Microspherix, LLC v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 5 Jun 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 13 Oct 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case terminated.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8821835B2US9636401B2US9636402B2
- Case no.
- 1:17-cv-03984
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D.N.J.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New Jersey
- Chief judge
- Renee Marie Bumb
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 5 Jun 2017 – 13 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 2321 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Terminated
- Products & marks
- Nexplanon (etonogestrel implant)
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
Flexible and/or elastic brachytherapy seed or strand
A flexible or elastic brachytherapy strand that includes an imaging marker and/or a therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic agent such as a drug in a biocompatible carrier that can be delivered to a subject upon implantation into the subject through the bore of a brachytherapy implantation needle has been developed. Strands can be formed as chains or continuous arrays of seeds up to 50 centimeters or more, with or without spacer material, flaccid, rigid, or flexible.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 2 Sep 2014
- Earliest priority
- 19 Sep 2002
- Est. expiry
- 18 May 2021
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2018-00602 · filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KAPLAN, EDWARD, J.
- Classification
- A61K51/00A61N5/00A61K47/48A61K49/04A61K51/12A61N5/10
- Prosecution counsel
- PABST PATENT GROUP LLP
- Examiner
- VU, JAKE
Flexible and/or elastic brachytherapy seed or strand
A flexible or elastic brachytherapy strand that includes an imaging marker and/or a therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic agent such as a drug in a biocompatible carrier that can be delivered to a subject upon implantation into the subject through the bore of a brachytherapy implantation needle has been developed. Strands can be formed as chains or continuous arrays of seeds up to 50 centimeters or more, with or without spacer material, flaccid, rigid, or flexible.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 2 May 2017
- Earliest priority
- 19 Sep 2002
- Est. expiry
- 6 Jun 2021
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2018-00402 · Other · filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KAPLAN, EDWARD J.
- Classification
- A61K49/04A61L31/18A61B90/00A61L31/16A61L31/10A61L31/14A61B5/06A61K49/00A61N5/10A61K51/12A61K41/00A61K47/48
- Prosecution counsel
- PABST PATENT GROUP LLP
- Examiner
- HARTLEY, MICHAEL G
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Microspherix, LLC
- Core tech
- A61K51/00A61N5/00A61K47/48A61K49/04
- Counsel
- Christopher Robert Decoro · David N. Draper · Katelyn O’Reilly · Lauren Ruth Malakoff · Liza M. Walsh
- Firm
- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Walsh Pizzi O’reilly Falanga, LLP
Merck & Co., Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Guillermo Carlo Aatiles · John Edmund Flaherty · Ravin R. Patel
- Firm
- Mccarter & English, LLP
- Also named
- Organon USA, LLC · Organon USA. Inc. · Merck Sharp & Dohme, B.V. · N.V. Organon · Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher Robert Decoro | Microspherix, LLC | Plaintiff |
| David N. Draper | Microspherix, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Katelyn O’Reilly | Microspherix, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Lauren Ruth Malakoff | Microspherix, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Liza M. Walsh | Microspherix, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Guillermo Carlo Aatiles | Merck & Co., Inc. | Defendant |
| John Edmund Flaherty | Merck & Co., Inc. | Defendant |
| Ravin R. Patel | Merck & Co., Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“60 DAY ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATING ACTION It having been reported to the Court that the above−captioned action has been settled, IT IS on this 13th day of October, 2023, ORDERED that this action and any pending motions are hereby administratively terminated; and it is further ORDERED that this shall not constitute a dismissal Order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further ORDERED that within 60 days after entry of this Order (or such additional period authorized by the Court), the parties shall file all papers necessary to dismiss this action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, if settlement cannot be consummated, request that the action be reopened; and it is further ORDERED that, absent receipt from the parties of dismissal papers or a request to reopen the action within the 60−day period, the Court shall dismiss this action, without further notice, with prejudice and without costs.”
Case 1:17-cv-03984 · D.N.J. · closed 13 October 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 1:17-cv-03984?
1:17-cv-03984 is a patent infringement action brought by Microspherix, LLC against Merck & Co., Inc., filed on 5 Jun 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 13 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:17-cv-03984?
US8821835B2 (“Flexible and/or elastic brachytherapy seed or strand”), assigned to MICROSPHERIX LLC, currently inactive; US9636401B2 (“Flexible and/or elastic brachytherapy seed or strand”), assigned to MICROSPHERIX LLC, currently inactive; US9636402B2 (“Flexible and/or elastic brachytherapy seed or strand”), assigned to MICROSPHERIX LLC. The record also lists Nexplanon (etonogestrel implant).
How was case 1:17-cv-03984 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case terminated. The termination text reads: “60 DAY ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATING ACTION It having been reported to the Court that the above−captioned action has been settled, IT IS on this 13th day of October, 2023, ORDERED that this action and any pending motions are hereby administratively terminated; and it is further ORDERED that this shall not constitute a dismissal Order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further ORDERED that within 60 days after entry of this Order (or such additional period authorized by the Court), the parties shall file all papers necessary to dismiss this action under the Federal
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 1:17-cv-03984 take?
2321 calendar days, from filing on 5 Jun 2017 to closure on 13 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:17-cv-03984?
Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb presided. Christopher Robert Decoro, David N. Draper, Katelyn O’Reilly, Lauren Ruth Malakoff and Liza M. Walsh are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Microspherix. Guillermo Carlo Aatiles, John Edmund Flaherty and Ravin R. Patel appear for defendant Merck &.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:17-cv-03984 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.