Litigation Details for Antares Pharma Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Antares Pharma Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2014-07-21 |
| Court | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | Date Terminated | 2014-11-17 |
| Cause | Assigned To | ||
| Jury Demand | Referred To | ||
| Patents | 6,746,429; 7,449,012; 7,776,015; 7,794,432; 8,048,035; 8,480,631; RE44,846 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Details for Antares Pharma Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000-00-00 | External link to document | |||
| 2014-07-25 | 20 | IJ3, filed on Feb. 9, 2001, now PaL No. 6,746,429, which is a continuation of appli- …Furthermore, as auto-injectors operate like Pat. No. 6,746,429, which is a continuation of International …Antares patents, though this appeal focuses on one—RE 44,846 (“the ‘846 patent”). 1 The ‘846 patent “is …the two patents support two patentably distinct inventions. During prosecution of the ‘015 patent, the …015 patent. But that is not what happened. During the prosecution of the ‘846 patent, the Patent Office | External link to document | |
| 2014-12-16 | 63 | . It is the assign- ee of U.S. Patent No. 7,776,015 (“the ’015 patent”), which issued on August 17, …requirement of the 1870 Patent Act, the Court explained that reissued patents could routinely include…which was disclosed in an original patent: “To hold that a patent can never be reissued for an enlarged…Indeed, the original patent requirement has always been that claims in a reissue patent must find support…was whether the reissue patent was for the same invention as the original patent.” Id. at 1323. Hounsfield | External link to document | |
| 2015-02-04 | 67 | 251 ‘015 patent U.S. Patent No. 7,776,015 ‘846 patent or U.S. Patent No. RE44,846… The original patent at issue here is the ‘015 patent. The original ‘015 patent describes the “invention…that the ‘846 reissue patent is invalid because it violates the original patent requirement of 35 U.S.C…concluding that ‘846 reissue patent is invalid for violating the original patent requirement, the Panel focused…explained that the original patent requirement is met only if “the original patent specification fully describes | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
