Short Summary
Petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12152262 filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC against Halozyme, Inc.
Detailed Summary
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC has filed a Corrected Petition for Post‑Grant Review (PGR) challenging U.S. Patent No. 12152262 owned by Halozyme, Inc. The docket lists the parties, counsel, and the petition identifier (PGR2025-00006) but provides no substantive claim or prior‑art details. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage with no institution decision or outcome reported.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC vs Halozyme, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLC et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution in its IPR against Headwater Research LLC regarding wireless network capacity management claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art references Rao and Fadell.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply defending claims 7 and 9 of its gaming patent against Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition. The patent owner argues the prior art (Kelly and Walker) does not disclose the required threshold metrics and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are improper.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in several Samsung‑related IPRs, leaving the original institution rulings intact.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google LLC filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s 9,647,918 patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsOptronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.