Last month, in OpenSky Industries v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01064 (Oct. 4, 2022), the Director of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a precedential decision regarding abuse of process. The decision...more
On 24 January 2020, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Aljawharah Bint Ibrahim Abdulaziz Alibrahim v Asturion Fondation ([2020] EWCA Civ 32) in relation to the question of whether “warehousing” constitutes an abuse...more
In Adams et al. v. United Services Automobile Ass’n et al., W.D. Ark. No. 2:14-cv-02013, Chief District Judge P.K. Holmes III of the Western District of Arkansas will soon decide whether to sanction attorneys who negotiated a...more
Yesterday the PTAB issued institution decisions in five Bass IPR petitions—denying institution of IPR2015-01086 against Biogen and instituting four IPR petitions against Celgene (IRP2015-01092, 01096, 01102, and 01103)....more
Many pharmaceutical companies have complained about the IPR petitions filed by Kyle Bass and the Coalition for Affordable Drugs against Orange Book-listed patents covering approved pharmaceutical products, but Celgene Corp....more
On Friday September 25, the PTAB issued its decision on Celgene’s sanctions motions seeking dismissal of five IPRs filed by Kyle Bass and his hedge fund Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI. In June, Celgene filed sanctions...more
In a recent order, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) indicated that it will consider a motion for sanctions based on a claim of “abuse of process” in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed by the Coalition for...more