Litigation Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v. (D.N.J. 2017)

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v. (D.N.J. 2017)

Docket		Date Filed	2017-10-24
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Stanley R. Chesler
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Cathy L. Waldor
Patents	6,235,004; 7,476,652; 7,713,930; 7,918,833; 8,512,297; 8,556,864; 8,603,044; 8,679,069; 8,992,486; 9,011,391; 9,233,211; 9,408,979; 9,526,844; 9,533,105; 9,561,331; 9,604,008; 9,604,009; 9,610,409; 9,623,189
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Biologic Drugs cited in SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v.

Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v. (D.N.J. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-10-24	1		United States Patent Nos. 7,476,652 (“the ’652 patent”), 7,713,930 (“the ’930 patent”), 7,918,833 (“… Review as to Patent No. 7,476,652 filed on June 5, 2017 with the United States Patent and Trademark… (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 101. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege…Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 173. Plaintiffs repeat and …Sheet, # 4 AO120 Patent Form (I of IV), # 5 AO120 Patent Form (II of IV), # 6 AO120 Patent Form (III of IV	External link to document
2019-05-09	319		Plaintiffs own U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (the “formulation patents”) and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,044…intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history…the ʼ008 patent has no parent application in common with the device patents in the U.S. patent system.…between the ʼ008 patent and the four device patents rests on the fact that all five patents assert a priority…this patent infringement action, the parties seek construction of claim terms in six U.S. Patents. For	External link to document
2019-10-02	440		invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (together, the “formulation patents.”) In short, …invalidity due to obviousness as to the formulation patents. There is no dispute that, previously, Defendants…filed petitions for Inter Partes Review of these patents and that, in December of 2018, the PTAB issued…Decisions which found that both formulation patents were invalid due to obviousness. Appeals of the…proof. Sanofi points out that the presumption of patent validity did not apply before the PTAB, and that	External link to document
2020-01-15	549	Trial Brief	Number ’844 patent U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 JTX-… U.S. Patent No. 6,248,095 DTX-2283 Klitgaard U.S. Patent No. 6,… Patent Trial and Appeal Board – Steenfeldt-Jensen U.S. Patent No. 6,…device patents. See FOF ¶ 180. After the PTAB invalidated all claims of both formulation patents, and …fifteen of the sixteen device patents, four claims of the ’844 patent are Sanofi’s last hope in this	External link to document
2020-02-24	573	Letter	analysis of U.S. Patent No. 8,556,864 (“’864 patent”)—which is analogous to the ’844 patent at issue here—and… listing of a device patent in the Orange Book for Lantus SoloSTAR—which patent was originally asserted…is applicable to the ’844 patent, Sanofi’s contention that the ’844 patent “is properly listed in the…insulin glargine market by improperly listing patents in the Orange Book to “extend[] its monopoly” by…First Circuit concluded that because the ’864 patent does not “claim the drug,” let alone even “mention	External link to document
2020-03-09	582	Opinion	) b. U.S. Patent No. 6,235,004 (“Steenfeldt-Jensen”) c. U.S. Patent No. 5,674,204 (“Chanoch… of patents, including the patent at issue in this trial, the ’844 patent. As to the ’844 patent, the…, “Mylan.”) Plaintiffs own U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 (“the ’844 patent”), which is listed in the Orange…, 25, and 30 of the ’844 patent. Mylan contends that the asserted patent claims are invalid, pursuant…and 35 U.S.C. § 103. A bench trial on patent infringement and patent validity was held for 5 days, beginning	External link to document