Short Summary
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed an IPR against Axsome Malta’s 11,560,354 patent. The parties settled the dispute early and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024‑01418, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,560,354 B2 owned by Axsome Malta Ltd. (and SK Biopharmaceuticals). Before the Board could decide whether to institute a trial, the parties reached a written settlement covering the patent dispute and related litigation in the District of New Jersey. They filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR and a request to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information. The Board found good cause to dismiss the petition, granted the termination, and ordered the agreement to be kept confidential under applicable statutes and regulations.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. vs Axsome Malta Ltd. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Avidbots Corporation et al.vsBrain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition against Brain Corporation’s 10,823,576 patent, asserting that all 36 claims are anticipated by earlier SLAM publications and obvious when combined with other robot‑mapping references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 36 challenged claims unpatentable by both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipates the claimed methods, including those requiring pre-treatment testing for microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient status. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of oncology and immunotherapy.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,952,153 covering uplink power‑control techniques, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Altice USA, Inc. et al.vsTouchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al.vsRAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., citing efficiency concerns. The Board found that despite arguments regarding material error and prior art relevance, denying institution served the integrity of the system given the parallel ITC investigation.
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.