Today, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel issued a precedential decision holding that even a deficient pleading triggers the one-year IPR filing period. GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01754 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2019) (Paper 38). Continue Reading PTAB Issues Precedential GoPro Decision That Even Service Of “Deficient” Complaint Starts IPR Time Clock
During the week of July 15, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued four decisions in TC 1600, two of which involved the same parties and related patents. Three decisions instituted IPR petitions, and one decision denied institution. Continue Reading PTAB Tech Center 1600 Round-Up: Week of July 15-19, 2019
On July 30, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Celgene Corporation v. Peter (Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, and -1171), where the patent owner argued that the PTAB’s authority to cancel claims through IPR amounted to an unconstitutional taking as applied to pre-AIA patents. Numerous patent owners have raised similar challenges since the Supreme Court expressly reserved judgment on the issue in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365, 1379 (2018). The Federal Circuit’s decision puts that issue to rest (at least for now) and confirms that all issued patents remain subject to IPR.
The Celgene appeal arose Continue Reading Federal Circuit Rejects Latest Constitutional Challenge to Inter Partes Review
Previously, Emily Greb posted on the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, Dir. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), which held that when the Board institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all claims challenged in the IPR.
Now, Emily and Tyler Bowen, with assistance from Gene W. Lee, Bryan D. Beel, and Maria A. Stubbings, have published a short research paper entitled The Supreme Court’s SAS Decision: Has All-Or-Nothing Institution Created A Wave Of Change? [PDF] Continue Reading The Effect Of SAS Institute v. Iancu On IPR Practice
During the week of June 24–28, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued one IPR institution decision and one IPR final written decision in TC 1600. Continue Reading PTAB Tech Center 1600 Round-Up: Week of June 24-28, 2019
During the week of June 10–14, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued one IPR final written decision in TC 1600. Continue Reading PTAB Tech Center 1600 Round-Up: Week of June 10-14, 2019
During the week ending May 31, 2019, the Board issued four decisions in Technology Center 1600: three decisions instituting inter partes review (IPR) and one decision denying IPR, all styled Foundation Medicine, Inc. v. Caris MPI, Inc. The decisions are summarized as follows: Continue Reading PTAB Tech Center 1600 Round-Up: Week of May 27-31, 2019
On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court held that a federal agency is not a “person” who can file a petition for review of a patent under one of the three new proceedings created by the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. ____, 2019 WL 2412904, at *3 (U.S. June 10, 2019) (“Return Mail“). Specifically, the Court held that federal agencies cannot file a petition for inter partes, post-grant, or covered business method review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (collectively, “PTAB proceedings”). Id. Continue Reading Supreme Court Prevents the Government from Challenging Patents in PTAB Proceedings
By way of background,
Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, a company can seek FDA approval to market a generic drug before the expiration of patents related to the brand-name drug that the generic seeks to copy. To seek this approval, a generic applicant must provide in its application a ‘certification’ that a patent submitted to FDA by the brand-name drug’s sponsor and listed in FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the Orange Book) is, in the generic applicant’s opinion and to the best of its knowledge, invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the generic product. This certification is called a ‘paragraph IV certification.’ The first company or companies to submit an application that (1) is determined by the agency to be ‘substantially complete’ upon submission and (2) contains a paragraph IV certification to at least one of the patents listed in the Orange Book is generally eligible for the exclusive right to market the generic drug for 180 days.
Today, the FDA announced [press release] that it is increasing the amount of information provided to the public and generic-drug applicants in the FDA’s Paragraph IV Certifications List, “to provide transparency and assist generic drug applicants with planning regarding their [abbreviated new drug] applications” (ANDAs):
Today, we are enhancing the Paragraph IV Patent Certifications List by adding several additional data points, including the status of any 180-day exclusivity decisions for individual drug products, along with other information about the dates of first approval, marketing status and expiration dates of blocking patents. Providing this information may help subsequent generic drug applicants determine when their products can be approved and marketed.
Previously, the Certifications List included a fairly modest amount of information for generic-drug applicants (including the name of the drug product, name of the reference listed drug, the drug dosage form and strength, and the date of filing of the first substantially complete ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification for the drug product).
FDA is now adding several other columns to its spreadsheet of relevant information, and its List will become more complete as the information becomes available or is determined. The additional columns include:
- Number of Potential First-Applicant ANDAs
- 180-Day Exclusivity Decision Status
- 180-Day Decision Posting Date
- Date of First Approval of “First Applicant” ANDA
- Date of First Commercial Marketing
- Expiration Date of Last Qualifying Patent
You can find more information, including a description of each of these fields, on the FDA’s website at this link: Field descriptions.
An example of the new certification list is here.
During the week of May 13-17, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued three decisions instituting IPR in Tech Center 1600. Continue Reading PTAB Tech Center 1600 Round-Up: Week of May 13-17, 2019