Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries et al. v. Cipla | Patent Lawsuit 2:20-cv-10172

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. et al. v. Cipla Limited

2:20-cv-10172 D.N.J. Closed 6 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 7 Aug 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 29 Jun 2023, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: injunction granted.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
2:20-cv-10172
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D.N.J.
Court level
District Court
Case region
New Jersey
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
7 Aug 2020 – 29 Jun 2023
Duration
1056 days
Basis of termination
Injunction Granted
Products & marks
Dose counter for inhaler and method for counting doses · Dose counter for inhaler having a bore and shaft arrangement · Dose counter for inhaler having an anti-reverse rotation actuator · Dose counters for inhalers, inhalers and methods of assembly thereof
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:20-cv-10172, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. 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.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US10561808B2 Active App. US15/262818

Dose counter for inhaler having an anti-reverse rotation actuator

A dose counter for an inhaler includes a counter display arranged to indicate dosage information, and a drive system arranged to move the counter display incrementally in a first direction from a first station to a second station in response to actuation input. A regulator is provided which is arranged to act upon the counter display at the first station to regulate motion of the counter display at the first station to incremental movements.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
18 Feb 2020
Earliest priority
18 May 2010
Est. expiry
1 Jul 2032
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61M15/00G06M1/24A61M11/00
Prosecution counsel
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Examiner
HESS, DANIEL A
US10561808B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10561808B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US10086156B2 Active App. US14/699567

Dose counter for inhaler and method for counting doses

A dose counter for a metered dose inhaler includes an incremental counting system for counting doses. The incremental counting system has a main body, an actuator arranged to be driven in response to canister motion and to drive an incremental output member in response to canister motion. The actuator and incremental output member are configured to have predetermined canister fire and count configurations in a canister fire sequence. The canister fire configuration is determined by a position of the actuator relative to a datum at which the canister fires medicament and the count configuration is determined by a position of the actuator relative to the datum at which the incremental count system makes an incremental count. The actuator is arranged to reach a position in the count configuration at or after a position in the canister fire configuration.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
2 Oct 2018
Earliest priority
18 May 2010
Est. expiry
18 May 2031
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06M1/06A61M11/00A61M15/00G06M1/24
Prosecution counsel
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Examiner
HESS, DANIEL
US10086156B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10086156B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

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

“WHEREAS, the Court held a three-day bench trial in the above-captioned matter on November 16, 17, and 18, 2022. (ECF Nos. 241-244.) For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Opinion and Opinion dated June 21, 2023 (BCF Nos. 301, 302), and all parties having consented to the form and entry hereof, Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. and Norton (Waterford) Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and against Defendant Cipla Ltd. (“Cipla”): 1. Cipla’s filing of Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 211434 (“Cipla’s ANDA”) infringes claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 ofU.S. Patent No. 9,463,289 (the ‘”289 patent”); claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 12 ofU.S. Patent No. 9,808,587 (the “‘587 patent”); and claim 28 ofU.S. Patent No. 10,561,808 (the ‘”808 patent”). The manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale within the United States, or importation into the United States, of the product that is the subject ofCipla’s ANDA (“Cipla’s ANDA Product”), would infi’mge the same claims. 2. Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 of the ‘289 patent; claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 12 of the ?587 patent; and claim 28 of the ‘808 patent are not invalid. 3. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the U.S. Food & Drug Administration shall not approve Cipla’s ANDA Product on a date which is earlier than the expiration date of the latest-expiring claim that Cipla has been adjudged to infringe (for the ‘289 and ‘587 patents, May 18, 2031; and for the 808 patent, January 1, 2032), including any extensions and market exclusivities. 4. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 27l(e)(4)(B), Cipla, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described above are hereby enjoined from commercially manufacturing, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, Cipla’s ANDA Product before the expiration date of the latest” expiring claim that Cipla has been adjudged to infringe (for the ‘289 and ‘587 patents. May 18, 2031; and for the ‘808 patent, January 1,2032), including any extensions and market exclusivities. 5. Judgment is hereby entered (a) in favor of Plaintiffs and against Cipla on Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement of claims 1-2,4, and 6-7 of the ‘289 patent; claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 12 of the ?587 patent; and claim 28 ofthe ‘808 patent; and (b) in favor of Plaintiffs and against Cipla on Cipla’s counterclaims and defenses. {See ECF No. 1; ECF No. 7.) 6. This is the FINAL JUDGMENT of the Court.”

Case 2:20-cv-10172 · D.N.J. · closed 29 June 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.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:20-cv-10172?

2:20-cv-10172 is a patent infringement action brought by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. against Cipla Limited, filed on 7 Aug 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 29 June 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 2:20-cv-10172?

US10561808B2 (“Dose counter for inhaler having an anti-reverse rotation actuator”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND, currently active; US10086156B2 (“Dose counter for inhaler and method for counting doses”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND, currently active; US10022510B2 (“Dose counters for inhalers, inhalers and methods of assembly thereof”), assigned to IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND|TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND|NORTON (WATERFORD) LIMITED; US10022509B2 (“Dose counter for inhaler having a bore and shaft arrangement”), assigned to IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND|NORTON (WATERFORD) LIMITED|TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND; US9463289B2 (“Dose counters for inhalers, inhalers and methods of assembly thereof”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND|IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND|NORTON (WATERFORD) LIMITED; US9808587B2 (“Dose counter for inhaler having an anti-reverse rotation actuator”), assigned to IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND|TEVA PHARMECUTICALS IRELAND|NORTON (WATERFORD) LIMITED. The record also lists Dose counter for inhaler and method for counting doses, Dose counter for inhaler having a bore and shaft arrangement, Dose counter for inhaler having an anti-reverse rotation actuator and Dose counters for inhalers, inhalers and methods of assembly thereof.

How was case 2:20-cv-10172 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is injunction granted. The termination text reads: “WHEREAS, the Court held a three-day bench trial in the above-captioned matter on November 16, 17, and 18, 2022. (ECF Nos. 241-244.) For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Opinion and Opinion dated June 21, 2023 (BCF Nos. 301, 302), and all parties having consented to the form and entry hereof, Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. and Norton (Waterford) Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and against Defendant Cipla Ltd. (“Cipla”): 1. Cipla’s filing of Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 211434 (“Cipla’s ANDA”) infringes claims 1-2

How long did case 2:20-cv-10172 take?

1056 calendar days, from filing on 7 Aug 2020 to closure on 29 June 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:20-cv-10172?

Katelyn O’Reilly, Liza M. Walsh, Selena Miriam Ellis and William T. Walsh are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Gregory D. Miller appears for defendant Cipla.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:20-cv-10172 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:20-cv-10172 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.