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
TESLA, INC.vsAutonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla (Petitioner) challenged Autonomous Devices' patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Buibas and Grotmol. The Board found factors favoring institution, meaning the case will proceed to the merits phase.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsDialect, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent covering multimodal speech processing, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior patents Maes and Ross.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a Patent Owner's request for Director Review, instead remanding the IPR cases to allow discovery on complex real parties in interest (RPI) and privity issues related to concurrent district court litigation.
Foleon Inc. et al.vsTURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon seeks a Director review to compel entry of adverse judgment after Turtl Surf disclaimed all challenged claims of its interactive‑document patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in denying a motion for adverse judgment, citing precedent where such judgments were entered pre‑institution.
Apple Inc.vsAvant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’720 patent covering location‑based tariffs and services, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
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.