Judge Griesa Orders Parties to Brief Whether a Patent Prosecution Bar Prevents Defense Counsel From Participating in an Inter Partes Review


Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. Inter Partes Review.

Case Number: 1:12-cv-08060-GWG (Dkt. 68)

One of twelve defendants in patent suits brought by Endo petitioned the USPTO for inter partes review (“IPR”) of three patents at issue in the litigation. A protective order in the litigation instituted a patent prosecution bar. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the court to confirm that the bar did not apply to IPRs. Defendants Amneal and Sandoz opposed. The court said that neither side had addressed the relevant issues. It ordered defendants to address patentee’s claim that the bar does not apply to IPRs. And, citing In re Deutsche Bank Trust co, 605 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the court ordered patentee to address on a counsel-by-counsel basis the roles its attorneys would individually play in the IPR proceedings.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robins Kaplan LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Robins Kaplan LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.