Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Tolmar, Inc.
Infringement action filed 28 Jun 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 5 May 2026, with US9439906B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case remanded.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9439906B2
- Application no.
- US12/337144
- Case no.
- 24-2020
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 28 Jun 2024 – 5 May 2026
- Duration
- 676 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Remanded
- Products & marks
- Injectable Paliperidone palmitate 150 mg-eq
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
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
Dosing regimen associated with long acting injectable paliperidone esters
The present invention provides a method of treating patients in need of treatment with long acting injectable paliperidone palmitate formulations.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 13 Sep 2016
- Earliest priority
- 19 Dec 2007
- Est. expiry
- 26 Jan 2031
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2020-00440 · Other · filed by Mylan Laboratories Ltd.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- VERMEULEN, AN · WOUTERS, ALFONS
- Classification
- C07D471/04A61K31/42A61K31/41A61K31/445A61K31/519H10P95/00
- Examiner
- PADMANABHAN, SREENI
Parties of record
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew D. Cohen · Aron Russell Fischer · Barbara Mullin
- Firm
- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
- Also named
- Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V.
Tolmar, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- David C. Van Dyke · Joseph Barber · Kevin E. Warner · Kevin Shortsle · Natasha L. White · Ty William Callahan · William A. Rakoczy
- Firm
- Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, Rakoczy, Molino, Mazzochi, Siwik LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew D. Cohen | Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Aron Russell Fischer | Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Barbara Mullin | Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| David C. Van Dyke | Tolmar, Inc. | Defendant |
| Joseph Barber | Tolmar, Inc. | Defendant |
| Kevin E. Warner | Tolmar, Inc. | Defendant |
| Kevin Shortsle | Tolmar, Inc. | Defendant |
| Natasha L. White | Tolmar, Inc. | Defendant |
| Ty William Callahan | Tolmar, Inc. | Defendant |
| William A. Rakoczy | Tolmar, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Having “agreed to resolve all claims between them” in this matter, ECF No. 34 at 7, the parties jointly move to remand these appeals in light of the district court’s April 3, 2026 indicative ruling that it would vacate its March 13, Case: 24-2020 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 05/05/2026 2 JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TOLMAR, INC. 2024 final judgment and enter a consent judgment if this court remanded. This court takes no position on the propriety or necessity of any vacatur, leaving it to the district court to consider the principles enunciated in United States Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeals are remanded. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.”
Case 24-2020 · Fed. Cir. · closed 5 May 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 24-2020?
24-2020 is a patent infringement action brought by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Tolmar, Inc., filed on 28 Jun 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 5 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 24-2020?
US9439906B2 (“Dosing regimen associated with long acting injectable paliperidone esters”), assigned to JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA NV, currently active. The record also lists Injectable Paliperidone palmitate 150 mg-eq.
How was case 24-2020 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case remanded. The termination text reads: “Having “agreed to resolve all claims between them” in this matter, ECF No. 34 at 7, the parties jointly move to remand these appeals in light of the district court’s April 3, 2026 indicative ruling that it would vacate its March 13, Case: 24-2020 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 05/05/2026 2 JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TOLMAR, INC. 2024 final judgment and enter a consent judgment if this court remanded. This court takes no position on the propriety or necessity of any vacatur, leaving it to the district court to consider the principles enunciated in United States Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonne
What does consent judgment mean?
A consent judgment is a judgment the parties agree to and the court enters. Unlike a bare dismissal it is enforceable as a judgment.
How long did case 24-2020 take?
676 calendar days, from filing on 28 Jun 2024 to closure on 5 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 24-2020?
Andrew D. Cohen, Aron Russell Fischer and Barbara Mullin are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Janssen Pharmaceuticals. David C. Van Dyke, Joseph Barber, Kevin E. Warner, Kevin Shortsle, Natasha L. White, Ty William Callahan and William A. Rakoczy appear for defendant Tolmar.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 24-2020 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.