Litigation Details for In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2019)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2019)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2019-09-18 |
| Court | District Court, N.D. California | Date Terminated | 2022-12-06 |
| Cause | 15:1 Antitrust Litigation | Assigned To | William Haskell Alsup |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | Robert M. Illman |
| Parties | ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC.; BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC.; BI-LO, LLC; CITY OF PROVIDENCE; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; H-E-B LP; HY-VEE, INC.; KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; KROGER CO., THE; LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC.; MEIJER, INC.; MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC; PDL BIOPHARMA, INC.; PENSIONED OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; RITE AID CORPORATION; RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP.; SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; SANTARUS, INC.; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL NO. 1 HEALTH FUND; UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND; WALGREEN CO.; WINN-DIXIE LOGISTICS, INC. | ||
| Patents | 6,340,475; 6,488,962; 6,635,280; 6,723,340; 7,780,987; 7,855,223; 8,246,962; 8,258,962; 8,323,692; 8,987,221; 9,855,278; 9,987,263; 9,987,272 | ||
| Attorneys | A.J. De Bartolomeo; Adam Michael Foster; Alberto Rodriguez; Alexander J. Egervary; Andres Rivero; Anna Theresa Neill; Barry L. Refsin; Barry Steven Taus; Brendan Jasper Coffman; Brett H Cebulash; Brian R Morrison; Caitlin V. McHugh; Charles Edward Whorton; Chelsea M. Nichols; Cindy Yuanjia Hong; Daniel Abraham Shmikler; Daniel B. Asimow; David Lee DaPonte; David Paul Germaine; David S. Nalven; Debra G Josephson; Domenico Minerva; Eamon Padraic Kelly; Eric Jonathan Stock; Eric L Bloom; Ethan H. Kaminsky; George G. Gordon; Gregory Asciolla; James Carl Otteson; Jay L. Himes; Jeffrey C. Bank; Jennifer Bridget Patterson; John Paul Bjork; Jorge Alejandro Mestre; Joseph M Vanek; Karen Sharp Halbert; Kristen A. Johnson; Laura S Shores; Lauren C. Ravkind; Lauren G. Barnes; Matthew C. Weiner; Matthew Perez; Michael Roberts; Monica L. Kiley; Nicholas William Shadowen; Nisha Natver Patel; Richard Alan Arnold; Richard M Brunell; Robin van der Meulen; Rochella T. Davis; Sarah E. DeLoach; Saul P. Morgenstern; Scott Eliot Perwin; Service Employees International Union Local No. 1 Health Fund; Shana E. Scarlett; Stephanie Egner Smith; Stephanie Smith; Stephen J. Teti; Steve D. Shadowen; Thomas James Miller; Thomas M. Sobol; Victoria Leigh Weatherford; Wendy Lynn Devine; Whitney E. Street; William Francis Murphy; William Olson | ||
| Firms | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP; Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP; Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman, PC; Block & Leviton LLP; Dechert LLP; Dillingham & Murphy; Domenico Minerva; Durie Tangri LLP; George G. Gordon; Gibson, Dunn; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller; Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin and Schiller; Hilliard and Shadowen; Hilliard Shadowen, LLP; Kaye Scholer LLP; Kenny Nachwalter, P.A.; Labaton Sucharow LLP; Rivero Mestre; Roberts Law Firm, P.A.; Scott Eliot Perwin; Service Employees International Union Local No. 1 Health Fund; Sperling & Slater, P.C.; Tadler Law LLP; Taus Cebulash & Landau LLP; Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP; Vanek Vickers and Masini PC; Vanek Vickers Masini PC; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Antitrust | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation
The small molecule 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 , and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Biologic Drugs cited in In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation
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 , and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2019)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-18 | 1 | Complaint | 6,340,475 (‘475 patent) 9/16/2016 20 6,635,280 (‘280 patent) …Book patent (the ‘692 patent), as well as two non-Orange Book listed patents 20 (the ‘667 patent and…listed patent(s) and/or the patent is 2 invalid and unenforceable. Simply by listing the patents in the…and U.S. Patent No. 8,329,215 (“the ‘215 patent”)). 21 191. The ‘215 patent, like the ‘667…plaintiffs in the 8 patent lawsuit, Assertio/Santarus, to the defendant in the patent lawsuit, Lupin. Lupin | External link to document |
| 2020-03-04 | 188 | Order on Motion to Dismiss | four relevant patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 21 6,340,475; 6,635,280; 6,488,962… 16 for the patent barrier remains. New brand-drug applicants must list the patents (if any) covering…brand drug, that the relevant patents have expired, or that such patents are invalid or will not be …infringe the patents 4 because it designed around the patents using a… the patent suit, Lupin would stop challenging the 18 patent, and | External link to document |
| 2020-04-09 | 226 | Amended Complaint | Date Expiration Date 11 6,340,475 (’475 patent) March 29, 1999 January…Book patent (the ’692 patent) as well as two non- 28 Orange Book listed patents (the ’667 patent and…Assertio could not patent the drug itself. Instead, Assertio 13 obtained four patents covering extended-release…Lupin would infringe its patents. But Lupin had designed around Assertio’s patents; 6 indeed, before … would not infringe 7 Assertio’s patents and why the patents were invalid. 8 6. Sun | External link to document |
| 2020-08-15 | 347 | Order on Motion to Certify Class | four relevant patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10 6,340,475; 6,635,280; 6,488,962…analogous anticompetitive behavior, patent misuse, by holding a patent …from an alleged reverse-payment settlement of a patent 17 infringement…restating. This case arises from a perversion of the patent and pharmaceutical- … 4 Patents covering the brand drug can still spoil the fun | External link to document |
| 2021-05-06 | 537 | Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal | 25 United States Patent Nos. 6,340,475 and 6,635,280, which expired in September…’475, ’280, and ’962 patents (it also asserted but later dropped the ’340 patent). …This argument runs afoul of patent fundamentals. True, we presume a patent’s validity. See …within the scope of the patent. The royalty payment from the licensee to the patent owner … 19 In a secret pharmaceutical-patent infringement settlement agreement, concealed from | External link to document |
| 2021-08-25 | 593 | Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief | equivalents, for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,340,475 (“the ’475 patent”), 6,635,280 (“the ’280 patent”), …475, ’280, and ’962 patents, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 7,736,667 (“the ’667 patent”) and Northern District… 7 the entire corporate-patent lifecycle, handling everything from patent prosecution to advising …on the ’962 patent would jump to 85 to 90% if Lupin prevailed on the ’475 and ’280 patents … 26 patent attorney at the time of the Lupin settlement would have evaluated the patent litigation | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
