Get our Free Drug Patent Expiration Updates

Serving hundreds of leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Argus Health
Harvard Business School
Queensland Health
Daiichi Sankyo
Deloitte
McKinsey
Chubb
Colorcon
Teva

Generated: December 15, 2018

DrugPatentWatch Database Preview

Litigation Details for DAIICHI PHARMACEUTIC v. APOTEX INC. (D.N.J. )

« Back to Dashboard

Small Molecule Drugs cited in DAIICHI PHARMACEUTIC v. APOTEX INC.

Details for DAIICHI PHARMACEUTIC v. APOTEX INC. (D.N.J. )

Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document
2005-11-01 124 prosecution of Daiichi’s U.S. Patent No. 5,401,741 (“the ‘741 patent”). Apotex’s arguments…the field of patent law. Mr. Killworth has over 35 years’ experience in patent law as a… Customs and Patent Appeals, and as a registered patent attorney. Kidd Decl., Exhibit A. …Mr. Killworth has limited experience at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and that he is … a patent examiner, law clerk and technical advisor to Judge Almond of the United States Court of Customs External link to document
2005-11-01 128 during the prosecution of its U.S. Patent No. 5,401,741 (“the ‘741 patent”), entitled a “Topical Preparation…that an erroneous publication date for another patent provided in Daiichi’s Information Disclosure … The IDS disclosed the existence of a German patent identified as DE 3,632,222 (“Grohe ‘222”) and… qualified to testify as an expert in Patent and Trademark Office practice and procedure …it prior to submitting it to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Based on Mr External link to document
2005-11-01 130 alleging patent infringement of all seven claims of Daiichi’s U.S. Patent No. 5,401,741 (“the ‘741… to a patent unless... (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented....” …failing to name the proper inventors of Daiichi’s patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). For…‘741 patent”), entitled a “Topical Preparation for Treating Otopathy.” Daiichi now argues that… defense that it is not entitled to the ‘741 patent for failure to name the proper inventors pursuant External link to document
2006-07-21 181 alleging that Apotex infringed Daiichi’s U.S. Patent No. 5,401,741. After the culmination of the nine day…. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893)). In patent cases, however, where the definition of a term … 415 F.3d 1303, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Patent cases are complex suits that often hinge on the…Supreme Court, has held that disputed terms in a patent suit are to be determined as a matter of law.…often resolves disputes concerning terms in a patent during a pre-trial “Markman” hearing. Id. External link to document
2006-07-25 183 alleging that Apotex infringed Daiichi’s U.S. Patent No. 5,401,741. Daiichi served its First Set of Interrogatories…by Apotex that any of claims 1-7 of Daiichi’s patent-in-suit is invalid . . . .” (Daiichi’s…number of prior art exhibits in support of their patent invalidity defense, which are currently the subject…documents that they alleged to be prior art of the patent-in-suit. The Court conditionally admitted the…contested exhibits and to show their relevancy to the patent-in-suit. Unlike the usual bench trial External link to document
2006-08-02 187 compound of ofloxacin, U.S. patent 4,382,892 (“Hayakawa ‘892"). (DTX 40; DTX 17 at D0055-64, …741 patent is a “method” patent, as compared to a machine, composition, or manufacture patent. One…filed the original patent application for the ‘741 patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office… Invalidity of the Patent A patent issued by the United States Patent Office is presumed… The patent examiner rejected the ‘741 patent five times based on the Katz patent, reasoning External link to document
Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document

This preview shows a limited data set.
Subscribe to access the full database, or try a Free Trial

For more information try a trial or see the plans and pricing

Serving hundreds of leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Medtronic
Dow
Cerilliant
Farmers Insurance
Baxter
Moodys
McKesson
Chinese Patent Office
Deloitte

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. thinkBiotech performs no independent verifification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.