0000-00-00 |
|
|
|
External link to document |
2023-08-30 |
129 |
Redacted Document |
market as a result of Amgen’s patent litigation campaign. Amgen’s patent challenge to Praluent®
was…has a patent that specifically covers Repatha®.
Amgen, 850 F. App’x at 796 (citing U.S. Patent 8,030,457… that Amgen’s patents were invalid, thereby stopping Amgen’s campaign to use the patent laws to
exclude…Regeneron a patent that covers the precise
amino acid sequence of Praluent®. Id.; see U.S. Patent No. 8,…Praluent® infringed two Amgen patents. Critically, the asserted Amgen patents did
not specifically disclose |
External link to document |
2023-10-04 |
156 |
Redacted Document |
U.S. Patent No. 8,030,457 covers Repatha®. Amgen admits
that it brought an action for patent infringement….S. Patent and Trademark office issued U.S. Patent
No. 8,062,640 in 2011, and that U.S. Patent No.… a declaratory judgment of patent
infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,563,698, 8,829,165, … alleging that Praluent® infringed Amgen’s
patents and that it sought an injunction against Regeneron…quote or characterize a brief filed by Amgen in patent litigation in the
District of Delaware. That |
External link to document |
2023-04-04 |
64 |
Answer to Complaint |
U.S. Patent No. 8,030,457 covers Repatha®. Amgen admits
that it brought an action for patent infringement….S. Patent and Trademark office issued U.S. Patent
No. 8,062,640 in 2011, and that U.S. Patent No. …for a declaratory judgment of patent
infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,563,698, 8,829,165, …lawsuit alleging that Praluent® infringed Amgen’s
patents and that it sought an injunction against Regeneron…quote or characterize a brief filed by Amgen in patent litigation in the District of
Delaware. That |
External link to document |
2023-05-19 |
94 |
Exhibit A |
2011 patent. See U. S. Patent No. 8,829,165 (Sept. 9, 2014);
U. S. Patent No. 8,859,741… late back to the company’s 2011 patent. These later-issued patents
purport to claim…under the Patent Act’s
“enablement” requirement. That provision requires a patent applicant… gued that the patents were invalid under §112 of the Patent
Act. That provision…claims 19 and 29 of the ’165 patent and claim
7 of the ’741 patent. See 987 F. 3d 1080, 1082 |
External link to document |