The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied Sandoz’s petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-30 of AbbVie’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,187,559 (“the ’559 patent”). The ’559 patent is directed towards a multiple-variable dose regimen for treating idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. The patent discloses administering a high dose of a TNFα
Earlier this month, Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”) filed a copycat IPR petition directed against U.S. Patent No. 7,976,838 (“the ʼ838 patent”) that is essentially identical to a petition filed by Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”). The PTAB recently instituted review of the ʼ838 patent based on Pfizer’s petition in IPR2017-01923. Celltrion’s copycat petition was accompanied by a motion
Earlier this month, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”) denied institution of Sandoz’s petition for inter partes review of Abbvie’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,512,216 (“the ’216 patent”), directed to methods for treating moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with a human anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) antibody.[1] The petition,
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) has decided not to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) on two patents owned by Biogen and Genentech. Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) filed two petitions asserting that the patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,206,711 (“the ’711 patent”) and 7,682,612 (“the ’612 patent”), were invalid as obvious in view of prior
On the same day that the PTAB instituted review of an AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (“AbbVie”) patent covering a method of using adalimumab to treat psoriatic arthritis, it also instituted review of a second AbbVie patent directed to the use of adalimumab to treat chronic plaque psoriasis. More specifically, and once again at the urging of
At the urging of Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”), the PTAB instituted review of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,067,992 (“the ʼ992 patent”) on April 3, 2018. The ʼ992 patent is entitled “Use of TNFα Inhibitor for Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis,” and is assigned to AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (“AbbVie”). The claims of the
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Genzyme Corporation, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. recently scored a victory in their ongoing dispute over a patent that Immunex Corporation claims covers Dupixent®, Sanofi and Regeneron’s anti-IL-4 antibody marketed for treatment of moderate-to-severe eczema. In February, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) instituted two petitions for inter partes
Biologic drugs are large molecules, such as therapeutic proteins, DNA vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and fusion proteins, that are typically derived from living cells and used in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of disease. Most biologics are produced by genetically engineering living cells to express the therapeutic proteins rather than through traditional chemical synthesis. As proteins
Sandoz’s request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Numbers 9,512,216 (“the ’216 patent”) and 8,802,100 (“the ’100 patent”) was denied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on the grounds that Sandoz did not show that the patents were likely unpatentable. The decisions not to institute an IPR of either patent
We previously reported that on January 11, 2018, Celltrion, Inc., Celltrion Healthcare, Co. Ltd. (collectively “Celltrion”), Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (collectively “Teva”) filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that thirty-eight patents relating to Herceptin® (trastuzumab) are non-infringed, invalid, or unenforceable. That same day, Celltrion and Teva also filed a suit seeking declaratory