Litigation Details for In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Docket		Date Filed	2015-09-22
Court	District Court, S.D. New York	Date Terminated	2020-05-27
Cause	15:15 Antitrust Litigation	Assigned To	Colleen McMahon
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	Robert W. Lehrburger
Patents	6,469,012; 8,039,009
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2019-03-05	677		United States Patent No. 5,250,534 United States Patent No. 6,469,012 United States Patent No. 644,077 … “red flags.” >! U.S, Patent No. 5,250,534. *1.S, Patent No. 6,469,012. 29 Case 1:15-cv-07488-CM-RWL…the U.S. patent. See Exhibit C, The number of claims in a patent varies from patent to patent. See id.…to a patent holder by a U.S. patent is defined by the issued claims of the patent — the “patented invention… 03/06/19 Page 9 of 220 PATENTING PROCESS A U.S. patent provides the patent holder with the right to	External link to document
2019-05-03	710	Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion	also allowed Forest time to obtain U.S. Patent No. 8,039,009 for Namenda XR, which did not suffer from…fatal flaws of the ’703 patent, and which expired a decade after the ‘703 patent. In a draft letter…from the patent settlements, the desire to preclude additional challenges to the ‘703 patent (i.e., the…Namenda IR to drop their legal challenges to the ’703 Patent and delay launch of generic versions…date three months after the expiration of the ’703 Patent; and (2) using this improperly obtained	External link to document