Short Summary
BPI Labs requests Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petitioner argues the denial misapplies § 325(d), ignores material prosecution errors, and violates APA rulemaking requirements. Consistency with a related pending IPR is also urged.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for Director Review, BPI Labs challenges the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of IPR2025‑01346, which targets Eli Lilly’s US 9,474,780 patent covering the diabetes drug tirzepatide. The petitioner alleges that the discretionary denial improperly relied on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) despite material errors in prosecution, notably Lilly’s failure to disclose its own prior application (Alsina‑Fernandez) that taught a key claim feature. The petition further contends that the Director’s new institution memo constitutes a substantive rule adopted without the notice‑and‑comment process required by the APA, rendering the denial procedurally defective. Consistency with the pending Director Review in IPR2025‑01024 is emphasized to avoid contradictory outcomes. BPI Labs seeks vacatur of the denial and a merits institution determination.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in BPI Labs, LLC et al. vs Eli Lilly & Co. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Mullen Industries LLC's patent on location services, despite initial concerns about discretionary denial. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on strong arguments regarding prior art obviousness and key claim construction terms.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Dialect’s ’367 patent covering natural‑language speech processing. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over Belfiore, Kennewick, and Ross prior‑art references and seeks institution of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of SoundClear’s 9,223,487 patent covering pinch‑to‑select gestures, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Utility companies settled multiple IPRs against BirchTech’s patents before trial. The Board granted a joint request to treat the settlement as confidential and terminated the cases for the settling petitioners.
Amazon.com Services LLCvsSmart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’706 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider obviousness, while the patent owner maintains the invention’s novelty.
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.