⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office”

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015-07-02 · Published · cited 0× · 791 F.3d 1373; 115 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1653; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11413; 2015 WL 4033276
REYNA, Circuit Judge. Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. (“Daii-chi”) brought suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia challenging patent term adjustments made by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for two Daiichi patents. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government. Daiichi appeals from the entry of final judgment in the g
District Court, District of Columbia · 2013-12-03 · Published · cited 1× · 12 F. Supp. 3d 8; 2013 WL 6234571; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169957
MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD W. ROBERTS Chief Judge Plaintiff Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited (“Daiichi”) brings suit under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A) and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 501 et seq., against the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Of
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2009-07-30 · Published · cited 2× · 670 F. Supp. 2d 359; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67978; 2009 WL 2356879
670 F.Supp.2d 359 (2009) DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED and Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICals inc., Mylan Laboratories Inc., Matrix Laboratories, Ltd., and Mylan, Inc., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs. Civ. Nos. 06-3462, 07-3039, 08-2752. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. July 30, 2009.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007-09-12 · Published · cited 53× · 501 F.3d 1254; 84 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1285; 2007 WL 2032123; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16576
501 F.3d 1254 (2007) DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD. (formerly known as Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.) and Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (formerly known as Daiichi Pharmaceutical Corporation), Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. APOTEX, INC. and Apotex Corp., Defendants-Appellants. No. 2006-1564. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Nonprecedential Opinion Issued: July 11, 2007. <
District Court, S.D. New York · 2008-06-24 · Published · cited 0× · 623 F. Supp. 2d 414; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48758; 2008 WL 2566559
(2008) VDP PATENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. WELCH ALLYN HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 06 Civ. 5821 (GEL). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 24, 2008. Michael B. Weiss, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY, for plaintiff. Douglas J. Nash and John D. Cook, Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Syracuse, NY, for defendants. OPI
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010-05-10 · Published · cited 1× · 603 F.3d 1377; 95 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1246; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9463; 2010 WL 1838655
603 F.3d 1377 (2010) ORTHO-McNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., and Ortho-McNeil, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and Lupin Ltd., Defendants-Appellants. No. 2009-1362. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. May 10, 2010. George F. Pappas, Covington & Burling LLP, of Washington, DC
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2019-04-04 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-1072C Filed: April 4, 2019 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ST. BERNARD PARISH * GOVERNMENT, * Motion to Dismiss; Breach of * Contract; Monetary Damages; Plaintiff, * Equitable Relief; Indemnification;
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022-08-26 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 21-2099 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. ELEKTA INC., Appellee ______________________ 2021-2099, 2021-2100 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Pate
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022-08-26 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 21-2099 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. ELEKTA INC., Appellee ______________________ 2021-2099, 2021-2100 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Pate
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022-08-29 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 21-2099 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. ELEKTA INC., Appellee ______________________ 2021-2099, 2021-2100 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Pate
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022-08-29 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 21-2099 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. ELEKTA INC., Appellee ______________________ 2021-2099, 2021-2100 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Pate
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2021-11-10 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 20-1683 Document: 87 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Appellee ______________________ 2020-1683, 2020-1763, 2020-1764, 2020-1827 ______________________ Appeals from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018-05-14 · Published · cited 7× · 889 F.3d 1372
Bryson, Circuit Judge. *1375 This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The Board held all of the claims of a patent owned by Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to be unpatentable for obviousness. Anacor has appealed with respe
District Court, E.D. Texas · 2019-05-10 · Published · cited 1× · 382 F. Supp. 3d 586
JEREMY D. KERNODLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On March 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the disputed claim terms in United States Patent Nos. 8,661,361 ("the '361 Patent"), 9,423,938 ("the '938 Patent"), *5939,423,923 ("the '923 Patent"), 9,841,878 ("the '878 Patent"), 9,823,838 ("the '838 Patent")
Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2024-05-15 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BUZZFEED MEDIA ENTERPRISES, ) INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. No. 2023-0377-MTZ v. ) ) HANNAH ANDERSON, et al., ) ) Defendan
District Court, D. Delaware · 2014-10-22 · Published · cited 1× · 71 F. Supp. 3d 458; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150283; 2014 WL 5388100
MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION In this patent infringement action, plaintiffs Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, Sugen, Inc., C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC, and PF Prism C.V. (collectively, “Pfizer”) allege that pharmaceutical products proposed by de
District Court, N.D. Texas · 2015-08-03 · Published · cited 0× · 152 F. Supp. 3d 595; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175648; 2015 WL 9920810
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER .BARBARA M. G. LYNN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On April 14, 2015, with the consent of the parties,, the Court held a telephonic hearing to determine the proper construction of the disputed claim terms in United States Patent No. 6,666,287 (“the. ’287 Patent”).1 Having reviewed the claims, specification, prosecution history, and submitted extri
District Court, D. Delaware · 2009-10-19 · Published · cited 2× · 664 F. Supp. 2d 443; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97757; 2009 WL 3363655
664 F.Supp.2d 443 (2009) ALCON, INC. and Alcon Research, Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant. Civ. No. 06-234-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. October 19, 2009. *446 Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire, Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esquire, and Anne Shea Gaza, Esquire, of Richards, Layton & Fing
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2009-07-10 · Published · cited 3× · 635 F. Supp. 2d 46; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60271
635 F.Supp.2d 46 (2009) ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC. and Arrow International Investment Corp., Plaintiffs, v. SPIRE BIOMEDICAL, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 06-cv-11564-DPW. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 10, 2009. *52 Brian E. Whiteley, Carolyn A. Marcotte, Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Boston, MA, Ira E. S
District Court, District of Columbia · 2016-07-14 · Published · cited 37× · 118 F. Supp. 3d 38; 2015 WL 4249167
MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Congress has authorized the Department of Energy (“the DOE”) to offer direct financial support to the manufacturers of clean energy vehicles and related components. See 42 U.S.C. § 17013 (2012). In accordance with this statutory mandate, the DOE administers various loan programs, including the Advanced Technology Vehic