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
Deere & CompanyvsDavid’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,533,300, which covers skid‑steer automatic grading technology. The petition argues the Board misapplied teaching‑away doctrine to the Funk reference and ignored advantages of the claimed combination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Netlist’s 3‑D stacked DRAM patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art memory stack designs and signaling protocols. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
Samsara Inc.vsMotive Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Eunsung Global Corp.vsHydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, citing statutory confidentiality protections.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director confirms receipt of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and prohibiting new evidence. The patent owner must file its response within five business days.
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.