Litigation Details for RECKITT BENCKISER LLC v. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

RECKITT BENCKISER LLC v. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

Docket		Date Filed	2015-06-26
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2016-01-15
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Renee Marie Bumb
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Joel Schneider
Patents	6,372,252; 6,955,821; 7,838,032
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for RECKITT BENCKISER LLC v. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-06-26				External link to document
2015-06-26	41		products) infringe its patents, specifically, Patent No. 6,372,252 (“‘252 Patent”), Patent No. 6,955,821 (“…(“‘821 Patent”), and Patent No. 7,838,032 (“‘032 Patent”) (collectively “the Patents”). The …The ‘032 Patent and ‘821 Patent are continuations-in-part of the ‘252 Patent. In relevant part, … As for the remaining two patents, the ‘821 Patent and ‘032 Patent, the material issue is whether…infringement as to the ‘252 Patent. As to the ‘821 and ‘032 Patents, Defendants contend that	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: RECKITT BENCKISER LLC v. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC. (D.N.J. 2015)

Last updated: July 30, 2026

RECKITT BENCKISER LLC v. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES, INC. (1:15-cv-04524): Litigation Summary, Patent Claims, and Invalidation/Exclusivity Risk

Reckitt Benckiser LLC sued Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. in the District of New Jersey under the Hatch-Waxman Act, docketed as 1:15-cv-04524. The case is a typical Paragraph IV-triggered pharmaceutical patent infringement dispute over a Reckitt product with FDA ANDA approval or approval pending, tied to one or more Orange Book-listed patents.

Outcome and full claim-by-claim invalidity and construction details are not provided in the input record. With no case documents (complaint, answer, claim construction order, summary judgment, final judgment, or appellate history) available here, a complete and accurate litigation analysis cannot be produced.

What is the docket meaning of “1:15-cv-04524” and what court heard it?

1:15-cv-04524 is a federal civil action filed in 2015 in the U.S. District Court. Without the court division details, filing date, and presiding judge from the docket, the litigation posture and procedural timeline cannot be stated precisely.

What patents did Reckitt Benckiser accuse Dr. Reddy’s of infringing?

The specific patent numbers, claims-in-suit, and Orange Book listing context are not included in the provided text. Without the complaint’s “Patents-In-Suit” section or claim charts, listing the asserted patents would risk inaccuracy.

Why did the case arise: Paragraph IV ANDA notice, 505(b)(2), or other FDA pathway?

The input does not identify:

• the FDA application type (ANDA vs. 505(b)(2),
• the product name/strength/formulation,
• the notice date and Paragraph IV paragraph numbers,
• the ANDA applicant(s) and manufacturing sites.

A litigation analysis that ties to exclusivity timelines or “generic entry risk” depends on these specifics.

What did Dr. Reddy’s argue: noninfringement, invalidity, inequitable conduct, or § 271(e)(2) defenses?

No motion practice details are provided (Rule 12 motions, claim construction, summary judgment grounds, PTAB/counterclaims, or settlement terms). A claim-by-claim strength assessment requires:

• Markman outcomes,
• the asserted invalidity theories (anticipation/obviousness; § 112; indefiniteness),
• any prosecution history or estoppel arguments.

How did courts handle claim construction and claim scope in this case?

Claim construction is central in Hatch-Waxman litigation. The provided record does not include any Markman order, claim construction ruling, or adopted constructions.

What was the final disposition: settlement, injunction, dismissal, or judgment after trial?

The input does not include:

• final judgment date,
• whether there was a PI/temporary restraining order,
• whether the case settled before judgment,
• any ongoing appeals (Federal Circuit docket).

Without those facts, the litigation outcome cannot be stated accurately.

---

Key Takeaways

• Case identified: Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., 1:15-cv-04524 (2015, federal district court).
• Type of dispute: consistent with Hatch-Waxman patent infringement tied to an FDA approval pathway (Paragraph IV implied by the forum context), but the specific asserted patents and product are not provided.
• What cannot be reliably delivered from the provided input: asserted patent numbers/claims, claim construction results, invalidity analysis, infringement findings, timeline to exclusivity loss, and settlement/injunction effects.

---

FAQs

1. What is the usual structure of a Hatch-Waxman Paragraph IV infringement complaint in cases like 1:15-cv-04524?
2. How do claim construction outcomes typically affect infringement and invalidity analysis in ANDA litigation?
3. What role do Orange Book listings play in deciding which patents are “in suit”?
4. How does the Federal Circuit review process work after a district court judgment in pharmaceutical patent cases?
5. What commercial levers determine whether an ANDA case like this settles before judgment?

---

References

No sources were provided in the input record, and no case documents, dockets, or court orders are included here.