Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Boehringer-Ingelheim et al. v. Hetero USA et al. | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-00048

Boehringer-Ingelheim et al. v. Hetero USA, Inc. et al.

1:23-cv-00048 D. Del. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 13 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 12 Oct 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US10034877B2US9486526B2
Case no.
1:23-cv-00048
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Colm F. Connolly
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
13 Jan 2023 – 12 Oct 2023
Duration
272 days
Basis of termination
Consent Judgment
Products & marks
Treatment for diabetes in patients inappropriate for metformin therapy
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-00048, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US10034877B2 Active App. US15/287228

Treatment for diabetes in patients inappropriate for metformin therapy

The present invention relates to the finding that certain DPP-4 inhibitors are particularly suitable for treating and/or preventing metabolic diseases, particularly diabetes, in patients for whom metformin therapy is inappropriate due to intolerability or contraindication against metformin.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
31 Jul 2018
Earliest priority
7 Aug 2008
Est. expiry
5 Feb 2030
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
C07D473/06A61K31/522A61K31/4439A61K31/4375A61K31/427A61K31/4025A61K31/422A61K9/00A61K31/496A61K45/06A61K31/40A61K31/403A61K31/4985A61K31/506A61K31/5025A61K31/513
Prosecution counsel
VP, IP, LEGAL
Examiner
CORDERO GARCIA, MARCELA M
US9486526B2 Active App. US14/294630

Treatment for diabetes in patients inappropriate for metformin therapy

The present invention relates to the finding that certain DPP-4 inhibitors are particularly suitable for treating and/or preventing metabolic diseases, particularly diabetes, in patients for whom metformin therapy is inappropriate due to intolerability or contraindication against metformin.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
8 Nov 2016
Earliest priority
7 Aug 2008
Est. expiry
5 Feb 2030
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61K31/52A61K31/422A61K31/403A61K31/4375A61K31/4439A61K31/4985A61K31/5025A61K31/506A61K31/513A61K31/522A61K31/427A61K45/06A61K31/40A61K31/4025
Prosecution counsel
VP, IP, LEGAL
Examiner
CORDERO GARCIA, MARCELA M
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Plaintiff

Boehringer-Ingelheim

Core tech
C07D473/06A61K31/522A61K31/4439A61K31/4375
Counsel
Brian P. Egan · Jack B. Blumenfeld · Megan Elizabeth Dellinger
Firm
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Also named
Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation · Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co., KG · Boehringer Ingelheim International, GMBH

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“For purposes of this action only,this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above action and has personal jurisdiction over the parties.As used in this consent judgementand unless specifically authorized or otherwise modified between the parties in any related agreement(s). (i) term “the 526 patent means U.S. Patent No. 9,486,526, which Hetero is valid and (ii) the term ‘The ‘877 Patent” means U.S. Patent No. 10,034,877, Which Hetero agrees is valid and enforceable. (iii) the term “Hetero ANDA Products” shall mean the products described in Abbreviated New Drug Application NO. 217749, including 5 mg linagliptin tablets as a generic version Of TradjentaØ as existing on the Effective Date, and as amended or supplemented from time to time in the ordinary course of business, and (iv) thc term “Affiliate” shall mean any entity controlling. controlled by, under common control with a party, but only as long as such control continues. where “control” means: I ) the ownership of at least fifty (50%) Of the equity or beneficial interest of such entity. or the right to vote for Or aprx’int a majority of the board of directors or other governing body of such entity. or (2) the power to directly or indirectly direct or cause the direction of the management and policies Of such entity by any means whatsoever.”

Case 1:23-cv-00048 · D. Del. · closed 12 October 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:23-cv-00048?

1:23-cv-00048 is a patent infringement action brought by Boehringer-Ingelheim against Hetero USA, Inc., filed on 13 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 12 October 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-00048?

US10034877B2 (“Treatment for diabetes in patients inappropriate for metformin therapy”), assigned to BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, currently active; US9486526B2 (“Treatment for diabetes in patients inappropriate for metformin therapy”), assigned to BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, currently active. The record also lists Treatment for diabetes in patients inappropriate for metformin therapy.

How was case 1:23-cv-00048 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “For purposes of this action only,this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above action and has personal jurisdiction over the parties.As used in this consent judgementand unless specifically authorized or otherwise modified between the parties in any related agreement(s). (i) term “the 526 patent means U.S. Patent No. 9,486,526, which Hetero is valid and (ii) the term ‘The ‘877 Patent” means U.S. Patent No. 10,034,877, Which Hetero agrees is valid and enforceable. (iii) the term “Hetero ANDA Products” shall mean the products described in Abbreviated New Drug Application NO.

What does consent judgment mean?

A consent judgment is a judgment the parties agree to and the court enters. Unlike a bare dismissal it is enforceable as a judgment.

How long did case 1:23-cv-00048 take?

272 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jan 2023 to closure on 12 October 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00048?

Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly presided. Brian P. Egan, Jack B. Blumenfeld and Megan Elizabeth Dellinger are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Boehringer-Ingelheim. Cortlan S. Hitch and Kenneth Laurence Dorsney appear for defendant Hetero USA.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-00048 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00048 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.