Short Summary
Biofrontera AG et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,697,028 held by DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on the combination of prior art references to demonstrate that specific Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) illuminator claims are unpatentable.
Detailed Summary
This Petition challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,697,028 by Biofrontera AG et al., asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references under § 103. The Petitioner presents three specific grounds: Ground 1 combines Larsen, Bansal, and Jones against Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 16-21; Ground 2 uses Larsen, Bansal, Jones, and Anderson to show obviousness for optimized PDT conditions (Claims 2-4); and Ground 3 adds Mackinnon's sensor technology to the existing combination for improved targeting (Claims 10, 11, 13, 14).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Biofrontera AG et al. vs Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD initiated an IPR challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's OLED display patent (7,586,121). The petitioner asserts that the claimed structural and manufacturing elements are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Anzai and Yamazaki.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung, Harman and ST CasesTech entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without a final decision. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes covering eight patents. The Board terminated all IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Kahoot! AS et al.vsinterstellar inc.
The USPTO denied Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Interstellar’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’537 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art mesh networking references. The petition outlines three grounds covering the full claim set and requests the Board to institute the review.
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.