You’re using a public version of DrugPatentWatch with 5 free searches available | Register to unlock more free searches. CREATE FREE ACCOUNT

Last Updated: March 28, 2024

Litigation Details for In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2015)


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Docket ⤷  Try a Trial Date Filed 2015-09-22
Court District Court, S.D. New York Date Terminated 2020-05-27
Cause 15:15 Antitrust Litigation Assigned To Colleen McMahon
Jury Demand Both Referred To Robert W. Lehrburger
Parties ACTAVIS, PLC; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC.; DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD.; FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS LTD.; FOREST LABORATORIES LLC; FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.; HUMANA INC.; JM SMITH CORPORATION; MACLEODS PHARMA USA, INC.; MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; MERZ GMBH & CO. KGAA.; MERZ PHARMA GMBH & CO. KGAA; MERZ PHARMACEUTICALS GMBH; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
Patents 10,036,037; 10,036,054; 10,041,044; 6,469,012; 7,750,029; 8,008,006; 8,039,009; 8,039,010; 8,048,917; 9,005,056
Attorneys Aakruti Govind Vakharia; Andrew Kelly; Beth A. Wilkinson; Blaine Larson; Bruce E. Gerstein; Chanakya Arjun Sethi; Charles Moore; Chris Letter; Christopher Mark Curran; Christopher Stow-Serge; Christopher T. Holding; Dan Chiorean; Dan Litvin; Daniel C. Simons; David C Raphael , Jr; David Francis Sorensen; Elizabeth Anne Silva; Ellen Noteware; Emma Perry; Eric E Lancaster; Eric Grannon; Eric J. Enger; Eric Majchrzak; Erin R Conway; Erin R Leger; Francis Dominic Cerrito; Heather Marie Burke; Heather McDevitt; Jack Pace; James Miller Rosenthal; John Hail Chung; John Mark Gidley; Jordan David Weiss; Joseph Opper; Joseph Thomas Lukens; Kevin Charles Adam; Kevin X. McGann; Kieran Gavin Gostin; Kimberly Marion Hennings; Kristen O'Shaughnessy; Martin Michael Toto; Michael Eugene Hamburger; Miranda Yan Jones; Neill W. Clark; Nicholas Urban; Noah H. Silverman; Peter J. Carney; Peter Russell Kohn; Phyllis Maza Parker; Rakesh Kilaru; Robert James Tucker; Russell A. Chorush; Ryan Philip Johnson; Samantha Lee Southall; Sarah K. Frederick; Stuart Edward Des Roches; Susan C. Segura; Victoria Morton Rutherfurd; William Harold Bave , III
Firms Amin Talati Upadhye LLP; Baker & Hostetler LLP; Baker & Hostetler-OH; Berger Montague Pc; Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP; Faruqi and Faruqi LLP; Fenwick & West LLP; Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P.; Goodwin Procter, LLP (Boston); Goodwin Procter, LLP (NYC), the New York Times Building; Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP; Odom & Des Roches, LLC; Odom & Des Roches, LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP; Smith Segura Raphael & Leger, LLP; Washington Office; White & Case; White & Case LLP; White & Case LLP (DC); White & Case LLP (NY); Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz LLP; Wilkinson Walsh Eskovitz; Wilkinson Walsh LLP; Wilkinson, Walsh & Eskovitz
Link to Docket External link to docket
Small Molecule Drugs cited in In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser 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 , and ⤷  Try a Trial .
Biologic Drugs cited in In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser 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 , and ⤷  Try a Trial .

Details for In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document
2018-01-17 502 believe in the 1990s, but I'm not sure of the 10:36:37 4 contains memantine hydrochloride… 10:23:08 8 A The '703 patent was awarded a patent term 10:20:48 …that Merz received a patent 10:25:04 12 Q And so the date as reflected by the patent 10:22:11…47:54 3 the '703 patent? 09:50:43 4 Q And who…with the 10:04:36 10 settlement of the patent litigation for Mylan and 10:04:39 11 Orchid External link to document
2019-03-05 677 United States Patent No. 5,250,534 United States Patent No. 6,469,012 United States Patent No. 644,077 … “red flags.” >! U.S, Patent No. 5,250,534. *1.S, Patent No. 6,469,012. 29 Case 1:15-cv-07488-CM-RWL…the U.S. patent. See Exhibit C, The number of claims in a patent varies from patent to patent. See id.…to a patent holder by a U.S. patent is defined by the issued claims of the patent — the “patented invention… 03/06/19 Page 9 of 220 PATENTING PROCESS A U.S. patent provides the patent holder with the right to External link to document
2019-05-03 710 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion also allowed Forest time to obtain U.S. Patent No. 8,039,009 for Namenda XR, which did not suffer from…fatal flaws of the ’703 patent, and which expired a decade after the ‘703 patent. In a draft letter…from the patent settlements, the desire to preclude additional challenges to the ‘703 patent (i.e., the…Namenda IR to drop their legal challenges to the ’703 Patent and delay launch of generic versions…date three months after the expiration of the ’703 Patent; and (2) using this improperly obtained External link to document
2020-05-27 947 Memorandum & Opinion with Defendant Forest to settle this matter for $750 million, the largest ever settlement of an antitrust…Approval Order”).) This Court now finds that the $750 million settlement is plainly fair, adequate and …principle with Forest to settle this matter for $750 million, the largest ever settlement of an antitrust… The National Wholesalers did not object to the $750 million settlement, only to the attorneys’ fee sought… would find. Given the complexity and risk, the $750 million cash settlement represents an outstanding External link to document
>Date Filed >Document No. >Description >Snippet >Link To Document

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

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.