Litigation Details for TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LTD. v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (D.N.J. 2017)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LTD. v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (D.N.J. 2017)
| Docket | ⤷ Sign Up | Date Filed | 2017-05-05 |
| Court | District Court, D. New Jersey | Date Terminated | 2020-02-13 |
| Cause | 35:145 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Stanley R. Chesler |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | Cathy L. Waldor |
| Parties | TORRENT PHARMA INC.; TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. | ||
| Patents | 6,699,871; 7,304,086; 7,807,689; 8,173,663; 8,288,539; 8,900,638 | ||
| Attorneys | DAVID LEIGH MOSES; JAMES S. YU | ||
| Firms | Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP; Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LTD. v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
Biologic Drugs cited in TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LTD. v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
The biologic drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Sign Up .
Details for TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LTD. v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (D.N.J. 2017)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000-00-00 | External link to document | |||
| 2017-05-05 | 1 | expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,807,689 (“the ’689 patent”), 8,173,663 (“the ’663 patent”), 8,288,539 (…regulations, the ’689 patent, the ’663 patent, the ’539 patent, and the ’638 patent are listed in the Orange… (“the ’539 patent”), and 8,900,638 (“the ’638 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in- suit”). …attendant FDA regulations, the ’689 patent, the ’663 patent, and the ’539 patent are listed in the FDA publication…attendant FDA regulations, the ’689 patent, the ’663 patent, and the ’539 patent are listed in the Orange Book | External link to document | |
| 2020-02-04 | 126 | Opinion | double patenting. 17. Claims 4 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,807,689 are valid patent claims.…Torrent.”) Plaintiffs own U.S. Patent No. 7,807,689 (“the ’689 patent”), which is listed in the Orange…second patent for claims that are not patentably distinct from the claims of the first patent. It …claims in a second patent not patentably distinct from the claims of the first patent. The obviousness-type… claims 4 and 12 of the ’689 patent. A bench trial on Defendants’ patent invalidity defenses to infringement | External link to document |
| 2021-02-16 | 136 | Opinion - USCA | challenges to claims 4 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,807,689, owned by Takeda. 1 See Takeda Pharm… or non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. In their appeal, Appellants challenge… Torrent presents two obviousness-type double patent- ing theories using Feng’s 2 F162 …not 2 Feng refers to U.S. Patent No. 7,723,344. 3 Böhm refers…J.A. 33496–715 (“Mark 2004,” another patent reference pertaining to xan- thine-based | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
