Executive 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).
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
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable for obviousness or anticipation, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26. The Board’s claim constructions favored the petitioner’s broader interpretations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §327 and related CFR rules.
Cipla LimitedvsGilead Sciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsCroga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent covering sandboxed computing environments, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al.vsTHROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged the validity of a network communications patent (US 10602448) based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding sufficient likelihood for petitioner to prevail on at least one claim.
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.