Pharmaceuticals — US PTAB Patent Cases
247 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 9 · 247 total
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 42 claims of Ellodi's ’407 patent covering orally disintegrating corticosteroid tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother, Venkatesh and FDA guidance.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of U.S. Patent 10,632,069 covering budesonide orally dispersing tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother and FDA guidance.
Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Ellodi's 11,246,828 patent covering budesonide orally dispersing tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother and FDA guidance.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully challenged a pharmaceutical patent (11260061) in an IPR, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board's decision hinged on extensive claim construction, particularly defining 'adsorbed onto a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.'
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully secured the institution of IPR against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP regarding patent 9,486,407. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that prior art (Dohil) renders Claim 35 obvious.
Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's patent (11,246,828) over orally disintegrating tablet claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art showing obviousness.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's patent (10632069). The review challenges claims 1-17 based on obviousness over prior art, including Dohil and FDA guidance.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition challenges Halozyme’s claims to modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing lack of written description and enablement. The reply reinforces these arguments with case law and scientific exhibits.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck requests Director Review to deny institution of a PTAB post‑grant review of Halozyme’s ‘262 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the Board misapplied eligibility rules and imported a functional limitation into the claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends the institution of a PGR covering modified PH20 enzymes, rejecting Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments. The response urges the Director to uphold the Board’s earlier institution decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s 13 claims covering PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to have the claims declared unpatentable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s claims regarding modified PH20 polypeptides in a PTAB decision. The Board instituted trial based on enablement and written description grounds, finding that the broad genus of claimed molecules required undue experimentation to identify active variants.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals and the patent owners filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information, keeping it separate from the patent file. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed an IPR against Axsome Malta’s 11,560,354 patent. The parties settled the dispute early and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed a joint motion with Axsome Malta to terminate IPR2024‑01418 after reaching a confidential settlement, resulting in dismissal of the petition before institution.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition challenging Axsome’s U.S. Patent 11,560,354 covering solriamfetol compositions. The petition alleges obviousness of claims 1‑8 based on three prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB has sent a Director Review request to Biofrontera in IPR2024-01312, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence. The petitioner must respond within five business days.
Nexus Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
Nexus Pharmaceuticals has filed a PGR petition challenging all 30 claims of Exela Pharma Sciences' L‑cysteine parenteral nutrition patent, asserting lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and, alternatively, obviousness over the Sandoz label.
Nexus Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
Nexus Pharmaceuticals' PGR challenge against Exela Pharma Sciences was denied institution because the arguments regarding enablement, written description, and obviousness were largely identical to those previously presented during prosecution. The Board found that the Patent Owner successfully demonstrated how process controls overcome prior rejections, leading to a denial of the petition under § 325(d).
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH initiated an IPR challenge against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP concerning a patent covering oral/topical drug delivery systems. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art references including Dohil and Grother.
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH challenged Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's '729 patent, asserting obviousness of claims related to orally disintegrating corticosteroids for GI tract inflammation. The PTAB declined to deny the petition, finding that additional evidence warranted reconsideration of prior art references like Dohil and FDA Guidance.
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the challenged claims (1-3 and 8) were anticipated by multiple prior art references, including Chen. The Board found that the prior art disclosed all claim elements, leading to a final decision of unpatentability.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging the validity of Dermavant Sciences GmbH's patent (US 11590088) in the context of psoriasis treatment. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Sonti and Bissonnette.
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
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.
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.