Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 29 Jul 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 11 Dec 2023, with US7973031B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7973031B2
- Application no.
- US10/493786
- Case no.
- 1:21-cv-01106
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Maryellen Noreika
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 29 Jul 2021 – 11 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 865 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- RYDAPT® Capsules, 25 mg
- 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
Staurosporine derivatives as inhibitors of FLT3 receptor tyrosine kinase activity
The present invention relates to the use of staurosporines derivatives for the preparation of a drug for the treatment of diseases involving deregulated FLT3 receptor tyrosine kinase activity, especially for the curative and/or prophylactic treatment of leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes, and to a method of treating diseases involving deregulated FLT3 receptor tyrosine kinase activity.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Jul 2011
- Earliest priority
- 30 Oct 2001
- Est. expiry
- 9 Oct 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GRIFFIN, JAMES DOUGLAS · MANLEY, PAUL WILLIAM
- Classification
- A61P35/02C07D487/04C07D519/00C07D487/14C07D498/22A61K31/535A61K31/55A61K31/155A61K31/407A61K31/553A61P19/08A61P43/00
- Prosecution counsel
- NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION
- Examiner
- COLEMAN, BRENDA
Parties of record
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
- Core tech
- A61P35/02C07D487/04C07D519/00C07D487/14
- Counsel
- Alexandra M. Joyce · Anne Y. Brody · Daniel M. Silver · Emil N. Nachman · Jane M. Love · Kyanna Sabanoglu · Robert W. Trenchard · Ronald A. Lee · Sung Bin Lee
- Firm
- McCarter & English LLP
- Also named
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Anandita Vyakarnam · Beth C. Finkelstein · Constance S. Huttner · Daniel Taylor · Eve H. Ormerod · Joanna G. Goldstein · Neal C. Belgam
- Firm
- Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP
- Also named
- Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”) and DanaFarber Cancer Institute, Inc. (“DFCI”), and Defendants Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, “DRL”) have agreed to terms and conditions representing a negotiated settlement of this action, have set forth those terms and conditions in a confidential Settlement and License Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), and have stipulated and consented to entry of this Consent Judgment and Order of Injunction; WHEREAS, for purposes of resolving this action, DRL stipulates and acknowledges that all claims of United States Patent No. 7,973,031 (the “Asserted Patent”) asserted in this action against it are valid and enforceable; and WHEREAS, for purposes of resolving this action, DRL stipulates and acknowledges that the use, sale, offer for sale, manufacture, and/or importation of the accused product (the subject of Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 215921) infringes one or more claims of the Asserted Patent asserted in this action; Case 1:21-cv-01106-MN Document 101 Filed 12/11/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 4005 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED, AND ADJUDGED this 11th day of December 2023: 1. Judgment is entered that the accused product (the subject of Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 215921) infringes one or more claims of the Asserted Patent asserted against DRL in this action. 2. By virtue of the license granted by Novartis to DRL as part of the Settlement Agreement, judgment is entered that there no longer exists a cause of action for infringement of the Asserted Patent by the accused product (the subject of Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 215921). 3. This Consent Judgment constitutes a “consent decree” pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)(I)(bb), such that Final Approval of DRL’s Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 215921 under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) may be granted on the date that this Consent Judgment is entered. 4. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, all other claims and counterclaims by DRL or against DRL are dismissed without prejudice. 5. This Court retains jurisdiction over all disputes arising out of the Settlement Agreement. 6. Other than as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, DRL, and its affiliates, are hereby enjoined from directly or indirectly passing title or delivering to customers in the United States the accused product (the subject of Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 215921) prior to the Generic Entry Date. 7. The injunction described in the foregoing paragraph shall take effect immediately upon entry of this Order by the Court. 8. During the term of the injunction, the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, including implementation of, or disputes arising out of, this Order of Injunction. Case 1:21-cv-01106-MN Document 101 Filed 12/11/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 4006 3 9. Nothing herein prohibits or is intended to prohibit DRL from engaging in any activity permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). 10. Each Party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees. 11. Each Party expressly waives any right to appeal or otherwise move for relief from this Consent Judgment and Order of Injunction.”
Case 1:21-cv-01106 · D. Del. · closed 11 December 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 1:21-cv-01106?
1:21-cv-01106 is a patent infringement action brought by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., filed on 29 Jul 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 11 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:21-cv-01106?
US7973031B2 (“Staurosporine derivatives as inhibitors of FLT3 receptor tyrosine kinase activity”), assigned to DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC., currently active. The record also lists RYDAPT® Capsules, 25 mg.
How was case 1:21-cv-01106 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”) and DanaFarber Cancer Institute, Inc. (“DFCI”), and Defendants Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, “DRL”) have agreed to terms and conditions representing a negotiated settlement of this action, have set forth those terms and conditions in a confidential Settlement and License Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), and have stipulated and consented to entry of this Consent Judgment and Order of Injunction; WHEREAS, for purposes of resolving this action, DRL stipulates and acknow
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-01106 take?
865 calendar days, from filing on 29 Jul 2021 to closure on 11 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:21-cv-01106?
Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Alexandra M. Joyce, Anne Y. Brody, Daniel M. Silver, Emil N. Nachman, Jane M. Love, Kyanna Sabanoglu, Robert W. Trenchard, Ronald A. Lee and Sung Bin Lee are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Anandita Vyakarnam, Beth C. Finkelstein, Constance S. Huttner, Daniel Taylor, Eve H. Ormerod, Joanna G. Goldstein and Neal C. Belgam appear for defendant Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:21-cv-01106 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.