Short Summary
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).
Detailed Summary
In PGR2022‑00025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reviewed Neurocrine Biosciences’ petition challenging claims 1‑19 of Spruce Biosciences’ U.S. Patent No. 11,007,201 (the ’201 patent), which claims methods of treating congenital adrenal hyperplasia using CRF1 receptor antagonists. After extensive briefing on claim construction and written‑description issues, the Board concluded that the specification discloses only a single compound (tildacerfont) and fails to provide either a representative number of species or common structural features for the broader genus claimed. Relying on Ariad and related precedent, the Board found the claims lack adequate written description support under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and declared all 19 claims unpatentable. Motions to exclude evidence and a motion to strike were denied or dismissed as moot.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. vs Spruce Biosciences, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 11,626,904). The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's jump starter patent (US 11,447,023) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the USB charging features are predictable combinations of known DC-DC boosting and jump starter technology.
Dead Air Silencers et al.vsJarvis Arms LLC
Dead Air Silencers has filed an IPR seeking cancellation of ten claims of Jarvis Arms’ firearm suppressor patent, arguing that the claimed features were already known in the art. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds citing Belykov, Noonan, Muceus, Slack and Sclafani. The Board has not yet ruled.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al.vsStellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features unpatentable.
3Shape A/S et al.vsMedit Corporation et al.
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,245,374 regarding 3D voxel data processing used in medical imaging, asserting anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Sekiguchi and Partain. The claims are broadly challenged across multiple statutory grounds (102 and 103) by 3Shape A/S et al., citing related district court litigation.
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.