Litigation Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v. (D.N.J. 2017)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v. (D.N.J. 2017)
| Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2017-10-24 |
| Court | District Court, D. New Jersey | Date Terminated | |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Stanley R. Chesler |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | Cathy L. Waldor |
| Patents | 6,235,004; 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 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v.
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷ Try a Trial .
Biologic Drugs cited in SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v.
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 , and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN N v. (D.N.J. 2017)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-10-24 | 1 | United States Patent Nos. 7,476,652 (“the ’652 patent”), 7,713,930 (“the ’930 patent”), 7,918,833 (“… Review as to Patent No. 7,476,652 filed on June 5, 2017 with the United States Patent and Trademark… (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 101. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege…Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652) 173. Plaintiffs repeat and …Sheet, # 4 AO120 Patent Form (I of IV), # 5 AO120 Patent Form (II of IV), # 6 AO120 Patent Form (III of IV | External link to document | |
| 2019-05-09 | 319 | Plaintiffs own U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (the “formulation patents”) and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,044…intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history…the ʼ008 patent has no parent application in common with the device patents in the U.S. patent system.…between the ʼ008 patent and the four device patents rests on the fact that all five patents assert a priority…this patent infringement action, the parties seek construction of claim terms in six U.S. Patents. For | External link to document | |
| 2019-10-02 | 440 | invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930 (together, the “formulation patents.”) In short, …invalidity due to obviousness as to the formulation patents. There is no dispute that, previously, Defendants…filed petitions for Inter Partes Review of these patents and that, in December of 2018, the PTAB issued…Decisions which found that both formulation patents were invalid due to obviousness. Appeals of the…proof. Sanofi points out that the presumption of patent validity did not apply before the PTAB, and that | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
