Institut Pasteur v. Katherine K. Vidal
Patentability filed 13 Jun 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 13 Dec 2023, with US20150329608A1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US20150329608A1
- Application no.
- US14/730396
- Case no.
- 22-1896
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Jun 2022 – 13 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 548 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- OPIORPHIN FOR USE AS A PSYCHOSTIMULANT AGENT
- 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
Opiorphin for use as a psychostimulant agent
The present invention relates to peptides derived from human Basic Proline-rich Lacrimal Protein (BPLP), notably opiorphin, for use as psychostimulants. These peptides are useful in the treatment or prevention of diseases such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), narcolepsy, hypersomnia, vigilance drop, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), attention deficit and/or hyperactivity in adults and in children, depression, bipolar disease, dysthymic disorder and cyclothymic disorder.
- Legal status
- Pending
- Granted
- 19 Nov 2015
- Earliest priority
- 26 May 2008
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ROUGEOT, CATHERINE
- Classification
- C07K14/47A61K38/08
- Prosecution counsel
- ARRIGO, LEE, GUTTMAN & MOUTA-BELLUM LLP
Parties of record
Institut Pasteur
- Core tech
- C07K14/47A61K38/08
- Counsel
- Harry Joel Guttman · Salvatore J. Arrigo
- Firm
- Arrigo, Lee, Guttman, & Mouta-Bellum LLP
Katherine K. Vidal
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Amy J. Nelson · Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed · Kakoli Caprihan · Maureen Donovan Queler
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Harry Joel Guttman | Institut Pasteur | Plaintiff |
| Salvatore J. Arrigo | Institut Pasteur | Plaintiff |
| Amy J. Nelson | Katherine K. Vidal | Defendant |
| Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed | Katherine K. Vidal | Defendant |
| Kakoli Caprihan | Katherine K. Vidal | Defendant |
| Maureen Donovan Queler | Katherine K. Vidal | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
Case 22-1896 · Fed. Cir. · closed 13 December 2023
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 22-1896?
22-1896 is a patent patentability brought by Institut Pasteur against Katherine K. Vidal, filed on 13 Jun 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 13 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1896?
US20150329608A1 (“Opiorphin for use as a psychostimulant agent”), assigned to INSTITUT PASTEUR, currently pending. The record also lists OPIORPHIN FOR USE AS A PSYCHOSTIMULANT AGENT.
How was case 22-1896 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
How long did case 22-1896 take?
548 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jun 2022 to closure on 13 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1896?
Harry Joel Guttman and Salvatore J. Arrigo are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Institut Pasteur. Amy J. Nelson, Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed, Kakoli Caprihan and Maureen Donovan Queler appear for defendant Katherine K. Vidal.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1896 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.