Astellas Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd. et al.
Infringement action filed 24 Mar 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 4 May 2026, with US10842780B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10842780B2
- Application no.
- US15/432854
- Case no.
- 1:21-cv-00425
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 24 Mar 2021 – 4 May 2026
- Duration
- 1867 days
- Basis of termination
- Judgment on the merits for Defendant
- Products & marks
- Pharmaceutical composition for modified release
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Pharmaceutical composition for modified release
A pharmaceutical composition for modified release, comprising (1) (R)-2-(2-aminothiazol-4-yl)-4′-[2-[(2-hydroxy-2-phenylethyl)amino]ethyl]acetic acid anilide, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, (2) at least one additive which ensures penetration of water into the pharmaceutical composition and which has a solubility such that the volume of water required for dissolving 1 g of the additive is 10 mL or less, and (3) a hydrogel-forming polymer having an average molecular weight of approximately 100,000 or more, or a viscosity of 12 mPa·s or more at a 5% aqueous solution at 25° C. is disclosed.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 24 Nov 2020
- Earliest priority
- 30 Sep 2008
- Est. expiry
- 28 Mar 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- TAKAISHI, YUUKI · TAKAHASHI, YUTAKA · NISHIZATO, TAKASHI · MURAYAMA, DAISUKE · MURAYAMA, EMIKO · NAKAMURA, SOICHIRO · SAKO, KAZUHIRO
- Classification
- A61K31/426A61K9/20A61K9/28
- Prosecution counsel
- Venable LLP
- Examiner
- LUNDGREN, JEFFREY S
Parties of record
Astellas Pharma, Inc.
- Core tech
- A61K31/426A61K9/20A61K9/28
- Counsel
- Alexandra M. Joyce · Daniel M. Silver · Jason A. Leonard
- Firm
- McCarter & English LLP
- Also named
- Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc. · Astellas Ireland Co., Ltd.
Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Cortlan S. Hitch
- Firm
- Morris James LLP
- Also named
- Aurolife Pharma, LLC · Lupin, Ltd. · Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Actavis LLC · Actavis Elizabeth, LLC · Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. · Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. · Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. · Cadila Healthcare, Ltd.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alexandra M. Joyce | Astellas Pharma, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Daniel M. Silver | Astellas Pharma, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jason A. Leonard | Astellas Pharma, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Cortlan S. Hitch | Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“WHEREAS, final judgment was entered in favor or Defendants and against Plaintiffs on June 9, 2023 (C.A. No. 20-1589; D.I. 572); WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) for Additional Findings of Fact in Support of Court’s Judgment in Favor of Defendants on June 22, 2023 (C.A. No. 20-1589; D.I. 576); WHEREAS, the Court denied the Motion and supplemented the Court’s Judgment on June 27, 2023 (C.A. No. 20-1589; D.I. 577)”
Case 1:21-cv-00425 · D. Del. · closed 4 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:21-cv-00425?
1:21-cv-00425 is a patent infringement action brought by Astellas Pharma, Inc. against Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd., filed on 24 Mar 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 4 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:21-cv-00425?
US10842780B2 (“Pharmaceutical composition for modified release”), assigned to ASTELLAS PHARMA INC., currently active. The record also lists Pharmaceutical composition for modified release.
How was case 1:21-cv-00425 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: “WHEREAS, final judgment was entered in favor or Defendants and against Plaintiffs on June 9, 2023 (C.A. No. 20-1589; D.I. 572); WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) for Additional Findings of Fact in Support of Court’s Judgment in Favor of Defendants on June 22, 2023 (C.A. No. 20-1589; D.I. 576); WHEREAS, the Court denied the Motion and supplemented the Court’s Judgment on June 27, 2023 (C.A. No. 20-1589; D.I. 577)”
What does judgment on the merits mean?
A judgment on the merits decides the substance of the claims, as opposed to ending the case on procedural grounds.
How long did case 1:21-cv-00425 take?
1867 calendar days, from filing on 24 Mar 2021 to closure on 4 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:21-cv-00425?
Alexandra M. Joyce, Daniel M. Silver and Jason A. Leonard are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Astellas Pharma. Cortlan S. Hitch appears for defendant Aurobindo Pharma.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:21-cv-00425 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.