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 “Genentech, Inc. v. Biogen MA Inc.”
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc.public domain
607 F.Supp.2d 769 (2009) SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GmbH, Plaintiff, v. GENENTECH, INC. and Biogen Idec, Inc., Defendant. Civil Action No. 9:08-CV-203. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division. March 19, 2009. *771 Jim Mitchell Smith, Lawrence Louis Germer, Germer Gertz, L.L.P., Beaumont, TX, Aaron F. Barkoff, Al
In Re Genentech, Inc.public domain
566 F.3d 1338 (2009) In re GENENTECH, INC. and Biogen Idec Inc., Petitioners. Misc. No. 901. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. May 22, 2009. *1340 Charles Verhoeven, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, of San Francisco, CA, for petitioner Genentech, Inc. With him on the petition were Victoria F. Maroulis and M
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc.public domain
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENENTECH, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND BIOGEN IDEC INC., Defendant. ______________________ 2012-1454 ______________________ Appeal fr
Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLCpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BIOGEN IDEC, INC. AND GENENTECH, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC AND GLAXO GROUP LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees. ______________________ 2012-1120 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Cali
Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen Inc.public domain
115 F.Supp.2d 139 (2000) BIOGEN, INC. v. AMGEN INC. No. CIV.A.95-10496-RGS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. September 25, 2000. *140 John Sylvia, Patrick T. Clendenen, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, Eric R. Hubbard, Fish & Neave, New York, NY, James F. Haley, Kenneth B. Herm
Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Laboratories, Inc.public domain
113 F.Supp.2d 77 (2000) BIOGEN, INC., Plaintiff, v. BERLEX LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. Berlex Laboratories, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Biogen, Inc., Defendant. Berlex Laboratories, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Biogen, Inc., Defendant. Nos. C.A. 96-10916-MLW, 96-12487-MLW, 98-11728-MLW. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 15, 2000.
Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen Inc.public domain
18 F.Supp.2d 105 (1998) BIOGEN, INC. v. AMGEN, INC. Civil Action No. 95-10496-RGS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 6, 1998. John Sylvia, Patrick T. Clendenen, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, Eric R. Hubbard, Fish & Neave, New York City, James F. Haley, Kenneth B. Herman, Andrew S. Marks, Madge R. Kanter,
Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc.public domain
973 F.Supp. 39 (1997) BIOGEN, INC., v. AMGEN, INC. Civil Action No. 95-10496-RGS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 7, 1997. *40 John Sylvia, Patrick T. Clendenen, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, James F. Haley, Kenneth B. Herman, Andrew S. Marks, Madge R. Kanter, Jane A. Mass
In re Biogen 755 Patent Litig.public domain
CECCID, District Judge. The Court held a five-week jury trial in this patent infringement action beginning on January 18, 2018. On February 23, 2018, the jury returned a verdict finding that healthcare professionals and/or patients directly infringe claims 1 and 2 of United States Patent No. 7,588,755 (the "'755 patent") when they administer or self-administer the product Rebif ® for the treatment of multiple sclerosis ("MS"), that
Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc.public domain
913 F.Supp. 35 (1996) BIOGEN, INC. v. AMGEN, INC. Civil Action No. 95-10496-RGS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 19, 1996. *36 David E. Lurie, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, James F. Haley, Kenneth B. Herman, Andrew S. Marks, Madge R. Kanter, Fish & Neave, New York C
Biogen, Inc. v. SCHERING AGpublic domain
954 F.Supp. 391 (1996) BIOGEN, INC., Plaintiff, v. SCHERING AG, Berlex Laboratories, Inc. and Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford, Jr. University, Defendants. C.A. No. 96-10916-MLW. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. November 5, 1996. As amended December 4, 1996. *392 William F. Lee, David B. Ba
Case: 24-1965 Document: 76 Page: 1 Filed: 01/29/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., AMGEN USA, INC., BIOCON BIOLOGICS INC., CELLTRION, INC., FORMYCON AG, AMGEN INC., Defendants SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD., Defendant-A
175 F.Supp.2d 246 (2001) PLANT GENETIC SYSTEMS, N.V. & BIOGEN, INC. v. DEKALB GENETICS CORP. No. 3:96CV2015 (DJS). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. September 7, 2001. *247 *248 *249 Eric D. Daniels, Craig A. Raabe, Bradford S. Babbitt, Robi
Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge DYK. WALLACH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-appellants Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. (collectively, “Momenta”) appeal the district court’s decision finding Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (“Teva”) does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,575,886 (“the '886 patent”). In a companion case, Momenta appeals the district court’s decis
MOORE, Circuit Judge. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., International Medication Systems, Ltd., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Watson Pharma., Inc. (collectively, Amphastar) appeal the district court’s order denying the Emergency Motion to Dissolve or Stay the preliminary injunction entered in this case. Because the district court applied an unduly narrow interpretation of the HatchWaxman safe harbor, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(
MEMORANDUM & ORDER GORTON, District Judge. Plaintiffs Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Momenta”) and Sandoz Inc. (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) bring suit against Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Amphastar”), International Medication Systems, Ltd. (“IMS”) and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Watson”) (collectively, “the defendants”) for patent infringement. The plaintiffs have move
Amgen, Inc. v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM ORDER MARY PAT THYNGE, United States Magistrate Judge. INTRODUCTION This is a patent case. A detailed recitation of the convoluted procedural posture of this case is unnecessary. A brief recitation follows. On April 20, 2006, Amgen, Inc., and related entities (collectively “Am-gen”), filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Patent Invalidity and Non-Infringem
UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Development Co.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION LEONIE M. BRINKEMA, District Judge. Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant UCB, Inc. (“UCB”) brought this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that its Cimzia® product, a humanized monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration- (“FDA”) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic . arthritis, active ankylosing -spondylitis, and Crohn’s diseas
Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie Incpublic domain
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 18-2621 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellant v. ABBVIE INC; ABBOTT LABORATORIES; UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; BESINS HEALTHCARE, INC.; *TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC (*Dismissed Pursuant to Court’s 3/12/19 Order.) No. 18-2748 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie Incpublic domain
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 18-2621 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellant v. ABBVIE INC.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES; UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; BESINS HEALTHCARE, INC.; *TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. (*Dismissed Pursuant to Court’s 3/12/19 Order.) No. 18-2748 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION