The battle over the proper forum for patent infringement litigation regarding Dupixent® (Dupilumab) appears to have been resolved. Last week, on May 1, 2017, Sanofi, Genzyme, and Regeneron voluntarily dismissed their Declaratory Judgment Complaint in the District of Massachusetts (Civ. No. 17-cv-10465). The dismissal, however, does not resolve the underlying patent infringement dispute, which is
Over the last two weeks, Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) has filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of three additional patents related to Biogen and Genentech’s Rituxan® (rituximab) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The proceedings are: IPR2017-01166, filed on April 21, 2017, regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172 (“the ’172 patent”); IPR2017-1167, filed on
On March 31, 2017, Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”) filed three new petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two additional patents related to Genentech and Biogen’s Rituxan® (rituximab). Two of the petitions challenge claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,612 (“the ’612 patent”) and the other seeks review of all nine claims of U.S. Patent No.8,206,711 (“the
Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) filed a new petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on March 24, 2017, for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,820,161 (“the ’161 patent”) related to Biogen’s and Genentech’s Rituxan® (rituximab). The challenged claims of the ’161 patent are directed to a method for treating rheumatoid arthritis
We reported last week that Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Genzyme Corporation, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had filed suit in Massachusetts seeking a declaratory judgment that their Dupixent® (dupilumab) product does not infringe Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 (“the ’487 patent”). The litigation was filed on March 20, 2017. In a one-two punch combination, Sanofi and Regeneron
On March 21, 2017, Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”) filed two new petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,846,441 (“the ’441 patent”) and 7,892,549 (“the ’549 patent”). Three days later, on March 24, 2017, Celltrion filed two additional IPR petitions for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,626,196 (“the ‘196 patent”) and 7,371,379 (“the ‘379 patent”).
Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on September 9, 2016, for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,622,115 (“the ’115 patent”) related to Genentech’s Avastin® (bevacizumab). Interestingly, Genentech elected not to file a preliminary response. On March 16, 2017, the PTAB issued a decision
Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”) filed three new petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on March 15, 2017 for inter partes review (“IPR”) of Biogen’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,329,172 (“the ’172 patent”), 8,557,244 (“the ’244 patent”), and 9,296,821 (“the ’821 patent”) related to rituximab.
Rituximab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment
Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on September 16, 2016 for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,807,799 (“the ’799 patent”) related to Genentech’s Herceptin® (trastuzumab). On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a decision instituting review of claims 1–3 and 5–11 of the
On March 10, 2017, the PTAB published a decision terminating the proceedings in IPR2016-1693 and IPR2016-1694 because the parties have reached a settlement. Mylan filed two petitions requesting inter partes review (“IPR”) of certain claims (1, 2, 4, 12, 25, 29-31, 33, 42, 60, 62-67, 69 and 71-81) of U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 (“the ’213