Short Summary
Padagis US LLC seeks IPR cancellation of Neurelis' 8,895,546 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑00464, Padagis US LLC challenges claims 1‑22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,895,546, which claim pharmaceutical solutions for intranasal delivery of benzodiazepine drugs. The petitioner argues that the claimed formulations are obvious in view of the prior‑art references Gwozdz (WO 2009/120933) and Meezan (US 2006/0046962), asserting a lack of inventive step under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also contends that Neurelis, Inc. is collaterally estopped from contesting these issues because they were already decided in IPR2019‑00451 concerning the continuation‑in‑part ’876 patent. Additionally, Padagis urges the Board not to exercise its discretion to deny institution under §325(d), citing the Fintiv precedent. The petition includes expert testimony from Dr. Maureen Donovan and requests cancellation of the challenged claims as unpatentable under §318(b).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Padagis US LLC et al. vs Neurelis, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (8284690) in an IPR, arguing that the claimed wireless ranging and communication methods were anticipated or obvious by existing standards like IEEE-802.16 and DOCSIS-2.0. The challenge utilized multiple grounds of invalidity based on various prior art references including Waxman, Won, and Zuckerman.
Pinterest, Inc.vs--
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of SoundClear’s 9,223,487 patent covering pinch‑to‑select gestures, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple seeks a PTAB Director review to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing settled expectations, lack of diverse subject matter, and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed a petition to invalidate 19 claims of Oak IP’s U.S. Patent No. 10,090,395, asserting that prior patents Grupp ’483 and Jammy anticipate or render obvious the challenged claims covering metal‑semiconductor interface layers.
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.