Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Infringement action filed 8 Apr 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 27 Feb 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10695329B2US10799453B2US10952998B2US10894039B2
- Case no.
- 1:21-cv-08717
- 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
- 8 Apr 2021 – 27 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 690 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Amlodipine formulations
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
Amlodipine formulations
Provided herein are stable amlodipine oral liquid formulations. Also provided herein are methods of using amlodipine oral liquid formulations for the treatment of certain diseases including hypertension and Coronary Artery Disease (CAD).
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 30 Jun 2020
- Earliest priority
- 7 Oct 2016
- Est. expiry
- 16 Oct 2037
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BRAUER, SCOTT · MOSHER, GEROLD L.
- Classification
- A01N43/00A61K47/12A01N43/46A61K31/55A61K31/4422A61K9/08A61K47/02A61K47/26A61K47/34A61K47/38
- Prosecution counsel
- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
- Examiner
- SOROUSH, LAYLA
Amlodipine formulations
Provided herein are stable amlodipine liquid formulations. Also provided herein are methods of using amlodipine liquid formulations for the treatment of certain diseases including hypertension and Coronary Artery Disease (CAD).
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 13 Oct 2020
- Earliest priority
- 11 Apr 2018
- Est. expiry
- 11 Apr 2039
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BRAUER, SCOTT · MOSHER, GEROLD L.
- Classification
- A61K9/10A61K47/24A61K47/12A61K47/38A61K47/02A61K9/14A61K47/26A61K31/451
- Prosecution counsel
- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
- Examiner
- WAX, ROBERT A
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Core tech
- A01N43/00A61K47/12A01N43/46A61K31/55
- Counsel
- Arnold B. Calmann · Katherine Ann Escanlar
- Firm
- Saiber LLC
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Rebekah R. Conroy
- Firm
- Stone Conroy LLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Arnold B. Calmann | Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Katherine Ann Escanlar | Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Rebekah R. Conroy | Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Azurity”) and Defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Amneal”), the parties in the above-captioned action, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. All claims and counterclaims asserted in the above-captioned action are hereby dismissed without prejudice; and 2. Azurity and Amneal shall bear their own fees and costs.”
Case 1:21-cv-08717 · D.N.J. · closed 27 February 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 1:21-cv-08717?
1:21-cv-08717 is a patent infringement action brought by Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., filed on 8 Apr 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 27 February 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:21-cv-08717?
US10695329B2 (“Amlodipine formulations”), assigned to AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., currently active; US10799453B2 (“Amlodipine formulations”), assigned to AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., currently active; US10952998B2 (“Amlodipine formulations”), assigned to AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US10894039B2 (“Amlodipine formulations”), assigned to AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.. The record also lists Amlodipine formulations.
How was case 1:21-cv-08717 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Azurity”) and Defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Amneal”), the parties in the above-captioned action, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. All claims and counterclaims asserted in the above-captioned action are hereby dismissed without prejudice; and 2. Azurity and Amneal shall bear their own fees and costs.”
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 1:21-cv-08717 take?
690 calendar days, from filing on 8 Apr 2021 to closure on 27 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:21-cv-08717?
Arnold B. Calmann and Katherine Ann Escanlar are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Azurity Pharmaceuticals. Rebekah R. Conroy appears for defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:21-cv-08717 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.