Litigation Details for Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) (D. Del. 2020)

Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) (D. Del. 2020)

Docket	1:99-mc-09999	Date Filed	2024-01-01
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	99:9999 (Miscellaneous Case - Cause Not Known)	Assigned To
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Parties	DEFENDANT(S); PLAINTIFF(S)
Patents	10,004,717; 10,010,507; 10,010,533; 10,039,745; 10,052,267; 10,052,385; 10,058,564; 10,106,548; 10,124,000; 10,125,140; 10,143,792; 10,154,987; 10,188,632; 10,206,939; 10,258,637; 10,307,419; 10,376,487; 10,407,434; 10,426,780; 10,478,453; 10,543,192; 10,548,875; 10,583,155; 10,610,510; 10,610,511; 10,617,698; 10,660,908; 10,682,364; 10,688,108; 10,716,799; 10,772,868; 11,040,006; 11,083,724; 11,091,439; 11,091,440; 11,098,015; 11,103,483; 11,298,349; 11,707,450; 12,128,039; 12,138,248; 6,024,981; 6,126,971; 6,200,604; 6,328,994; 6,403,120; 6,419,958; 6,500,814; 6,509,376; 6,696,481; 6,794,410; 6,956,041; 6,965,027; 6,967,208; 7,091,208; 7,105,486; 7,223,735; 7,229,636; 7,265,221; 7,301,023; 7,314,938; 7,320,999; 7,404,489; 7,442,830; 7,514,444; 7,619,001; 7,638,552; 7,655,630; 7,659,253; 7,659,254; 7,662,787; 7,662,788; 7,671,030; 7,671,031; 7,674,774; 7,678,770; 7,678,771; 7,687,466; 7,687,467; 7,691,411; 7,700,561; 7,713,936; 7,713,938; 7,718,619; 7,723,305; 7,723,390; 7,741,356; 7,745,460; 7,790,743; 7,816,396; 7,842,699; 7,846,961; 7,879,349; 7,888,362; 7,928,122; 8,003,353; 8,008,309; 8,039,009; 8,084,047; 8,084,475; 8,101,659; 8,133,893; 8,147,866; 8,158,616; 8,168,655; 8,314,117; 8,338,489; 8,344,006; 8,349,840; 8,367,701; 8,399,514; 8,420,629; 8,476,284; 8,497,277; 8,551,957; 8,592,450; 8,603,506; 8,609,707; 8,618,109; 8,618,160; 8,697,711; 8,735,403; 8,754,090; 8,754,091; 8,759,372; 8,791,270; 8,796,331; 8,859,504; 8,859,610; 8,877,776; 8,877,938; 8,927,574; 8,940,714; 8,952,015; 8,957,079; 8,987,262; 9,000,021; 9,034,908; 9,073,933; 9,085,553; 9,089,587; 9,144,568; 9,161,926; 9,175,017; 9,181,257; 9,186,346; 9,216,174; 9,233,117; 9,233,118; 9,241,946; 9,242,986; 9,259,414; 9,265,831; 9,296,753; 9,326,945; 9,353,088; 9,388,134; 9,415,007; 9,447,077; 9,517,219; 9,522,919; 9,527,833; 9,572,796; 9,572,797; 9,572,887; 9,579,384; 9,597,397; 9,597,398; 9,597,399; 9,655,843; 9,655,857; 9,669,008; 9,675,587; 9,725,455; 9,744,105; 9,763,933; 9,775,808; 9,808,442; 9,839,637; 9,889,144; 9,890,141; 9,901,539; 9,937,181; 9,957,232; RE36,247; RE41,783; RE46,284; RE48,059
Attorneys	Plaintiff(s)
Firms	Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) (D. Del. 2020)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2020-01-01				External link to document
2019-12-31	1071	Complaint	,839,637 (“the ’637 patent”) and 10,307,419 (“the ’419 patent”). {01611126;v1 } …the ’362 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,349,840 (“the ’840 patent”), 8,618,109 (“the ’109 patent”), 9,839,637…civil action for patent infringement of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,059 (“the RE’059 patent”), arising under…’362 patent as the RE’059 patent on June 23, 2020. A true and correct copy of the RE’059 patent is attached… The Patent In Suit 18. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (	External link to document
2019-12-31	1072	Complaint	9,839,637 (“the ’637 patent”) and 10,307,419 (“the ’419 patent”). 33. In response to Lupin…the ’362 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,349,840 (“the ’840 patent”), 8,618,109 (“the ’109 patent”), 9,839,637…civil action for patent infringement of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,059 (“the RE’059 patent”), arising under…’362 patent as the RE’059 patent on June 23, 2020. A true and correct copy of the RE’059 patent is attached… The Patent In Suit 25. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (	External link to document

1:99-mc-09999 Litigation Summary and Analysis (Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s))

Last updated: June 15, 2026

What is the litigation posture for 1:99-mc-09999, and who are the parties?

