Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

IPR2025-00055

Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 42 claims of Ellodi's ’407 patent covering orally disintegrating corticosteroid tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother, Venkatesh and FDA guidance.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00055
Filing Date
24 October 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00202

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al.vsIntellectual Ventures II

Liberty Mutual and patent‑owner Intellectual Ventures have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00202 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,332,844.

patentIPR2026-00135

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al.vsRailware, Inc. et al.

Wabtec has filed an IPR petition challenging Railware’s RE 49,115 patent. The petition asserts that claims 20‑36 are obvious over the FRA‑Report combined with secret‑code references. No discretionary denial is alleged.

patentIPR2025-01312

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.

The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01312 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

patentIPR2025-01254

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, AI processing and cloud connectivity. Apple requests that the Board institute the trial and find all claims unpatentable.

patentPGR2025-00011

Phison Electronics CorporationvsVervain, LLC

Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash patent. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract, lack written description, are indefinite, and are obvious over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call