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
Trove Brands, LLCvsCamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR challenge against CamelBak Products regarding a drinkware patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, despite arguments concerning functional equivalence in user release mechanisms over prior art like Kiyota and Ribarits.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial and institution denial across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00978 covering patent 12,028,793. The Board affirmed the original decision, leaving the patent dispute unresolved at this stage.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.vsJina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals settled their PTAB post‑grant review before trial, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The settlement agreement is to remain confidential per the parties' request.
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al.vsNetwork Integrity Systems, Inc.
CyberSecure IPS petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Network Integrity Systems’ ’641 patent, seeking cancellation of 14 claims as anticipated or obvious over several fiber‑optic monitoring references. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and an expert declaration.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’448 patent, alleging statutory and procedural violations. The petition highlights failures to meet hearing requirements, to provide a merits determination, and to follow APA rules.
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.