Short Summary
Valneva has filed an IPR petition challenging all 67 claims of Takeda’s Zika vaccine patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petitioner argues the examiner erred and that no discretionary bars apply, seeking cancellation of the entire patent.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑00776, Valneva Austria GMBH requests inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,802, which claims methods and compositions for Zika virus vaccination. The petitioner contends that claims 1‑67 are either anticipated or rendered obvious by the Thomas publication and, where applicable, in combination with Barbero, Murata, Faucette, the NCT02952833 clinical trial, and Liu’s assay comparison. Valneva argues the examiner’s material errors—particularly the failure to apply Thomas to claim 75—warrant institution, and asserts that neither § 314(a) nor § 325(d) discretionary grounds apply. The petition seeks institution 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 Valneva Austria GMBH vs Takeda Vaccines, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of KPN’s patent before institution. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 24 claims. The Board declined to exercise discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al.vsHowmet Aerospace Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging Howmet Aerospace’s ’358 blind fastener patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Corbett, Kleinman, and Brewer. The petition outlines four §103 grounds and seeks institution of the trial.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against patent 8116749 resulted in a mixed decision: five claims were held unpatentable over Perttila and Insolia, while four claims remained patentable because the obviousness challenge failed.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s IPR against Samsung’s 10,313,077 patent on Wi‑Fi 802.11ax signaling was instituted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim based on obviousness over Bharadwaj and Yu prior art.
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.