Exubera Insulin Litigation

Exubera Inhaled Insulin
  Exubera - Pfizer
  Exubera - Nektar
  Exubera Risks
  Exubera -
    Drug Litigation
  Exubera -
   Pulmonary Issues
  Exubera -
    FDA Approval
  Exubera -
    EU Approval
  Exubera - Canada
  Exubera - Clinical
    Drug Trials
  Exubera Sales
  Exubera Cost
  Exubera News
  Exubera - Physician
    Comments
  Exubera: Type 1
    Diabetes
  Exubera: Type 2
    Diabetes
  Exubera - U.K. NICE
    Analysis
  Diabetes Research
  Exubera - Breeze
    Study









Subscribe: Feeds
        Subscribe to the RDF (RSS 1.0) feed
        Add to your Google Home Page or Google Reader
        Add to your My Yahoo!
        Add to your My MSN
        Add to your My AOL
        Add to your My Feedster
        Add to your NewsGator
        Add to your Bloglines
        Add to your News Burst
        Subscribe to the blog's FeedBurner feed

Diabetes Drug Makers
  Eli Lilly & Co.
  Novo-Nordisk
  Sanofi Aventis
  MannKind Corporation
  Generex

Novo-Nordisk A/S v. Pfizer, Inc.
Exubera Patent Lawsuit

Drug Litigation Home > Pages 1 - 2 of 9 in Lawsuit

<< First Page   Next   Last Page >>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NOVO NORDISK, A/S,

                  Plaintiff

               - v. -
 
PFIZER, INC.,
 
                  Defendant.
 

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
 
Civil Action No. 06 CV 5819
 

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

                   Plaintiff Novo Nordisk A/S (“Novo”), by its undersigned attorneys, hereby alleges as follows for its Complaint against defendant Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”):

Introduction

                  1.        Pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code, this is an action brought by Novo complaining of Pfizer’s infringement of five U.S. patents owned by Novo and relating to insulin delivery.


[AdSense Here] -->

Jurisdiction and Venue


                  2.        This action arises under the patent laws ofthe United States. Novo asserts claims for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281.

                  3.        This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 99 §§ 1331 and 1338.

                  4.        Pfizer has its principal place of business in the State, City and County of New York and thus is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.

- 1 -


                  5.        Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1400(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) because Pfizer resides in this District.

Parties

                  6.        Plaintiff Novo is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Kingdom of Denmark and has its principal place of business in Bagsvaerd, Denmark.

                  7.        Defendant Pfizer is a corporation organized and existing under the laws ofthe State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York, New York.

The Patents

                  8.        On September 30, 1997, United States Patent No. 5,672,581 (the “'581 patent”) was duly and legally issued to Aradigm Corporation (“Aradigm”), as assignee of Reid M. Rubsamen and Lester John Lloyd, for an invention entitled “Method of Administration ofInsulin.” A copy of the '581 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

                  9.        On March 23, 1999, United States Patent No. 5,884,620 (the “'620 patent”) was duly and legally issued to Aradigm, as assignee of Igor Gonda Reid M. Rubsamen, and Stephen J. Farr, for an invention entitled “Inhaled Insulin Dosage Control Delivery Enhanced by Controlling Total Inhaled Volume.” A copy of the '620 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

                  10.        On August 24, 1999, United States Patent No. 5,941,240 (the “'240 patent”) was duly and legally issued to Aradigm, as assignee of Igor Gonda, Reid M. Rubsamen, and Stephen J. Farr, for an invention entitled “Inhaled Insulin

- 2 -


<< First Page   Next   Last Page >>

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005 - 2006 BFLD, LLC – All rights reserved.