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

IPR2025-00602

Amgen seeks Director review of a denied institution for IPR2025‑00602, arguing that Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo® flat‑dose patent is obvious and was improperly shielded by a discretionary denial based on settled expectations.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00602
Filing Date
28 February 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00118

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.

Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.

patentIPR2024-00878

Capital One, National Associationvs--

Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.

patentIPR2025-01190

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC

The PTAB granted institution for the IPR case involving Samsung Electronics against Hannibal IP LLC regarding patent 11641661. The petitioner successfully met the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.

patentIPR2026-00295

Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.

Microsoft files an IPR petition challenging ToutVirtual’s 2023 ‘Virtual Systems Management’ patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art virtualization references.

patentIPR2024-01403

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHarbor Island Dynamic, LLC

Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision for a deep‑trench isolation patent, arguing the Board mis‑applied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors. The patent owner contends the panel gave insufficient weight to the upcoming district‑court trial date and related investment.

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