About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.
Subscribe to this blog's feed

Contact the Docs

Recent Posts

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« The Effect of Foreign Generics on the U.S. Drug Supply - Part I | Main | EPO Filings up in 2006 »

June 19, 2007

Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

    By Donald Zuhn --

Sanofiaventis_large Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb announced today (June 19, 2007) that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a ruling in their favor in an infringement action against Apotex.  Sanofi and BMS filed the action in March of 2002, contending that Apotex' filing of an ANDA for clopidogrel bisulfate tablets infringed Sanofi's U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265, which is directed to clopidogrel bisulfate.  The '265 patent is exclusively licensed to Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership, which sells clopidogrel bisulfate tablets under the trademark Plavix®.

Logo_bristol_myers_web_2 In an 82-page opinion, District Court Judge Stein found that Apotex had "concededly infringed" Sanofi's '265 patent and had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the '265 patent is invalid or unenforceable.  Judge Stein enjoined Apotex from engaging in any activity that infringes the '265 patent, which expires on November 17, 2011, and announced that the amount of damages would be determined in future proceedings.

For more information regarding this decision, please see:

Posted at 11:45 PM in Patent Litigation |

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2025

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Categories

Archives

More...