US6468967B1 Patent litigation record

Patent 10 cases

US6468967B1 has been asserted in 10 cases on record. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

10 cases on record

Cases on record
10
Asserted by
Cubist Pharmaceuticals
Asserted against
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories · Mylan Laboratories · Fresenius Kabi USA · Crane Pharmaceuticals · Actavis · Sagent Pharmaceuticals · Hospira · Strides
Courts
Fed. Cir. · D. Del.
Technology
medicinal preparations
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2016-2057 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. Fed. Cir. 12 May 2016 12 d Closed
2016-1652 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Mylan Laboratories Limited Fed. Cir. 4 Mar 2016 81 d Closed
2016-1653 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC Fed. Cir. 4 Mar 2016 81 d Closed
1:16-cv-00072 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Crane Pharmaceuticals, LLC D. Del. 10 Feb 2016 30 d Other
1:15-cv-01214 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Actavis LLC D. Del. 29 Dec 2015 160 d Voluntary dismissal
1:15-cv-01164 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. D. Del. 17 Dec 2015 76 d Other
2015-1259 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. Fed. Cir. 13 Jan 2015 303 d Closed
2015-1204 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. Fed. Cir. 19 Dec 2014 328 d Closed
1:13-cv-01679 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Strides, Inc. D. Del. 9 Oct 2013 846 d Other
1:12-cv-01142 Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. D. Del. 17 Sep 2012 1008 d Other
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US6468967B1 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US6468967B1?

Closest prior art, compared claim by claim, with every reference rated for how hard it hits.

Run a novelty search
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

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. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

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.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.