Short Summary
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its affiliate filed a supplemental certificate of service to confirm that the IPR petition and related documents were delivered to Breckenridge Pharmaceutical. The filing complies with USPTO service rules.
Detailed Summary
In a procedural filing dated June 20, 2025, MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited submitted a supplemental certificate of service for their petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,113,729 owned by Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. The document, signed by lead counsel Noorossadat Torabi of Merchant & Gould P.C., certifies that the petition, exhibit list, and power of attorney were served on the patent owner via priority overnight FedEx, satisfying the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.105. No substantive arguments, claim constructions, or prior art references are presented in this filing.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. vs Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director denied institution of iRhythm's IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitor patent. The patent owner’s response argues the denial was proper, citing lack of evidence and procedural compliance.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the Netlist ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory claims are obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection, rendering all 30 claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier Jain and Dua publications and asserts no discretionary denial should apply.
Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of SoundClear's 9,031,259 patent covering noise‑reduction apparatuses, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
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.