Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (RCT) sued Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Mylan), Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Breckinridge), and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Alembic), in federal district court, accusing them of infringing United States Reissued Patent No. RE38,551. The patent claims pharmaceutical compositions useful in the treatment of epilepsy and other central nervous system disorders. Within one year of being … Continue Reading
In a routine AIA trial, the PTAB determined that challenged claims in a patent directed to HVAC systems were unpatentable as being obvious and anticipated by prior art. This trial was unusual, however, because the Board premised its anticipation conclusion on a joined IPR petition that successfully rectified evidentiary deficiencies in the same petitioner’s earlier … Continue Reading
When a patent is co-owned by a state university and another party, an IPR may proceed against the remaining party even after the state university co-owner has been determined to have sovereign immunity from the proceeding. Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP v. Toyota Motor Corp., [Case No. IPR2017-00572, Paper 32 (July 13, 2017)]. This recent decision … Continue Reading
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) filed a Petition, seeking an IPR of claims 1–20 of Allergan’s U.S. Patent No. 8,642,556. [IPR2017-00579, Paper No. 9] Along with the Petition, Teva filed a Motion for Joinder to join Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Allergan, Inc., IPR2016-01129. This blog has previously reported on the topic of joinder in IPR … Continue Reading
A little more than a month after the Delaware district court narrowly interpreted the IPR estoppel provision to suggest that it may not be necessary to include all known grounds so as to avoid estoppel in district court litigation, the same court issued a decision suggesting that the IPR estoppel provision may not be so … Continue Reading
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court recognized that a “district court may find a patent claim to be valid, and the agency may later cancel that claim in its own review.” The Court also recognized that because of the different evidentiary burdens in court versus before the agency—the Patent Office—“the possibility … Continue Reading
An expanded, split panel of the PTAB recently decided that it may be appropriate to join the same party’s serially-filed IPR petitions into a single proceeding, even when one such petition would otherwise be time-barred but for the joinder. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nidec Motor Corp., IPR2015-00762, Paper 16 (PTAB Oct. 5, … Continue Reading
The material contained on this blog is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Views expressed are those of the author and are not to be attributed to Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP or any of its clients. The publication and receipt of any information contained on this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP or with any of its attorneys. Readers should not act upon any information on this site without seeking professional legal counsel.