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
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01043, leaving the patent owner’s claims intact.
Be Smarter, LLC et al.vsYondr, Inc.
Be Smarter has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Yondr’s ’078 patent covering locking cases for mobile devices, asserting anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of patent‑eligible subject matter.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success that several claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Eckert and Bucknell.
Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed a petition for inter partes review of Moskowitz Family’s U.S. Patent 10,064,738 covering spinal intervertebral fusion devices. The challenger alleges that the parent application Moskowitz 440, together with Waugh (and Michelson 019), makes the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition seeks cancellation of 16 claims.
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.