Pharmaceuticals — US PTAB Patent Cases
185 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 7 · 185 total
Par Health, Inc. v.InfoRLife, S.A.
Par Health petitions the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,370,153 covering ready‑to‑use ketamine infusion formulations. The petition asserts anticipation by a Biomed data sheet and obviousness over Biomed combined with standard pharmaceutical references and commercial infusion bag literature.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting that a 2013 publication anticipates all 18 claims and that the specification lacks written description and enablement. The petition seeks inter partes review under § 102 and § 112(a).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s ’656 patent covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description and enablement and that US‑275 anticipates all claims.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s anti‑TNF antibody patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Janssen’s own clinical‑trial data and FDA‑approved labeling.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions to invalidate claims 1‑10 of US 982, alleging they are anticipated and obvious in view of a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s US 12,122,824 patent covering an IV golimumab regimen for psoriatic arthritis, arguing lack of novelty and obviousness based on a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate Janssen’s golimumab patent (US 11,041,020) on the basis that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the company’s own clinical‑trial protocol and other prior art.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Surrozen Operating, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,297,278 covering broad tetravalent Wnt‑surrogate antibodies. The petition asserts lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by the Garcia publication.
Bicara Therapeutics, Inc. v.The John Hopkins University et al.
Bicara Therapeutics has filed a PTAB Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of Johns Hopkins' 2025 antibody‑fusion protein patent, alleging lack of written description, lack of enablement, and improper claim dependency.
Biocon Biologics Limited et al. v.--
Biocon has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate all 38 claims of Regeneron’s ‘036 anti‑VEGF eye‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over prior art and lack of written description.
Pfizer Inc. v.Pogona, LLC
Pfizer has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,058,757 covering pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Alexander and Gu, plus extensive epidemiology literature.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s ’894 patent covering analytical ultracentrifugation methods for AAV vectors. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious in view of long‑standing literature (de la Maza) and the Le Bec patent, combined with Sommer and Cole. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 10‑30.
Ascendis Pharma A/S et al. v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
Ascendis Pharma has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of BioMarin’s U.S. Patent 12,331,106 covering CNP‑variant treatments for achondroplasia. The petition alleges obviousness, anticipation, lack of enablement, and an improper dependent claim. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Merus’s ’859 bispecific antibody patent, asserting anticipation by Desjarlais and Moore and obviousness over Lazar and Kannan. The petitioner seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (9358286) concerning heterodimeric Ig-like molecules. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the substantive review phase.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals settled their PTAB post‑grant review before trial, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The settlement agreement is to remain confidential per the parties' request.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997. The parties cite statutory confidentiality protections and seek to keep the settlement separate from the PTAB file.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,245,997 and filed a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 327(a) and cites Board precedent for terminating settled proceedings.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Jina Pharmaceuticals’ 2025 patent on an endoxifen method for bipolar I disorder. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by prior‑art Ahmad 2016. The case is pending institution.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,371,685 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, asserting lack of written description and enablement.
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
United Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 57 claims of Actelion’s ’847 patent covering macitentan‑PDE5 inhibitor combinations for pulmonary hypertension. The petition alleges anticipation by Bolli and obviousness over Bolli‑Keyser and Hoeper‑Morice references, arguing that secondary considerations are irrelevant.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB held that Neurocrine Biosciences’ challenge to Spruce Biosciences’ ’201 patent succeeded; all 19 claims were found unpatentable for lack of written description under §112(a).
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB held that Neurocrine Biosciences' challenge succeeded; claims 1‑25 of Spruce Biosciences' ’908 patent were found unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The Board applied Ariad standards and rejected the genus claim.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences has filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Spruce Biosciences’ 11,007,201 patent covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description. Discretionary denial is contested.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences' U.S. Patent 10,849,908 covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and that prior art anticipates or renders obvious the claims.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR for Neurocrine against Spruce because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.
Bonerge Lifescience petitions the PTAB to invalidate five method claims of a diabetes‑treatment patent, asserting obviousness over Turner, Shaw, Zhang and Feng references.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals
Dr. Falk Pharma challenges Ellodi's U.S. Patent 12,290,598 covering orally disintegrating tablets, asserting lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all 34 claims.
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Alvotech petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s ’036 patent covering high‑dose aflibercept eye‑treatment formulations, alleging obviousness and lack of written description. The petition relies on multiple Regeneron disclosures and external prior art. The Board has yet to rule.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.