Lundbeck, Ltd. et al. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Infringement action filed 29 Nov 2021 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 7 Dec 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9125908B2US7144884B2US8476279B2US9125909B2US8722684B2
- Case no.
- 22-1194
- 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
- 29 Nov 2021 – 7 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 738 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- 1-[2-(2,4 dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl]piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment · 1-[2-(2,4-dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl]piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment
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
1-[2-(2,4-dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl]piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment
1-[2-(2,4-dimethylphenylsulphanyl)phenyl]piperazine exhibits potent activity on SERT, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A and may as such be useful for the treatment of cognitive impairment, especially in depressed patients.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 8 Sep 2015
- Earliest priority
- 16 Jun 2006
- Est. expiry
- 15 Dec 2027
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BANG-ANDERSEN, BENNY · MORK, ARNE · STENSBOL, TINE BRYAN · FALDT, ANDRE · HOLM, RENE · DE DIEGO, HEIDI LOPEZ
- Classification
- A61K31/495C07D295/096
- Prosecution counsel
- FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
- Examiner
- RAO, SAVITHA
Phenyl-piperazine derivatives as serotonin reuptake inhibitors
The invention provides compounds represented by the general formula I wherein the substituents are defined in the application. The compounds are useful in the treatment of an affective disorder, including depression, anxiety disorders including general anxiety disorder and panic disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Dec 2006
- Earliest priority
- 4 Oct 2001
- Est. expiry
- 17 Dec 2026
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- RUHLAND, THOMAS · SMITH, GARRICK PAUL · BANG-ANDERSEN, BENNY · PUSCHL, ASK · MOLTZEN, EJNER KNUD · ANDERSEN
- Classification
- A61K31/495C07D241/04C07D295/096C07D211/54C07D211/70A61K31/4418A61K31/451A61K31/551A61P25/00A61P25/18A61P25/22A61P25/24A61P43/00C07D211/20C07D211/24C07D243/08C07D295/08
- Prosecution counsel
- COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
- Examiner
- BERNHARDT, EMILY
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US8476279B2Phenyl-piperazine derivatives as serotonin reuptake inhibitors
- US9125909B21-[2-(2,4 dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl]piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment
- US8722684B21-[2-(2,4-dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl] piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment
Parties of record
Lundbeck, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Brianne Bharkhda · Einar Stole · George Frank Pappas · Kurt Calia
- Firm
- Covington & Burling, LLP
- Also named
- Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited · Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC · Lupin, Ltd. · Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited · Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. · Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. · Macleods Pharma USA, Inc. · Macleods Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. · Lek Pharmaceuticals, D.D. · Alembic Global Holding SA · Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG · Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. · Sandoz, Inc. · Cadila Healthcare, Ltd.
Sandoz, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brianne Bharkhda | Lundbeck, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Einar Stole | Lundbeck, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| George Frank Pappas | Lundbeck, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Kurt Calia | Lundbeck, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“We conclude that the district court did not err in find ing no infringement of the ’096 or ’910 patents. Lupin’s cross appeal challenging the district court’s determination that Lupin infringed the ’626 patent is similarly without merit. We do not reach the conditional cross appeal as to invalidity. AFFIRMED”
Case 22-1194 · Fed. Cir. · closed 7 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 22-1194?
22-1194 is a patent infringement action brought by Lundbeck, Ltd. against Sandoz, Inc., filed on 29 Nov 2021 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 7 December 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 22-1194?
US9125908B2 (“1-[2-(2,4-dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl]piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment”), assigned to H. LUNDBECK A/S, currently active; US7144884B2 (“Phenyl-piperazine derivatives as serotonin reuptake inhibitors”), assigned to H. LUNDBECK A/S, currently active; US8476279B2 (“Phenyl-piperazine derivatives as serotonin reuptake inhibitors”), assigned to H. LUNDBECK A/S; US9125909B2 (“1-[2-(2,4 dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl]piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment”), assigned to H. LUNDBECK A/S; US8722684B2 (“1-[2-(2,4-dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl] piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment”), assigned to H. LUNDBECK A/S. The record also lists 1-[2-(2,4 dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl]piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment and 1-[2-(2,4-dimethylphenylsulfanyl)-phenyl]piperazine as a compound with combined serotonin reuptake, 5-HT3 and 5-HT1A activity for the treatment of cognitive impairment.
How was case 22-1194 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “We conclude that the district court did not err in find ing no infringement of the ’096 or ’910 patents. Lupin’s cross appeal challenging the district court’s determination that Lupin infringed the ’626 patent is similarly without merit. We do not reach the conditional cross appeal as to invalidity. AFFIRMED”
How long did case 22-1194 take?
738 calendar days, from filing on 29 Nov 2021 to closure on 7 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1194?
Brianne Bharkhda, Einar Stole, George Frank Pappas and Kurt Calia are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lundbeck.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1194 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.