4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Disputing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in PGRs and IPRs - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Drilling Down: Real Parties in Interest and Time Bars - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
IPR Institution and Early Intervention - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
On January 15, 2025, Celltrion filed IPR2025-00456 against Regeneron’s U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865 (“the ’865 patent”), challenging claims 1-17, 19-42, 44-50 as anticipated and claims 1-50 as obvious....more
On November 20, 2024, Samsung Bioepis filed IPR2025-00176 against Regeneron’s U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865 (“the ’865 patent”), challenging as obvious 48 claims (claims 1-12, 14-17, 19-20, 22-36, 39-42, 44-45, and 47-55)...more
There have been several recent developments in the PTAB with respect to Regeneron’s aflibercept-dosing patents. On July 8, Regeneron voluntarily dismissed its appeals to the Federal Circuit (Case Nos. 2023-1395 and...more
On August 18, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Bioepis”), filed a petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2023-01312, challenging the validity of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,464,992, assigned to Regeneron...more
We previously reported on the opening post-trial briefs in Regeneron’s BPCIA case against Mylan and Biocon (who was added as a defendant after the original defendant, Mylan, transferred its rights to the aflibercept...more
On July 19 and 20, 2023, the PTAB granted institution of IPR2023-00442, filed by Samsung Bioepis regarding Regeneron’s Patent No. 10,130,681 which is directed to treating angiogenic eye disorders with alibercept, and...more
Last week, Samsung Bioepis filed an IPR petition challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,253,572 (“the ’572 patent”), owned by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. According to the petition, the claims are directed to the use...more
Celltrion and Samsung recently filed IPR petitions challenging claims of Regeneron patents directed to treating angiogenic eye disorders with aflibercept. Specifically, Celltrion and Samsung have each filed petitions...more
As we previously reported, Mylan recently filed three IPR petitions challenging claims of Regeneron patents directed to treating angiogenic eye disorders with aflibercept, the active ingredient in Regeneron’s Eylea...more
On November 9, 2022, the PTAB issued final written decisions in IPR2021-00880 and IPR2021-00881, filed by Mylan on two Regeneron patents related to aflibercept—U.S. Patent Nos. 9,254,338 and 9,669,069. The PTAB ruled in...more
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. recently filed an IPR petition, PTAB-IPR2023-00099, seeking cancellation of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,857,205, assigned to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. According to the petition,...more
On October 26, 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Regeneron’s petition to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of Novartis’s patent U.S. Pat. No. 9,220,631 (“the ’631 patent”), which covers a pre-filled...more