Litigation Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V. (D.N.J. 2017)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V. (D.N.J. 2017)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2017-10-24 |
| Court | District Court, D. New Jersey | Date Terminated | 2020-11-01 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Stanley R. Chesler |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | Cathy L. Waldor |
| Parties | MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. | ||
| Patents | 6,235,004; 7,476,652; 7,713,930; 7,918,833; 8,512,297; 8,556,864; 8,603,044; 8,679,069; 8,992,486; 9,011,391; 9,233,211; 9,408,979; 9,526,844; 9,533,105; 9,561,331; 9,604,008; 9,604,009; 9,610,409; 9,623,189 | ||
| Attorneys | CHRISTINE INTROMASSO GANNON | ||
| Firms | Saiber, LLC | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V.
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Sign Up .
Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N.V. (D.N.J. 2017)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-10-24 | 1 | United States Patent Nos. 7,476,652 (“the ’652 patent”), 7,713,930 (“the ’930 patent”), 7,918,833 (“… Review as to Patent No. 7,476,652 filed on June 5, 2017 with the United States Patent and Trademark… (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 101. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege…Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 173. Plaintiffs repeat and …Sheet, # 4 AO120 Patent Form (I of IV), # 5 AO120 Patent Form (II of IV), # 6 AO120 Patent Form (III of IV | External link to document | |
| 2019-05-09 | 319 | Plaintiffs own U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (the “formulation patents”) and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,044…intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history…the ʼ008 patent has no parent application in common with the device patents in the U.S. patent system.…between the ʼ008 patent and the four device patents rests on the fact that all five patents assert a priority…this patent infringement action, the parties seek construction of claim terms in six U.S. Patents. For | External link to document | |
| 2019-10-02 | 440 | invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (together, the “formulation patents.”) In short, …invalidity due to obviousness as to the formulation patents. There is no dispute that, previously, Defendants…filed petitions for Inter Partes Review of these patents and that, in December of 2018, the PTAB issued…Decisions which found that both formulation patents were invalid due to obviousness. Appeals of the…proof. Sanofi points out that the presumption of patent validity did not apply before the PTAB, and that | External link to document | |
| 2019-11-08 | 489 | U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 Part I 1001A Part II File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 Part II…U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 Part III 1001A Part IV File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 Part … U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 Part V 1001A Part VI File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 Part VI…of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 (the “’652 patent”), filed on June 5, 2017 before the Patent Trial and… Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,476,652 and U.S. Patent No. 7,713,930 1003A | External link to document | |
| 2020-01-15 | 549 | Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law | formulation patents in this litigation, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 (“the ’652 patent”) and 7,713,… blocking patents claim priority back to 1988, with the ’722 patent and the ’376 patent issuing in… when the ’844 patent itself—and the hundreds of patents cited on the ’844 patent—do not disclose…expiration of the ’844 patent. 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(4)(A). Only patents practiced by the patent owner may be …, 22, 25, and 30 of the U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 (“the ’844 patent”). As described more fully below | External link to document |
| 2020-02-23 | 573 | Letter | analysis of U.S. Patent No. 8,556,864 (“’864 patent”)—which is analogous to the ’844 patent at issue here—and… listing of a device patent in the Orange Book for Lantus SoloSTAR—which patent was originally asserted…is applicable to the ’844 patent, Sanofi’s contention that the ’844 patent “is properly listed in the…insulin glargine market by improperly listing patents in the Orange Book to “extend[] its monopoly” by…First Circuit concluded that because the ’864 patent does not “claim the drug,” let alone even “mention | External link to document |
| 2020-03-09 | 582 | Opinion | ) b. U.S. Patent No. 6,235,004 (“Steenfeldt-Jensen”) c. U.S. Patent No. 5,674,204 (“Chanoch… of patents, including the patent at issue in this trial, the ’844 patent. As to the ’844 patent, the…, “Mylan.”) Plaintiffs own U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 (“the ’844 patent”), which is listed in the Orange…, 25, and 30 of the ’844 patent. Mylan contends that the asserted patent claims are invalid, pursuant…and 35 U.S.C. § 103. A bench trial on patent infringement and patent validity was held for 5 days, beginning | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
