Litigation Details for In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2019)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2019)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2019-09-18 |
| Court | District Court, N.D. California | Date Terminated | |
| Cause | 15:1 Antitrust Litigation | Assigned To | William Haskell Alsup |
| Jury Demand | Plaintiff | Referred To | |
| Patents | 6,488,962; 6,723,340; 7,780,987 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation
The small molecule drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2019)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-03-05 | 188 | Order on Motion to Dismiss | 21 6,340,475; 6,635,280; 6,488,962; and 6,723,340. Lupin had successfully designed around the … 16 for the patent barrier remains. New brand-drug applicants must list the patents (if any) covering…brand drug, that the relevant patents have expired, or that such patents are invalid or will not be … or invalidity against the four relevant patents: U.S. Patent Nos. …infringe the patents 4 because it designed around the patents using a | External link to document |
| 2020-08-15 | 347 | Order on Motion to Certify Class | 10 6,340,475; 6,635,280; 6,488,962; and 6,723,340. Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. (then owner of … or invalidity against the four relevant patents: U.S. Patent Nos. …analogous anticompetitive behavior, patent misuse, by holding a patent …from an alleged reverse-payment settlement of a patent 17 infringement…restating. This case arises from a perversion of the patent and pharmaceutical- | External link to document |
| 2021-05-06 | 537 | Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal | ,488,962, which expired in June 2020, and No. 6,723,340, which will expire in October 2021. …’475, ’280, and ’962 patents (it also asserted but later dropped the ’340 patent). …This argument runs afoul of patent fundamentals. True, we presume a patent’s validity. See …within the scope of the patent. The royalty payment from the licensee to the patent owner … 19 In a secret pharmaceutical-patent infringement settlement agreement, concealed from | External link to document |
| 2021-08-25 | 593 | Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief | 24 and 6,488,962 (“the ’962 patent”). More specifically, Attorney Lentz states…equivalents, for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,340,475 (“the ’475 patent”), 6,635,280 (“the ’280 patent”), …475, ’280, and ’962 patents, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 7,736,667 (“the ’667 patent”) and Northern District… 7 the entire corporate-patent lifecycle, handling everything from patent prosecution to advising …on the ’962 patent would jump to 85 to 90% if Lupin prevailed on the ’475 and ’280 patents | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
