Judge Profile

Sheridan K. Snedden

44 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

44 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2

patent denied · Apr 19, 2024

Vectair Systems Inc. v.Fresh Products, Inc.

· IPR2024-00824

Vectair Systems Inc.'s IPR challenge against Fresh Products, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102) or obviousness (103).

patent instituted · Apr 10, 2024

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00007

The PTAB has issued an Institution Decision for IPR2025-00007, finding that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The case involves obviousness challenges (103) against Trina Solar's solar cell patent using combinations of prior art from Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe.

patent Final Written Decision · Apr 3, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00623

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.

patent Final Written Decision · Apr 3, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00624

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).

patent denied · Mar 26, 2024

Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2024-00726

Ovid Therapeutics Inc.'s IPR challenge against Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges regarding plasma concentration limitations and priority.

patent instituted · Mar 13, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00649

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.

patent instituted · Mar 13, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00648

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.

patent Final Written Decision · Mar 13, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00650

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.

patent final · Mar 13, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00648

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.

patent final · Mar 13, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00647

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.

patent instituted · Mar 10, 2024

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00006

The PTAB institution decision granted the petitioner a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all challenged claims related to solar cell technology. The grounds for obviousness centered on combining prior art references like Jin and Feldmann to achieve predictable improvements in TOPCon structure efficiency.

patent instituted · Mar 4, 2024

NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00669

NEURENT MEDICAL INC. successfully petitioned PTAB for institution of IPR against THE FOUNDRY, LLC's nasal cavity treatment patent (11679077). The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness to proceed to trial.

patent Final Written Decision · Mar 4, 2024

NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00669

The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that multiple claims of the '077 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine existing RF ablation and nasal treatment technologies.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Jeisys Medical Inc. following a settlement with Serendia, while allowing EndyMed petitioners to continue the review.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →