PTAB Life Sciences Report -- March 2017 Part III

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact

About the PTAB Life Sciences Report:  Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents.

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConforMIS, Inc.

PTAB Petition:  IPR2017-00487; filed December 14, 2016.

Patent at Issue:  U.S. Patent No. 9,295,482 ("Patient selectable joint arthroplasty devices and surgical tools," issued March 29, 2016) claims joint arthroplasty system for repairing a diseased or damaged joint of a patient.

Petitioner Smith & Nephew, Inc. is challenging the '482 patent on six grounds as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  View the petition here.

Related Matters:  According to the petition, the '482 patent is the subject of a litigation captioned ConforMIS, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-10420-IT (D. Mass.).  Also, Petitioner is filing a petition concurrently for Inter Partes Review of the '482 patent (IPR2017-00488).

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConforMIS, Inc.

PTAB Petition:  IPR2017-00488; filed December 14, 2016.

Patent at Issue:  U.S. Patent No. 9,295,482 ("Patient selectable joint arthroplasty devices and surgical tools," issued March 29, 2016) claims joint arthroplasty system for repairing a diseased or damaged joint of a patient.

Petitioner Smith & Nephew, Inc. is challenging the '482 patent on six grounds as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  View the petition here.

Related Matters:  According to the petition, the '482 patent is the subject of a litigation captioned ConforMIS, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-10420-IT (D. Mass.).  Also, Petitioner is filing a petition concurrently for Inter Partes Review of the '482 patent (IPR2017-00487).

Acclarent, Inc. v. Ford D Albritton IV

PTAB Petition:  IPR2017-00498; filed December 15, 2016.

Patent at Issue:  U.S. Patent No. 9,011,412 ("Apparatus, system and method for manipulating a surgical catheter and working device with a single hand," issued April 21, 2015) claims a system, methods of use, and an apparatus of a guide catheter insertable through an external body passage of a subject.

Petitioners Acclarent, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson are challenging the '412 patent on five grounds as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (grounds 1, 3, and 4) or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (grounds 2 and 5).  View the petition here.

Related Matters:  According to the petition, the '498 patent is the subject of litigation captioned Dr. Ford Albritton IV v. Acclarent, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-03340-D (N.D. Texas).  Also, the '498 patent was the subject of a breach of contract and declaratory judgement case filed by Petitioner captioned Acclarent Inc. v. Ford Albritton IV, No. 5:16-cv-06919 (N.D. Cal.), which was dismissed without prejudice.

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd.

PTAB Petition:  IPR2017-00501; filed December 16, 2016.

Patent at Issue:  U.S. Patent No. 9,027,556 ("Mask system," issued May 12, 2015) claims a mask system for delivery of a supply of gas at positive pressure to a patient for medical treatment.

Petitioner Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. is challenging the '556 patent on twelve grounds as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  View the petition here.

Related Matters:  According to the petition, the '556 patent is the subject of litigation captioned Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Corp., No. 3:16-cv-02068-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.).  Also, Petitioner is filing a petition concurrently for Inter Partes Review of the '556 patent (IPR2017-00504).

Insys Development Co., Inc. v. GW Pharma Ltd.

PTAB Petition:  IPR2017-00503; filed December 16, 2016.

Patent at Issue:  U.S. Patent No. 9,066,920 ("Use of one or a combination of phyto-cannabinoids in the treatment of epilepsy," issued June 30, 2015) claims a method of treating partial seizure comprising administering cannabidiol (CBD), to a patient wherein the CBD is present in a specified amount or with tetrahydrocannabinol.

Petitioner Insys Development Company, Inc. is challenging the '920 patent on three grounds as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  View the petition here.

Related Matters:  According to the petition, there are no related maters.

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd.

PTAB Petition:  IPR2017-00504; filed December 16, 2016.

Patent at Issue:  U.S. Patent No. 9,027,556 ("Mask system," issued May 12, 2015) claims a mask system for delivery of a supply of gas at positive pressure to a patient for medical treatment.

Petitioner Fisher & Paykel Healthcare LTD. is challenging the '556 patent on ten grounds as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  View the petition here.

Related Matters:  According to the petition, the '556 patent is the subject of litigation captioned Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Corp., No. 3:16-cv-02068-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.).  Also, Petitioner is filing a petition concurrently for Inter Partes Review of the '556 patent (IPR2017-00501).

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd.

PTAB Petition:  IPR2016-01186; filed June 11, 2016.

PTAB Trial Instituted Document filed December 19, 2016.

Patent at Issue:  U.S. Patent No. 6,881,745 ("Pharmaceutical compositions for poorly soluble drugs," issued April 19, 2005) claims a pharmaceutical composition consisting of an antifungal drug.

Petitioner Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. challenged the '745 patent on eleven grounds as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (grounds 1-9) or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (grounds 10 and 11).  View the petition here.  Administrative Patent Judges Toni R. Scheiner (author), Erica A. Franklin, and Jacqueline T. Harlow issued a decision instituting inter partes review of whether claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Kai; claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Thorpe; and claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9-14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kai, Sangekar, and Babcock.

Related Matters:  According to the petition, the '745 patent is involved in a litigation captioned Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 15-cv-00438 (D. Del.).

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. Attorney Advertising.

© McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Written by:

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on:

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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide