Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC et al. v. Zenara Pharma Private, Ltd.
Infringement action filed 23 Mar 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 18 May 2023, with US8080580B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8080580B2
- Application no.
- US12/546306
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-00379
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Gregory B. Williams
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 23 Mar 2022 – 18 May 2023
- Duration
- 421 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Dioxa-bicyclo[3.2.1]octane-2,3,4-triol derivatives
- 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
Dioxa-bicyclo[3.2.1]octane-2,3,4-triol derivatives
Compounds of Formula (I) are described herein and the uses thereof for the treatment of diseases, conditions and/or disorders mediated by sodium-glucose transporter inhibitors (in particular, SGLT2 inhibitors).
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 20 Dec 2011
- Earliest priority
- 28 Aug 2008
- Est. expiry
- 19 Dec 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MASCITTI, VINCENT · COLLMAN, BENJAMIN M.
- Classification
- A61K31/352C07D493/08
- Prosecution counsel
- Pfizer Inc.
- Examiner
- DENTZ, BERNARD
Parties of record
Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jack B. Blumenfeld · Megan Elizabeth Dellinger
- Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
- Also named
- Pfizer, Inc. · MSD International Business, GmbH · MSD International, GmbH · PF Prism Ibm C.V.
Zenara Pharma Private, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Dmitry V. Shelhoff · Edward D. Pergament · Eve H. Ormerod · Julia S. Kim · Kenneth S. Canfield · Neal C. Belgam
- Firm
- Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jack B. Blumenfeld | Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Megan Elizabeth Dellinger | Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Dmitry V. Shelhoff | Zenara Pharma Private, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Edward D. Pergament | Zenara Pharma Private, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Eve H. Ormerod | Zenara Pharma Private, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Julia S. Kim | Zenara Pharma Private, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Kenneth S. Canfield | Zenara Pharma Private, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Neal C. Belgam | Zenara Pharma Private, Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Merck Sharp & Doh.me LLC, MSD International Business GmbH, MSD International GmbH, Pfizer Inc., and PF PRISM IMB B.V. (collectively “Merck”), and Zenara Pharma Private Limited (“Zenara”), the parties in the above-captioned action, have agreed to terms and conditions representing a negotiated settlement of the action and have set forth those terms and conditions in a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). Now the parties, by their respective undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate and consent to entry of judgment and an injunction in the action, as follows: 1. This District Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above actions and has personal jurisdiction over the parties. 2. As used in this Consent Judgment, (i) the term “Zenara Product” shall mean the drug product sold, offered for sale or distributed pursuant to Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 216842 (and defined in greater detail in the Settlement Agreement); (ii) the term “Licensed Patent” shall mean United States Patent Number 8,080,580; and (iii) the term “Affiliate” shall mean any entity or person that, directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Zenara; for purposes of this definition, “control” means (a) ownership, directly or through one or more intermediaries, of (1) more than fifty percent (50%) of the shares of stock entitled to vote for the election of directors, in the case of a corporation, or (2) more than fifty percent (50%) of the equity interests in the case of any other type of legal entity or status as a general partner in any partnership, or (b) any other arrangement whereby an entity or person has the right to elect a majority of the Board of Directors or equivalent governing body of a corporation or other entity or the right to direct the management and policies of a corporation or other entity. 3. Unless otherwise specifically authorized pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Zenara, including any of its Affiliates, successors and assigns, is enjoined from infringing the Licensed Patent, on its own part or through any Affiliate , by making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell, importing or distributing of the Zenara Product. 4. Compliance with this Consent Judgment may be enforced by Merck and its successors in interest, or assigns, as permitted by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 5. This District Court retains jurisdiction to enforce or supervise performance under this Consent Judgment and the Settlement Agreement.6. All claims, counterclaims, affirmative defenses and demands in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs, disbursements or attorneys’ fees to any party. We hereby consent to the form and entry of this Order:”
Case 1:22-cv-00379 · D. Del. · closed 18 May 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 1:22-cv-00379?
1:22-cv-00379 is a patent infringement action brought by Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC against Zenara Pharma Private, Ltd., filed on 23 Mar 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 18 May 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-00379?
US8080580B2 (“Dioxa-bicyclo[3.2.1]octane-2,3,4-triol derivatives”), assigned to PFIZER INC., currently active. The record also lists Dioxa-bicyclo[3.2.1]octane-2,3,4-triol derivatives.
How was case 1:22-cv-00379 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Merck Sharp & Doh.me LLC, MSD International Business GmbH, MSD International GmbH, Pfizer Inc., and PF PRISM IMB B.V. (collectively “Merck”), and Zenara Pharma Private Limited (“Zenara”), the parties in the above-captioned action, have agreed to terms and conditions representing a negotiated settlement of the action and have set forth those terms and conditions in a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). Now the parties, by their respective undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate and consent to entry of judgment and an injunction in the action, as follows: 1. This District C
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:22-cv-00379 take?
421 calendar days, from filing on 23 Mar 2022 to closure on 18 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-00379?
Chief Judge Gregory B. Williams presided. Jack B. Blumenfeld and Megan Elizabeth Dellinger are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dmitry V. Shelhoff, Edward D. Pergament, Eve H. Ormerod, Julia S. Kim, Kenneth S. Canfield and Neal C. Belgam appear for defendant Zenara Pharma Private.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-00379 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.