Bausch & Lomb, Inc. et al. v. Lupin Limited et al.
Infringement action filed 17 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 14 Jun 2023, with US11534395B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case consolidated.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11534395B2
- Application no.
- US16/826366
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-02664
- 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
- 17 May 2023 – 14 Jun 2023
- Duration
- 28 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Consolidated
- Products & marks
- Ophthalmic suspension composition
- 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
Ophthalmic suspension composition
A suspension includes an ophthalmic active ingredient suspended in a formulation vehicle including a suspending agent and a non-ionic cellulose derivative. The ophthalmic active agent is present as particles having Dv90<5 μm and Dv50<1 μm. The suspension may be administered to a patient for treating an ophthalmic inflammatory condition.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 27 Dec 2022
- Earliest priority
- 26 Jan 2015
- Est. expiry
- 26 Jan 2036
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHAWER, MOHANNAD · PHILLIPS, ERIC · COFFEY, MARTIN J.
- Classification
- A61K9/00A61K9/14A61K31/56A61K31/573A61K47/02A61K47/06A61K47/10A61K47/32A61K47/38A61P9/10A61P27/02
- Prosecution counsel
- HSE/Valeant
- Examiner
- PALENIK, JEFFREY T.
Parties of record
Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
- Core tech
- A61K9/00A61K9/14A61K31/56A61K31/573
- Counsel
- J. Brugh Lower · William P. Deni Jr.
- Firm
- Gibbons PC
- Also named
- Bausch & Lomb Ireland Limited
Lupin Limited
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- James S. Richter
- Firm
- Midlige Richter LLC
- Also named
- Lupin Atlantis Holdings, S.A. · Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Lupin, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| J. Brugh Lower | Bausch & Lomb, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| William P. Deni Jr. | Bausch & Lomb, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| James S. Richter | Lupin Limited | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS MATTER having come before the Court jointly by counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants for an order consolidating the above-referenced cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and Local Civil Rule 42.1; and the parties having agreed that consolidation of the actions would promote judicial economy and conserve the Court’s and the parties’ time and resources; and the Court having found that the above-captioned cases are related actions involving common questions of law or fact within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Case 2:23-cv-02664-MEF-JRA Document 13 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 180 2 Procedure Rule 42(a) and Local Civil Rule 42.1; and all parties having consented to this Order; and for other and good cause having been shown, IT IS on this 14th day of June 2023, ORDERED that Civil Action Nos. 23-00790 and 23-02664 (collectively, the “Consolidated Actions”) are consolidated for all purposes, including discovery, case management, and trial, subject to further order of the Court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Civil Action No. 23-00790 shall be the Lead Case, all filings going forward in the Consolidated Actions are to be made under Civil Action No. 23-00790 only, and the Clerk of Court shall designate Civil Action No. 23-02664 as closed for administrative purposes;”
Case 2:23-cv-02664 · D.N.J. · closed 14 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 2:23-cv-02664?
2:23-cv-02664 is a patent infringement action brought by Bausch & Lomb, Inc. against Lupin Limited, filed on 17 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 14 June 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-02664?
US11534395B2 (“Ophthalmic suspension composition”), assigned to BAUSCH + LOMB IRELAND LIMITED, currently active. The record also lists Ophthalmic suspension composition.
How was case 2:23-cv-02664 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case consolidated. The termination text reads: “THIS MATTER having come before the Court jointly by counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants for an order consolidating the above-referenced cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and Local Civil Rule 42.1; and the parties having agreed that consolidation of the actions would promote judicial economy and conserve the Court’s and the parties’ time and resources; and the Court having found that the above-captioned cases are related actions involving common questions of law or fact within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Case 2:23-cv-02664-MEF-JRA Document 13 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1
How long did case 2:23-cv-02664 take?
28 calendar days, from filing on 17 May 2023 to closure on 14 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-02664?
J. Brugh Lower and William P. Deni Jr. are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Bausch & Lomb. James S. Richter appears for defendant Lupin.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-02664 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.