AstraZeneca AB et al. v. Unichem Laboratories Limited et al.
Infringement action filed 22 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 6 Jun 2023, with US10300065B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: injunction granted.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10300065B2
- Application no.
- US15/546626
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-07472
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D.N.J.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New Jersey
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Dec 2022 – 6 Jun 2023
- Duration
- 166 days
- Basis of termination
- Injunction Granted
- Products & marks
- Method of treating or prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with history of myocardial infarction
- 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
Method of treating or prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with history of myocardial infarction
The present disclosure relates to methods for reducing the rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke in a patient in recognized need thereof, comprising administering to the patient a pharmaceutical composition comprising 60 mg ticagrelor twice daily.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 28 May 2019
- Earliest priority
- 27 Jan 2015
- Est. expiry
- 27 Jul 2036
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ANDERSSON, LARS MAGNUS · ANDERSSON, TOMAS LARS-GUNNAR · BENGTSSON, OLOF FREDRIK · HELD, HANS PETER · HOWELLS, GARNET EDWARD · JENSEN, EVA CHRISTINA · STOREY, ROBERT
- Classification
- A61K31/519A61K31/60A61K31/609A61K31/616A61K9/20
- Prosecution counsel
- FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
- Examiner
- CARTER, KENDRA D
Parties of record
AstraZeneca AB
- Core tech
- A61K31/519A61K31/60A61K31/609A61K31/616
- Counsel
- John Edmund Flaherty
- Firm
- McCarter & English LLP
- Also named
- Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP · AstraZeneca UK Limited
Unichem Laboratories Limited
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- R. Touhey Myer
- Firm
- Kratz & Barry, LLP
- Also named
- Unichem Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| John Edmund Flaherty | AstraZeneca AB | Plaintiff |
| R. Touhey Myer | Unichem Laboratories Limited | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca UK Limited,and AstraZeneca Pharmaccuticals LP (herein after cllectively ” AstraZeneca “); and Unichem Laboratories Limited and Unichem Pharmaccuticals (USA),Inc.,(herein after “Defendant”), the parties in the above-captioned action, have agreed to terms and conditions representing anegotiated settlement of the action and have set forth those terms and conditions in a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”).Now the parties,by their respective undersigned attorneys,hereby stipulated and consent to entry of judgment and an injunction in the action ,as follows; All claims,counter claims, affirmative defenses ,and demands in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs,disbursements or attorneys’fees to any party.”
Case 1:22-cv-07472 · D.N.J. · closed 6 June 2023
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 1:22-cv-07472?
1:22-cv-07472 is a patent infringement action brought by AstraZeneca AB against Unichem Laboratories Limited, filed on 22 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 6 June 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-07472?
US10300065B2 (“Method of treating or prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with history of myocardial infarction”), assigned to ASTRAZENECA AB, currently active. The record also lists Method of treating or prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with history of myocardial infarction.
How was case 1:22-cv-07472 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is injunction granted. The termination text reads: “AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca UK Limited,and AstraZeneca Pharmaccuticals LP (herein after cllectively ” AstraZeneca “); and Unichem Laboratories Limited and Unichem Pharmaccuticals (USA),Inc.,(herein after “Defendant”), the parties in the above-captioned action, have agreed to terms and conditions representing anegotiated settlement of the action and have set forth those terms and conditions in a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”).Now the parties,by their respective undersigned attorneys,hereby stipulated and consent to entry of judgment and an injunction in the action ,as fol
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:22-cv-07472 take?
166 calendar days, from filing on 22 Dec 2022 to closure on 6 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-07472?
John Edmund Flaherty is recorded as counsel for plaintiff AstraZeneca AB. R. Touhey Myer appears for defendant Unichem Laboratories.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-07472 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.