Big Will Enterprises, Inc. v. Greenroad Technologies, Inc.
Infringement action filed 30 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 15 Nov 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9169238B2US9066936B2US9387249B2
- Case no.
- 6:23-cv-00690
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Robert Pitman
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 30 Sep 2023 – 15 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 46 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- EDARBYCLOR® oral tablets containing 40 mg azilsartan medoxomil and 25 mg chlorthalidone, and 40 mg azilsartan medoxomil and 12.5 mg chlorthalidone
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
The present invention relates to a solid preparation containing a compound represented by the formula (I) wherein each symbol is as defined in the specification, or a salt thereof, a pH control agent and a diuretic, which is superior in the stability and dissolution property of the compound represented by the formula (I) and the diuretic.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 27 Oct 2015
- Earliest priority
- 31 Jul 2008
- Est. expiry
- 4 Feb 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- TANOUE, YUTAKA · NOMURA, JUNYA
- Classification
- A61K31/4245A61K9/20A61K31/5415A61P9/12C07D413/14A61P7/10A61P9/00
- Prosecution counsel
- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
- Examiner
- WEBB, WALTER
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
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
Big Will Enterprises, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Brett T. Cooke
- Firm
- Brett T. Cooke, Law Office
Greenroad Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brett T. Cooke | Big Will Enterprises, Inc. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed all claims in this case with prejudice. (Dkt. 9). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (May 15, 2015). As nothing remains to resolve, IT IS ORDERED that the case is CLOSED.”
Case 6:23-cv-00690 · W.D. Tex. · closed 15 November 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 6:23-cv-00690?
6:23-cv-00690 is a patent infringement action brought by Big Will Enterprises, Inc. against Greenroad Technologies, Inc., filed on 30 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 15 November 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:23-cv-00690?
US9169238B2 (“Solid pharmaceutical composition”), assigned to TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, currently active; US9066936B2 (“Solid pharmaceutical composition comprising a benzimidazole-7-carboxylate derivative and a pH control agent”), assigned to TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, currently active; US9387249B2 (“Methods of treating hypertension with at least one angiotensin II receptor blocker and chlorthalidone”), assigned to TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED. The record also lists EDARBYCLOR® oral tablets containing 40 mg azilsartan medoxomil and 25 mg chlorthalidone, and 40 mg azilsartan medoxomil and 12.5 mg chlorthalidone.
How was case 6:23-cv-00690 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed all claims in this case with prejudice. (Dkt. 9). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 6:23-cv-00690 take?
46 calendar days, from filing on 30 Sep 2023 to closure on 15 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00690?
Chief Judge Robert Pitman presided. Brett T. Cooke is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Big Will Enterprises.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00690 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.