IP Verse

Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. V. Lupin Ltd. - 2:23-cv-01197

Explore the details of the Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. V. Lupin Ltd. case under case number 2:23-cv-01197 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
2:23-cv-01197
Filing Date
Mar 1, 2023
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA)

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
CATALYST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. -
LUPIN LTD. -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Mar 17, 2025Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte. A status conference was held on March 17, 2025. The parties addressed the discovery disputes raised in the Hetero and Lupin actions. The Court will require further briefing and will set a briefing schedule. The Court encourages the parties to meet and confer to narrow the issues ahead of briefing. (akw, )PACER Document
Mar 17, 2025TEXT ORDER: By March 26, 2025, Plaintiffs shall file motions to compel regarding the discovery disputes raised in the Hetero and Lupin actions. Oppositions shall be filed by April 7, 2025. Replies, if any, shall be filed by April 14, 2025. A status conference is scheduled for June 17, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. For the conference, please dial 973-437-5535 and enter Phone conference ID: 132 354 930#. No later than June 10, 2025, the parties shall file a joint letter not to exceed five (5) pages summarizing the status of the case. To the extent the parties wish to raise a discovery dispute, they shall do so consistent with the Court's Case Management Order. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte on 3/17/2025. (akw, ) (Entered: 03/19/2025)PACER Document
Mar 21, 2025TEXT ORDER: As a clarification to this Court's prior text order dated March 17, 2025, Plaintiffs' forthcoming motions to compel should include a chart, similar in style to Appendix U used for motions to seal, which identifies the specific discovery items and information Plaintiffs contend should have been disclosed during fact discovery, along with a brief statement regarding the parties' position as to each discovery item. The chart shall be attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff's opening brief, and the parties shall elaborate on their positions in their respective briefs to be filed in accordance with the briefing schedule set forth in this Court's March 17 text order.. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte on 3/21/2025. (akw, ) (Entered: 03/21/2025)PACER Document
May 5, 2025Set Deadlines as to 223 MOTION to Seal Document 217 Brief, 213 Letter, 219 Letter, 216 Letter. Motion set for 6/2/2025 before Judge Michael E. Farbiarz. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (and)PACER Document
May 6, 2025CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - Please be advised the 224 Exhibit 1 Transcript submitted by JAMES RICHTER on 5/2/2025 is not filed pursuant to the Courts Transcript Policy. Only certified official court reporters or transcription agencies are permitted to electronically file official court transcripts. The Clerks office has removed this document pursuant to the procedure of the Court and at the Courts direction. This message is for informational purposes. (and)PACER Document
May 22, 2025TEXT ORDER: After considering the parties' arguments raised in the discovery dispute letter at ECF No. 224, the Court orders that Defendants may depose Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Jeffrey David Winkler, for a total of ten (10) hours, not inclusive of the four hours Mr. Winkler was already deposed in connection to Markman discovery. Defendants' fail to justify their request to depose Dr. Winkler for a total of 14 hours, but the case law cited in the dispute letter does establish that seven hours may be insufficient where an expert opines on both invalidity and infringement. Such is the case here. Dr. Winkler has provided various opinions and reports on both the issues of validity and infringement, apart from what was provided during Markman discovery. Therefore, the Court finds that a total of 10 hours to depose Dr. Winkler is reasonable and appropriate to allow Lupin and the Annora/Hetero Defendants an opportunity to sufficiently examine Dr. Winkler's opinions. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte on 5/22/2025. (akw, ) (Entered: 05/22/2025)PACER Document