Litigation Details for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG (N.D.N.Y. 2021)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG (N.D.N.Y. 2021)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2021-09-29 |
| Court | District Court, N.D. New York | Date Terminated | 2022-01-31 |
| Cause | 15:1 Antitrust Litigation | Assigned To | David N. Hurd |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | Christian F. Hummel |
| Patents | 9,220,631 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Details for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG (N.D.N.Y. 2021)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000-00-00 | External link to document | |||
| 2020-07-17 | 1 | succeeded in obtaining a patent—U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631 (the “’631 Patent”)—broadly claiming a PFS …of the ’631 Patent) showing that the claimed PFS in Novartis’s patent was not patentable. Separately,…the patentability of claims of the ’631 Patent. As detailed below, the claims of the ’631 Patent would…material to the patentability of the claims of the ’631 Patent because the ’631 Patent would not have …PFS, Novartis could secure its patent only by ensuring that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO | External link to document | |
| 2021-09-29 | 143 | Process fraud in procuring U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631 (the “’631 patent”) by purposefully omitting material…in the potential related patent action (Case No. 1:20-cv-690-TJM) (the “Patent Case”) before this Court… the ’631 patent by deliberately omitting required Vetter inventor(s) from its patent application… As previously reported to Your Honor in the Patent Case, Regeneron filed an antitrust action against… material prior art from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and then knowingly enforcing | External link to document | |
| 2021-01-25 | 87 | succeeded in obtaining a patent—U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631 (the “’631 Patent”)—broadly claiming a PFS …of the ’631 Patent) showing that the claimed PFS in Novartis’s patent was not patentable. And unbeknownst…the patentability of claims of the ’631 Patent. As detailed below, the claims of the ’631 Patent would…material to the patentability of the claims of the ’631 Patent because the ’631 Patent would not have …of the ’631 Patent, which is itself unlawful under the patent laws and renders the patent invalid. | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
