Litigation Details for Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Eli Lilly and Company (D. Del. 2014)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Eli Lilly and Company (D. Del. 2014)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2014-01-29 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2015-09-28 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard Gibson Andrews |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | Mary Pat Thynge |
| Parties | SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC | ||
| Patents | 6,004,297; 7,291,132; 7,476,652; 7,713,930; 7,918,833; 8,512,297; 8,556,864; 8,603,044; 8,679,069 | ||
| Attorneys | Michael J. Farnan | ||
| Firms | Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Eli Lilly and Company
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Try a Trial .
Biologic Drugs cited in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Eli Lilly and Company
The biologic 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 , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ 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 Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Eli Lilly and Company (D. Del. 2014)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-03-17 | 13 | “’930 patent”) and 7,476,652 (“’652 patent”) relate to the Lantus® formulation; and U.S. Patent Nos. …’044 patent”), 8,556,864 (“’864 patent”), 8,512,297 (“’297 patent”), and 7,918,833 (“’833 patent”) relate…listed seven patents in the Orange Book against Lantus® and Lantus® SoloSTAR®. U.S. Patent No. 5,656,722…5,656,722 (“’722 patent”) relates to the active ingredient in Lantus®, insulin glargine; U.S. Patent Nos. 7,713,930…seven Orange Book-listed patents—the ’930, ’652, ’044, ’864, ’297, and ’833 patents—are invalid, unenforceable | External link to document | |
| 2015-01-19 | 192 | found in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (collectively, the "Formulation Patents") and… ('864 patent: claims 2, 3; '044 patent: claims 1, 3, 11, 13; '069 patent: claim 1) …;864 patent into the '044 and '069 patents. (D.1. 183 & 184). The '864 patent defines…quot;It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which …Except for the claims, the '044 patent and '069 patent are almost identical. For the sake of | External link to document | |
| 2015-09-25 | 278 | Exhibit 13 | the ’044 Patent, and claim 1 of the ’069 Patent are obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,004,297 (“Steenfeldt-Jensen… U.S. Patent No. 8,556,864: claim 2 U.S. Patent No. 8,603,044: claims… U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652: claims 7, 10, 20, 24 U.S. Patent No. 7,713,… of U.S. Patent No. 7,241,278 (“Møller”). Lilly contends that claim 10 of the ’044 Patent is obvious…infringing each of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit by submitting NDA No. 205-692 to the FDA | External link to document |
| 2015-09-28 | 279 | x27;044 Patent); 7,476,652 (the '652 Patent); 7,713,930 (the '930 Patent); and 8,679,069…the asserted patents (i.e., U.S. Patent Nos. 8,556,864 (the '864 Patent); 8,603,044 (… 8,679,069 (the '069 Patent)). 2. This Consent Judgment constitutes a "consent decree… 28 September 2015 1:14-cv-00113 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
