PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Including Functional Claim Language Helped Save Pozen’s VIMOVO® Patents

Including Functional Claim Language Helped Save Pozen’s VIMOVO® Patents

by Cary Miller | Mar 21, 2017 | Pharmaceutical

By Bing Liang, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. On February 28, 2017, the PTAB held that the petitioner Lupin had not shown that the challenged claims in two of Pozen’s patents were invalid (IPR2015-01773 and IPR2015-01775).  These cases show the advantage of using...
PTAB Denies Institution of IPR Proceedings Against Bayer’s Patent Covering STIVARGA®

PTAB Denies Institution of IPR Proceedings Against Bayer’s Patent Covering STIVARGA®

by Cary Miller | Mar 8, 2017 | Pharmaceutical, Trial Institution

By Irina Britva, Ph.D and Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. On February 8, 2017, the PTAB denied Fustibal LLC’s (“Fustibal”) petition to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,637,553 B2 (“the ’553 patent”) owned by Bayer HealthCare LLC (“Bayer”) (IPR2016-01490).  The...
PTAB Rejects Flawed Inherency Argument Against Drug Composition Patent

PTAB Rejects Flawed Inherency Argument Against Drug Composition Patent

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Feb 24, 2017 | Pharmaceutical, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Dominic J. Yee, Ph.D. and J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. On February 3, 2017, the PTAB denied a petition by Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Amneal”) to institute an inter partes review of Hospira Inc.’s patent directed to pharmaceutical compositions of the sedative...
PTAB Institutes Separate IPR Proceedings Filed by Codefendants, Finding that the Later IPR Proceeding Was Not Barred by 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)

PTAB Institutes Separate IPR Proceedings Filed by Codefendants, Finding that the Later IPR Proceeding Was Not Barred by 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)

by Cary Miller | Jan 30, 2017 | 325(d) issues, Pharmaceutical, Real Party in Interest

By Kunyong Yang and Cary Miller, Ph.D. On January 19, 2017, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,822,438 (“the ’438 patent”) filed by Wockhardt Bio AG (“Wockhardt”) (IPR2016-01582).  The ’438 patent is owned by Janssen Oncology, Inc....
PTAB Invalidates Multiple Claims of Patent for Treating Anemia with Iron Carbohydrate Complexes and Denies Motion to Amend Claims

PTAB Invalidates Multiple Claims of Patent for Treating Anemia with Iron Carbohydrate Complexes and Denies Motion to Amend Claims

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Jan 13, 2017 | Amendment Practice, Pharmaceutical

By J. Jason Williams and J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. On January 4, 2017, in a final written decision in IPR2015-01490, the PTAB found 17 claims of a patent directed to methods of treating iron disorders by administering certain iron carbohydrate complexes were...
PTAB Institutes IPR Proceedings Against Mayne Pharma’s Antifungal Formulation Patent

PTAB Institutes IPR Proceedings Against Mayne Pharma’s Antifungal Formulation Patent

by Cary Miller | Jan 6, 2017 | Pharmaceutical, Trial Institution

By Unmesh Shah, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. The PTAB instituted an IPR on claims of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd.’s (“Mayne”) U.S. Patent No. 6,881,745 B2 covering formulations of azole antifungals in IPR2016-01186.  In response to Merck Sharp & Dohme...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

About this blog

Categories

  • 325(d) issues
  • Amendment Practice
  • CBMs
  • Claim Construction
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Estoppel
  • Evidentiary Issues
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Federal Circuit
  • Federal Circuit Appeal
  • Final Written Decisions
  • Joinder
  • Motions Practice
  • Other News
  • Patent Eligible Subject Matter
  • Petitions
  • PGR
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Preliminary Responses
  • Prior Art Issues
  • PTAB News
  • PTAB Trial Basics
  • Real Party in Interest
  • Request for Reconsideration
  • Standing
  • Stay
  • Time Limits
  • Trial Institution
  • Uncategorized

Archives

Links

www.jonesday.com

About Jones Day's Intellectual Property Practice

Subscribe to Jones Day publications

    • Privacy
    • X
    • RSS

    The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jones Day or its clients. The posts and information provided are for general information purposes and are not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.