Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al. v. ScieGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Infringement action filed 6 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 27 Apr 2023, with US9326945B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9326945B2
- Application no.
- US13/579796
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-00393
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Gregory B. Williams
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 6 Apr 2023 – 27 Apr 2023
- Duration
- 21 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Apixaban formulations
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
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
Apixaban formulations
Compositions comprising crystalline apixaban particles having a D90 equal to or less than 89 μm, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, are substantially bioequivalent and can be used to for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of thromboembolic disorders.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 3 May 2016
- Earliest priority
- 25 Feb 2010
- Est. expiry
- 24 Aug 2031
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2018-00892 · Other · filed by MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- PATEL, JATIN · FROST, CHARLES · JIA, JINGPIN · VEMAVARAPU, CHANDRA
- Classification
- A61K9/20A61K31/4545A61K31/437A61K31/4412
- Prosecution counsel
- Venable LLP
- Examiner
- BARHAM, BETHANY
Parties of record
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
- Core tech
- A61K9/20A61K31/4545A61K31/437A61K31/4412
- Counsel
- Brian E. Farnan · Joseph J. Farnan Jr. · Michael J. Farnan
- Firm
- Farnan LLP
- Also named
- Pfizer, Inc.
ScieGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Patricia Smink Rogowski · Robert S. Silver
- Firm
- Rogowski Law LLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brian E. Farnan | Bristol-Myers Squibb Company | Plaintiff |
| Joseph J. Farnan Jr. | Bristol-Myers Squibb Company | Plaintiff |
| Michael J. Farnan | Bristol-Myers Squibb Company | Plaintiff |
| Patricia Smink Rogowski | ScieGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Defendant |
| Robert S. Silver | ScieGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiffs Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer Inc., and Defendant ScieGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., by their respective undersigned counsel, hereby STIPULATE and AGREE as follows: 1. All claims and counterclaims, defenses, motions and petitions asserted in this Action are dismissed without prejudice; 2. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees with respect to the matters dismissed hereby; 3. The parties each expressly waive any right to appeal or otherwise move for relief from this Stipulation and Order; 4. This Court retains jurisdiction over the parties for purposes of enforcing this Stipulation and Order; and 5. This Stipulation and Order shall finally resolve the Action between the parties.”
Case 1:23-cv-00393 · D. Del. · closed 27 April 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 1:23-cv-00393?
1:23-cv-00393 is a patent infringement action brought by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company against ScieGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., filed on 6 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 27 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-00393?
US9326945B2 (“Apixaban formulations”), assigned to BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, currently active. The record also lists Apixaban formulations.
How was case 1:23-cv-00393 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Plaintiffs Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer Inc., and Defendant ScieGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., by their respective undersigned counsel, hereby STIPULATE and AGREE as follows: 1. All claims and counterclaims, defenses, motions and petitions asserted in this Action are dismissed without prejudice; 2. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees with respect to the matters dismissed hereby; 3. The parties each expressly waive any right to appeal or otherwise move for relief from this Stipulation and Order; 4. This Court retains jurisdiction over the parties for purposes of enfo
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 1:23-cv-00393 take?
21 calendar days, from filing on 6 Apr 2023 to closure on 27 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00393?
Chief Judge Gregory B. Williams presided. Brian E. Farnan, Joseph J. Farnan Jr. and Michael J. Farnan are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Bristol-Myers Squibb. Patricia Smink Rogowski and Robert S. Silver appear for defendant ScieGen Pharmaceuticals.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00393 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.