➤ Get the DrugPatentWatch Daily Briefing

Get Daily Updates on Generic Entry, Litigation, Biosimilars, and more …

Serving leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Moodys
McKesson
Johnson and Johnson
Medtronic
McKinsey
Express Scripts

Last Updated: September 26, 2020

DrugPatentWatch Database Preview

Litigation Details for DEPOMED, INC. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P. (D.N.J. 2013)

➤ Get the DrugPatentWatch Daily Briefing
» See Plans and Pricing

« Back to Dashboard

DEPOMED, INC. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P. (D.N.J. 2013)

Docket   Start Trial Date Filed 2013-01-29
Court District Court, D. New Jersey Date Terminated 2014-07-25
Cause 35:145 Patent Infringement Assigned To Brian R. Martinotti
Jury Demand Both Referred To Tonianne J. Bongiovanni
Parties DEPOMED, INC.; JOHN J. HUGHES; PHV MATTHEW OLINZOCK; PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P.; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC.
Patents 6,340,475; 6,488,963; 6,635,280; 6,723,340; 7,674,799; 8,114,383
Attorneys ELEONORE OFOSU-ANTWI; JOHN HUGHES; KEITH J. MILLER; LEDA DUNN WETTRE; LIZA M. WALSH; MICHAEL JAMES GESUALDO; RUKHSANAH L. SINGH
Firms Connell, Foley
Link to Docket External link to docket
Small Molecule Drugs cited in DEPOMED, INC. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.
The small molecule drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are   Start Trial ,   Start Trial ,   Start Trial ,   Start Trial ,   Start Trial ,   Start Trial ,   Start Trial ,   Start Trial ,   Start Trial , and   Start Trial .

Details for DEPOMED, INC. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P. (D.N.J. 2013)

Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document
2013-01-29 1 THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 14. On January 22, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,340,475 (the &…United States Code, for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,340,475, 6,635,280 and 6,723,340. …No. 3:12-cv-02813-JAP-TJB (D.N.J.). U.S. Patent Nos. 6,340,475, 6,635,280 and 6,723,340 are at issue in…interest in and to the '475 Patent, '280 Patent and '340 Patent, including the right to assert…. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, External link to document
2015-09-22 105 U.S. Patent No. 6,340,475 (“the ‘475 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,635,280 (“the ‘280 Patent”) (collectively…Depomed, Inc. (“Depomed”) in the above-referenced patent litigation against Defendants Purdue Pharma L.…litigation based on the fact that the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued final decisions…collectively the Patents-in-Suit”) in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings initiated by third party…the validity of all the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Dkt. No. 98. However, the Court stayed External link to document
2015-10-06 109 infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,340,475 (“the ‘475 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,635,280 (“the…claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,635,280 and U.S. Patent No. 6,340,475 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”),…“the ‘280 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,723,340 (“the ‘340 Patent”).1 Nearly a year to-the-day that…Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences upheld validity of patents and life of patents was nearing…institute IPR of all asserted patent claims of the ‘475 and ‘280 Patents with the exception of two dependent External link to document
2015-10-19 110 the two patents-in-suit—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,635,280 and 6,340,475 (the “’280 and ’475 patents,” respectively…respectively)—and a third patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,723,340 (the “’340 patent”). Depomed amended its complaint…, 2013, to add a fourth patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,329,215 (the “’215 patent”). (D.I. 49.) Then, on January…related to the ’340 and ’215 patents, leaving only the ’280 and ’475 patents at issue. (D.I. 68.) Until …the four patents, Purdue filed three IPR petitions challenging the two remaining patents-in-suit. At External link to document
2016-10-14 214 of U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,674,799 (“the ‘799 patent”) and 8,114,383 (“the ‘383 patent”). (Id.) Depomed also…10) different patents owned and/or licensed by Purdue, and the validity of those patents.” (Id.) Purdue…that the patents cited by Depomed to support its relevance argument, i.e., the ‘799 patent and the ‘383…‘383 patent, were irrelevant because those patents focused on technology that is not at issue in the…different patents owned and/or licensed by Purdue, and the validity of those patents.” ( External link to document
2016-11-04 238 is a patent infringement action involving United States Patent Nos. 6,340,475 (the “‘475 patent”), 6,635,2806,635,280 (the “‘280 patent”), 6,723,340 (the “‘340 patent”) and 8,329,215 (the “‘215 patent). While all four… ’280 Patent and claims 43, 57 and 58 of the ‘475 Patent are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,582,837… (“Kim”), the ‘837 Patent, and U.S. Patent No. 4,871,548 (the “‘548 Patent”); • “Defense… of the ‘475 Patent are obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,120,803 (the “‘803 Patent”), Baveja, and External link to document
>Date Filed >Document No. >Description >Snippet >Link To Document

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Serving leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Medtronic
Boehringer Ingelheim
Mallinckrodt
Baxter
Express Scripts
McKinsey

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 verification 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.