Litigation Details for Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (D. Del. 2015)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (D. Del. 2015)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2015-02-11 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2017-06-09 |
| Cause | 35:0145 | Assigned To | Leonard Philip Stark |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | |
| Parties | MITSUBISHI TANABE PHARMA CORPORATION | ||
| Patents | 6,004,565; 8,324,283 | ||
| Attorneys | Yixin H. Tang | ||
| Firms | Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Sign Up .
Details for Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (D. Del. 2015)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000-00-00 | External link to document | |||
| 2016-09-22 | 187 | date of unasserted U.S. Patent No. 6,004,565 ("the ' 565 patent"). The Court heard oral…of the patent term extension ("PTE") of the '229 patent. The ' 229 patent discloses…565 patent, extension of the ' 229 patent beyond the expiration date of the '565 patent violates…double patenting analysis requires construction of claims in earlier patent and later patent, followed…alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,604,229 ("the ' 229 patent") based on Ezra' | External link to document | |
| 2016-01-24 | 70 | expiration date of United States Patent No. 6,004,565 (“the ’565 patent”). … of the Patent Term Extension (“PTE”) of United States Patent No. 5,604,229 (“the ’229 patent”) past … 2015 9 June 2017 1:15-cv-00150 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware | External link to document | |
| 2016-01-24 | 71 | expiration date of United States Patent No. 6,004,565 (“the ’565 patent”). 2. As outlined… C. The Patent Term Extension of the ’229 Patent Is Invalid For Double Patenting ........… of the Patent Term Extension (“PTE”) of United States Patent No. 5,604,229 (“the ’229 patent”) past …after the ’565 method patent. (Ex. B) Notably, the ’229 patent and the ’565 patent are not related through…of the ’565 method patent. C. The Patent Term Extension of the ’229 Patent Is Invalid For Double | External link to document | |
| 2016-02-28 | 96 | covers Gilenya®, U.S. Patent No. 6,004,565. Section 156, however, plainly allows patent- holders to choose…chose the ’229 patent. The Patent Office and FDA approved the extension of the ’229 patent term. Ezra makes…argument that double patenting prohibits a patent-holder from choosing a patent that would otherwise …other, related patents. II. The ’229 Patent and File History The ’229 patent arose from an…The ’565 Patent and File History The patent application giving rise to the ’565 patent was filed | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
