Litigation Details for In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2020-07-23 |
| Court | District Court, S.D. New York | Date Terminated | 2023-08-18 |
| Cause | 15:1 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade) | Assigned To | Lewis Jeffrey Liman |
| Jury Demand | Plaintiff | Referred To | |
| Patents | 6,545,040 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation
The small molecule drug covered by the patent cited in this case is ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-03-22 | 255 | Amended Complaint | Bystolic: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,545,040 (the “’040 Patent”) and 5,759,580 (the “’580 Patent”). Beginning on…succeeded in the patent litigation because the ’040 Patent was weak. The ’040 Patent litigation likely…name.” The ’362 Patent was prior art to the ’040 Patent. In light of the ’362 Patent’s essentially explicit…them of infringing the ’040 Patent. Forest did not assert the ’580 Patent against the Generic Defendants…Generic Defendants’ patent settlement agreements with Forest in the Bystolic patent litigation. | External link to document |
| 2021-03-22 | 256 | Amended Complaint | application for Bystolic: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,545,040 (the “’040 Patent”) and 5,759,580 (the …succeeded in the patent litigation because the ’040 Patent is weak. The ’040 Patent litigation likely… Patents Are Not Bulletproof. 120. Patents are not bulletproof. Patents are routinely… issued United States Patent No. 4,654,362 (“the ’362 Patent”). The ’362 Patent disclosed a number of…153 The ’362 Patent was prior art to the ’040 Patent. In light of the ’362 Patent’s essentially explicit | External link to document |
| 2022-02-02 | 354 | ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings AND Memorandum & Opinion | two patents for inclusion in the FDA’s Orange Book: U.S. Patent No. 6,545,040 (“the ’040 Patent”) and…and U.S. Patent No. 5,759,580 (“the ’580 Patent”). Id. ¶¶ 4, 124. The ’040 Patent issued on April 8, …the ’580 Patents, Forest only asserted the ’040 Patent and declined to sue on the ’580 Patent. DPP Compl… Torrent’s patents prior to the patent assignment agreement, and only executed the patent assignment …manufacturer for patent infringement. DPP Compl. ¶ 101. If the brand manufacturer sues for patent infringement | External link to document |
| 2020-10-13 | 50 | Memorandum & Opinion | sued them for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,545,040 (the “‘040 patent”). Id. ¶ 5. Each generic company…companies’ position in the patent litigation was very strong. Id. ¶ 7. An earlier patent had disclosed a nebivolol…their products did not infringe the ‘040 patent, or the ‘040 patent was invalid. Nonetheless, between…In June 2015, the last patent protecting Bystolic (other than the ‘040 patent) expired. Id. ¶ 7. It is…that its generic would not infringe the asserted patent claims or the claims were invalid. The | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
