DrugPatentWatch Database Preview
Litigation Details for HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. APOTEX INC. (D.N.J. 2007)
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. APOTEX INC. (D.N.J. 2007)
| Docket | Start Trial | Date Filed | 2007-09-14 |
| Court | District Court, D. New Jersey | Date Terminated | 2012-11-16 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Stanley R. Chesler |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | Cathy L. Waldor |
| Parties | APOTEX CORP.; APOTEX INC.; GENENTECH, INC.; HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC.; HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.; PHV ROBERT B. BREISBLATT | ||
| Patents | 6,143,326; 6,294,196; 6,432,932; 7,192,938; 7,410,957; 7,718,634 | ||
| Attorneys | DAVID E. DELORENZI; JOSHUA HARLAN HARRIS; MARK E. WADDELL; PAUL BRIAN SUDENTAS; PAULA K. COLBATH; SHEILA F. MCSHANE; STEVEN GERBER | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. APOTEX INC.
The small molecule drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are Start Trial , Start Trial , and Start Trial .
Details for HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. APOTEX INC. (D.N.J. 2007)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-09-14 | 1 | U.S. Patent No. 6,294,196, expiring October 7, 2019. Notwithstanding the United States Patent and … is an action for patent infringement arising under the Food and Drug and Patent Laws of the United…companies to submit patent information to the FDA “with respect to which a claim of patent infringement …prior to patent expiration by stating in its ANDA that it challenges whether the listed patent is “invalid…expiration of two Roche patents listed in the Orange Book, namely U.S. Patent | External link to document | |
| 2010-05-10 | 174 | terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 4,927,814 (the “’814 patent”), 7,192,938 (the “’938 patent”), and 7,410,957…938 patent. Counsel for Roche has advised the Court that, while this eliminates the ’938 patent from… It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to…in the ’814 patent The parties dispute terms in three claims of the ’814 patent: 4…disconnected from the ’814 patent and what the inventor invented. The patent is directed to the part of | External link to document | |
| 2010-05-07 | 175 | terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 4,927,814 (the “’814 patent”), 7,192,938 (the “’938 patent”), and 7,410,957…construction of claim terms in the "814 patent," the "938 patent, and "957 patent." Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler… and ’957 patents, the Court concludes that the claim terms in claim 1 of the ’938 patent, “commencing…stated in that Opinion. As to the ’814 patent, the disputes are resolved as follows: 1) the claim…,” and the similar terms in claim 1 of the ’957 patent, should be construed to refer to the time frame | External link to document | |
| 2010-09-02 | 257 | Briefly, Roche owns the U.S. Patent No. 7,410,957 (the “’957 patent”), which is directed to methods…label to the FDA in 2007, the ’957 patent did not exist. Fine. The patent exists now. …summary judgment that Defendants infringe the ’957 patent by Plaintiff Hoffman-La Roche Inc. (“Roche”), against…summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’957 patent by Defendant DRL; 3) the cross- motion for summary…summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’957 patent by Defendant Genpharm; and 4) the motion for | External link to document | |
| 2010-09-02 | 259 | Briefly, Roche owns the U.S. Patent No. 7,410,957 (the “’957 patent”), which is directed to methods…label to the FDA in 2007, the ’957 patent did not exist. Fine. The patent exists now. …summary judgment that Defendants infringe the ’957 patent by Plaintiff Hoffman-La Roche Inc. (“Roche”), against…summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’957 patent by Defendant DRL; 3) the cross- motion for summary…summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’957 patent by Defendant Genpharm; and 4) the motion for | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
