Litigation Details for Picone v. Shire U.S. Inc. (Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Class Action) (D. Mass. 2016)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Picone v. Shire U.S. Inc. (Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Class Action) (D. Mass. 2016)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2016-11-22 |
| Court | District Court, D. Massachusetts | Date Terminated | |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage | Assigned To | Allison Dale Burroughs |
| Jury Demand | Plaintiff | Referred To | |
| Patents | 6,287,599; 6,811,794 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Picone v. Shire U.S. Inc. (Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Class Action)
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Sign Up .
Details for Picone v. Shire U.S. Inc. (Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Class Action) (D. Mass. 2016)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-10-09 | 343 | Memorandum & Order | “the ’290 Patent”), 4 6,287,599 (“the ’599 Patent”), 5 and 6,811,794 (“the ’794 Patent” and, collectively…collectively with the ’290 Patent and the ’599 Patent, “the Patents”). 6 [FWK 380-1 ¶ 26; FWK 374-1 ¶ 3]. …hearing on the Patents on February 14, 2012. [FWK No. 380-1 ¶ 37]. The ’599 Patent and ’794 Patent each reference…Shire listed three patents in the FDA Orange Book as covering Intuniv: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,854,290 (“the…’290 Patent in March 2012. [FWK 380-1 ¶ 27; FWK 374-1 ¶ 19]. Plaintiffs maintain that the patent was abandoned | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
