Get our Free Patent Expiration Newsletter

Serving leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Moodys
Express Scripts
Colorcon
Merck
AstraZeneca
McKinsey

Last Updated: January 26, 2020

DrugPatentWatch Database Preview

Litigation Details for Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2010)

Join the DrugPatentWatch Referral Program
Get access to a free drug patent landscape report or a free one-month subscription

« Back to Dashboard

Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2010)

Docket   Start Trial Date Filed 2010-05-28
Court District Court, D. Minnesota Date Terminated 2011-08-30
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement Assigned To Donovan W. Frank
Jury Demand Defendant Referred To Jeffrey J. Keyes
Parties NOVO NORDISK A/S; NOVO NORDISK INC.; PADDOCK LABORATORIES, INC.
Patents 6,677,358
Attorneys Aric H Wu; Ashley E Johnson; Austin V Schwing; Barbara P Berens; Chad Drown; Christopher J Burrell; Daniel G Brown; George A Nicoud , III; Gina R Gencarelli; Jonathan-NA R. Lutinski; Josh A Krevitt; Justi R Miller; Kenneth A Liebman; Michael A Sitzman; Michael Sean Royall; Nicole W Stafford; Rachel K Zimmerman Scobie; Seth C Silber; Tonia Ouellette Klausner; W Todd Miller; Wayne M Barsky
Link to Docket External link to docket
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc.
The small molecule drugs covered by the patent cited in this case are   Start Trial and   Start Trial .

Details for Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2010)

Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document
2011-06-22 115 Novo Nordisk holds United States Patent No. 6,677,358 (the “’358 Patent”), which is directed to and claims…the ’358 Patent. On June 9, 2005, Novo Nordisk sued Caraco for infringement of the ’358 Patent in the …to patent misuse), and six counterclaims (including claims for declarations that the ’358 Patent is … that the ’358 Patent is not invalid because of anticipation; (2) that the ’358 Patent is invalid because… the ’358 Patent. Specifically the court in the Michigan Action held that the ’358 Patent is unenforceable External link to document
2010-11-30 51 infringement of United States Patent No. 6,677,358 (the “’358 Patent”) and seeking a declaration that… were to file a patent infringement action against Paddock based on the ’358 Patent, Paddock would file…monopoly. While the ’358 patent did not expire until 2018, this patent gave Novo Nordisk the right…monopoly. While the ’358 patent did not expire until 2018, this patent gave Novo Nordisk the right …sued Paddock for patent infringement.7 Indeed, Novo Nordisk did sue Paddock for patent infringement when External link to document
>Date Filed >Document No. >Description >Snippet >Link To Document

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

Serving leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Harvard Business School
Baxter
Merck
Moodys
Johnson and Johnson
McKesson

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 verifification 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.