Litigation Details for Pfizer Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (D. Del. 2013)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Pfizer Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (D. Del. 2013)
| Docket | See Plans and Pricing | Date Filed | 2013-06-21 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2016-04-21 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Gregory Moneta Sleet |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | |
| Parties | HETERO LABS LIMITED; LUPIN LTD. | ||
| Patents | 6,858,650; 7,384,980; 7,807,715; 7,855,230; 7,985,772; 8,088,398; 8,338,478; 9,035,031 | ||
| Attorneys | Heinz J. Salmen; Scott Cunning | ||
| Firms | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell; Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Pfizer Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is See Plans and Pricing .
Biologic Drugs cited in Pfizer Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
The biologic drug covered by the patents cited in this case is See Plans and Pricing .
Details for Pfizer Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (D. Del. 2013)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-07-31 | 106 | (“the ʼ230 patent”), 7,985,772 (“the ʼ772 patent”), and 8,338,478 (“the ʼ478 patent”) (collectively, …infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,858,650 (“the ʼ650 patent”), 7,384,980 (“the ʼ980 patent”), 7,855,230 (“… the ʼ980 patent, claims 1-5 of the ʼ230 patent, claims 4 and 6-8 of the ʼ772 patent, claims 6-…specification of the ʼ650 patent differs from that of the ʼ980 patent and the other three patents-in-suit (collectively…1 of the ʼ650 patent under the guise of claim construction. Claim 1 of the ʼ650 patent is a simple, straightforward | External link to document | |
| 2014-09-12 | 123 | : U.S. Patent Nos. 7,384,980, 7,855,230, 7,985,772, and 8,338,478. As such, what the inventor describes…of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,980 (“the ʼ980 patent”) (J.A. 2). Claim 1 of the ʼ650 patent is a product…with the ʼ650 patent, and issued as a series of patents, including four of the patents-in-suit here: …the entirety of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,858,650 (“the ʼ650 patent”) (J.A. 1), and the term “contact…harmony with statutory patent law principles recognizing distinct classes of patentable subject matter, and | External link to document | |
| 2014-11-23 | 163 | Sandoz. With me is Kristen Venegas from 09:35:31 14 McDermott Will & Emery. And… there are five patents in this 09:41:09 24 lawsuit. Four of those patents are not at issue…compound patents, are 09:41:20 2 shown on the top of the slide there. The patent at issue… is the '650 patent, or what we refer to as the salt 09:41:27 4 patent. That is shown…relationship between the patents in suit, the four compound 09:41:37 7 patents at the top of the | External link to document | |
| 2014-11-26 | 165 | Infringement of Certain Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,858,650, 7,384,980, 7,855,230, 7,985,772 and 8,338,478, and…2013 21 April 2016 1:13-cv-01110 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware | External link to document | |
| 2014-12-02 | 168 | ORDER CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,858,650 & 7,384,980. Signed by Judge Gregory M. …2013 21 April 2016 1:13-cv-01110 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware | External link to document | |
| 2014-12-09 | 173 | Infringement of Certain Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,858,650, 7,384,980, 7,855,230, 7,985,772 and 8,338,478…2013 21 April 2016 1:13-cv-01110 830 Patent None District Court, D. Delaware | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
