Pharmaceuticals — US PTAB Patent Cases
247 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 9 · 247 total
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting lack of written description and enablement. The reply argues the claims cover an unmanageable genus of mutants and cites case law to support unpatentability.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,054,758 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned for institution in a PGR proceeding against Halozyme, Inc., challenging the '758 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for 'modified PH20 polypeptide,' which significantly broadened the scope of the challenged claims.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva Austria and Takeda Vaccines jointly moved to terminate an IPR covering 67 vaccine‑related claims. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition without a merits decision.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva has filed an IPR petition challenging all 67 claims of Takeda’s Zika vaccine patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petitioner argues the examiner erred and that no discretionary bars apply, seeking cancellation of the entire patent.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva Austria GMBH successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Takeda Vaccines regarding a vaccine patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable over combinations of prior art, specifically citing evidence related to fetal protection and antibody transfer.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition reply contends that Halozyme’s hyaluronidase enzyme patent fails the written‑description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The company argues the disclosed genus is too broad and impossible to enable without undue experimentation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,104,185 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims are overly broad, lack written description and enablement, and are obvious in view of prior art. The case is pending institution.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme successfully challenged Halozyme's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, focusing on enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a functional claim construction requiring 'modified PH20 polypeptide' to exhibit hyaluronidase activity.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,071,391 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §327.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 327 and to terminate the ongoing post‑grant review of Patent 12,071,391.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
The Director denied Intas Pharmaceuticals' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00799, leaving Atossa Therapeutics' Patent 11,261,151 in place.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317 and to terminate the pending IPR on patent 11,261,151.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals challenges Atossa Therapeutics’ endoxifen patent in IPR 2025‑00799. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the case and that the Patent Owner’s new arguments are unsupported. The response seeks denial of the Owner’s request for Director Review.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 44 claims of Atossa’s 391 patent covering 90% (Z)-endoxifen compositions, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Court decision.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals successfully secured the institution of IPR against Atossa Therapeutics over a drug polymorph patent (11,261,151), challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness using prior art Liu.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v.Shanghai Miracogen Inc. et al.
CSPC Megalith has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Shanghai Miracogen’s antibody‑drug conjugate patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art ADC disclosures. The petition seeks institution of the review.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v.Shanghai Miracogen Inc. et al.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. successfully argued obviousness over Wei, Liu, and Leanna in an IPR proceeding against Shanghai Miracogen Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims, leading to the institution of the case for trial.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to overturn a Director’s denial of institution for an IPR challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo dosing patent, arguing the denial misapplied settled‑expectations criteria and ignored European claim abandonments.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen has filed Director Review requests in IPR2025-00601 and -00602, and the PTAB has instructed Bristol‑Myers Squibb to respond within five business days without new evidence.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen’s request for Director Review of IPR denial is rebuffed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which argues the petitioner offers no credible basis and that European prosecution does not affect settled expectations for the U.S. patent.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Bristol‑Myers Squibb successfully defended its PD‑1 antibody patent after the PTAB denied Amgen’s request for Director Review, finding no credible grounds to revisit the discretionary denial.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen seeks Director review of a denied institution for IPR2025‑00602, arguing that Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo® flat‑dose patent is obvious and was improperly shielded by a discretionary denial based on settled expectations.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The USPTO Director denied Amgen’s request for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602, leaving the institution denials in place.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,255 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement. Institution of the petition is pending.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,254 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserts lack of written description and enablement due to overly broad claim ranges. Institution is requested and discretionary denial is contested.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen has filed an IPR petition challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s U.S. Pat. 9,856,320, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior‑art clinical‑trial protocols and dosing disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that there is no ground for discretionary denial.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s 10,174,113 melanoma immunotherapy patent, arguing the claims are obvious over public clinical‑trial data and lack written‑description support for the 480 mg dose.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s ’529 patent covering anti‑PD‑1/anti‑CTLA‑4 regimens for MSI‑H colorectal cancer, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple clinical‑trial disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations or discretionary grounds support the patent’s validity.
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.