Get our Free Patent Expiration Newsletter

Serving leading biopharmaceutical companies globally:

Colorcon
AstraZeneca
Moodys
Express Scripts
Medtronic
Harvard Business School

Last Updated: December 12, 2019

DrugPatentWatch Database Preview

Litigation Details for Tap Phar Prod Inc v. Atrix Labs Inc (N.D. Ill. 2003)

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

« Back to Dashboard

Tap Phar Prod Inc v. Atrix Labs Inc (N.D. Ill. 2003)

Docket   Start Trial Date Filed 2003-11-03
Court District Court, N.D. Illinois Date Terminated 2007-02-15
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement Assigned To James Block Zagel
Jury Demand Both Referred To
Parties ATRIX LABORATORIES, INC.; SANOFI-SYNTHELABO INC; TAKEDA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD; TAP PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, INC.; WAKO PURE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.
Patents 4,728,721
Attorneys Barbara A. Fiacco; Brian P. Murphy; Bruce E. Fader; Chad J Peterman; Charles E. Patterson; Christopher Y Miller; Donald R. Ware; Dyahanne Ware; Emily A. Evans; Gregory S. Norrod; Heidi L Belongia; J Eric Elliff; James M. Davis; James M. Hilmert; Jeffrey I.D. Lewis; Jennifer Lindsay Jones; John L. Kolakowski; John Matthew Richardson; Kimball Richard Anderson; Laura M. Storto; Lazar Pol Raynal; Mara Lainie Taylor; Mark A. Reilly; Mark Edward Medina; Matthew Joseph Medina; Matthew Todd Hurst; Michael A. Jacobs; Michael D. Kaminski; Michael R. Houston; Pamela C White; Raymond C. Perkins; Richard Allen Duda; Richard Mills-Robertson; Richard P Pettus; Sarah Cooleybeck; Steve H Shin; Steven M. Evans; Stuart E Pollack; Thomas Allen Marrinson; Thomas R. Mulroy , Jr.; Vickie L. Henry; William F Cavanaugh , Jr.
Firms Chicago IP Law; DLA Piper LLP; Encyclopaedia Britannica, USA; Foley & Lardner; Foley and Lardner LLP; Foley Hoag LLP; Heffner Hurst; Matthew Joseph Medina; McDermott Will & Emery LLP; McDermott Will and Emery; McDermott, Will & Emery LLP (Chicago); McGuire Woods LLP; Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP; Morrison & Foerster LLP; Morrison & Foerster, LLP; Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP; Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP; Proskauer Rose LLP; Reed Smith LLP; Reed Smith Sachnoff & Weaver; Stahl Cowen Crowley Addis LLC; Winston and Strawn LLP
Link to Docket External link to docket
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Tap Phar Prod Inc v. Atrix Labs Inc
The small molecule drugs covered by the patent cited in this case are   Start Trial and   Start Trial .

Details for Tap Phar Prod Inc v. Atrix Labs Inc (N.D. Ill. 2003)

Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document
2005-04-22 113 alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 4,728,721 (“721 patent”).1 Prior to filing this suit, Plaintiffs…then requested reexamination of the ‘721 patent by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). I stayed …injunction because the ‘721 patent has reached the Delta period of its patent term. The URAA, …terms of U.S. patents to twenty years from the date of filing, effective for all patents issuing on applications… certain preexisting patents, Congress limited the remedies available to patent infringement plaintiffs External link to document
2004-03-04 33 ) alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 4,728,721 (“721 p'zitent”).l Prior to Hling this…subsequently requested reexamination of the ‘721 patent by the Patent and Trademark Otl':ice (“PTO”). A second…Defendants motion for stay pending reexamination of patent-in-suit is granted [20-1]. Case stayed. Entered…#39; Takeda and Wako are joint owners of the ‘721 patent and TAP is their exclusive licencee. Detennining…ensuing delay. Plaintiffs point out that the ‘721 patent may expire before the PTO’s reexamination is completed External link to document
2004-08-26 53 alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 4,728,721 (“721 patent"). Prior to Eling this suit,…upheld the patent as valid, Oakwood requested and was granted a reexamination of the ‘721 patent by the …the Patent and Trademark Ot`fice (“PTO”). Because of this pending reexamination, I stayed the proceedings…the PTO formally rejected the claims of the ‘721 patent as invalid TAP has appealed this decision with … 1994) (plaintist fifteen month delay in filing patent suit “is fatal to plaintifi’s claim of irreparable 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:

McKesson
Moodys
Boehringer Ingelheim
Colorcon
Dow
Harvard Business School

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.