Katz
25 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
25 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request relies on discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b).
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
The PTAB denied NeoGenomics’s petition to institute an IPR against Natera’s 11,530,454 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods. The Board found the prior art had already been considered and no material error existed. No trial will be held.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 28 challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning oncology/immunotherapy. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed methods under both § 102 and § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the '975 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed methods and drug characteristics were anticipated (102) or rendered obvious (103) by prior art, primarily the MSI-H Study Record (MSR).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all seven claims of the patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) based on the MSI-H Study Record, which was deemed prior art despite arguments regarding experimental use exceptions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-8 of the patent were unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record (MSR) anticipates and renders obvious most challenged claims under both § 102 and § 103. The Board ruled that the Patent Owner's objective evidence of non-obviousness was insufficient to overcome these findings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 36 challenged claims unpatentable by both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipates the claimed methods, including those requiring pre-treatment testing for microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient status. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of oncology and immunotherapy.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 30 challenged claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully argued that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed methods for treating non-colorectal MSI-H cancers.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found that the patent claims were unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed invention by teaching all elements, leading to a final decision against the patent owner.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 38 claims of the '491 patent unpatentable. The Board construed "in response to" as requiring a causal link between MSI-H/dMMR determination and treatment, which led to a finding that the MSR anticipated and rendered obvious the challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding anti-cancer therapies using PD-1 blockade. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record, renders several claims unpatentable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against The Johns Hopkins University regarding oncology/immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, despite procedural challenges from the Patent Owner.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully instituted an IPR against The Johns Hopkins University's patent, challenging claims related to anti-PD-1 antibodies for MSI-high cancer. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art anticipated and rendered the claims obvious, leading to a trial institution decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding anti-cancer immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates key claims, warranting further trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against The Johns Hopkins University regarding claims related to anti-PD-1 antibody treatment for MSI colorectal cancer. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success under both 102 and 103 grounds across all 36 claims at issue.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding a patent on immunotherapy methods. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both 102 and 103, primarily based on the MSI-H Study Record.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent claims regarding MSI-H cancer treatment, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argued that the claimed methods were anticipated by or obvious over existing prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record and various medical literature.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11634491) in a PTAB Institution Decision. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for multiple claims under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial proceedings against Tecan Genomics, Inc. regarding a high-throughput sequencing patent (11098357). The Board found reasonable likelihood that claims 1 through 10 are unpatentable under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics for patent number 11725241. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability across multiple claims based on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned the PTAB against Tecan Genomics regarding claims related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The Board instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics, challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10876108 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the Examiner erred in relying solely on secondary considerations, adopting the Petitioner's view that combining Shapero and Delseny renders multiple claims obvious.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics filed an IPR challenging Natera's prenatal‑testing patent. The parties settled before the Board could institute the trial, and the Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) and an Acting Director memo.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica settled their post‑grant review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,781,148. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petition, terminating the proceeding.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.