Short Summary
Marinus Pharmaceuticals seeks to invalidate Ovid Therapeutics’ 2022 ganaxolone patent covering methods for treating status epilepticus, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement based on prior publications and press releases.
Detailed Summary
In a Post‑Grant Review petition, Marinus Pharmaceuticals challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,395,817 owned by Ovid Therapeutics, which claims methods of treating status epilepticus with the neurosteroid ganaxolone. Marinus alleges that the Zhang patent publication anticipates the claimed methods and, when combined with Saporito conference posters and Marinus’s own orphan‑drug and Phase I press releases, renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It further contends that the patent lacks sufficient enablement under § 112 and that the USPTO examiner failed to consider these references during prosecution, making discretionary denial inappropriate.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ovid Therapeutics Inc. vs Marinus Pharmaceuticals, 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 successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against the '690 patent, arguing that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious claims related to channel assessment probes. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to the scheduling of trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory Systems’ ’995 patent covering flash‑memory address translation. The petition relies on Reiter, SCSI standards, Sinclair‑367 and Yamada to argue obviousness of 23 claims.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.vsSciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 38 claims of U.S. Patent 12,249,437, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness based on prior art from Hassfjell‑Hoff, Norman, IAEA, and Westrøm.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple filed Director Review requests for two IPRs against HBCU Messaging’s patent. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence. A decision on the review will follow.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Headwater Research’s ’510 patent on the basis that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the proceeding should be instituted.
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.