Infringement action filed 6 Dec 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and closed 4 Apr 2023, with US7238522B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case stayed.
An apparatus and a method for isolating a biologic product, such as plasmid DNA, from cells. The method involves lysing cells in a controlled manner separate insoluble components from a fluid lysate containing cellular components of interest, followed by membrane chromatographic techniques to purify the cellular components of interest. The process utilizes a unique lysis apparatus, ion exchange and, optionally, hydrophobic interaction chromatography membranes in cartridge form, and ultrafiltration. The process can be applied to any biologic product extracted from a cellular source. The process uses a lysis apparatus, including a high shear, low residence-time mixer for advantageously mixing a cell suspension with a lysis solution, a hold time that denatures impurities, and an air-sparging bubble mixer that gently yet thoroughly mixes lysed cells with a neutralization/precipitation buffer and floats compacted precipitated cellular material.
Cecil Bryan Wilson · Dane H. Butswinkas · David S. Blatt · Dov P. Grossman · Emily R. Whelan · Jesus David Cabello · John M. Hintz · John P. Hanish · Kevin J. Culligan · Robert M. Galvin · William F. Lee
Firm
Cabello Hall Zinda PLLC, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Williams & Connolly LLP, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
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
"On March 21, 2021, Judge Lynn Hughes stayed this case pending arbitration. (Dkt. No. 82). This Civil Action remains STAYED and shall be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED without prejudice to it being reopened upon a motion by any party. It is SO ORDERED."
Case 4:19-cv-04761 · S.D. Tex. · closed 4 April 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.
4:19-cv-04761 is a patent infringement action brought by VGXI, Inc. against Aldevron LLC, filed on 6 Dec 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case closed on 4 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 4:19-cv-04761?
US7238522B2 (“Devices and methods for biomaterial production”), assigned to VGXI, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Devices and methods for biomaterial production.
How was case 4:19-cv-04761 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case stayed. The termination text reads: "On March 21, 2021, Judge Lynn Hughes stayed this case pending arbitration. (Dkt. No. 82). This Civil Action remains STAYED and shall be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED without prejudice to it being reopened upon a motion by any party. It is SO ORDERED."
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 4:19-cv-04761 take?
1215 calendar days, from filing on 6 Dec 2019 to closure on 4 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:19-cv-04761?
Chief Judge Drew B Tipton presided. Daniel E. Rhynhart, Daniel S. Morris, Domingo Manuel LLagostera and Robert Philip Scott are recorded as counsel for plaintiff VGXI. Cecil Bryan Wilson, Dane H. Butswinkas, David S. Blatt, Dov P. Grossman, Emily R. Whelan, Jesus David Cabello, John M. Hintz, John P. Hanish, Kevin J. Culligan, Robert M. Galvin and William F. Lee appear for defendant Aldevron.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 4:19-cv-04761 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:19-cv-04761 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.
