Infringement action filed 7 Jun 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and closed 28 Nov 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Disclosed herein are methods of treating or reducing incidence of migraine and/or at least one secondary symptom associated with refractory migraine in a subject having refractory migraine comprising administering to the subject a monoclonal antibody that modulates the CGRP pathway. Compositions for use in the disclosed methods are also provided. Antagonist antibody G1 and antibodies derived from G1 directed to CGRP are also described.
Disclosed herein are methods of treating or reducing incidence of migraine and/or at least one secondary symptom associated with refractory migraine in a subject having refractory migraine comprising administering to the subject a monoclonal antibody that modulates the CGRP pathway. Compositions for use in the disclosed methods are also provided. Antagonist antibody G1 and antibodies derived from G1 directed to CGRP are also described.
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.
Alissa K. Lipton · Andrea L. Martin · Charles E. Lipsey · Danielle A. Duszczyszyn, I · Drew D. Christie · Mark J. Feldstein · Mark J. Stewart · Michael R. Galgano · William B. Raich · Yoonjin Lee
Firm
Burns & Levinson LLP, Eli Lilly And Company, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP
1:21-cv-10954 is a patent infringement action brought by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. against Eli Lilly & Company, filed on 7 Jun 2021 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case closed on 28 November 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:21-cv-10954?
US11028160B2 (“Treating refractory migraine”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH, currently inactive; US10392434B2 (“Treating refractory migraine”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH, currently active; US11028161B2 (“Treating refractory migraine”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH; US9505838B2 (“Method to treat migraines using CGRP antibodies”), assigned to ELI LILLY AND COMPANY. The record also lists AJOVY prefilled syringes, EmgalityTM (galcanezumab-gnlm) and the AJOVY Autoinjector.
How was case 1:21-cv-10954 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: "STIPULATION ofDismissal byTeva Pharmaceuticals InternationalGmbH, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.."
How long did case 1:21-cv-10954 take?
904 calendar days, from filing on 7 Jun 2021 to closure on 28 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:21-cv-10954?
Chief Judge Allison D. Burroughs presided. Alison Siedor, Andrew S. McDonough, Douglas J. Kline, Elaine Herrmann Blais, Molly Grammel, Natasha E. Daughtrey and Robert Frederickson III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Alissa K. Lipton, Andrea L. Martin, Charles E. Lipsey, Danielle A. Duszczyszyn, I, Drew D. Christie, Mark J. Feldstein, Mark J. Stewart, Michael R. Galgano, William B. Raich and Yoonjin Lee appear for defendant Eli Lilly &.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:21-cv-10954 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:21-cv-10954 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.
Patsnap Eureka
Eureka AI Agent
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.
