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.
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 |