DrugPatentWatch Database Preview
Litigation Details for LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION (D.N.J. 2012)
LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION (D.N.J. 2012)
| Docket | Start Trial | Date Filed | 2012-02-17 |
| Court | District Court, D. New Jersey | Date Terminated | 2012-12-06 |
| Cause | 15:1 Antitrust Litigation | Assigned To | William H. Walls |
| Jury Demand | Plaintiff | Referred To | Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Wald |
| Parties | FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC; KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC.; LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC.; MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC.; MEIJER INC.; PHV DEVORA W. ALLON; ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.; SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. | ||
| Patents | 4,602,017; 5,698,226 | ||
| Attorneys | ALLYN ZISSEL LITE; ELENA K. CHAN; EVAN WAINHOUSE DAVIS; JAMES E. CECCHI; JOSEPH ALDO FISCHETTI; KIMBERLY MARION HENNINGS; LINDSAY DOBRZYNSKI BREEDLOVE; LINDSEY H. TAYLOR; MATTHEW F. GATELY; MELISSA J HATCH; MICHAEL E. PATUNAS; MIGUEL A. POZO; PETER S. PEARLMAN; RYAN JOHN COOPER; TIMOTHY JOHN SLATTERY; TIMOTHY STEPHEN JENKINS | ||
| Firms | Federal Trade Commission; Lowenstein Sandler; Pashman Stein | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
The small molecule drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are Start Trial and Start Trial .
Details for LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION (D.N.J. 2012)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-02-17 | 1 | primary exclusivity stemmed from U.S. Patent No. 4,602,017 (“the ‘017 patent”) which GSK listed in the FDA …017 patent, and these cases were subsequently consolidated (the “Patent Litigation”). The Patent Litigation…Lamictal Tablets. The ‘017 patent, along with another patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,698,226), was listed…infringed patent. No relevant regulatory exclusivities extended the life of the ‘017 patent itself per…the ‘017 patent. Thus, even though Teva had already succeeded in invalidating the ‘017 patent’s primary | External link to document | |
| 2014-01-24 | 128 | lamotrigine, covered by U.S. Patent No. 4,602,017 (“the ‘017 patent”). Id. ¶ 11. GSK’s patent for lamotrigine…a “quick look”: if a patent holder makes a reverse payment to a generic patent challenger, that payment…validity of the patent; and parties may well find ways to settle patent disputes without…compensates the patent challenger for “other services . . . such as distributing the patented item or helping…skeptically at patent settlements than did courts applying the “scope of the patent” test and there | External link to document | |
| 2016-09-26 | 188 | Exhibit A | 241” OR “20-764”) “4,602,017” OR “017 patent” OR “5,698,226” OR “226 patent” “2:02-cv-03779” OR…SmithKline*) AND Teva AND (settl* OR licens* OR patent* OR infring* OR agree* OR (hatch w/2 waxman)…SmithKline*) AND Teva AND (settl* OR licens* OR patent* OR infring* OR agree* OR (hatch w/2 waxman) | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
