Infringement action filed 2 May 2019 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and closed 2 May 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.
Pharmaceutical compositions of combinations of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors with metformin · Phosphoric acid salt of a dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:19-cv-00101, United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.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.
Disclosed are pharmaceutical compositions comprising fixed-dose combinations of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and metformin, methods of preparing such pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of treating Type 2 diabetes with such pharmaceutical compositions.
The dihydrogenphosphate salt of 4-oxo-4-[3-(trifluoromethyl)-5,6-dihydro [1,2,4]triazolo[4,3-a]pyrazin-7(8H)-yl]-1-(2,4,5-trifluorophenyl)butan-2-amine is a potent inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV and is useful for the prevention and/or treatment of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, also referred to as type 2 diabetes. The invention also relates to a crystalline monohydrate of the dihydrogenphosphate salt as well as a process for its preparation, pharmaceutical compositions containing this novel form and methods of use for the treatment of diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure.
4 on recordIPR2020-01072 · filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries LTD.IPR2020-01045 · Other · filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.IPR2020-01060 · Other · filed by DR. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.IPR2020-00040 · Other · filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Alexander S. Zolan · Anthony Sheh · Bruce R. Genderson · David Krinsky · Elise M. Baumgarten · Frank X. Duff · James F. Companion · Jessamyn S. Berniker · Jihad Komis · Jingyuan Luo · Michael W. Carey · Sandra K. Law · Sarahi Uribe · Shaun P. Mahaffy · Stanley E. Fisher · Steven Robert Ruby · Vanessa Omoroghomwan
Firm
Carey, Douglas, Kessler & Ruby, PLLC, Schrader Companion Duff & Law, PLLC, Schrader, Byrd & Companion, PLLC (Wheeling), Williams & Connolly LLP, Williams & Connolly LLP - Washington
Alissa M. Pacchioli · Brian J. Sodikoff · Deepro R. Mukerjee · Gordon H. Copland · Jillian M. Schurr · Jitendra Malik · Joseph M. Janusz · Lance A. Soderstrom · Matthew M. Holub · William J. O'Brien
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
"Upon consideration of the parties’ Notice of Settlement on Appeal and Joint Motion for an Indicative Ruling to Effect the Terms of the Settlement, it is ORDERED that: 1. An indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 is appropriate under these circumstances, as this Court is currently divested of jurisdiction and cannot afford the relief requested by the parties without a limited remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a)(3), the Court states that it would grant a motion to amend its final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) or (b)(6) and enter the Proposed Stipulated Modified Amended FinalJudgment, attached as Exhibit A to the parities’ joint motion, if the Federal Circuit were to remand the case for that limited purpose. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record."
Case 1:19-cv-00101 · N.D. W. Va. · closed 2 May 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.
1:19-cv-00101 is a patent infringement action brought by Merck Sharp & Dohme Co., Inc. against Mylan, NV, filed on 2 May 2019 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The case closed on 2 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:19-cv-00101?
US8414921B2 (“Pharmaceutical compositions of combinations of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors with metformin”), assigned to MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC, currently active; US7326708B2 (“Phosphoric acid salt of a dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor”), assigned to MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC, currently active. The record also lists Pharmaceutical compositions of combinations of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors with metformin and Phosphoric acid salt of a dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor.
How was case 1:19-cv-00101 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: "Upon consideration of the parties’ Notice of Settlement on Appeal and Joint Motion for an Indicative Ruling to Effect the Terms of the Settlement, it is ORDERED that: 1. An indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 is appropriate under these circumstances, as this Court is currently divested of jurisdiction and cannot afford the relief requested by the parties without a limited remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a)(3), the Court states that it would grant a motion to amend its final jud
How long did case 1:19-cv-00101 take?
1461 calendar days, from filing on 2 May 2019 to closure on 2 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:19-cv-00101?
Chief Judge Thomas S Kleeh presided. Alexander S. Zolan, Anthony Sheh, Bruce R. Genderson, David Krinsky, Elise M. Baumgarten, Frank X. Duff, James F. Companion, Jessamyn S. Berniker, Jihad Komis, Jingyuan Luo, Michael W. Carey, Sandra K. Law, Sarahi Uribe, Shaun P. Mahaffy, Stanley E. Fisher, Steven Robert Ruby and Vanessa Omoroghomwan are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Merck Sharp & Dohme. Alissa M. Pacchioli, Brian J. Sodikoff, Deepro R. Mukerjee, Gordon H. Copland, Jillian M. Schurr, Jitendra Malik, Joseph M. Janusz, Lance A. Soderstrom, Matthew M. Holub and William J. O'Brien appear for defendant Mylan.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:19-cv-00101 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:19-cv-00101 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.
