Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. recently filed an IPR petition, PTAB-IPR2023-00099, seeking cancellation of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,857,205, assigned to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. According to the petition, the claims “are drawn to monthly dosing [of aflibercept] to treat an angiogenic eye disorder.” The Petition sets forth three anticipation grounds and…
On August 31, 2022, the PTAB instituted two inter partes reviews of Chugai and Roche’s tocilizumab patents challenged by Celltrion, adding to the growing list of IPRs instituted against the tocilizumab patent estate. We have been tracking the IPRs instituted against tocilizumab-related patents (see our last post, PTAB Institutes Sixth…
Mylan recently filed two IPR petitions seeking cancellation of various claims of patents assigned to Regeneron relating to dosing regimens for EYLEA® (aflibercept): IPR2022-01225 challenging claims 1, 3-11, 13-14, 16-24, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,130,681, and IPR2022-01226 challenging claims 1-9, 34-39, 41-43, and 45 of U.S. Patent No….
On April 14, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination in IPR2016-01542 that claims of Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 8,952,138 are obvious. The ’138 patent claims are directed to methods of refolding proteins by “contacting the protein with a refolding buffer comprising a…
On August 18, 2021, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC and Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH (collectively, “Fresenius”) filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,874,677 (IPR 2021-01336) and U.S. No. 5,80,264 (IPR 2021-01288) . The ‘264 patent claims are directed to methods of treating rheumatoid arthritis patients using a…
In the long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is unconstitutionally structured, but held that the correct remedy is more limited than the one the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had granted. Instead of…
On March 1, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on Arthrex and the constitutionality of IPRs. Listen here for insightful analysis of the arguments from our Supreme Court and IPR experts, William Jay, David Zimmer, and Linnea Cipriano.
As previously reported, in February 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued final written decisions in two IPR proceedings initiated by Sanofi challenging the U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 (the ’487 patent) owned by Immunex. In IPR2017-01884, the Board held that the challenged claims of the ‘487 patent were unpatentable…
On October 2, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) adjusted its patent fees for the first time in almost three years, including an approximately 5% increase to most fees impacted by the rule. For IPRs, the minimum fees increased from $30,500 to $41,500, including the fee for a…
Today, the Supreme Court denied three petitions for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of subjecting patents issued prior to the America Invents Act (“AIA”) to inter partes review (“IPR”). See Celgene v. Peter; Collabo v. Sony Corp.; Enzo v. Becton, Dickinson and Company. In all three underlying cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had…