8 cases on record
- Cases on record
- 8
- Asserted by
- Forest Laboratories · Adamas Pharmaceuticals
- Asserted against
- Macleods Pharmaceuticals · Amerigen Pharmaceuticals · Panacea Biotec · Amneal Pharmaceuticals · Ranbaxy · Apotex · Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.
- Courts
- D. Del.
- Technology
- biocides / agrochemicals and medicinal preparations · biocides / agrochemicals
| Case no. | Parties | Court | Filed | Duration | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1:17-cv-00672 | Forest Laboratories, LLC v. Macleods Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. | D. Del. | 2 Jun 2017 | 307 d | Likely Settlement |
| 1:16-cv-00917 | Forest Laboratories, LLC v. Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | D. Del. | 7 Oct 2016 | 21 d | Likely Settlement |
| 1:15-cv-01171 | Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Panacea Biotec, Ltd. | D. Del. | 18 Dec 2015 | 158 d | Likely Settlement |
| 1:15-cv-00756 | Forest Laboratories, LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC | D. Del. | 27 Aug 2015 | 372 d | Likely Settlement |
| 1:14-cv-01271 | Forest Laboratories, LLC v. Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Inc. | D. Del. | 3 Oct 2014 | 385 d | Likely Settlement |
| 1:14-cv-00686 | Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Ranbaxy, Inc. | D. Del. | 30 May 2014 | 788 d | Judgment on the Merits |
| 1:14-cv-00200 | Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex Corp. | D. Del. | 14 Feb 2014 | 732 d | Likely Settlement |
| 1:14-cv-00121 | Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. | D. Del. | 31 Jan 2014 | 907 d | Judgment on the Merits |
How strong is US8173708B2?
Closest prior art, compared claim by claim, with every reference rated for how hard it hits.
Run a novelty search- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.
Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.
Report an incorrect record
Tell us what is wrong on this page. The page address is included automatically.
Privacy request
For requests about your personal information on this page. The page address is included automatically.