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
Nokia of America Corp. et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied the petition by Nokia and other telecom carriers to review the PTAB’s decision denying institution of IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsGenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of GenghisComm’s ’842 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that Fintiv factors favor institution.
Wybotics Inc. et al.vsZodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by a 2007 Chinese filing and obvious over multiple U.S. robot‑cleaner references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR on claims 1‑3.
Apple Inc.vsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.
Evenflo Company, Inc. et al.vsBaby Jogger, LLC et al.
Evenflo and affiliated companies have filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of review for claims 1‑9 and 17‑20.
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.