Short Summary
Intas Pharmaceuticals successfully secured the institution of IPR against Atossa Therapeutics over a drug polymorph patent (11,261,151), challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness using prior art Liu.
Detailed Summary
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for Intas Pharmaceuticals' Inter Partes Review against Atossa Therapeutics regarding U.S. Patent No. 11,261,151, which covers methods and compositions involving the crystalline Form I of (Z)-endoxifen. Petitioner argued that prior art Liu inherently discloses this specific polymorph, a claim supported by expert testimony demonstrating successful synthesis and XRPD analysis. Although the Patent Owner contested the inherency based on procedural modifications, the Board determined that the evidence met the reasonable likelihood standard required for institution.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. vs Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Dr. Squatch, LLCvsThe Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board found that the claimed deodorant stick compositions were anticipated or obvious over various combinations of prior art references. This decision heavily favors the Petitioner, Dr. Squatch, LLC, by invalidating the patent's scope.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms initiated an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering Augmented Reality systems and Head-Mounted Displays. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim based on obviousness over Fager and Martins.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al.vsEmerging Automotive LLC
Toyota’s IPR petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 10‑20.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent in IPR2020‑00903. The Board found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenged Wilus's wireless patent claims based on obviousness in view of prior art standards and publications. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable, specifically citing combinations of Bharadwaj and Sun. This sets up a significant trial over HE WLAN technology.
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.