Book a demo

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

Try now
Amgen et al. v. USV Pvt. | Patent Lawsuit 1:22-cv-00387

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. USV Pvt., Ltd.

1:22-cv-00387 D. Del. Closed 3 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 25 Mar 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 14 Nov 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
1:22-cv-00387
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Maryellen Noreika
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
25 Mar 2022 – 14 Nov 2023
Duration
599 days
Basis of termination
Case Dismissed
Products & marks
Etelcalcetide injection for intravenous use at strengths of 2.5 mg/0.5 mL, 5 mg/mL, and 10 mg/2 mL
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:22-cv-00387, 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
US9820938B2 Active App. US14/908481

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
21 Nov 2017
Earliest priority
28 Jun 2013
Est. expiry
27 Jun 2034
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61K47/12C07K7/00A61K9/00A61K31/785A61K33/04A61K45/06A61K31/663C07K7/06A61K38/08A61K38/00A61K9/08A61K31/135A61K31/59
Prosecution counsel
McDermott Will & Schulte LLP
Examiner
HA, JULIE
US9820938B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9820938B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

1 more

The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.

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

Plaintiff

Amgen, Inc.

Core tech
A61K38/08A61K47/12A61K9/08A61K33/04
Counsel
Cameron Paul Clark · Jack B. Blumenfeld · Karen Jacobs · Michelle Streifthau-Livizos
Firm
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
Also named
KAI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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

“Dismissed per sealed stipulation of dismissal.D.I 186 in 21cv662 (MN)”

Case 1:22-cv-00387 · D. Del. · closed 14 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 1:22-cv-00387?

1:22-cv-00387 is a patent infringement action brought by Amgen, Inc. against USV Pvt., Ltd., filed on 25 Mar 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 14 November 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-00387?

US11162500B2 (“Stable liquid formulation of AMG 416 (etelcalcetide)”), assigned to AMGEN INC., currently active; US9820938B2 (“Stable liquid formulation of AMG 416 (etelcalcetide)”), assigned to AMGEN INC., currently active; US10344765B2 (“Stable liquid formulation of AMG 416 (etelcalcetide)”), assigned to AMGEN INC.. The record also lists Etelcalcetide injection for intravenous use at strengths of 2.5 mg/0.5 mL, 5 mg/mL, and 10 mg/2 mL.

How was case 1:22-cv-00387 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Dismissed per sealed stipulation of dismissal.D.I 186 in 21cv662 (MN)”

How long did case 1:22-cv-00387 take?

599 calendar days, from filing on 25 Mar 2022 to closure on 14 November 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-00387?

Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Cameron Paul Clark, Jack B. Blumenfeld, Karen Jacobs and Michelle Streifthau-Livizos are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Amgen. James Michael Lennon appears for defendant USV Pvt..

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:22-cv-00387 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-00387 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.