Duke University v. Sandoz, Inc.

1:18-cv-00997 D. Colo. Closed US9579270B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 26 Apr 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and closed 16 Jun 2026, with US9579270B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9579270B2
Application no.
US14/958334
Case no.
1:18-cv-00997
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Colo.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Colorado
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
26 Apr 2018 – 16 Jun 2026
Duration
2973 days
Basis of termination
Judgment on the merits for Defendant
Products & marks
Compositions and methods for treating hair loss using non-naturally occurring prostaglandins
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:18-cv-00997, United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 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
US9579270B2 Inactive App. US14/958334

Compositions and methods for treating hair loss using non-naturally occurring prostaglandins

DUKE UNIVERSITY

A method for treating hair loss in mammals uses compositions containing prostaglandin F analogs. The compositions can be applied topically to the skin. The compositions can arrest hair loss, reverse hair loss, and promote hair growth.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
28 Feb 2017
Earliest priority
31 Mar 2000
Est. expiry
31 Jan 2021
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61K31/16A61K8/37A61K31/19A61K31/381A61K31/5575A61K8/365A61K8/49A61K31/54A61K31/435A61K31/425A61K31/38A61K31/33A61K31/215A61K31/21A61Q7/00A61K31/428A61K31/192A61K45/06A61K31/559A61K8/00A61K8/34A61K8/39A61K8/40A61K8/97A61P17/14A61Q5/00A61Q5/02
Prosecution counsel
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
Examiner
BADIO, BARBARA P
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
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

Duke University

Core tech
A61K31/16A61K8/37A61K31/19A61K31/381
Counsel
Caitlin Patricia Hogan · Carolyn S. Wall · Chuan Cheng · Deanna Jean Reichel · Elizabeth Marjorie Flanagan · Eric Shaun Hochstadt · Hassen Amir Sayeed · Jacob A. Rey · James Y. Li · Jing Ying Zhao · John M. Farrell · Jonathan E. Singer · Kathryn A. Reilly · Kelly A. Del Dotto · Lindsay H. Autz · Lisa B. Pensabene · Michael Patrick Dulin · Phillip Wagner Goter · Susan E. Morrison · Timothy S. Durst
Firm
Fish & Richardson PC, Greenberg Traurig LLP, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP
View litigation record See its litigation pattern
Defendant

Sandoz, Inc.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Candice Jaesun Kwark · Daniel Shaw Young · Gerard J. Cedrone · Gretchen Porter Miller · John Lloyd Abramic · Katherine H. Tellez · Kathryn Lenhart Bohmann · Lillian Anne Wallace · Matthew M. Zuziak · Richard Kent Kornfeld · Robert F. Kappers · Ryann Morgan Muir · Thomas J. Filarski · Tyler Doh · Vishal Gupta · William McGinley Jay
Firm
Goodwin Procter LLP, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Nixon Peabody LLP, Quarles & Brady LLP, Recht & Kornfeld PC, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Steptoe, LLP
View litigation record See its litigation pattern

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Caitlin Patricia HoganDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Carolyn S. WallDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Chuan ChengDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Deanna Jean ReichelDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Elizabeth Marjorie FlanaganDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Eric Shaun HochstadtDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Hassen Amir SayeedDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Jacob A. ReyDuke UniversityPlaintiff
James Y. LiDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Jing Ying ZhaoDuke UniversityPlaintiff
John M. FarrellDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Jonathan E. SingerDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Kathryn A. ReillyDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Kelly A. Del DottoDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Lindsay H. AutzDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Lisa B. PensabeneDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Michael Patrick DulinDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Phillip Wagner GoterDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Susan E. MorrisonDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Timothy S. DurstDuke UniversityPlaintiff
Candice Jaesun KwarkSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Daniel Shaw YoungSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Gerard J. CedroneSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Gretchen Porter MillerSandoz, Inc.Defendant
John Lloyd AbramicSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Katherine H. TellezSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Kathryn Lenhart BohmannSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Lillian Anne WallaceSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Matthew M. ZuziakSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Richard Kent KornfeldSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Robert F. KappersSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Ryann Morgan MuirSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Thomas J. FilarskiSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Tyler DohSandoz, Inc.Defendant
Vishal GuptaSandoz, Inc.Defendant
William McGinley JaySandoz, Inc.Defendant
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

"In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered. Pursuant to the Order Directing the Clerk of the Court to Award Costs and Enter Judgment after Appeal (Doc. 367) entered by Senior District Judge Raymond P. Moore, it is ORDERED that Claim 30 of the '270 patent is invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. It is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendant on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is awarded costs incurred in this action in the amount of $651,986.00, which Plaintiffs shall pay to Defendant within 50 days of the issuance of the Clerk’s order taxing costs. It is Case No. 1:18-cv-00997-RM-KLM Document 368 filed 06/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2 FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall pay their own attorneys’ fees incurred in this case."

Case 1:18-cv-00997 · D. Colo. · closed 16 June 2026
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.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming Duke University, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for medicinal preparations
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:18-cv-00997?

1:18-cv-00997 is a patent infringement action brought by Duke University against Sandoz, Inc., filed on 26 Apr 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The case closed on 16 June 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 1:18-cv-00997?

US9579270B2 (“Compositions and methods for treating hair loss using non-naturally occurring prostaglandins”), assigned to DUKE UNIVERSITY, currently inactive. The record also lists Compositions and methods for treating hair loss using non-naturally occurring prostaglandins.

How was case 1:18-cv-00997 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: "In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered. Pursuant to the Order Directing the Clerk of the Court to Award Costs and Enter Judgment after Appeal (Doc. 367) entered by Senior District Judge Raymond P. Moore, it is ORDERED that Claim 30 of the '270 patent is invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. It is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendant on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is awa

What does judgment on the merits mean?

A judgment on the merits decides the substance of the claims, as opposed to ending the case on procedural grounds.

How long did case 1:18-cv-00997 take?

2973 calendar days, from filing on 26 Apr 2018 to closure on 16 June 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:18-cv-00997?

Caitlin Patricia Hogan, Carolyn S. Wall, Chuan Cheng, Deanna Jean Reichel, Elizabeth Marjorie Flanagan, Eric Shaun Hochstadt, Hassen Amir Sayeed, Jacob A. Rey, James Y. Li, Jing Ying Zhao, John M. Farrell, Jonathan E. Singer, Kathryn A. Reilly, Kelly A. Del Dotto, Lindsay H. Autz, Lisa B. Pensabene, Michael Patrick Dulin, Phillip Wagner Goter, Susan E. Morrison and Timothy S. Durst are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Duke University. Candice Jaesun Kwark, Daniel Shaw Young, Gerard J. Cedrone, Gretchen Porter Miller, John Lloyd Abramic, Katherine H. Tellez, Kathryn Lenhart Bohmann, Lillian Anne Wallace, Matthew M. Zuziak, Richard Kent Kornfeld, Robert F. Kappers, Ryann Morgan Muir, Thomas J. Filarski, Tyler Doh, Vishal Gupta and William McGinley Jay appear for defendant Sandoz.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:18-cv-00997 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Browse related dockets
Cases in D. Colo. Cases on medicinal preparations All patent litigation records

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:18-cv-00997 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.