Merck Sharp & Dohme, B.V. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd. et al.

2:20-cv-02576 D.N.J. Closed USRE44733E1
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 10 Mar 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 29 Jun 2023, with USRE44733E1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for plaintiff.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
USRE44733E1
Application no.
US13/432742
Case no.
2:20-cv-02576
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D.N.J.
Court level
District Court
Case region
New Jersey
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
10 Mar 2020 – 29 Jun 2023
Duration
1206 days
Basis of termination
Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff
Products & marks
6-mercapto-cyclodextrin derivatives:reversal agents for drug-induced neuromuscular block
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:20-cv-02576, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
USRE44733E1 Inactive App. US13/432742

6-mercapto-cyclodextrin derivatives:reversal agents for drug-induced neuromuscular block

Disclosed is a 6-mercapto-cyclodextrin derivative having general formula (I) wherein m is 0-7 and n is 1-8 and m+n=7 or 8; R is (C1-6)alkylene, optionally substituated with 1-3 OH groups, or (CH2)o-phenylene-(CH2)p—; o and p are independently 0-4; X is COOH, CONHR1, NHCOR2, SO2OH, PO(OH)2, O(CH2—CH2—O)q—H, OH or tetrazol-5-yl; R1 is H or (C1-3)alkyl; R2 is carboxyphenyl; q is 1-3; or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof. The 6-mercaptocyclodextrin derivative is highly suitable for use in the reversal of drug-induced neuromuscular block.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
28 Jan 2014
Earliest priority
29 Nov 1999
Est. expiry
27 Jul 2026
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61K31/537C08B37/16A61K31/225A61P25/00A61K31/452A61K31/724A61K31/715A61K45/06A61P21/00
Prosecution counsel
MERCK
Examiner
MAIER, LEIGH
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Defendant

Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
R. Touhey Myer · Rebekah R. Conroy
Firm
Kratz & Barry, LLP, Stone Conroy LLC
Also named
Msn Laboratories Private Limited · Mylan, Inc. · Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. · Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC · Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited · Eugia Pharma Specialities Limited · Lifestar Pharma LLC · Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Private, Ltd. · Mankind Pharma Limited · Fisiopharma, SRL

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

"NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC (collectively, “Merck”), Defendants1 , and subject matter of this action. 2. In accordance with the Court’s June 13, 2023 Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 418 and 419), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, Final Judgment is entered in favor of Merck and against Defendants with respect to RE44,733 (“the ’733 patent”). Defendants’ ANDA Products that are the subject of ANDA Nos. 214307 (Aurobindo), 213915 (Mylan), 214276 (USV), 214236 (DRL), 214364 (Gland), 214230 (Mankind), 214311 (Sandoz), 214319 (Sun), 213868 (Fresenius), and 214126 (Teva) (collectively, “Defendants’ ANDAs”) infringe claims 4, 12, and 21 of the ’733 patent. 3. There is no finding of invalidity as to the ’733 patent. 1 Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., and Eugia Pharma Specialties Ltd. (collectively, “Aurobindo”); Mylan API US LLC, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Mylan Inc. (collectively, “Mylan”); USV Private Ltd. (“USV”); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, “DRL”); Gland Pharma Ltd. (“Gland”); Sandoz Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals d.d. (collectively, “Sandoz”); Mankind Pharma Ltd. and Lifestar Pharma LLC (collectively, “Mankind”); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (collectively, “Sun”); Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (“Fresenius”); and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) (Aurobindo, Mylan, USV, DRL, Gland, Sandoz, Mankind, Sun, Fresenius, and Teva are collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”). Case 2:20-cv-02576-CCC-LDW Document 423 Filed 06/29/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 9444 2 4. The portion of the patent term extension for the ’733 patent after December 14, 2022 is not invalid. 5. The ’733 patent does not expire until January 27, 2026. 6. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of any approval by FDA of Defendants’ ANDAs shall be no earlier than the expiration date of the ’733 patent, except to the extent subsequently (a) agreed between any Defendant(s) and Merck or (b) ordered by this Court. 7. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, are hereby enjoined from commercially manufacturing, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, the products that are the subject of Defendants’ ANDAs until January 27, 2026, except to the extent subsequently (a) agreed between any Defendant(s) and Merck or (b) ordered by this Court. 8. All pending motions and other outstanding requests for relief not specifically addressed herein are DENIED. SO ORDERED this ___ day of June 2023"

Case 2:20-cv-02576 · D.N.J. · closed 29 June 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:20-cv-02576?

2:20-cv-02576 is a patent infringement action brought by Merck Sharp & Dohme, B.V. against Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd., filed on 10 Mar 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 29 June 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 2:20-cv-02576?

USRE44733E1 (“6-mercapto-cyclodextrin derivatives:reversal agents for drug-induced neuromuscular block”), assigned to MERCK SHARP & DOHME B.V., currently inactive. The record also lists 6-mercapto-cyclodextrin derivatives:reversal agents for drug-induced neuromuscular block.

How was case 2:20-cv-02576 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for plaintiff. The termination text reads: "NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC (collectively, “Merck”), Defendants1 , and subject matter of this action. 2. In accordance with the Court’s June 13, 2023 Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 418 and 419), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, Final Judgment is entered in favor of Merck and against Defendants with respect to RE44,733 (“the ’733 patent”). Defendants’ ANDA Products that are the subject of ANDA Nos. 214307 (Aurobindo), 213915 (Mylan), 214276 (USV),

What does judgment on the merits mean?

A judgment on the merits decides the substance of the claims, as opposed to ending the case on procedural grounds.

How long did case 2:20-cv-02576 take?

1206 calendar days, from filing on 10 Mar 2020 to closure on 29 June 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:20-cv-02576?

Anthony Insogna, J. Brugh Lower, Sarah A. Geers and William P. Deni are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Merck Sharp & Dohme, B.V.. R. Touhey Myer and Rebekah R. Conroy appear for defendant Aurobindo Pharma.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:20-cv-02576 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:20-cv-02576 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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.