Category Archives: Post-grant review

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2018-00001 (US 9,539,268 B2) Final Written Decision April 29, 2019 Brief summary: GG found to have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Antecip’s claims related to zoledronic acid and methods for using the same to treat arthritis are … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Concert Pharm., Inc. v. Incyte Corp.

Post-Grant Review PGR2017-00034 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,662,335 B2) Decision not to institute PGR January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Concert’s Petition to institute PGR of Incyte’s US 9,662,335 B2 regarding deuterated ruxolitinib was denied. Summary: Concert filed a Petition to institute … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Enablement, Post-grant review, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2017-00008 (US 9,283,239 B2) Final Written Decision June 22, 2018 Brief summary: FWD decision following PGR finding AB’s method of treatment claims invalid for lack of written description (claimed dosage range not described). Summary: Grünenthal’s petition for post-grant review (PGR) … Continue reading

Posted in Post-grant review, Written description | 1 Comment

Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1487 (PGR2015-00011) O’MALLEY, SCHALL (D), WALLACH May 2, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB FWD after PRG of Paragon’s patent relating to the use of chirally pure R-phenylephrine in ophthalmic compositions reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. Summary: Altaire appealed PTAB final … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Obviousness, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Docket No. 2016-1502 (CBM2014-00116) PROST, NEWMAN (D), WALLACH August 28, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that USPS had standing to pursue CBM challenge and finding certain claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Return Mail (RM) appealed PTAB decision … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc.

PGR2015-00011 (US 8,859,623 B1) Post-Grant Review Decision November 14, 2016 Brief Summary: Preamble found not to limit the claim; petition for PGR found not to show unpatentability of the claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: The grounds for … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Post-grant review, Preamble | Leave a comment

Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC (Petitioner; “CAD”) v. Pozen Inc. (Patent Owner)

IPR2015-01344 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,858,996 B2) December 17, 2015 Brief Summary: CAD’s Petition alleging obviousness or anticipation denied because, e.g., the cited art “would [not] have given one of ordinary skill in the art a reason to formulate a tablet … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness, Post-grant review, Written description | Leave a comment