Litigation Details for In re HIV Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2019)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
In re HIV Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2019)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2019-05-14 |
| Court | District Court, N.D. California | Date Terminated | |
| Cause | 15:1 Antitrust Litigation | Assigned To | Edward Milton Chen |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | Laurel D. Beeler |
| Parties | CIPLA USA, INC. | ||
| Patents | 6,043,230; 6,639,071; 6,642,245; 6,703,396; 6,939,964; 7,390,791; 7,803,788; 8,592,397; 8,598,185; 8,754,065; 8,841,310; 9,018,192; 9,296,769; 9,545,414 | ||
| Attorneys | Amy Pauli | ||
| Firms | Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in In re HIV Antitrust Litigation
Biologic Drugs cited in In re HIV Antitrust Litigation
The biologic drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Sign Up .
Details for In re HIV Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2019)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000-00-00 | External link to document | |||
| 2019-05-14 | 1 | Complaint | 5,935,946; 5,977,089; and 6,043,230 (the “TDF Patents”). Teva asserted that the TDF patents 27 were invalid,…listed patent(s) and/or the patent is invalid and 10 unenforceable. Simply by listing the patents in the…ANDA applicant for patent 15 infringement. If the brand manufacturer brings a patent infringement action…legitimate patent protection or ferret out invalid, unenforceable, or 16 narrow drug patents. 17 18 …even after the 15 patents on them expired. 16 91. Gilead’s patents on TDF, FTC, and TDF | External link to document |
| 2022-05-11 | 1051 | Amended Complaint | accusing it of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,639,071 (the “’071 patent”) and 8 … 1 Three of the patents — U.S. Patents Nos. 5,922,695 (“the ’695 patent”), 5,977,089 (“the ’089… 2 patent”), and 6,043,230 (“the ’230 patent”) — all derived from the same patent application…relevant patent or patents expired, or would have challenged 2 those patents and entered…or, for any later-issued patent, within thirty days of issuance of the patent. 21 U.S.C. | External link to document |
| 2022-05-11 | 1052 | Amended Complaint | infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,639,071 (the “’071 patent”) and 25 6,939,964 (the “’964 patent”). BMS was … the patents — U.S. Patents Nos. 5,922,695 (“the ’695 patent”), 5,977,089 (“the ’089 19 patent”), and…include U.S. Patent Nos. 6,642,245 (“the ’245 patent”) and 6,703,396 (“the ’396 5 patent”). The FTC …Emory’s patents (the ’639, ’245, and ’396 patents), along with 21 Emory’s related U.S. Patent No. 5,210,085…this patent information within thirty days of NDA 17 approval, or, for any later-issued patent, within | External link to document |
| 2022-05-12 | 1055 | Amended Complaint | accusing it of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,639,071 (the “’071 patent”) and 8 … 22 Three of the patents — U.S. Patents Nos. 5,922,695 (“the ’695 patent”), 5,977,089 (“the ’089… 23 patent”), and 6,043,230 (“the ’230 patent”) — all derived from the same patent application…relevant patent or patents expired, or would have challenged 2 those patents and entered…or, for any later-issued patent, within thirty days of issuance of the patent. 21 U.S.C. | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
