Book a demo

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

Try now
Aurobindo Pharma v. Azurity Pharmaceuticals | Patent Lawsuit 1:26-cv-00265

Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd. v. Azurity Pharmaceuticals Inc.

1:26-cv-00265 D. Del. Closed US8795725B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 12 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 7 Apr 2026, with US8795725B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8795725B2
Application no.
US11/269045
Case no.
1:26-cv-00265
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 Mar 2026 – 7 Apr 2026
Duration
26 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
GABA analog prodrug sustained release oral dosage forms
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:26-cv-00265, 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
US8795725B2 Active App. US11/269045

GABA analog prodrug sustained release oral dosage forms

Sustained release oral dosage forms of a gabapentin prodrug, 1-{[(α-isobutanoyloxyethoxy)carbonyl]aminomethyl}-1-cyclohexane acetic acid, are disclosed. The dosage forms are useful for treating or preventing diseases and disorders for which gabapentin is therapeutically effective.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
5 Aug 2014
Earliest priority
4 Nov 2004
Est. expiry
10 Jun 2029
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61K9/22
Prosecution counsel
Polsinelli PC
Examiner
LOVE, TREVOR
US8795725B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8795725B2 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

“Plaintiff Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its complaint against all defendants in the above captioned matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). According to Rule 41(a)(1), a party may be dismissed from an action by Plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of an answer by the adverse party to be dismissed. No defendant has filed an answer or other response to the Complaint to date. The Plaintiff hereby voluntarily dismisses its Complaint against all defendants without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”

Case 1:26-cv-00265 · D. Del. · closed 7 April 2026
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 1:26-cv-00265?

1:26-cv-00265 is a patent infringement action brought by Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd. against Azurity Pharmaceuticals Inc., filed on 12 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 7 April 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-00265?

US8795725B2 (“GABA analog prodrug sustained release oral dosage forms”), assigned to XENOPORT, INC., currently active. The record also lists GABA analog prodrug sustained release oral dosage forms.

How was case 1:26-cv-00265 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its complaint against all defendants in the above captioned matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). According to Rule 41(a)(1), a party may be dismissed from an action by Plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of an answer by the adverse party to be dismissed. No defendant has filed an answer or other response to the Complaint to date. The Plaintiff hereby voluntarily dismisses its Complaint against all defendants without prejudice pursua

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 1:26-cv-00265 take?

26 calendar days, from filing on 12 Mar 2026 to closure on 7 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-00265?

Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Stamatios Stamoulis is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Aurobindo Pharma. Bindu Ann George Palapura appears for defendant Azurity Pharmaceuticals.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:26-cv-00265 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-00265 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.