Short Summary
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Pat. 11,952,600, arguing that the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior art.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for post‑grant review (PGR2025‑00003), Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges Halozyme’s patent covering engineered human PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. Merck asserts that claims 1‑21 are unpatentable because the specification fails to provide a sufficient written description or enablement for the enormous genus of multiply‑mutated PH20 variants, relying only on single‑mutation examples and a prophetic research plan. Additionally, Merck contends that the D320K mutant claimed in the independent claims would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in 2011 based on Halozyme’s own ’429 patent and the Chao 2007 article, rendering those claims unpatentable under § 103. The petition seeks institution of the PGR and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC vs Halozyme, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tommy John, Inc.vsPakage Apparel, Inc.
Tommy John, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,834,974 held by Pakage Apparel, Inc., asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Kitsch and Brocks. The petitioner argues that combining elements from these references in the men's underwear/genital support garment field renders all challenged claims unpatentable.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTDvsThe Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology filed an IPR challenging The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets all 24 claims using extensive prior art combinations involving references like Kane, Beckley, and Minn.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' ’129 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Eagle prior art. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of fifteen claims.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.vsEvolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01499 concerning U.S. Patent 9,299,730. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing that the Board has not decided the merits and that settlement serves public policy interests.
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.