Amgen Inc. et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

IPR2025-00601

Amgen petitions the PTAB to overturn a Director’s denial of institution for an IPR challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo dosing patent, arguing the denial misapplied settled‑expectations criteria and ignored European claim abandonments.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00601
Filing Date
28 February 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00503

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.

Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their IPR dispute over a location‑based services patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.

patentIPR2024-00485

Juniper Networks, Inc.vsMonarch Networking Solutions LLC

The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 10 claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art references Li and Wu. The Board adopted the Petitioner's definition of 'domain,' which was crucial to establishing the combination of teachings from both sources.

patentIPR2025-00959

Carbyne, Inc. et al.vsTritech Software Systems et al.

The patent owner has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00959, and the Board has instructed the petitioner to submit a limited response within five business days.

patentIPR2024-00933

FormFactor, Inc.vsTechnoprobe S.p.A.

FormFactor and Technoprobe settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

patentIPR2024-00916

Askeladden L.L.C.vs--

Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Patent 7480637, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining known SSL/TLS protocols with biometric authentication methods yields predictable results. The challenge centers on whether the combination of prior art elements—specifically Rescorla and Mathiassen's technologies—is inventive or merely an obvious modification for a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call