What were the infringement theories pleaded (literal infringement, doctrine of equivalents, method-of-use)?
This requires the complaint’s claim-by-claim infringement contentions and the defendant’s noninfringement/invalidity arguments. None is provided.
What generic entry was challenged in Journey Medical v. Padagis (1:21-cv-01152)?
A generic-entry summary requires:
- the accused ANDA drug name, strength(s), and label,
- the FDA approval date or ANDA submission date,
- whether the case is tied to a Paragraph IV certification (I, II, III, or IV),
- and the “safe harbor” or non-infringement defenses commonly litigated in Hatch-Waxman cases.
No product identity, ANDA number, or certification facts are included.
When did the case reach key milestones: claim construction, summary judgment, trial, settlement, or dismissal?
A milestone timeline requires docket events. The prompt provides only the docket identifier.
Was there a Markman (claim construction) order?
This requires the existence and outcome of a Markman order.
Was there a settlement agreement and what were its terms?
This requires the settlement docket entry, any confidential agreement public summary, and related entries tied to dismissal dates.
What is the current case status?
This requires the latest docket disposition, such as “dismissed,” “settled,” “judgment,” or “pending.”
What did the court decide on motions to dismiss or summary judgment in 1:21-cv-01152?
Decision-level analysis requires:
- motion titles,
- court opinions (or minute orders),
- the legal standard applied,
- and holdings on jurisdiction, sufficiency of infringement allegations, statutory eligibility, or validity.
No court filings or outcomes are included.
How strong is the patent estate in Journey Medical v. Padagis (1:21-cv-01152)?
Patent-strength analysis depends on the actual asserted patents and their prosecution history or known validity record. Without the asserted patent numbers, no credible assessment can be made.
Are the asserted claims method-of-use or formulation claims?
This requires knowing the claim types asserted in the complaint.
Do the asserted patents have obviousness or enablement vulnerabilities common in Hatch-Waxman?
This requires the asserted patents’ scope and prior art record.
What generic entry risks exist for Padagis if 1:21-cv-01152 is resolved?
Risk assessment typically includes:
- remaining unexpired patents not litigated,
- launch timing relative to expiration dates,
- any injunction entered,
- and whether a settlement includes an agreed launch date or non-launch covenant.
No patents, injunctions, or settlement terms are provided.
How does Journey Medical’s enforcement compare with other patent cases involving Padagis?
This comparison requires a list of other Padagis dockets involving similar products and the same patent holder. No such information is contained in the prompt.
What is the Orange Book status of the product at issue in 1:21-cv-01152?
An Orange Book status section requires:
- NDA/ANDA identifiers,
- listed patents and expiration dates,
- and FDA exclusivity type (e.g., 5-year new chemical entity, 3-year new clinical investigation, or pediatric exclusivity).
No product/NDA/ANDA identifiers are provided.
Key Takeaways
- A litigation summary for Journey Medical Corporation v. Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (1:21-cv-01152) requires complaint-level and docket-level facts (asserted patents, accused product, procedural milestones, and disposition).
- The prompt provides only the docket number and party names; it does not provide the asserted patent list, product identity, or procedural outcomes needed for an accurate, litigation-grade analysis.
- No defensible conclusions on patent strength, infringement theories, or generic launch risk can be made without the underlying filings.
FAQs
- What patents are typically asserted in Hatch-Waxman cases like 1:21-cv-01152 involving Journey Medical and Padagis?
- How do Paragraph IV certifications change the litigation timeline in district court?
- What evidence is usually required for a court to grant or deny an injunction in ANDA patent cases?
- How can settlement agreements affect a generic launch date even after dismissal?
- What Orange Book-listed patents often survive after a partial ruling in a multi-patent case?
References
- None (no cited sources were provided in the prompt).
