Last updated: July 11, 2026
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Nanocopoeia (0:22-cv-01283) Litigation Summary, Status, and Patent Risk Analysis
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) sued Nanocopoeia, LLC in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey under the patent laws in case number 0:22-cv-01283. The complaint asserts BMS patent rights against Nanocopoeia’s accused activity and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. The docket entry set as provided here is not sufficient to produce an accurate, court-specific litigation status, claims chart, asserted patents list, or outcome assessment.
What patents did Bristol-Myers Squibb assert against Nanocopoeia in 0:22-cv-01283?
A litigation-grade patent identification requires the asserted-patent list from the complaint, infringement contentions, or the court’s orders. No asserted patent numbers, publication identifiers, or claim group descriptions are included in the information provided.
What is the infringement theory in BMS v. Nanocopoeia?
Without the complaint’s specific allegations and the asserted claim(s), the infringement theory cannot be stated accurately.
Which products or methods did Nanocopoeia allegedly make, use, or sell?
The complaint allegations and any technology description are not provided, so the accused product or method cannot be identified.
Where is the case filed, and what procedural posture does 0:22-cv-01283 show?
Procedural posture depends on the docket’s sequence of filings (answer, motions to dismiss, Markman scheduling, infringement contentions, claim construction orders, summary judgment, trial orders, settlements, or final judgment). The provided input does not include docket events or dates.
Is this a Hatch-Waxman (ANDA/PIV) dispute or a different patent-only action?
Determining whether this is an ANDA Paragraph IV-type case requires the FDA regulatory posture described in the complaint and docket. That information is not present.
What motions are pending or were decided (Motions to Dismiss, Rule 12(c), transfer, venue, stay)?
No motion list or order outcomes are included in the provided data.
What did BMS ask the court to grant (injunction, damages, attorneys’ fees)?
The complaint’s prayer for relief determines the requested remedies and any special requests such as enhanced damages or attorneys’ fees. No request-for-relief text is included in the provided input.
Did BMS request a preliminary injunction?
Preliminary-injunction requests appear in early motion practice and associated docket entries. Those entries are not provided.
Did Nanocopoeia assert defenses like invalidity, non-infringement, or inequitable conduct?
Defense content requires the answer or related filings. None are provided.
When does the asserted patent estate expire in BMS v. Nanocopoeia, and what exclusivity windows matter?
Patent-expiration and exclusivity analysis requires:
- asserted patent numbers
- filing dates and maintenance status
- any terminal disclaimers
- prosecution history that impacts effective expiration
- any regulatory exclusivities if this is an ANDA/Biologics dispute
None of these inputs are present, so an expiration timeline cannot be produced without fabrication.
How many patents are in the asserted portfolio?
No asserted portfolio list is provided.
Do any asserted patents have PTA/PB extensions or relevant terminal disclaimers?
No patent grant data is provided.
How strong is BMS’s patent estate in this case versus typical Nanocopoeia defenses?
A strength analysis requires the claim scope, priority, closest prior art, and how courts have treated similar claims in the same family. None of that case-specific information is included.
Are there related litigations involving the same patent family?
Related-case mapping requires citations in the complaint, PAIR/USPTO data, or docket references. Not provided.
Do courts in the district have a track record with the same technology class?
That requires the specific patents/technology. Not provided.
What is the Orange Book status of the active ingredient(s) at issue?
Orange Book status requires the drug name(s), NDA/ANDA numbers, and the patents listed for those products. No drug or NDA/ANDA identifiers are provided.
What generic or biosimilar entry risks exist if BMS wins or loses in 0:22-cv-01283?
Entry-risk scenarios depend on:
- whether there is an ANDA or BLA application tied to the accused product
- whether the litigation targets a specific submission (ANDA/PIV)
- the stay-and-launch mechanics
- final infringement/invalidity findings
No FDA submission identifiers or final judgment status are included.
What settlement terms, consent judgments, or stipulations exist in this docket?
Settlement analysis requires:
- docket events (stipulations of dismissal, consent judgments)
- settlement agreements or summaries
- any drop-dead dates tied to patent expiration
No settlement or dismissal entries are provided.
Has any court ruled on claim construction, summary judgment, or infringement/non-infringement in 0:22-cv-01283?
A claim-construction and merits outcome assessment requires the Markman order and any dispositive motions with findings. None are provided.
Is Nanocopoeia appealing, and what is the latest appeal status?
Appeal status requires notice of appeal entries and appellate docket data. None is provided.
Key Docket-Driven Facts (table)
No docket text, dates, parties’ counsel, asserted patents, motions, orders, or judgment outcomes are included in the provided information. Therefore, a litigation fact table cannot be accurately populated.
Key Takeaways
- Case ID: BMS v. Nanocopoeia, 0:22-cv-01283.
- What cannot be stated from the provided input: asserted patent list, claimed technology, court procedural timeline, current status (pending vs. decided), merits rulings, remedy outcomes, settlement terms, and any FDA/Orange Book linkage.
- Actionable next step for litigation work: extract the asserted-patent identifiers and the docket event history from the court record to enable (1) expiration mapping, (2) claim-scope risk assessment, and (3) generic/ANDA entry scenario modeling.
FAQs
- What court and judge handle BMS v. Nanocopoeia (0:22-cv-01283)?
- Does 0:22-cv-01283 involve an ANDA Paragraph IV challenge or a non-FDA patent dispute?
- Which specific patents and claims did BMS accuse in the complaint?
- Did the court issue a claim construction (Markman) order in 0:22-cv-01283?
- Has the case been dismissed, settled, or reached final judgment, and on what date?
References (APA)
- Case docket identifier provided: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Nanocopoeia, LLC, 0:22-cv-01283 (D.N.J.).
