Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories, Ltd.
Infringement action filed 20 Aug 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 4 May 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10493028B2US10959948B2US10688046B2
- Case no.
- 1:20-cv-01094
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Mitchell S. Goldberg
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 20 Aug 2020 – 4 May 2023
- Duration
- 987 days
- Basis of termination
- Judgment on the merits for Defendant
- Products & marks
- Composition and method for vancomycin oral liquid
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
Composition and method for vancomycin oral liquid
The invention relates to stable vancomycin hydrochloride powder for oral liquid formulations. Also provided herein are methods of using vancomycin oral liquid formulations for the treatment of certain diseases such as Clostridium difficile pseudomembranous colitis and Staphylococcal enterocolitis as well as kits and related products thereof.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 3 Dec 2019
- Earliest priority
- 13 Mar 2015
- Est. expiry
- 13 Mar 2035
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MUNI, INDU · MIONE, PETER · GANDHI, ANISA · LECHIARA, CRISTINA
- Classification
- A61K9/08A61K47/26A61K47/12A23L2/56A61K38/14A23L2/60A23L2/52A61K9/00
- Prosecution counsel
- WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
- Examiner
- MILLIGAN, ADAM C
Composition and method for vancomycin oral liquid
The invention relates to stable vancomycin hydrochloride powder for oral liquid formulations. Also provided herein are methods of using vancomycin oral liquid formulations for the treatment of certain diseases such as Clostridium difficile pseudomembranous colitis and Staphylococcal enterocolitis as well as kits and related products thereof.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 30 Mar 2021
- Earliest priority
- 13 May 2014
- Est. expiry
- 13 Mar 2035
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MUNI, INDU · MIONE, PETER · GANDHI, ANISA · LECHIARA, CRISTINA
- Classification
- A61K9/08A61K47/12A23L2/60A61K38/14A23L2/52A23L2/56A61K9/00A61K47/26
- Prosecution counsel
- WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
- Examiner
- ALAWADI, SARAH
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Core tech
- A61K9/08A61K47/26A61K47/12A23L2/56
- Counsel
- Elham F. Steiner · Jack B. Blumenfeld · James P.H. Stephens · Megan Elizabeth Dellinger · Wendy L. Devine
- Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Alkem Laboratories, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alan H. Pollack · Beth C. Finkelstein · Constance S. Huttner · Daniel Taylor · Eve H. Ormerod · James P. Barabas · Joshua I. Miller · Neal C. Belgam
- Firm
- Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Elham F. Steiner | Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jack B. Blumenfeld | Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| James P.H. Stephens | Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Megan Elizabeth Dellinger | Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Wendy L. Devine | Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Alan H. Pollack | Alkem Laboratories, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Beth C. Finkelstein | Alkem Laboratories, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Constance S. Huttner | Alkem Laboratories, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Daniel Taylor | Alkem Laboratories, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Eve H. Ormerod | Alkem Laboratories, Ltd. | Defendant |
| James P. Barabas | Alkem Laboratories, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Joshua I. Miller | Alkem Laboratories, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Neal C. Belgam | Alkem Laboratories, Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“AND NOW, this 4 th day of May, 2023, following a bench trial held on October 3, 2022 and October 6, 2022, and closing arguments on April 17, 2023, and upon consideration of the parties’ post-trial briefs (ECF Nos. 164 and 165), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (“Alkem”) and against Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Azurity”) on Claim 3 of Azurity’s Second Amended Complaint (infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,959,948).1 2. Alkem’s Third Counterclaim is DISMISSED as MOOT. 2 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case”
Case 1:20-cv-01094 · D. Del. · closed 4 May 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 1:20-cv-01094?
1:20-cv-01094 is a patent infringement action brought by Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Alkem Laboratories, Ltd., filed on 20 Aug 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 4 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:20-cv-01094?
US10493028B2 (“Composition and method for vancomycin oral liquid”), assigned to AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., currently active; US10959948B2 (“Composition and method for vancomycin oral liquid”), assigned to AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., currently active; US10688046B2 (“Composition and method for vancomycin oral liquid”), assigned to AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.. The record also lists Composition and method for vancomycin oral liquid.
How was case 1:20-cv-01094 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: “AND NOW, this 4 th day of May, 2023, following a bench trial held on October 3, 2022 and October 6, 2022, and closing arguments on April 17, 2023, and upon consideration of the parties’ post-trial briefs (ECF Nos. 164 and 165), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (“Alkem”) and against Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Azurity”) on Claim 3 of Azurity’s Second Amended Complaint (infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,959,948).1 2. Alkem’s Third Counterclaim is DISMISSED as MOOT. 2
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 1:20-cv-01094 take?
987 calendar days, from filing on 20 Aug 2020 to closure on 4 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:20-cv-01094?
Chief Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg presided. Elham F. Steiner, Jack B. Blumenfeld, James P.H. Stephens, Megan Elizabeth Dellinger and Wendy L. Devine are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Azurity Pharmaceuticals. Alan H. Pollack, Beth C. Finkelstein, Constance S. Huttner, Daniel Taylor, Eve H. Ormerod, James P. Barabas, Joshua I. Miller and Neal C. Belgam appear for defendant Alkem Laboratories.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:20-cv-01094 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.