DrugPatentWatch Database Preview
Litigation Details for Shire LLC, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Incl v. IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2010)
Shire LLC, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Incl v. IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2010)
| Docket | Start Trial | Date Filed | 2010-12-02 |
| Court | District Court, N.D. California | Date Terminated | 2013-06-19 |
| Cause | 35:145 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard G. Seeborg |
| Jury Demand | None | Referred To | Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena J |
| Parties | ANDA, INC; IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.; M.D. PASKO RAKIC; M.D. ROBERT D. HUNT; PH.D AMY F.T, ARNSTEN; SHIRE LLC, SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.-FLORIDA; WATSON PHARMA, INC.; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. | ||
| Patents | 5,378,474; 5,854,290; 6,287,599; 6,303,607; 6,811,794 | ||
| Attorneys | Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen; Colin Barry Heideman; Erika V. Selli; Heather Morehouse Ettinger; Jeffrey James Toney; John Lincoln North; Jonathan David Olinger; Joseph R. Robinson; Joseph V. Saphia; Laura Fahey Fritts; Matthew Daniel Murphey; Norman E.B. Minnear; Sarika Singh; Scott Robert Raber; Sheila Neha Swaroop; William G. Gaede , III; William Rolland Zimmerman | ||
| Firms | Kasowitz Benson Torres and Friedman; Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP; Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP; Knobbe Martens Olson and Bear; McDermott Will and Emery LLP; Troutman Sanders LLP; Troutman Sanders LLP, the Chrysler Building; Wiggin and Dana LLP | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Shire LLC, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Incl v. IMPAX Laboratories, Inc.
The small molecule drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are Start Trial , Start Trial , Start Trial , and Start Trial .
Details for Shire LLC, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Incl v. IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2010)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-09-12 | 109 | infringed one or more claims of United States Patents Nos. 5,854,290 (the “’290 … 18 patent’); 6,287,599 (the “’599 patent”); and 6,811,794 (the “’794 patent”) by filing a … 3 §§ 2201 & 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq… 10 Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq… 19 claims of the ‘290, ‘599, and ‘794 patents. | External link to document | |
| 2011-09-12 | 110 | declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,854,290 (“the ‘290 patent”), …action for declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,854,290 (“the … 7 ‘290 patent”), 6,287,599 (“the ‘599 patent”), and 6,811,794 (“the ‘794 patent”) are invalid … 6 14. The ‘290 patent, ‘599 patent, and ‘794 patent are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book…enforceable claim of the ‘290 patent, the ‘599 patent, or the ‘794 patent. | External link to document | |
| 2011-09-26 | 113 | Defendants. 16 The first patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,854,290, generally claims a method of treating… The final two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,287,599 and 6,811,794 (the ‘794 patent), generally 20 …necessary to make infringement contentions under Patent Local Rule 3-1. 3 2. Watson Defendants… Infringement Contentions Under Patent Local Rule 3-1. 5 Watson Defendants … needed to serve infringement contentions under Patent Local Rule 3-1. Case law supports 8 Watson | External link to document | |
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
