Short Summary
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s anti‑VEGF eye‑drug patent, asserting that the Dix ’226 reference anticipates all challenged claims and that the patent owner has not shown any criticality for the claimed formulation parameters.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑01268, Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865, which claims ophthalmic formulations of the VEGF antagonist aflibercept for intravitreal administration. The petitioner contends that the prior‑art U.S. Patent No. 10,406,226 (Dix ’226) discloses every element of the independent and dependent claims, including the specific concentration ranges, excipient percentages, and inherent stability properties. Because the patent owner has not demonstrated that the 40 mg/mL concentration or other claim limitations are critical, the petitioner argues the claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The petition also references a recent Federal Circuit oral argument that emphasized the burden of proving criticality, and notes that the related appeal was settled before an opinion was issued. The Board is asked to institute review and find the claims unpatentable.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. vs Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Costa and, when combined with Oh, lack patentability. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds and seeks institution.
Sportradar AG et al.vsSportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over Ellis, Herzog, Spivey and Abulikemu and asserting that the examiner failed to consider key prior art.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al.vsU.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims 1-20 of patent 10598258, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments regarding obviousness, noting insufficient motivation to combine prior art references in the claimed manner.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-00425 and requested that the settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
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.