Infringement action filed 18 Oct 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 5 Oct 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Provided are methods of administering a vesicular monoamine transport 2 (VMAT2) inhibitor chosen from valbenazine, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt and/or isotopic variant thereof, to a patient in need thereof.
Provided are methods of administering a vesicular monoamine transport 2 (VMAT2) inhibitor chosen from valbenazine and (+)-α-3-isobutyl-9,10-dimethoxy-1,3,4,6,7,11b-hexahydro-2H-pyrido[2,1-a]isoquinolin-2-ol, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt and/or isotopic variant thereof, to a patient in need thereof wherein the patient is also being administered a strong cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) inhibitor.
The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
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
"Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c), by agreement between Plaintiff Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. and Defendants Sandoz Inc., Crystal Pharmaceutical (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., and Crystal Pharmatech Co., Ltd., the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that all claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses asserted by the Parties against each other in the above-captioned actions (the “Actions”) are hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs, disbursements, or attorneys’ fees to any party. It is further stipulated that the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware retains jurisdiction to enforce and resolve any disputes relating to the Parties’ resolution of the Actions."
Case 1:21-cv-01464 · D. Del. · closed 5 October 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.
1:21-cv-01464 is a patent infringement action brought by Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. against Crystal Pharmaceutical (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., filed on 18 Oct 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 5 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:21-cv-01464?
US11026931B2 (“Methods for the administration of certain VMAT2 inhibitors”), assigned to NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES, INC., currently active; US11040029B2 (“Methods for the administration of certain VMAT2 inhibitors”), assigned to NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES, INC., currently active; US11026939B2 (“High dosage valbenazine formulation and compositions, methods, and kits related thereto”), assigned to NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES, INC.; US10993941B2 (“Methods for the administration of certain VMAT2 inhibitors”), assigned to NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES, INC.. The record also lists Valbenazine tosylate capsules, equivalent to 40 mg and 80 mg.
How was case 1:21-cv-01464 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: "Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c), by agreement between Plaintiff Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. and Defendants Sandoz Inc., Crystal Pharmaceutical (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., and Crystal Pharmatech Co., Ltd., the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that all claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses asserted by the Parties against each other in the above-captioned actions (the “Actions”) are hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs, disbursements, or attorneys’ fees to any party. It is further stipulated that the U.S. District Court for the District of De
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:21-cv-01464 take?
717 calendar days, from filing on 18 Oct 2021 to closure on 5 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:21-cv-01464?
Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Andrew Colin Mayo, Erin M. Sommers, James B. Monroe, Jeanette M. Roorda, Lauren J. Dowty and Steven J. Balick are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Neurocrine Biosciences. C. Kyle Musgrove, Crystal Pharmaceutical (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., David A. Bilson, John C. Phillips and Scott A. Cunning II appear for defendant Crystal Pharmaceutical (Suzhou).
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:21-cv-01464 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:21-cv-01464 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.
