Litigation Details for Indivior Inc. v. Mylan Technologies Inc. (D. Del. 2015)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Indivior Inc. v. Mylan Technologies Inc. (D. Del. 2015)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2015-11-04 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2018-05-08 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard Gibson Andrews |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | |
| Parties | ALVOGEN PINE BROOK LLC; AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.; INDIVIOR INC.; INDIVIOR UK LIMITED; MYLAN N.V.; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; MYLAN TECHNOLOGIES INC. | ||
| Patents | 6,572,497; 8,017,150; 8,475,832; 8,557,283; 8,603,514 | ||
| Attorneys | Andrew D. Regan; Bennet J. Moskowitz; Bindu Ann George Palapura; Cassandra A Adams; Charanjit Brahma; Craig C. Crockett; Dana Kathryn Severance; Daniel A. Ladow; Daniel Marcus Attaway; Daniel Sharpe; David Ellis Moore; David M. Airan; David M. Hanna; Dominick T. Gattuso; Elham F. Steiner; Elizabeth M. Crompton; Gregory C. Bays; J. Karl Gross; J. Magnus Essunger; James F. Hibey; James M. Bollinger; Jeffrey B. Elikan; Jeffrey H. Lerner; Katherine Harihar; Mary W. Bourke; Nellie J. Amjadi; Nicholas F. Lenning; Nicole E. Kopinski; Puja Patel Lea; R. Jason Fowler; Rachel M. Hofstatter; Steven H. Sklar; Sujatha Vathyam; Timothy C. Bickham; Timothy P. Heaton; Tung-On Kong | ||
| Firms | Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP; Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Indivior Inc. v. Mylan Technologies Inc.
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 , and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Biologic Drugs cited in Indivior Inc. v. Mylan Technologies Inc.
The biologic drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for Indivior Inc. v. Mylan Technologies Inc. (D. Del. 2015)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-04-23 | 329 | Opinion - Memorandum Opinion | trial: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,514 (“the ’514 patent”) and 8,900,497 (“the ’497 patent”). (D.I. 312 at…Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). When considering whether a …the plaintiff brought it in subjective bad faith.” 572 U.S. at 555. Instead, the Supreme Court held that…to justify an award of attorney fees under § 285. 572 U.S. at 546 (“[A] district court may award fees … which the case was litigated.” Octane Fitness, 572 U.S. at 554. Therefore, I will not grant attorneys | External link to document |
| 2015-11-04 | 4 | Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner | the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,475,832; 8,017,150; 8,603,514… 4 November 2015 1:15-cv-01016-RGA Patent None District Court, D. Delaware | External link to document |
| 2017-01-12 | 87 | Memorandum Opinion | ;832 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8,017,150 (the '"150 Patent"), and U.S. Patent No. …multiple terms in dispute in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,514, 8,475,832, 8,017,150, and 8,900,497. Within five days…multiple terms in U.S. Patent No. 8,603,514 (the '"514 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8,475,832 (the…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 |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
