ViiV Healthcare, Co. et al. v. Cipla Limited et al.
Infringement action filed 22 Jul 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 14 Mar 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9242986B2US10426780B2
- Case no.
- 1:20-cv-00977
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Mitchell S. Goldberg
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Jul 2020 – 14 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 965 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Antiviral therapy · Synthesis of carbamoylpyridone HIV integrase inhibitors and intermediates
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
Synthesis of carbamoylpyridone HIV integrase inhibitors and intermediates
A synthesis approach providing an early ring attachment via a bromination to compound 1-1 yielding compound II-II, whereby a final product such as AA can be synthesized. In particular, the 2,4-difluorophenyl-containing sidechain is attached before creation of the additional ring Q.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 26 Jan 2016
- Earliest priority
- 8 Dec 2009
- Est. expiry
- 8 Jun 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KAWASUJI, TAKASHI · NAGAMATSU, DAIKI
- Classification
- C07D471/22A61K31/351A61K31/4412C07D487/22C07D498/14
- Prosecution counsel
- WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
- Examiner
- HABTE, KAHSAY
Antiviral therapy
The present invention relates to combinations of compounds comprising HIV integrase inhibitors and other therapeutic agents. Such combinations are useful in the inhibition of HIV replication, the prevention and/or treatment of infection by HIV, and in the treatment of AIDS and/or ARC.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 1 Oct 2019
- Earliest priority
- 24 Jan 2011
- Est. expiry
- 24 Jan 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- UNDERWOOD, MARK RICHARD
- Classification
- A61K31/535A61K31/505A61K31/536A61K31/52A61K31/4985A61K45/06A61K31/675A61K31/5365A61K31/51A61K9/00A61K31/513
- Prosecution counsel
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Examiner
- WANG, SHENGJUN
Parties of record
ViiV Healthcare, Co.
- Core tech
- C07D471/22A61K31/351A61K31/4412C07D487/22
- Counsel
- Alexandra M. Joyce · Caitlin Hogan · Carolyn S. Wall · Daniel O
- Firm
- McCarter & English LLP
- Also named
- Shionogi & Co., Ltd. · Viiv Healthcare UK (No. 3) Limited
Cipla Limited
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Anandita Vyakarnam · Eve H. Ormerod · Neal C. Belgam · Stuart D. Sender
- Firm
- Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP
- Also named
- CIPLA USA, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alexandra M. Joyce | ViiV Healthcare, Co. | Plaintiff |
| Caitlin Hogan | ViiV Healthcare, Co. | Plaintiff |
| Carolyn S. Wall | ViiV Healthcare, Co. | Plaintiff |
| Daniel O | ViiV Healthcare, Co. | Plaintiff |
| Anandita Vyakarnam | Cipla Limited | Defendant |
| Eve H. Ormerod | Cipla Limited | Defendant |
| Neal C. Belgam | Cipla Limited | Defendant |
| Stuart D. Sender | Cipla Limited | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiffs ViiV Healthcare Company, Shionogi & Co., Ltd., and ViiV Healthcare UK (No. 3) Limited (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Cipla Limited and Cipla USA, Inc. (“Defendants”) (together, with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), through their undersigned counsel, have agreed to terms and conditions representing a negotiated settlement of this action and have set forth those terms and conditions in a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). Now the parties, by their respective undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate and consent to entry of judgment and an injunction in this action as follows: IT IS this ____day of , 2023: ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of these actions; 2. Except as specifically authorized pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants, including any of their Affiliates, successors and assigns, are enjoined from infringing United States Patent Numbers 9,242,986 and 10,426,780, on its own part or through any Affiliate, by making, having made, using, selling, 10th March Case 1:20-cv-00977-MSG Document 54 Filed 03/14/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 270 ME1 44233854v.1 offering to sell, importing or distributing of the ANDA Products at issue in this action. 3. Compliance with this Consent Judgment may be enforced by Plaintiffs as permitted by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 4. This District Court retains jurisdiction to enforce or supervise performance under this Consent Judgment and the Settlement Agreement. 5. All claims, counterclaims, affirmative defenses and demands in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs, disbursements or attorneys’ fees to any party.”
Case 1:20-cv-00977 · D. Del. · closed 14 March 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 1:20-cv-00977?
1:20-cv-00977 is a patent infringement action brought by ViiV Healthcare, Co. against Cipla Limited, filed on 22 Jul 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 14 March 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:20-cv-00977?
US9242986B2 (“Synthesis of carbamoylpyridone HIV integrase inhibitors and intermediates”), assigned to SHIONOGI & CO., LTD., currently active; US10426780B2 (“Antiviral therapy”), assigned to VIIV HEALTHCARE COMPANY, currently active. The record also lists Antiviral therapy and Synthesis of carbamoylpyridone HIV integrase inhibitors and intermediates.
How was case 1:20-cv-00977 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Plaintiffs ViiV Healthcare Company, Shionogi & Co., Ltd., and ViiV Healthcare UK (No. 3) Limited (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Cipla Limited and Cipla USA, Inc. (“Defendants”) (together, with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), through their undersigned counsel, have agreed to terms and conditions representing a negotiated settlement of this action and have set forth those terms and conditions in a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). Now the parties, by their respective undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate and consent to entry of judgment and an injunction in this action as fo
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:20-cv-00977 take?
965 calendar days, from filing on 22 Jul 2020 to closure on 14 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:20-cv-00977?
Chief Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg presided. Alexandra M. Joyce, Caitlin Hogan, Carolyn S. Wall and Daniel O are recorded as counsel for plaintiff ViiV Healthcare. Anandita Vyakarnam, Eve H. Ormerod, Neal C. Belgam and Stuart D. Sender appear for defendant Cipla.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:20-cv-00977 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.