PTAB Decisions

Subscribe to PTAB Decisions

On October 5, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a final written decision in an inter partes review proceeding filed by Neptune Generics, LLC (“Neptune”) challenging the patentability of the claims in Eli Lilly & Co.’s Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ’209 patent”).  The Board held that Neptune failed to establish that claims…

Abraxis Bioscience, developer of cancer drug Abraxane®, filed suit against Actavis in April of 2016 following its receipt of notice that Actavis sought approval of a generic form of the drug from the FDA. The notice, called a Paragraph IV Certification, represented that Actavis believed the patents covering the drug were invalid, unenforceable, or would…

Post-grant review (PGR) is the least common post-issuance trial proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Only 1% of petitions filed for post-issuance trial proceedings since the institution of the America Invents Act have been for PGRs, while 92% and 7% have been for inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM)…

In an effort to combat pharmaceutical patent holders, several companies are now filing petitions for post-grant review on the theory that the claims are unpatentable for lacking sufficient written description and enablement. Although the number of post-grant review proceedings remains fairly small in comparison to inter-partes review proceedings, the recent increase in filings by generic…

Two IPRs (IPR2016-00663 and IPR2016-00669) filed on patents asserted against Microsoft in district court have ended with victory for the tech giant in an unusual procedural turn. Claims of the two patents were cancelled as a result of adverse judgment being entered against the owner of record, Global Technologies, Inc., after the PTAB deemed that…

In Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC, v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, No. IPR2015-01835, Paper No. 56 (P.T.A.B. March 6, 2017), the PTAB concluded that despite evidence that the combinations of prior art references may have disclosed the claimed invention, an ordinary artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of…