Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.
Infringement action filed 15 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 10 Apr 2026, with US9066936B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9066936B2
- Application no.
- US12/450403
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-01507
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Maryellen Noreika
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 15 Dec 2025 – 10 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 116 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- EDARBI® · oral tablets containing 40 mg azilsartan medoxomil and for oral tablets containing 80 mg azilsartan medoxomil
- 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
Solid pharmaceutical composition comprising a benzimidazole-7-carboxylate derivative and a pH control agent
The present invention provides a solid pharmaceutical composition containing compound (I) having an angiotensin II receptor antagonistic action and defined in the specification and a pH control agent, which composition is superior in the stability and dissolution property of compound (I).
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 30 Jun 2015
- Earliest priority
- 28 Mar 2007
- Est. expiry
- 26 Mar 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- YONEYAMA, SHUJI · TANOUE, YUTAKA
- Classification
- A61K31/4245A61K9/16A61K9/20
- Prosecution counsel
- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
- Examiner
- KOSACK, JOSEPH
Parties of record
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Bindu Ann George Palapura · Chamyra L Upshur · David Ellis Moore · Emily M. Shingle · Kristina M. Hanson · Mark A. Hayden · Natalie J. Morgan · Nicholas Halkowski · Sean M. Anderson · Wendy L. Devine
- Firm
- Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP
Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- John C. Phillips Jr.
- Firm
- Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by Plaintiffs Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC (collectively, “Azurity”), and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (“Takeda”) (collectively with Azurity, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”) by and through their attorneys, that (1) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), all claims and counterclaims between Plaintiffs and Aurobindo are dismissed without prejudice. (2) Any protective orders entered by the Court shall remain in full force and effect notwithstanding the dismissal of this action. (3) Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. (4) This stipulation shall not act as an adjudication on the merits. (5) The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware retains jurisdiction to enforce and resolve any disputes arising under the settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and Aurobindo.”
Case 1:25-cv-01507 · D. Del. · closed 10 April 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 1:25-cv-01507?
1:25-cv-01507 is a patent infringement action brought by Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd., filed on 15 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 10 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:25-cv-01507?
US9066936B2 (“Solid pharmaceutical composition comprising a benzimidazole-7-carboxylate derivative and a pH control agent”), assigned to TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, currently active. The record also lists EDARBI® and oral tablets containing 40 mg azilsartan medoxomil and for oral tablets containing 80 mg azilsartan medoxomil.
How was case 1:25-cv-01507 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by Plaintiffs Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC (collectively, “Azurity”), and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (“Takeda”) (collectively with Azurity, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”) by and through their attorneys, that (1) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), all claims and counterclaims between Plaintiffs and Aurobindo are dismissed without prejudice. (2) Any protective orders entered by the Court shall remain in full force and effect notwithstanding the dismissal of this action. (3) Eac
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 1:25-cv-01507 take?
116 calendar days, from filing on 15 Dec 2025 to closure on 10 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-01507?
Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Bindu Ann George Palapura, Chamyra L Upshur, David Ellis Moore, Emily M. Shingle, Kristina M. Hanson, Mark A. Hayden, Natalie J. Morgan, Nicholas Halkowski, Sean M. Anderson and Wendy L. Devine are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Azurity Pharmaceuticals. John C. Phillips Jr. appears for defendant Aurobindo Pharma.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-01507 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.