Eli Lilly & Company v. Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 19 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 2 Apr 2026, with US7423050B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7423050B2
- Application no.
- US10/509770
- Case no.
- 2:26-cv-02866
- 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
- 19 Mar 2026 – 2 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 14 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Qilu ANDA for Qilu’s 50 mg and 100 mg tablets
- 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
Pyridinoylpiperidines as 5-HT1F agonists
The present invention relates to compounds of formula I:or pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salts thereof, where;R1 is C1-C6 alkyl, substituted C1-C6 alkyl, C3-C7 cycloalkyl, substituted C3-C7 cycloalkyl, C3-C7 cycloalkyl-C1-C3 alkyl, substituted C3-C7 cycloalkyl-C1-C3 alkyl, phenyl, substituted phenyl, heterocycle, or substituted heterocycle;R2 is hydrogen, C1-C3 alkyl, C3-C6 cycloalkyl-C1-C3 alkyl, or a group of formula IIR3 is hydrogen or C1-C3 alkyl;R4 is hydrogen, halo, or C1-C3 alkyl;R5 is hydrogen or C1-C3 alkyl;R6 is hydrogen or C1-C6 alkyl; andn is an integer from 1 to 6 inclusively.The compounds of the present invention are useful for activating 5-HT1F receptors, inhibiting neuronal protein extravasation, and for the treatment or prevention of migraine in a mammal. The present invention also relates to a process for the synthesis of intermediates in the synthesis of compounds of Formula I.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 9 Sep 2008
- Earliest priority
- 29 Mar 2002
- Est. expiry
- 17 Feb 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- COHEN, MICHAEL PHILIP · KOHLMAN, DANIEL TIMOTHY · LIANG, SIDNEY XI · MANCUSO, VINCENT · XU, YAO-CHANG · YING, BAI-PING · ZACHERL, DEANNA PIATT · ZHANG, DEYI · VICTOR, FRANTZ
- Classification
- A61K31/445C07D401/06A61K31/4545A61K31/506A61P15/00A61P15/10A61P17/14A61P25/06A61P25/18A61P25/20A61P25/22A61P25/24A61P25/28A61P25/32A61P25/34A61P43/00C07D401/14C07D405/14C07D409/14C07D417/14
- Prosecution counsel
- ELI LILLY & COMPANY
- Examiner
- CHANG, CELIA
Parties of record
Eli Lilly & Company
- Core tech
- A61K31/445C07D401/06A61K31/4545A61K31/506
- Counsel
- Christine Intromasso Gannon · Liza M. Walsh · Patrick Steven Salamea
- Firm
- Walsh Pizzi O’reilly Falanga, LLP, Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly Falanga LLP
Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Christine Intromasso Gannon | Eli Lilly & Company | Plaintiff |
| Liza M. Walsh | Eli Lilly & Company | Plaintiff |
| Patrick Steven Salamea | Eli Lilly & Company | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Eli Lilly & Company and CoLucid Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Lilly”) have asserted certain claims with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,423,050 against Defendants Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Qilu Pharma Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or “Qilu”). WHEREAS the parties have resolved all outstanding issues between them relating to this action, and as such, through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby STIPULATE and AGREE as follows: 1. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses asserted in the above matter are dismissed without prejudice. 2. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 3. This court retains jurisdiction over the parties for purposes of enforcing this Stipulation and Order of Dismissal.”
Case 2:26-cv-02866 · D.N.J. · closed 2 April 2026
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 2:26-cv-02866?
2:26-cv-02866 is a patent infringement action brought by Eli Lilly & Company against Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., filed on 19 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 2 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:26-cv-02866?
US7423050B2 (“Pyridinoylpiperidines as 5-HT1F agonists”), assigned to ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, currently active. The record also lists Qilu ANDA for Qilu’s 50 mg and 100 mg tablets.
How was case 2:26-cv-02866 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Eli Lilly & Company and CoLucid Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Lilly”) have asserted certain claims with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,423,050 against Defendants Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Qilu Pharma Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or “Qilu”). WHEREAS the parties have resolved all outstanding issues between them relating to this action, and as such, through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby STIPULATE and AGREE as follows: 1. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses asserted in the above matter are dismissed without prejudice. 2. Eac
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 2:26-cv-02866 take?
14 calendar days, from filing on 19 Mar 2026 to closure on 2 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-02866?
Christine Intromasso Gannon, Liza M. Walsh and Patrick Steven Salamea are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Eli Lilly &.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-02866 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.