Litigation Details for In re: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent Litigation (D. Del. 2020)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
In re: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent Litigation (D. Del. 2020)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2020-03-27 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard Gibson Andrews |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | |
| Parties | BIOCON PHARMA, INC.; LUPIN LIMITED | ||
| Patents | 10,004,746; 10,010,507; 10,016,435; 10,106,548; 10,125,140; 10,213,386; 10,294,231; 10,294,232; 7,342,117; 7,468,390; 7,514,444; 7,879,828; 7,982,049; 8,008,309; 8,039,010; 8,101,659; 8,404,744; 8,476,284; 8,497,277; 8,563,563; 8,697,711; 8,703,780; 8,735,403; 8,754,090; 8,754,091; 8,796,331; 8,877,938; 8,952,015; 8,957,079; 8,999,999; 9,125,889; 9,181,257; 9,296,753; 9,388,134; 9,540,382; 9,655,857; 9,713,617; 9,725,455; 9,795,604; 9,801,881; 9,801,883; 9,814,721 | ||
| Attorneys | James T. Peterka; Philip Y. Kouyoumdjian | ||
| Firms | Schrader Companion Duff & Law, PLLC; Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in In re: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent 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: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent 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 , and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for In re: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent Litigation (D. Del. 2020)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-05-19 | Zydus infringement trial concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 8,101,659, 8,796,331, 8,877,938 and 9,388,134 to May…Valsartan) Patent Litigation 27 March 2020 1:20-md-02930 835 Patent - Abbreviated | External link to document | ||
| 2019-03-01 | 1 | Complaint | PageID #: 2 Patent”); 9,655,857 (“the ’857 Patent”); 9,725,455 (“the ’455 Patent”); 10,010,507 (“the ’507… United States Patent Nos. 7,514,444 (“the ’444 Patent”); 8,008,309 (“the ’309 Patent”); 8,476,284 (“…(“the ’284 Patent”); 8,497,277 (“the ’277 Patent”); 8,697,711 (“the ’711 Patent”); 8,735,403 (“the ’403…’403 Patent”); 8,754,090 (“the ’090 Patent”); 8,754,091 (“the ’091 Patent”); 8,952,015 (“the ’015 Patent…507 Patent”); 10,106,548 (“the ’548 Patent”); and 10,125,140 (“the ’140 Patent”). | External link to document |
| 2023-06-01 | 1057 | Proposed Order | pediatric exclusivity for U.S. Patent No. 8,404,744 (“the ’744 patent”) expires on July 14, 2023, which… patent or the ’667 patent] [Noratech’s proposal: if such deposition concerned the ’659 patent or… proposal: the validity of] the ’659 patent or the ’667 patent, (ii) Novartis’s documents concerning…proposal: the validity of] the ’659 patent or the ’667 patent, and (iii) the deposition testimony (including…Asserted Patent. Novartis will produce to Noratech the file history for the ’659 and ’667 patents within | External link to document |
| 2023-06-02 | 1058 | Redacted Document | United States Patent No. 8,101,659 (“the ’659 Patent”), of United Sates Patent No. 8,877,938…the ’938 Patent”), of United States Patent No. 9,388,134 (“the ’134 Patent”), …United States Patent No. 11,058,667 (“the ’667 Patent”), and of United States Patent No. 11,096,918…the ’659 Patent, of the ’938 Patent, of the ’134 Patent, … of the ’667 Patent, and of the ’918 Patent are valid and enforceable. 2. Judgment | External link to document |
| 2023-06-05 | 1063 | Exhibit A-C | 21 C.F.R. § 314.95 of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,468,390, 8,101,659, 8,404,744, 8,796,331, 8,877,…strengths, before the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,468,390, 8,101,659, 8,404,744, 8,796,331, 8,877,… paragraph IV certification are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,468,390, 8,101,659, 8,404,744, 8,796,331, 8,877,… Patent Expiry 7,468,390 Novartis AG 11/27/2023 …to the best of their knowledge, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,468,390, 8,101,659, 8,404,744, 8,796,331, 8,877,938 | External link to document |
| 2023-07-07 | 1099 | Opinion | infringement of U.S. Patent 8,877,938 (the “’938 Patent”), 9,388,134 (the “’134 Patent”), 8,101,659 (the “’659 …659 Patent”) and 8,796,331 (the “’331 Patent”). Only the ’659 Patent is at issue in this opinion. The parties… of that patent. (/d.). I held separate trials addressing the ’938 Patent and the ’134 Patent. (D.I. 604…Ciba-Geigy, was issued U.S. Patent No. 5,399,578 (“the ’578 Patent”). (JTX-23). That patent disclosed and claimed…the °659 Patent claims are obvious over EP ’072, the ’996 Patent/Ksander, and the °578 Patent/Diovan® | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
