Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Amgen et al. v. MSN Laboratories Private et al. | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-00031

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al.

1:23-cv-00031 D. Del. Closed US11162500B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 12 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 8 Nov 2023, with US11162500B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US11162500B2
Application no.
US16/430322
Case no.
1:23-cv-00031
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Maryellen Noreika
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
12 Jan 2023 – 8 Nov 2023
Duration
300 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Stable liquid formulation of AMG 416 (etelcalcetide)
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-00031, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US11162500B2 Active App. US16/430322

Stable liquid formulation of AMG 416 (etelcalcetide)

A liquid formulation comprising a peptide agonist of the calcium sensing receptor and method of preparing and using the formulation are provided.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
2 Nov 2021
Earliest priority
28 Jun 2013
Est. expiry
27 Jun 2034
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61K38/08A61K47/12A61K9/08A61K33/04A61K45/06A61K9/00A61K31/59A61P3/00A61P3/14A61P43/00A61P5/00A61P5/18C07K7/06F04D25/06F01D15/10
Prosecution counsel
McDermott Will & Schulte LLP
Examiner
HA, JULIE
US11162500B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US11162500B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Amgen, Inc. and KAI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have asserted a cause of action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,162,500 (“the ’500 patent”) against MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in C.A. No. 22- cv-00037 (MN) (the “Prior ’500 Patent Action”), which is one of the cases consolidated under the case captioned Amgen Inc. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al., C.A. No. 21-cv-662 (MN) (D. Del.) (collectively, the “Consolidated Action”); and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs initiated this Action, Civil Action No. 23-cv-00031 (MN), asserting solely a cause of action for infringement of the ’500 patent against Defendants MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and MSN Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (“the MSN Entities”) on January 15, 2023; WHEREAS Plaintiffs and the MSN Entities stipulated to dismissal of MSN Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. from the Prior ’500 Patent Action under certain terms and conditions in the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (C.A. No. 22-cv-00037 (MN), D.I. 15) (now part of the Consolidated Action, see D.I. 17); WHEREAS, good cause exists to consolidate this Action and the Consolidated Action for all purposes due to the substantial overlap in the claims and defenses in those actions; and Plaintiffs and the MSN Entities, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, and subject to the approval of the Court, stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Plaintiffs agree to voluntarily dismiss all claims against MSN Life Sciences Private Limited (the “Dismissed Entity”) without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), subject to terms of paragraph 1 of the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice entered in C.A. No. 22-cv-00037 (MN) (D.I. 15) (now part of the Consolidated Action, see D.I. 17). 2. This Action shall be consolidated with the Consolidated Action. All parties to the Consolidated Action consent to this Action’s consolidation with the Consolidated Action. 3. Consolidation of this Action with the Consolidated Action shall not modify the schedule for the Consolidated Action, and Plaintiffs and the MSN Entities agree to be bound by all orders, stipulations, and agreements reached in the Consolidated Action. All papers shall be maintained in the Consolidated Action. 4. Defendants MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. shall answer the Complaint filed in this Action on or before February 10, 2023, and shall file such Answer in the Consolidated Action.”

Case 1:23-cv-00031 · D. Del. · closed 8 November 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:23-cv-00031?

1:23-cv-00031 is a patent infringement action brought by Amgen, Inc. against MSN Laboratories Private Limited, filed on 12 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 8 November 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-00031?

US11162500B2 (“Stable liquid formulation of AMG 416 (etelcalcetide)”), assigned to AMGEN INC., currently active. The record also lists Stable liquid formulation of AMG 416 (etelcalcetide).

How was case 1:23-cv-00031 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Amgen, Inc. and KAI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have asserted a cause of action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,162,500 (“the ’500 patent”) against MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in C.A. No. 22- cv-00037 (MN) (the “Prior ’500 Patent Action”), which is one of the cases consolidated under the case captioned Amgen Inc. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al., C.A. No. 21-cv-662 (MN) (D. Del.) (collectively, the “Consolidated Action”); and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs initiated this Action, Civil Action No. 23-cv-00031 (MN), ass

What does dismissal without prejudice mean?

A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.

How long did case 1:23-cv-00031 take?

300 calendar days, from filing on 12 Jan 2023 to closure on 8 November 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00031?

Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Cameron Paul Clark, Jack B. Blumenfeld and Karen Jacobs are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Amgen. Kenneth L. Dorsney. appears for defendant MSN Laboratories Private.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-00031 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00031 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.