Infringement action filed 19 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and closed 30 Oct 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
The present invention relates to stable polymer matrix compositions comprising high concentrations (from about 1.5% w/w to about 3.5% w/w) sodium hyaluronate obtained from a Streptococcus zooepidemicus source and a non-ionic polymer. The polymer matrix composition further comprises polyethylene glycol and methylparaben, and utilizes ingredients that are of pharmaceutical or compendial grade. The polymer matrix compositions may optionally comprise an active ingredient. The present polymer matrix compositions may be used in the treatment of wounds, burns, certain dermatological conditions, vaginal dryness, and in topical, transdermal delivery and sustained release of active ingredients.
The present invention relates to stable polymer matrix compositions comprising high concentrations (from about 1.5% w/w to about 3.5% w/w) sodium hyaluronate obtained from a Streptococcus zooepidemicus source and a non-ionic polymer. The polymer matrix composition further comprises polyethylene glycol and methylparaben, and utilizes ingredients that are of pharmaceutical or compendial grade. The polymer matrix compositions may optionally comprise an active ingredient. The present polymer matrix compositions may be used in the treatment of wounds, burns, certain dermatological conditions, vaginal dryness, and in topical, transdermal delivery and sustained release of active ingredients.
8:23-cv-01062 is a patent infringement action brought by Glycobiosciences, Inc. against Johnson & Johnson, filed on 19 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The case closed on 30 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 8:23-cv-01062?
US9821005B2 (“Polymer matrix compositions comprising a high concentration of bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate and uses thereof”), assigned to GLYCOBIOSCIENCES INC., currently inactive; US10322142B2 (“Polymer matrix compositions comprising a high concentration of bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate and uses thereof”), assigned to GLYCOBIOSCIENCES INC., currently active. The record also lists Polymer matrix compositions comprising a high concentration of bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate and uses thereof.
How was case 8:23-cv-01062 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: "ORDERgranting 14 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofPersonalJurisdiction; denying 16 Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer the Case."
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 8:23-cv-01062 take?
194 calendar days, from filing on 19 Apr 2023 to closure on 30 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 8:23-cv-01062?
Chief Judge Deborah L. Boardman presided. Joseph J. Zito is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Glycobiosciences. Anthony T. Pierce, Jonathan J. Underwood and Steven D. Maslowski appear for defendant Johnson & Johnson.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 8:23-cv-01062 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 8:23-cv-01062 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.