Litigation Details for In re Lantus Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (D. Mass. 2016)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
▶ Start for $1
Remove trial restrictions
In re Lantus Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (D. Mass. 2016)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2016-12-29 |
| Court | District Court, D. Massachusetts | Date Terminated | 2018-10-24 |
| Cause | 15:1 Antitrust Litigation | Assigned To | Leo Theodore Sorokin |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | Judith G. Dein |
| Parties | SANOFI GMBH | ||
| Patents | 7,291,132; 7,476,652; 7,713,930; 7,918,833; 8,512,297; 8,556,864; 8,603,044; 8,679,069; 8,992,486; 9,011,391; 9,233,211; 9,408,979; 9,526,844; 9,533,105; 9,561,331; 9,604,008; 9,604,009; 9,610,409; 9,623,189; 9,717,852; 9,775,954; 9,827,379 | ||
| Attorneys | John D. Radice; Theresa M. Coughlin | ||
| Firms | Faruqi and Faruqi LLP; Radice Law Firm, P.C. | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in In re Lantus Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Try a Trial .
Biologic Drugs cited in In re Lantus 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 , ⤷ 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 Lantus Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (D. Mass. 2016)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-12-29 | 1 | 13, 2009, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 (“the ’652 patent”), entitled “Acidic Insulin Preparations…ingredient) patents, drug product (formulation and composition) patents, and method of use patents.” Abbreviated… In the ’930 patent, which has the same examples as the ’652 patent, a different patent examiner allowed…polysorbate vial formulation patents, Sanofi listed the ’652 patent and the ’930 patent to be identified in the…044 patents are herein called the “DCA injector pen patents.” All of the DCA injector pen patents are | External link to document | |
| 2020-12-21 | 175 | Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction | improperly listed one of these patents, United States Patent No. 8,556,864, which was issued on October … Its original patent for insulin glargine, U.S. Patent No. 5,656,722 (the “’722 Patent”), as extended…infringed on one of Sanofi’s patents, U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 (the “‘844 Patent”), and that Mylan had proved… improperly listing patents in the FDA’s Orange Book and filing meritless patent infringement actions…application the patent number and the expiration date of any patent which claims the | External link to document |
| 2018-01-09 | 40 | 864 patent was improperly listed in the Orange Book. 2 These are U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 (“the…the ‘652 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,713,930 (“the ‘930 patent”). 3 These are U.S. Patent No. 7,918,833…7,918,833 (“the ‘833 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,512,297 (“the ‘297 patent”), U.S Patent No. 8,556,864 (“the…“the ‘864 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,603,044 (“the ‘044 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,679,069 (“the… the original patent for insulin glargine, U.S. Patent No. 5,656,722 (“the ‘722 patent”), as extended | External link to document | |
| 2023-03-02 | 465 | Stipulation | 14 (1st Cir. 2020). The Device Patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,918,833 (’833); 8,512,297 (’297); 8,556,864… issue of whether its submission of the Device Patents to FDA for listing in the Orange Book “was the | External link to document |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
