Book a demo

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

Try now
Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma | Patent Lawsuit 1:22-cv-01259

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma, Ltd.

1:22-cv-01259 D. Del. Closed US9492449B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 23 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 22 Aug 2023, with US9492449B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: injunction granted.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9492449B2
Application no.
US13/417185
Case no.
1:22-cv-01259
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Richard G. Andrews
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
23 Sep 2022 – 22 Aug 2023
Duration
333 days
Basis of termination
Injunction Granted
Products & marks
Zydelig® tablets containing 100 or 150 mg of idelalisib
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:22-cv-01259, 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
US9492449B2 Active App. US13/417185

Therapies for hematologic malignancies

The invention provides methods that relate to a novel therapeutic strategy for the treatment of hematological malignancies and inflammatory diseases. In particular, the method comprises administering a compound of formula A,

    • wherein R is H, halo, or C1-C6 alkyl;
    • R′ is C1-C6 alkyl; or
    • a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and
    • optionally a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient;
    • and administering at least one additional therapeutic agent.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
15 Nov 2016
Earliest priority
23 Sep 2009
Est. expiry
11 Mar 2030
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61K31/517A61K31/395A61K31/519A61K39/00
Prosecution counsel
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Examiner
JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA
US9492449B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9492449B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
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

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

“These actions for patent infringement having been brought by Plaintiff Gilead Sciences, Inc. and/or Gilead Calistoga, LLC (hereafter, collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against defendant Natco Pharma Limited (“Natco”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE44,599, RE44,638, 8,865,730, 9,469,643, 9,492,449 and 10,730,879; Plaintiffs and Natco (the “Parties”) having agreed to the terms and conditions in a confidential Settlement and License Agreement (the “Agreement”) and accordingly, having agreed to terminate the pending litigation by the entry of this Judgment and Order; and The Parties now consent to this Judgment and Order. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and subject matter of this action.2. All affirmative defenses, claims and counterclaims, which have been raised by Plaintiffs against Natco and its Affiliates, or by Natco and its Affiliates against Plaintiff, in this action are hereby dismissed without prejudice. 3. Except as otherwise provided by the Parties’ Agreement, Natco and its Affiliates are hereby enjoined from making, having made, using, having used, offering for sale, having offered for sale, selling, or having sold in the United States, or importing or having imported into the United States, the product of ANDA No. 216921. For purposes of this Judgment and Order, “Affiliates” means, with respect to a person, any other person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such person, but only as long as such control continues, where control and its correlates, as used in this definition, means (a) the ownership of at least fifty percent (50%) of the equity or beneficial interest of such other person, (b) the right to vote for or appoint a majority of the board of directors or other governing body of such other person, or (c) the power, whether pursuant to contract, ownership of securities, or otherwise, to direct the management and policies of such other person. 4. The Parties waive all right to appeal from this Judgment and Order. 5. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action and over the parties for purposes of enforcement of the provisions of this Judgment and Order. 6. Each Party is to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.”

Case 1:22-cv-01259 · D. Del. · closed 22 August 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 1:22-cv-01259?

1:22-cv-01259 is a patent infringement action brought by Gilead Sciences, Inc. against Natco Pharma, Ltd., filed on 23 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 22 August 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-01259?

US9492449B2 (“Therapies for hematologic malignancies”), assigned to GILEAD CALISTOGA LLC, currently active. The record also lists Zydelig® tablets containing 100 or 150 mg of idelalisib.

How was case 1:22-cv-01259 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is injunction granted. The termination text reads: “These actions for patent infringement having been brought by Plaintiff Gilead Sciences, Inc. and/or Gilead Calistoga, LLC (hereafter, collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against defendant Natco Pharma Limited (“Natco”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE44,599, RE44,638, 8,865,730, 9,469,643, 9,492,449 and 10,730,879; Plaintiffs and Natco (the “Parties”) having agreed to the terms and conditions in a confidential Settlement and License Agreement (the “Agreement”) and accordingly, having agreed to terminate the pending litigation by the entry of this Judgment and Order; and The Parties now consent

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 1:22-cv-01259 take?

333 calendar days, from filing on 23 Sep 2022 to closure on 22 August 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01259?

Chief Judge Richard G. Andrews presided. Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jeremy A. Tigan are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Gilead Sciences. James S. Green Jr. appears for defendant Natco Pharma.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:22-cv-01259 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01259 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.