Pharmaceuticals — US PTAB Patent Cases
185 decisions indexed
Page 6 of 7 · 185 total
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
Encube Ethicals successfully challenged Dermavant Sciences' patent claims in the PTAB, leading to institution of the case. The Board found sufficient grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically regarding psoriasis treatment methods. This decision significantly strengthens Encube's position by validating their prior art arguments against the '088 patent.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges the validity of JHU's patent (11,339,219) in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that all eight claims are anticipated by or obvious over prior art, primarily citing the MSI-H Study Record and various combinations thereof. This petition seeks to invalidate the core claims related to treating MSI-H tumors with pembrolizumab.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325975) in a Petition, arguing all claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the study record inherently discloses every limitation of the claimed method for treating MSI-H patients with anti-PD-1 antibodies.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325974) in an IPR, arguing that all claims are unpatentable. Petitioner asserts the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and various prior art combinations render them obvious under § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (10934356) in an IPR, asserting that all claims are anticipated or obvious. Petitioner relies heavily on the MSI-H Study Record and various prior art references to demonstrate invalidity across multiple grounds. This petition sets up a significant challenge to the scope of PD-1 inhibitor patents for MSI-H cancers.
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
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 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 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).
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Marinus Pharmaceuticals seeks to invalidate Ovid Therapeutics’ 2022 ganaxolone patent covering methods for treating status epilepticus, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement based on prior publications and press releases.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics challenges Marinus Pharmaceuticals' patent on ganaxolone, arguing that all claims are obvious over various combinations of clinical trial data and earlier patents. The petitioner asserts that prior art provides sufficient motivation for treating status epilepticus (SE) with the claimed dosing regimen.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
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.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC petitioned to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,634,491 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in the field of Oncology/Immunotherapy. The petitioner argues that key claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record (EX1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, the remaining claims are deemed obvious when combining the MSI-H Study Record with various prior art references like Brown, Duval, Benson, and Koh under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,629,187 in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The petitioner argues that all claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11,649,287) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. Petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses all claimed methods, rendering the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues for discretionary denial of institution is inappropriate given the prior art's relevance to the patent's scope.
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 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
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
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 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.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the IPR patent file.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,596,600 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s and Eye Therapies settled their IPR dispute, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,600 regarding brimonidine eye drops using obviousness over prior art. The Petition argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to use low concentrations for treating ocular redness. The Board is urged to deny institution based on Hatch-Waxman goals and alleged Examiner error.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. successfully challenged several claims of The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania in an IPR proceeding regarding gene therapy/AAV technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using combinations of prior art references.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition challenging key claims of a patent related to vasoconstriction agents for eye redness. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations and adverse events.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of claim 8 in this gene therapy IPR. The decision found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Formycon secured an institution of IPR against Regeneron's VEGF‑antagonist formulation patent (10,464,992), covering claims 1‑18, after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Formycon AG has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 52 claims of Regeneron's anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art formulations and presentations. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
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.