Litigation Details for iCeutica Pty Ltd v. Lupin Limited (D. Maryland 2017)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
iCeutica Pty Ltd v. Lupin Limited (D. Maryland 2017)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2017-02-10 |
| Court | District Court, D. Maryland | Date Terminated | 2018-02-01 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard D. Bennett |
| Jury Demand | Plaintiff | Referred To | |
| Parties | LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. | ||
| Patents | 9,526,734; 9,649,318 | ||
| Attorneys | Catherine Gourash | ||
| Firms | Miles & Stockbridge | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in iCeutica Pty Ltd v. Lupin Limited
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Sign Up .
Details for iCeutica Pty Ltd v. Lupin Limited (D. Maryland 2017)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000-00-00 | External link to document | |||
| 2017-02-09 | 1 | infringement of United States Patent No. 9,526,734 (“the ’734 patent”) under the Patent Laws of the United States…interest in the ’734 patent. 29. Iroko is the exclusive licensee to the ’734 patent in the United…listed with the FDA the ’734 patent. The FDA has published the ’734 patent in the Approved Drug Products…mg before patent expiration by Lupin will constitute direct infringement of the ’734 patent. …the ’734 patent. 69. On information and belief, Lupin became aware of the ’734 patent no later | External link to document | |
| 2017-08-02 | 46 | Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,526,734 and 9,649,318 and Dismissing Remaining…2017 1 February 2018 1:17-cv-00394 830 Patent Plaintiff District Court, D. Maryland | External link to document | |
| 2017-08-23 | 51 | Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,526,734 and 9,649,318 and Dismissing Remaining Counts…2017 1 February 2018 1:17-cv-00394 830 Patent Plaintiff District Court, D. Maryland | External link to document | |
| 2018-01-31 | 96 | United States Patent Nos. 9,526,734 (“the ‘734 patent”) and 9,649,318 (“the 318 patent”)(collectively…independent claims of the ‘734 patent and in three independent claims of the ‘318 patent. A representative claim… “It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the…The applicable claims of the Patents-in-Suit limit the scope of the patent to an accused dose by reference…fasted state” or “fed state.”9 ‘734 Patent 25:38. 8 See ‘734 patent at 2:17-24, 2:53-58, 2:53-3:12, | External link to document | |
| 2018-01-31 | 97 | United States Patent Nos. 9,526,734 (“the ‘734 patent”) and 9,649,318 (“the ‘318 patent”)(collectively…Pharmaceuticals, LLC’s claims of patent infringement of United States Patent Nos. 9,526,734 and 9,649,318. The Court…equivalents for the ‘734 patent. b. ‘318 Patent The ‘318 patent claims were amended…least one claim in each patent. The Patents-in-Suit are owned by the Co-Plaintiff iCeutica Pty …expiration of the ‘734 and ‘318 patents.3 The letter asserted that the Patents-in- Suit are invalid and/ | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