No case-party mapping is provided for docket 1:99-mc-09999. The docket number alone does not identify the plaintiff(s), defendant(s), or the asserted subject matter in a way that supports a complete, accurate litigation summary.

What court and case type does “1:99-mc-09999” indicate?

• “mc” in the docket number indicates a multi-case (miscellaneous) proceeding in federal court, but the specific district, initiating motion, and case caption are not present.
• Without the caption, it is not possible to determine whether the matter is related to:
  • patent cases,
  • MDL or consolidation,
  • discovery disputes,
  • fee or sanction motions,
  • Rule 16/Rule 26 procedural orders,
  • or other administrative/ancillary litigation.

What “Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s)” means for this docket number?

• The docket-style placeholder (“Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) | 1:99-mc-09999”) does not provide the operative parties.
• A litigation analysis requires the caption, assigned judge, and the filed claims/motions, which are not included in the input.

When did 1:99-mc-09999 become active, and what procedural milestones occurred?

No activity timeline can be stated from the docket identifier alone.

What key dates are typically assessed in a litigation timeline?

• filing date of the miscellaneous case
• consolidation/transfer date (if any)
• motion to dismiss or transfer outcomes (if any)
• claim-construction or scheduling orders (if any)
• any settlement-related events
• dispositive orders and appeal status

What is required to analyze “strength” from procedural history?

• court rulings and order summaries
• what motions were granted/denied and why
• whether any patents or regulatory pathways were implicated
• whether the case includes parallel actions (district court vs. Federal Circuit)

None of these inputs exist for 1:99-mc-09999 in the provided prompt.

What claims or patent issues are litigated in 1:99-mc-09999?

The asserted legal issues are not specified. Patent litigation analysis depends on:

• patent numbers and claims at issue
• asserted causes of action (infringement, declaratory judgment, Hatch-Waxman, etc.)
• venue and jurisdictional basis
• relief sought (injunction, damages, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees)

What does a patent estate analysis require?

• identification of asserted patents and their expiration dates
• prosecution history context
• claim chart themes (novelty, anticipation/obviousness, infringement scope)
• any IPR/PGR outcomes

No patent identifiers are present.

Which parties control the litigation strategy in 1:99-mc-09999?

Party identities are missing. A professional litigation strategy analysis requires:

• plaintiffs and counsel
• defendants and counsel
• the controlling corporate entities (parent vs. subsidiary)
• any assignees or real parties in interest
• whether multiple defendants are involved and how liability is allocated

How do rulings in 1:99-mc-09999 affect settlement risk and licensing leverage?

Rulings are not provided, so:

• settlement posture cannot be inferred
• litigation leverage cannot be quantified
• expected costs, schedule pressure, and injunction likelihood cannot be assessed

What is the investment or commercial exposure tied to 1:99-mc-09999?

No product, regulatory reference, or revenue exposure is specified. Commercial exposure in patent litigation usually links to:

• an FDA product label or ANDA/BLA/NDA
• listing in the Orange Book (if Hatch-Waxman)
• market entry timelines and 180-day exclusivity
• biosimilar/biologic exclusivity (if applicable)

No such links are present.

Key Takeaways

• No accurate litigation summary or analysis can be produced from docket identifier “1:99-mc-09999” without the case caption, parties, court, and order history.
• The required inputs for a plaintiff/defendant litigation analysis are not present in the prompt.

FAQs

1. What does “1:99-mc-09999” mean procedurally?
2. How can I identify the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) from a miscellaneous docket number?
3. What information is needed to summarize patent issues in a specific docket?
4. How is settlement leverage typically evaluated from a case docket?
5. Where do litigation histories for these docket types usually appear (PACER, court docket sheets, RECAP)?

References

No sources are cited because no case-specific documents or captions were provided.