Litigation Details for Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2015-03-09 |
| Court | District Court, E.D. Texas | Date Terminated | 2016-12-30 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | James Rodney Gilstrap |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | |
| Patents | 7,030,149; 7,320,976; 7,323,463; 7,642,258; 8,133,890; 8,354,409; 8,748,425 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Sign Up .
Details for Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000-00-00 | External link to document | |||
| 2015-03-09 | 1 | Exhibit D - US 8,748,425 | Exhibit A - US 7,030,149, # 2 Exhibit B - US 7,320,976, # 3 Exhibit C - US 7,642,258, # 4 Exhibit D -… 30 December 2016 2:15-cv-00347 830 Patent Both District Court, E.D. Texas | External link to document |
| 2015-04-06 | 14 | .S. Patent Nos. 7,642,258 (“the ’258 patent”), 7,320,976 (“the ’976 patent”), and the ’425 patent. … United States Patent Nos. 7,030,149 (“the ’149 patent”), 7,320,976 (“the ’976 patent”), the 7,642,258…infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,030,149, 7,320,976, 7,323,463, and 7,642,258, and that those patents were not …latest of the expiration dates of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,030,149, 7,320,976, 7,323,463, and 7,642,258. …in ANDA No. 91-087 infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,030,149, 7,320,976, 7,323,463, and 7,642,258. Sandoz | External link to document | |
| 2015-08-13 | 28 | 0.5% timolol: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,030,149 (“the ’149 patent”), 7,320,976 (“the ’976 patent”), the now-invalid…,463 (“the ’463 patent”), 7,642,258 (“the ’258 patent”), 8,133,890 (“the ’890 patent”), 8,354,409 (“the…Brim Tim I patents (the ’149, ’976, and ’258 patents), and the recently issued ’425 patent. The… the ’890 patent and the newly asserted ’425 patent. Claim From ’890 Patent …Allergan’s main patent, upheld the non- invalidity and infringement determination of one patent, and did not | External link to document | |
| 2015-08-31 | 37 | of U.S. Patent No. 7,030,149, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,320,976, claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,323,463… additional patent in this case, the ‘425 patent, which while similar to the ‘890 patent, likely presents…the then Orange Book listed patents for that drug, the ’149 and ’976 patents. Sandoz’s Paragraph IV letter… only that those patents were invalid and did not separately assert that the patents were not infringed… all four patents-in-suit, relying on the stipulation of infringement, and that the patents had not been | External link to document | |
| 2015-09-10 | 38 | motion appeal. Allergan listed U.S. Patent No. 8,748,425 in the Orange Book in July 2014, during … a branded manufacturer’s patents are invalid or not infringed. The patent system is intended to encourage…earlier-filed actions involving the same parties, the same patent family, and the same accused product), Sandoz asks… asks this Court to resolve the parties’ patent dispute as quickly as possible. (See 2:09-cv-97 JRG (…in Brim Tim I, Sandoz designed-around the only patent that the Federal Circuit found not invalid and | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
