Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
Infringement action filed 27 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 10 Feb 2023, with US11285129B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11285129B2
- Application no.
- US17/368160
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-07528
- 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
- 27 Dec 2022 – 10 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 45 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders
- 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
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
- 29 Mar 2022
- Earliest priority
- 23 Jan 2013
- 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
- A61K31/343A61K31/00A61K45/06A61K31/15A61K31/277A61K31/496G01N30/72G16H50/20G01N33/74G01N33/68A61K9/00
- Prosecution counsel
- HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
- Examiner
- SHAMEEM, GOLAM M
Parties of record
Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Core tech
- A61K31/343A61K31/00A61K45/06A61K31/15
- Counsel
- Justin Taylor Quinn
- Firm
- Robinson Miller LLC
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Christine Intromasso Gannon · Lauren Ruth Malakoff · Liza M. Walsh
- Firm
- Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly Falanga LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Taylor Quinn | Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Christine Intromasso Gannon | Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Lauren Ruth Malakoff | Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Liza M. Walsh | Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“This matter comes before the Court on defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Apotex Inc., and Apotex Corp.’s cross-motions to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. See No. 22-7528, ECF No. 23; No. 22-7529, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff opposed the motions. See No. 22-7528, ECF No. 40; No. 22-7529, ECF No. 38. Having considered the parties’ submissions, including various declarations and exhibits in addition to the briefing,1 and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, IT IS on this 10th day of February, 2023, ORDERED that Defendants cross-motions to transfer these matters to the District of Delaware (22-7528, ECF No. 23; No. 22-7529, ECF No. 18) are GRANTED.”
Case 2:22-cv-07528 · D.N.J. · closed 10 February 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 2:22-cv-07528?
2:22-cv-07528 is a patent infringement action brought by Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., filed on 27 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 10 February 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:22-cv-07528?
US11285129B2 (“Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders”), assigned to VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., currently active. The record also lists Treatment of circadian rhythm disorders.
How was case 2:22-cv-07528 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “This matter comes before the Court on defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Apotex Inc., and Apotex Corp.’s cross-motions to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. See No. 22-7528, ECF No. 23; No. 22-7529, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff opposed the motions. See No. 22-7528, ECF No. 40; No. 22-7529, ECF No. 38. Having considered the parties’ submissions, including various declarations and exhibits in addition to the briefing,1 and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, IT IS on this 10th day of February, 2023, ORDERED that Defendants cross-motions to transfer these matters to the
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 2:22-cv-07528 take?
45 calendar days, from filing on 27 Dec 2022 to closure on 10 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-07528?
Justin Taylor Quinn is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Vanda Pharmaceuticals. Christine Intromasso Gannon, Lauren Ruth Malakoff and Liza M. Walsh appear for defendant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-07528 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.