Book a demo

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

Try now
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries et al. v. Eli Lilly & | Patent Lawsuit 1:18-cv-12029

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company

1:18-cv-12029 D. Mass. Closed 9 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 27 Sep 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and closed 28 Sep 2023, with 9 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
1:18-cv-12029
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Mass.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Massachusetts
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
27 Sep 2018 – 28 Sep 2023
Duration
1827 days
Basis of termination
Judgment on the merits for Defendant
Products & marks
Galcanezumab a humanized monoclonal antibody · LY2951742
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:18-cv-12029, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 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
US9890210B2 Inactive App. US15/588432

Antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide

The invention features methods for preventing or treating CGRP associated disorders such as vasomotor symptoms, including headaches (e.g., migraine, cluster headache, and tension headache) and hot flushes, by administering an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody. Antagonist antibody G1 and antibodies derived from G1 directed to CGRP are also described.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
13 Feb 2018
Earliest priority
2 Nov 2006
Est. expiry
2 Nov 2026
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2018-01425 · filed by Eli Lilly and Company
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61K39/395C12P21/08C07K16/18A61K39/00
Prosecution counsel
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Examiner
SAOUD, CHRISTINE J
US9890210B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9890210B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US9340614B2 Active App. US14/841479

Antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide and methods using same

The invention features methods for preventing or treating CGRP associated disorders such as vasomotor symptoms, including headaches (e.g., migraine, cluster headache, and tension headache) and hot flushes, by administering an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody. Antagonist antibody G1 and antibodies derived from G1 directed to CGRP are also described.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
17 May 2016
Earliest priority
2 Nov 2006
Est. expiry
2 Nov 2026
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2018-01422 · filed by Eli Lilly and Company
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61K39/395C07K16/26C07K16/00C12P21/08A61K39/00A61K31/4045C07K16/18
Prosecution counsel
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Examiner
SAOUD, CHRISTINE J
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

Plaintiff

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Alexandra Lu · Douglas J. Kline · Elaine Herrmann Blais · Eric T. Romeo · I. Neel Chatterjee · Joshua S. Weinger · Kathleen A. McGuiness · Kevin P. Martin · Martin C. Topol · Molly Grammel · Natasha E. Daughtrey · Robert Frederickson III · Shaobo Zhu · Tara Rose Thigpen
Firm
Allen & Overy LLP, Goodwin Procter LLP, Preti Flaherty, LLP
Also named
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Defendant

Eli Lilly & Company

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Amana Abdulwakeel · Andrea L. Martin · Charles E. Lipsey · Daniel F. Roland · Danielle A. Duszczyszyn, I · Denise Main · Emily R. Gabranski · J. Michael Jakes · Li Zhang · Mark J. Stewart · Marta Garcia Daneshvar · Matthew J Luneack · Oulu Wang · Pier D. DeRoo · Ryan P. O’Quinn · Sanjay M. Jivraj · William B. Raich · Yoonjin Lee
Firm
Burns & Levinson LLP, Eli Lilly And Company, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Alexandra LuTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Douglas J. KlineTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Elaine Herrmann BlaisTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Eric T. RomeoTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
I. Neel ChatterjeeTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Joshua S. WeingerTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Kathleen A. McGuinessTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Kevin P. MartinTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Martin C. TopolTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Molly GrammelTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Natasha E. DaughtreyTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Robert Frederickson IIITeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Shaobo ZhuTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Tara Rose ThigpenTeva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.Plaintiff
Amana AbdulwakeelEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Andrea L. MartinEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Charles E. LipseyEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Daniel F. RolandEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Danielle A. Duszczyszyn, IEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Denise MainEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Emily R. GabranskiEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
J. Michael JakesEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Li ZhangEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Mark J. StewartEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Marta Garcia DaneshvarEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Matthew J LuneackEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Oulu WangEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Pier D. DeRooEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Ryan P. O’QuinnEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Sanjay M. JivrajEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
William B. RaichEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
Yoonjin LeeEli Lilly & CompanyDefendant
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

“Defendant Eli Lilly and Company’s favor”

Case 1:18-cv-12029 · D. Mass. · closed 28 September 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 1:18-cv-12029?

1:18-cv-12029 is a patent infringement action brought by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. against Eli Lilly & Company, filed on 27 Sep 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case closed on 28 September 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 1:18-cv-12029?

US9890210B2 (“Antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH, currently inactive; US9340614B2 (“Antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide and methods using same”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH, currently active; US9266951B2 (“Antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide and methods using same”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH; US9346881B2 (“Antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide and methods using same”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH; US9884908B2 (“Methods for treating headache using antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH; US8597649B2 (“Antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide and methods using same”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH; US9884907B2 (“Methods for treating headache using antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH; US9890211B2 (“Antagonist antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH; US8586045B2 (“Methods of using anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies”), assigned to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH. The record also lists Galcanezumab a humanized monoclonal antibody and LY2951742.

How was case 1:18-cv-12029 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: “Defendant Eli Lilly and Company’s favor”

What does judgment on the merits mean?

A judgment on the merits decides the substance of the claims, as opposed to ending the case on procedural grounds.

How long did case 1:18-cv-12029 take?

1827 calendar days, from filing on 27 Sep 2018 to closure on 28 September 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:18-cv-12029?

Chief Judge Allison D. Burroughs presided. Alexandra Lu, Douglas J. Kline, Elaine Herrmann Blais, Eric T. Romeo, I. Neel Chatterjee, Joshua S. Weinger, Kathleen A. McGuiness, Kevin P. Martin, Martin C. Topol, Molly Grammel, Natasha E. Daughtrey, Robert Frederickson III, Shaobo Zhu and Tara Rose Thigpen are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Amana Abdulwakeel, Andrea L. Martin, Charles E. Lipsey, Daniel F. Roland, Danielle A. Duszczyszyn, I, Denise Main, Emily R. Gabranski, J. Michael Jakes, Li Zhang, Mark J. Stewart, Marta Garcia Daneshvar, Matthew J Luneack, Oulu Wang, Pier D. DeRoo, Ryan P. O’Quinn, Sanjay M. Jivraj, William B. Raich and Yoonjin Lee appear for defendant Eli Lilly &.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:18-cv-12029 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:18-cv-12029 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.