Litigation Details for Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (D. Del. 2015)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (D. Del. 2015)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2015-10-09 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2018-07-13 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard Gibson Andrews |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | |
| Parties | BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL INC. | ||
| Patents | 7,157,456; 7,585,860; 7,592,339 | ||
| Attorneys | Derek James Fahnestock | ||
| Firms | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (D. Del. 2015)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-10-09 | 1 | or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,157,456 (“the ’456 patent”), 7,585,860 (“the ’860 patent”), and 7,592,339… The ’456 Patent 84. United States Patent No. 7,157,456 (“the ’456 patent”), entitled… The ’860 Patent 90. United States Patent No. 7,585,860 (“the ’860 patent”), entitled… The ’339 Patent 96. United States Patent No. 7,592,339 (“the ’339 patent”), entitled… 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, Title | External link to document | |
| 2017-02-02 | 161 | -6, 10, 14, 16, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456 (“the ’456 patent”), provided that the claim at issue…each of claims 8, 17, 18, 19, and 28 of the ’456 patent, provided that the claim at issue is not proven…infringes each of claims 7, 11, 20, and 21 of the ’456 patent, provided that the claim at issue is not proven…ingredient contained therein, infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,585,860, provided that the claim at issue…2015 13 July 2018 1:15-cv-00902 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware | External link to document | |
| 2017-03-02 | 175 | of a single term in U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456 ("the '456 patent"). The Court has considered…claim construction for a single term in U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3…infringe a number of Plaintiffs' patents. (D.I. 1). The patents-in-suit claim compounds for use in…quot;It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which …construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent specification | External link to document | |
| 2017-04-24 | 219 | § 271(e)(2) of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,157,456; 7,858,860; and 7,592,339 (the “patents-in-suit”); …Breckenridge as well with respect to the same patent or patents. 7. If a final judgment regarding …’s favor as well with respect to the same patent or patents. 8. Breckenridge and Plaintiffs retain…bound by the final judgment as it pertains to the patents-in-suit in the Action; and NOW THEREFORE…Action infringes any of the claims of the patents-in-suit, Breckenridge will be held to infringe | External link to document | |
| 2017-05-04 | 230 | -6, 10, 14, 16, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456 (“the ’456 patent”), provided that the claim at issue… infringement of the ’456 patent, the ’860 patent, and/or the ’339 patent. In addition, Plaintiffs will…and every claim of the ’456 patent, the ’860 patent, and the ’339 patent to which infringement is not… of any claim of the ’456 patent, the ’860 patent, and/or the ’339 patent. The parties…therein, infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,585,860 (“the ’860 patent”), provided that the claim at | External link to document | |
| 2017-05-05 | 233 | infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,157,456; 7,585,860; and 7,592,339 (“the patents-in-suit”) under 35 …as well with respect to the same patent or patents. 7. If a final judgment regarding validity…’s favor as well with respect to the same patent or patents. 8. InvaGen and Plaintiffs retain the…bound by the final judgment as it pertains to the patents-in-suit in the Action; and Case 1:15-cv-00902-RGA…Action infringes any of the claims of the patents-in-suit, InvaGen will be held to infringe those | External link to document | |
| 2018-07-13 | 317 | Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law | infringement of claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,157,456 (the “’456 patent”), which claims the compound rivaroxaban… ’456 patent and U.S. patent Nos. 7,585,860 (the “’860 patent”) and 7,592,339 (the “’339 patent”) were…of the ’456, ’860, and ’339 patents, including claim 16 of the ’456 patent. (Doc. Nos. 232, 236.) Plaintiffs…¶ 10.) B. The patent-in suit 7. The ’456 patent is entitled “Substituted Oxazolidinones…and is a named inventor on thirty (30) U.S. Patents and Patent Applications. (Defs. FF. ¶ 12 (citing 3/ | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
