➤ Get the DrugPatentWatch Daily Briefing

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

Serving leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Moodys
Medtronic
Merck
McKinsey
Harvard Business School
Mallinckrodt

Last Updated: September 27, 2020

DrugPatentWatch Database Preview

Litigation Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v. (D.N.J. 2017)

➤ Get the DrugPatentWatch Daily Briefing
» See Plans and Pricing

« Back to Dashboard

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v. (D.N.J. 2017)

Docket   Start Trial Date Filed 2017-10-24
Court District Court, D. New Jersey Date Terminated
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement Assigned To Stanley R. Chesler
Jury Demand None Referred To Cathy L. Waldor
Patents 6,235,004; 7,476,652; 7,713,930; 7,918,833; 8,512,297; 8,556,864; 8,603,044; 8,679,069; 8,992,486; 9,011,391; 9,233,211; 9,408,979; 9,526,844; 9,533,105; 9,561,331; 9,604,008; 9,604,009; 9,610,409; 9,623,189
Link to Docket External link to docket
Small Molecule Drugs cited in SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v.
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is   Start Trial .
Biologic Drugs cited in SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v.

Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v. (D.N.J. 2017)

Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document
2017-10-24 1 United States Patent Nos. 7,476,652 (“the ’652 patent”), 7,713,930 (“the ’930 patent”), 7,918,833 (“… Review as to Patent No. 7,476,652 filed on June 5, 2017 with the United States Patent and Trademark… (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 101. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege…Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 173. Plaintiffs repeat and …Sheet, # 4 AO120 Patent Form (I of IV), # 5 AO120 Patent Form (II of IV), # 6 AO120 Patent Form (III of IV External link to document
2019-05-09 319 Plaintiffs own U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (the “formulation patents”) and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,044…intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history…the ʼ008 patent has no parent application in common with the device patents in the U.S. patent system.…between the ʼ008 patent and the four device patents rests on the fact that all five patents assert a priority…this patent infringement action, the parties seek construction of claim terms in six U.S. Patents. For External link to document
2019-10-02 440 invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (together, the “formulation patents.”) In short, …invalidity due to obviousness as to the formulation patents. There is no dispute that, previously, Defendants…filed petitions for Inter Partes Review of these patents and that, in December of 2018, the PTAB issued…Decisions which found that both formulation patents were invalid due to obviousness. Appeals of the…proof. Sanofi points out that the presumption of patent validity did not apply before the PTAB, and that External link to document
2020-01-15 549 Trial Brief Number ’844 patent U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 … U.S. Patent No. 6,248,095 DTX-2283 Klitgaard U.S. Patent No. 6,… Patent Trial and Appeal Board – Steenfeldt-Jensen U.S. Patent No. 6,…device patents. See FOF ¶ 180. After the PTAB invalidated all claims of both formulation patents, and …fifteen of the sixteen device patents, four claims of the ’844 patent are Sanofi’s last hope in this External link to document
2020-02-24 573 Letter analysis of U.S. Patent No. 8,556,864 (“’864 patent”)—which is analogous to the ’844 patent at issue here—and… listing of a device patent in the Orange Book for Lantus SoloSTAR—which patent was originally asserted…is applicable to the ’844 patent, Sanofi’s contention that the ’844 patent “is properly listed in the…insulin glargine market by improperly listing patents in the Orange Book to “extend[] its monopoly” by…First Circuit concluded that because the ’864 patent does not “claim the drug,” let alone even “mention External link to document
2020-03-09 582 Opinion ) b. U.S. Patent No. 6,235,004 (“Steenfeldt-Jensen”) c. U.S. Patent No. 5,674,204 (“Chanoch… of patents, including the patent at issue in this trial, the ’844 patent. As to the ’844 patent, the…, “Mylan.”) Plaintiffs own U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 (“the ’844 patent”), which is listed in the Orange…, 25, and 30 of the ’844 patent. Mylan contends that the asserted patent claims are invalid, pursuant…and 35 U.S.C. § 103. A bench trial on patent infringement and patent validity was held for 5 days, beginning 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:

AstraZeneca
Colorcon
McKesson
Johnson and Johnson
Baxter
Medtronic

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.