Last updated: April 25, 2026
What happened in Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Perrigo UK FINCO Limited Partnership (1:16-cv-00794) and what does it mean for generic-entry risk?
What court and docket govern this dispute?
- Case: Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Perrigo UK FINCO Limited Partnership
- Docket: 1:16-cv-00794
- Filing year: 2016
- Parties: Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (plaintiff) vs. Perrigo UK FINCO Limited Partnership (defendant)
What is the core patent-litigation frame (ANDA Hatch-Waxman)?
This matter fits the standard Hatch-Waxman structure in which a brand company sues a generic filer to block marketing based on allegations of infringement of one or more Orange Book-listed patents, typically tied to an ANDA and an asserted Paragraph IV or similar certification posture.
The litigation summary and business relevance below focus on decision points that usually determine:
- whether the brand gets a statutory/contractual stay,
- whether the case ends via settlement vs adjudication,
- and what launch date or license terms flow from that outcome.
What claims and patents were asserted?
No patent numbers, asserted claims, asserted Orange Book listings, or claim charts are provided in the record available here. Without those specifics, a complete claim-by-claim infringement narrative cannot be produced.
What procedural events shaped the timeline?
No docket-event detail (motions, hearings, claim construction rulings, trial scheduling, or appellate milestones) is provided in the record available here. A complete procedural timeline cannot be reconstructed from the information at hand.
What is the litigation outcome?
No final judgment terms (dismissal, consent judgment, settlement, stipulation, damages, or injunction scope) are provided in the record available here. Without outcome text, a definitive “who won” analysis is not supportable.
What is the business takeaway despite limited record detail?
Even when the case outcome is not explicitly stated here, the economic impact of a 2016 Meda vs Perrigo Hatch-Waxman dispute typically turns on three quantifiable levers investors and business teams track:
-
Regulatory leverage through patent litigation
- If the case proceeds past early motion stages, it can preserve generic entry uncertainty long enough to extend brand exclusivity via statutory stay or settlement-driven delay.
-
Entry timing and launch economics
- A settlement, dismissal, or final adverse ruling directly maps to the effective launch date and potential “at-risk” launch posture.
-
Portfolio value signaling
- When a brand litigates a generic ANDA, investors treat the asserted patent set as the portfolio portion with the highest probability of payment or enforceability. That can influence R&D prioritization and subsequent licensing posture.
What do you need for a full infringement and validity analysis?
Patent-by-patent validity and infringement analysis is not possible from the information available here. A court-grade assessment requires at minimum: asserted patent numbers, the ANDA product and label scope, claim terms, prior art references cited, and the court’s claim construction and dispositive rulings.
How to interpret settlement risk for Perrigo-like generic challengers
In Meda-type brand-vs-generic settings, generic challengers generally price risk around:
- probability of injunction or stay extension,
- likelihood of settlement that shifts entry beyond the initial 180-day exclusivity window (if triggered),
- and whether the dispute resolves at the district court level or continues through appeal.
Where the record does not provide the disposition, the only operational conclusion supported here is that this docket is a 2016 Hatch-Waxman patent case, meaning Meda pursued legal leverage against Perrigo’s potential market entry path.
Key Takeaways
- Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Perrigo UK FINCO Limited Partnership is a 2016 Hatch-Waxman-style patent litigation docketed as 1:16-cv-00794.
- The case’s business impact in generic entry models depends on docket outcome (settlement vs adjudication), effective launch timing, and scope of any stay or injunction.
- This record does not include the asserted patents, claim scope, procedural milestones, or final disposition, so claim-level infringement/validity conclusions and a firm “who won and on what terms” cannot be stated.
FAQs
1) Is this case tied to an ANDA?
This docket number and the parties’ brand/generic posture align with a Hatch-Waxman framework where ANDA-related patent certifications are litigated, but the provided record does not include the ANDA or certification basis.
2) What patents did Meda assert against Perrigo?
The provided record does not list the asserted patent numbers or the specific claims at issue.
3) Did the case end in a settlement or a court judgment?
The provided record does not include the disposition type or the terms.
4) How does the outcome typically affect generic launch timing?
In Hatch-Waxman disputes, settlement or judgment outcomes typically translate into an effective entry date shift, an at-risk launch decision, and potential payment or licensing terms.
5) Can an investor quantify damages or probability-weighted entry delay from this record?
Not from the provided information, which omits dispositive rulings, injunction scope, and settlement economics.
References
[1] CourtListener. Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Perrigo UK FINCO Limited Partnership, No. 1:16-cv-00794.
