Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. et al.
Infringement action filed 15 Dec 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 10 May 2023, with 8 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9549913B2US9539234B2US10376487B2US10149829B2US9730910B2US9855241B2US9060995B2USRE46604E1
- Case no.
- 23-1247
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 15 Dec 2022 – 10 May 2023
- Duration
- 146 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Method of treatment · Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders
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
Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders
Embodiments of the invention relate to the use of a melatonin agonist in the treatment of free running circadian rhythms in patients, including light perception impaired patients, e.g., blind patients, and to methods of measuring circadian rhythm.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 24 Jan 2017
- Earliest priority
- 26 Jan 2012
- Est. expiry
- 25 Jan 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- A61K31/343G01N33/68A61K31/00A61K9/00
- Prosecution counsel
- HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
- Examiner
- SHAMEEM, GOLAM M M
Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders
Embodiments of the invention relate to the use of a melatonin agonist in the treatment of free running circadian rhythms in patients, including light perception impaired patients, e.g., blind patients, and to methods of measuring circadian rhythm.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 10 Jan 2017
- Earliest priority
- 26 Jan 2012
- Est. expiry
- 25 Jan 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DRESSMAN, MARLENE MICHELLE · FEENEY, JOHN JOSEPH · LICAMELE, LOUIS WILLIAM · POLYMEROPOULOS, MIHAEL H.
- Classification
- A61K31/343A61K9/00G01N33/68A61K31/00
- Prosecution counsel
- HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
- Examiner
- SHAMEEM, GOLAM M M
Also asserted in this case
6 moreThe docket lists 8 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 6 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Core tech
- A61K31/343G01N33/68A61K31/00A61K9/00
- Counsel
- Daniel Klein · Eric Alan Stone · Jennifer Rea Deneault · Josephine Young · Michael F. Milea · Nicholas P. Groombridge
- Firm
- Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone LLP
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Byron Leroy Pickard, Esq. · Deirdre M. Wells · John Christopher Rozendaal · Sasha Rao · William Milliken
- Firm
- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC
- Also named
- Apotex Corp. · Apotex, Inc.
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
Case 23-1247 · Fed. Cir. · closed 10 May 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 23-1247?
23-1247 is a patent infringement action brought by Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., filed on 15 Dec 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 10 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 23-1247?
US9549913B2 (“Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders”), assigned to VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., currently active; US9539234B2 (“Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders”), assigned to VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., currently active; US10376487B2 (“Method of treatment”), assigned to VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US10149829B2 (“Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders”), assigned to VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; US9730910B2 (“Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders”), assigned to VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; US9855241B2 (“Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders”), assigned to VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; US9060995B2 (“Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders”), assigned to VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; USRE46604E1 (“Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders”), assigned to VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.. The record also lists Method of treatment and Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders.
How was case 23-1247 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
How long did case 23-1247 take?
146 calendar days, from filing on 15 Dec 2022 to closure on 10 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 23-1247?
Daniel Klein, Eric Alan Stone, Jennifer Rea Deneault, Josephine Young, Michael F. Milea and Nicholas P. Groombridge are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Vanda Pharmaceuticals. Byron Leroy Pickard, Esq., Deirdre M. Wells, John Christopher Rozendaal, Sasha Rao and William Milliken appear for defendant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 23-1247 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.