Litigation Details for Shire Orphan Therapies LLC v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (D. Del. 2015)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
▶ Start for $1
Remove trial restrictions
Shire Orphan Therapies LLC v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (D. Del. 2015)
| Docket | See Plans and Pricing | Date Filed | 2015-11-29 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2018-06-05 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard Gibson Andrews |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | |
| Patents | 10,030,059; 10,036,037; 10,036,054; 10,041,044; 10,046,056; 10,046,058; 10,047,033; 8,039,010; 8,048,017; 9,005,056; 9,020,056; 9,024,034; 9,040,034; 9,040,039; 9,056,052; 9,056,057 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Shire Orphan Therapies LLC v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC
The small molecule drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are See Plans and Pricing and See Plans and Pricing .
Biologic Drugs cited in Shire Orphan Therapies LLC v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC
The biologic drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , See Plans and Pricing , and See Plans and Pricing .
Details for Shire Orphan Therapies LLC v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (D. Del. 2015)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-02-28 | 107 | addressed was, is Claim 14 of the 10:47:33 6 '333 patent an obvious variant of Claim 1 of… another patent that claims the same discovery as the '333 09:07:39 13 patent, the same… 14 contained in this patent is contained in the '7,803 patent 09:07:53 15 that Shire…That patent already expired. Shire is not 09:08:01 17 entitled to the second patent but…x27;333 patent was filed first. 09:08:23 23 Why did the '7,803 patent issue | External link to document | |
| 2018-02-28 | 108 | Did I read that correctly? 09:05:56 12 A. You did. 09:05:58 13…exhibit Knolle 5, the '333 patent, which 10:13:30 9 is the patent in suit in this case. …participate when those patents were being 11:00:55 23 prosecuted at the Patent Office? 11:00:57…How many patents issued from the 11 applications in 11:19:11 5 the '333 patent prosecution…:14 6 A. Only one patent issued, the '333 patent. 11:19:17 7 Q. And | External link to document | |
| 2018-02-28 | 109 | you look at 3.31, if you go to these 10:30:59 17 patents, position eight here is called Z. …the '993 patent, 11:55:33 20 the '613 patent and the '963 patent. Right…'333 patent is not invalid for 09:13:42 8 obviousness-type double patenting over Claim…09:13:53 11 patent is not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting 09:13:57 12 …the '333 patent, the 09:14:13 16 meaning of Claim 14 of the '333 patent, the meaning | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
