Contributors

About the Authors

  • The Authors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys who hold doctorates in a diverse array of biotech and chemical disciplines.

Contact the Docs

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter. When a new article is posted during the day, you will receive it by e-mail the next morning.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

« Amgen Survives Another EPO Challenge | Main | Patent Profile: Ryogen Announces Issuance of Patent on Soluble Aminopeptidase P Gene »

October 28, 2007

Court Report

    By Sherri Oslick --

Gavel_2About Court Report:  Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases, and a few interesting cases will be selected for periodic monitoring.


Purdue Pharma Products LP et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. et al.
1:07-cv-00666; filed October 24, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,254,887 ("Controlled Release Tramadol," issued July 3, 2001) following a paragraph IV certification as part of Par's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of plaintiffs' Ultram® ER (tramadol hydrochloride, used to treat moderate to moderately severe chronic pain).  View the complaint here.  As reported here and here, plaintiffs have previously asserted this patent against Par Pharmaceutical; the present complaint includes an additional dosage included in Par's ANDA.


Alcon Manufacturing, Ltd et al. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

1:07-cv-01377; filed October 23, 2007 in the Southern District of Indiana

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,641,805 ("Topical Ophthalmic Formulations for Treating Allergic Eye Diseases," issued June 24, 1997) and 5,116,863 ("Dibenz[b,e]oxepin Derivative and Pharmaceutical Compositions Thereof," issued May 26, 1992) following a paragraph IV certification as part of Barr's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Alcon's Patanol® (an ophthalmic solution containing olopatadine hydrochloride, used to treat allergic conjunctivitis).  View the complaint here.


Sciele Pharma Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

1:07-cv-00664; filed October 22, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,892,741 ("Press coated DHP tablets," issued January 9, 1990) following a paragraph IV certification as part of Mylan's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Sciele's Sular® (nisoldipine, used to treat hypertension).  View the complaint here.


Schering Corporation v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. et al.

3:07-cv-05062; filed October 19, 2007 in the District Court of New Jersey

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,100,274 ("8-chloro-6,11-dihydro-11-] (4-piperidylidine)-5H-benzo[5,6]cyclohepta[1,2-bpyridine Oral Compositions," issued August 8, 2000) and 6,709,676 ("Extended Release Oral Dosage Composition," issued March 23, 2004) following a paragraph IV certification as part of Dr. Reddy's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Schering-Plough's Clarinex-D® 12-hour (desloratidine and pseudoephedrine sulfate, used to treat allergies).  View the complaint here.


Schering Corporation v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. et al.

3:07-cv-05038; filed October 19, 2007 in the District Court of New Jersey

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,100,274 ("8-chloro-6,11-dihydro-11- ] (4-piperidylidine)-5H-benzo[5,6]cyclohepta[1,2-bpyridine Oral Compositions," issued August 8, 2000) following a paragraph IV certification as part of Dr. Reddy's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Schering-Plough's Clarinex (desloratidine, used to treat allergies).  View the complaint here.


King Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Actavis, Inc. et al.

2:07-cv-05041; filed October 18, 2007 in the District Court of New Jersey

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,066,339 ("Oral Morphine Particulate Formulation," issued May 23, 2000) following a paragraph IV certification as part of Actavis' filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of King's Avinza® (morphine sulfate extended release capsules, used for the once-daily treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic pain).  View the complaint here.


Sepracor Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

3:07-cv-05017; filed October 18, 2007 in the District Court of New Jersey

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,214,683 ("Compositions of Descarboethoxyloratadine," issued May 8, 2007) and 7,214,684 ("Methods for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis," issued May 8, 2007), licensed to Schering-Plough, following a paragraph IV certification as part of Mylan's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Schering-Plough's Clarinex® (desloratidine, used to treat allergies).  View the complaint here.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1117334/22842662

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Court Report:

Comments

Post a comment

May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Google Search