On June 13, 2024, the PTAB granted institution of IPR2024-00240 that Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC (“Merck”) filed in November 2023 challenging claims 1-42 of The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the...more
In a decision that issued last week, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel instituted inter partes review (“IPR”) of a petition filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC (“Merck”) for a patent owned by The Johns Hopkins...more
PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC. - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
On March 13, 2024, Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC (“Merck”) filed four additional IPRs challenging The Johns Hopkins University (“JHU”) patents covering methods of treatment using pembrolizumab, which Merck sells under the trade...more
Anticipation of a claim generally requires that a single prior art reference explicitly discloses each and every claim element. However, absent an express teaching in the prior art, a claim may also be anticipated if it is...more
Yesterday, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed four IPR petitions (IPR2018-01229, IPR2018-01236, IPR2018-01234, and IPR2018-01237) against GlaxoSmithKline process patents – US Patent Nos. 8,753,645 and 9,265,839. The ‘645 and...more
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...more
Merck Sharpe & Dohme and Genentech have filed a Joint Motion to Terminate IPR2016-00710, relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415. As we reported earlier, the ‘415 patent is known as one of the “Cabilly” patents, and is...more
We post frequently about IPRs here on the blog, because they are an efficient and relatively quick way to get a decision on validity of the patents that cover drugs, biologic or otherwise. In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A.,...more
Merck Sharp & Dohme filed two petitions for inter partes review of Genentech’s U.S. Patent 6,331,415, one of the “Cabilly Patent,” which claims processes and materials broadly applicable to recombinant antibody manufacturing....more
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. has filed an IPR petition on U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415. This patent has been challenged several times over the past year with mixed results: IPR2015-01624 (instituted); IPR2016-00383 (not...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES - New York Court Invalidates Targeted-Advertising Patents under Alice - A federal judge in the Southern District of New York granted counterclaim-defendant TNS’s motion for summary judgment...more
Addressing the issue of obviousness in the context of an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) under a...more
The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more
In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held the challenged claims obvious in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. Although the...more
On December 17, 2015, in Merck v. Gnosis, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR Decision finding a pharmaceutical patent invalid for obviousness. Justice Newman vigorously dissented from the majority’s view (Justices...more
On December 17, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that patent claims related to methods of treating elevated homocysteine levels...more
As she has done many times before (and so many times that she has been unfairly characterized as a scold on the Federal Circuit), Judge Lorraine Newman dissented from the panel majority decision affirming an obviousness...more