Litigation Details for MALLINCKRODT LLC v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.- FLORIDA (D.N.J. 2015)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
MALLINCKRODT LLC v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.- FLORIDA (D.N.J. 2015)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2015-06-05 |
| Court | District Court, D. New Jersey | Date Terminated | |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Katharine Sweeney Hayden |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Wald |
| Patents | 7,976,870; 8,597,681; 8,658,631; 8,668,929; 8,741,885; 8,980,319; 8,992,975; 9,050,335 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in MALLINCKRODT LLC v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.- FLORIDA
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Sign Up .
Biologic Drugs cited in MALLINCKRODT LLC v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.- FLORIDA
The biologic drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Sign Up .
Details for MALLINCKRODT LLC v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.- FLORIDA (D.N.J. 2015)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-06-05 | 1 | “the ’885 patent”); 8,980,319 (“the ’319 patent”); 8,992,975 (“the ’975 patent); 7,976,870 (“the ’870… WATSON’S DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,976,870 UNDER 35 U.S.…WATSON’S INDUCEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,976,870 35 U.S.C. § 271…infringed and will induce infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,976,870; G. A judgment declaring … United States Patent Nos. 8,597,681 (“the ’681 patent”); 8,658,631 (“the ’631 patent”); 8,741,885 (“ | External link to document | |
| 2017-05-09 | 123 | remaining patents-in-suit—patent numbers 8,658,631 (the “’631 Patent”), 8,741,885 (the “’885 Patent”), 8,…the ‘885 Patent and claim 1 of the ‘335 Patent. The specification for the ’885 Patent states…the ‘885 Patent and claim 16 of the ‘335 Patent. The specifications for the ‘885 Patent and ‘335…8,992,975 (the “’975 Patent”), and 9,050,335 (the “’335 Patent”)—and setting forth proposed constructions…construer of patent claims.” Exxon, 265 F.3d at 1376. The Supreme Court has stated that “a patent is invalid | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
