Genentech, Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc.
 
SummaryLawsuit
Summary
  
Court DocumentsCourt
Documents
  
Docket TextDocket
Text
  
Lawsuit Tracker™Lawsuit
Tracker™
  
Docket TextRelated
Cases
  

Lawsuit Details
RFC Case Number: P-G11-1076S
Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-01076-CMA -MJW
File Date: Friday, April 22, 2011
Plaintiff: Genentech, Inc.
Roche Palo Alto LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher P. Beall of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz LLP
Stephen S. Rabinowitz, Randy C. Eisensmith of Fried Frank Harris Shiver & Jacobson LLP
Defendant: Sandoz Inc.
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Court: Colorado District Court
Judge: Judge Christine M. Arguello
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
Notes:
Patent Details:
Patent Information Available To Active Paid Subscribers Only
Already have an account? Login Now
Need an account? Register for a Free Trial



Docket Text
This may not be the most complete up-to-date docket information.
For daily updates on this case, sign-up for a Lawsuit Tracker.
See the box on the right side of this page for details on the Lawsuit Tracker


Date # Docket Text
4/26/2011 4
4/22/2011 3 REPORT on the filing of an action mailed to Commissioner of Patents. (lyg, ) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
4/22/2011 2 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, by Plaintiffs Genentech, Inc., Roche Palo Alto LLC. (lyg, ) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
4/22/2011 1
Need more info about this lawsuit?
Court Documents Instantly access recently filed official court documents
Docket Text Review activity within the case
Lawsuit Tracker™ Get automatic notifications of any new information about this case.
Related Cases Review similar cases found across multiple criteria




Home   |   About   |   Lawsuits   |   Register   |   Login   |   Terms of Use   |   Privacy Policy   |   Sitemap   |   RSS Feed   |   Contact

© Copyright 2008-2013 RFC Express — All Rights Reserved — Presented By Intellectual Property Today

RFC Express provides access to public lawsuit filings retrieved from the U.S. Federal District Courts.
These lawsuits, and associated information should not be considered findings of fact or liability. Nor do they reflect the views of RFC Express or any of its employees.
extended validation certificate