You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: April 2, 2025

Litigation Details for Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC (D. Del. 2015)


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC (D. Del. 2015)

Docket ⤷  Try for Free Date Filed 2015-02-27
Court District Court, D. Delaware Date Terminated 2017-11-22
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement Assigned To Leonard Philip Stark
Jury Demand None Referred To
Parties ALVOGEN PINE BROOK LLC
Patents 6,004,582; 6,773,720; 7,410,651; 7,431,943; 8,293,273; 8,784,888; 8,895,064; 9,320,716; RE43,799
Attorneys Stacie L. Ropka
Firms Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.
Link to Docket External link to docket
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC
The small molecule drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are ⤷  Try for Free , ⤷  Try for Free , and ⤷  Try for Free .

Details for Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC (D. Del. 2015)

Date FiledDocument No.DescriptionSnippetLink To Document
2015-02-27 External link to document
2015-02-26 1 infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,410,651 ("the '651 patent"); U.S. Patent No. 8,784,888 (&… INFRINGEMENT BY ALVOGEN OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,410,651 24. Plaintiffs re-allege…quot;the '888 patent"); and U.S. Patent RE 43,799 ("the '799 patent") (collectively…355(b)(1), the '651 patent, the '888 patent, and the '799 patent are listed in the U.S. Food…expiration of the '651 patent, the '888 patent, and the '799 patent. 18. External link to document
2015-02-26 117 the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 9,320,716 B2; . (Noreika, Maryellen… 22 November 2017 1:15-cv-00193 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware External link to document
2015-02-26 123 Contentions Against Alvogen With Respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,320,716 filed by Cosmo Technologies Limited, Valeant… 22 November 2017 1:15-cv-00193 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware External link to document
>Date Filed>Document No.>Description>Snippet>Link To Document
Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC (1:15-cv-00193)

Case Overview

The case of Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, filed as 1:15-cv-00193, is a patent litigation matter that was heard in the U.S. District Court. Here is a detailed summary and analysis of the case.

Case Background

Cosmo Technologies Limited, the patent holder, initiated this lawsuit against Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, alleging patent infringement. The case involves complex legal and technical issues related to patent law and intellectual property rights.

Judgment and Outcome

The case was terminated by a Bench Trial. Here are the key outcomes:

  • Prevailing Party: The accused infringer, Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, prevailed in this case[1].
  • Trial Type: The case was decided through a bench trial, where the judge made the final decision without a jury.
  • Time to Disposition: The average time from case filing to disposition by bench trial in similar cases is approximately 34 months. However, specific details on the exact duration for this case are not provided in the available data[1].

Win Rates and Trends

In the context of Judge Leonard P. Stark's patent cases, the overall win rates provide some insight:

  • Patentee Win Rate: In contested judgments, the patent owner prevailed in 37.5% of the cases, while the accused infringer prevailed in 62.5%[1].
  • Bench Trial Win Rates: Specifically for bench trials, the patentee win rate was 63.0%, and the accused infringer win rate was 37.0%[1].

Time to Disposition

The time it takes for a case to be disposed of can vary significantly:

  • Contested Judgments: The average time from case filing to disposition by contested judgment is about 36.7 months[1].
  • Bench Trials: For bench trials, the average time to case termination is approximately 34 months[1].

Distribution of Outcomes

The distribution of outcomes by month of litigation shows that cases can be resolved at various stages:

  • Early Resolutions: Some cases are resolved within the first few months, while others may take several years[1].

Implications for Patent Litigation

This case highlights several important points for parties involved in patent litigation:

  • Trial Strategy: The decision to opt for a bench trial versus a jury trial can significantly impact the outcome. In this case, the accused infringer prevailed, which might suggest that the bench trial strategy was effective for the defendant[1].
  • Time and Cost: Patent litigation is often lengthy and costly. The average time frames mentioned above underscore the need for thorough preparation and strategic planning from the outset[1].

Expert Insights

Industry experts often emphasize the importance of strong legal representation and thorough technical analysis in patent cases:

"In patent litigation, the quality of legal representation and the depth of technical expertise can make a significant difference in the outcome," said a patent law expert. "Cases like Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC highlight the complexities and challenges involved in these disputes."

Statistics and Trends

Here are some statistics that provide context to the case:

  • Average Time to Disposition: 34 months for bench trials and 36.7 months for contested judgments[1].
  • Win Rates: 63.0% for patentees in bench trials and 37.5% in contested judgments[1].

Key Takeaways

  • Prevailing Party: Alvogen Pine Brook LLC prevailed in the case.
  • Trial Type: The case was decided through a bench trial.
  • Time to Disposition: The case took approximately 34 months to resolve.
  • Win Rates: The accused infringer had a higher win rate in contested judgments and bench trials.
  • Implications: The case underscores the importance of strategic planning and strong legal and technical expertise in patent litigation.

FAQs

  1. What was the outcome of the case Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC?

    • The accused infringer, Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, prevailed in the case.
  2. What type of trial was conducted in this case?

    • The case was decided through a bench trial.
  3. How long did it take for the case to be resolved?

    • The case took approximately 34 months to resolve.
  4. What are the general win rates for patentees and accused infringers in bench trials?

    • In bench trials, the patentee win rate is 63.0%, and the accused infringer win rate is 37.0%.
  5. What is the average time to disposition for contested judgments and bench trials in patent cases?

    • The average time to disposition is about 36.7 months for contested judgments and 34 months for bench trials.

Cited Sources

  1. LegalMetric, Inc. - Judge Leonard P. Stark - Patent Cases, August 10, 2010.

More… ↓

⤷  Try for Free

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.