Impact of IPR in Hatch-Waxman and Biologics Strategies

Similar documents
AIA: How U.S. PTO Proceedings. are Changing Patent Litigation. Post-Grant Review Under the. Practice. David Hoffman. James Babineau.

Post-Grant for Practitioners

Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO

CBM Eligibility and Reviewability

WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 2016 Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.

Post-Grant Patent Proceedings

America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings

Post-Grant for Practitioners: 2017 Year in Review

Strategies and pitfalls in inter partes reviews of Orange Book-listed patents. IIPRD 2015 Symposium Grant Shackelford 2015

Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review

Post-Grant Year in Review

WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 22 May 2015 Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D.

PROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA)

The New Post-AIA World

Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check

What is Post Grant Review?

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act

Post-Grant Reviews Before The USPTO

Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform

United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Post-Grant Trends: The PTAB Strikes Back

The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011

The Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S.

Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly

PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences

BCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer

Changes at the PTO. October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel. Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP

How Post Grant Challenges Have Evolved from Proposed Rules to Practice. Prepared by W. Karl Renner Principal & Co Chair of Post Grant Practice

Intersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing

Friend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

Post Grant Review. Strategy. Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services

Litigation Webinar Series. Hatch-Waxman 101. Chad Shear Principal, San Diego

IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014

Navigating the Post-Grant Landscape

Are the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable?

Post-Grant for Practitioners. Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB Part II: "Paper" Witness Testimony. June 8, Steve Schaefer Principal

How To Fix The Amendment Fallacy

Inter Partes Review Part I: Pretrial

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly

What Merchants Need to Know About How the Key Players in the Mobile Payments Services Ecosystem Relate to Each Other. Patent Infringement Disputes

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP

BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal

Post-Grant for Practitioners. Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB (Part 1) May 11, Thomas Rozylowicz Principal. Steve Schaefer Principal

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice

How to Handle Complicated IPRs:

America Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012

Policies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform

Inter Partes Review: A New Tool for Challenging Patent Validity. Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner

$2 to $8 million AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS 7/30/2013 MANAGING RISK UNDER THE AIA

Recent U.S. Case Law and Developments (Patents) John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson P.C.

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

Discovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012

USPTO Post Grant Proceedings

Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

July 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon

A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination

The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO

POPRs and the New PTAB Final Rules: Maximizing the Impact of POPRs in IPR Petitions

Protecting Biopharmaceutical Innovation Litigation and Patent Office Procedures

AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions

WilmerHale Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future

NEW US PATENT CHALLENGE PROCEDURES PROMOTE GLOBAL HARMONISATION, BUT CASUALTIES RUN HIGH

America Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011

Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger

SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

Federal Circuit Review of Post-Grant Review-Related Proceedings

POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER

Lessons From PTAB Full or Partial Denials to Obtain a Denial and Avoid an IPR

Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview

The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings

Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense

A Rebalancing Act: Early Patent Litigation Strategies in Light of Recent Federal Circuit Cases ACC Litigation Committee Meeting

The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings

America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition

PRE-INSTITUTION AT PTAB: OBTAINING A DENIAL IS A PATENT OWNER WIN. Part 1: Technical Bases of Challenge 1

18-MONTHS POST-AIA: HOW HAS PATENT LITIGATION. Rebecca Hanovice, Akarsh Belagodu, Lauren Bruzzone and Clay Holloway

Patent Licensing: Advanced Tactics

Emerging Trends and Legal Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings

Navigating Administrative Law in Patent Appeals Involving Review Proceedings

Terminating Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

How Cuozzo will impact the interplay between post grant proceedings and Hatch Waxman litigation

The Limited Ability of a Patent Owner to Amend Claims and Present New Claims in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews

Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016

POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP

How To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes Review

Navigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018

Freedom to Operate and the Use of AIA Review

Session 1A: Preparing an IPR Petition Tips from a Petitioner Perspective

Case 3:14-cv MLC-TJB Document Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 1111 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 BACKGROUND...

Patent Prosecution Update

Fish & Richardson s. Post-Grant Report

Transcription:

Impact of IPR in Hatch-Waxman and Biologics Strategies Presented By: Leslie Robbins, Dorothy Whelan, and Chad Shear The content of this presentation is for educational purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Fish & Richardson or the companies represented by the speakers at this event, and is also not intended to address every court or case situation.

What is Post-Grant? USPTO mechanisms for testing patentability Designed as cost-effective and speedy alternatives to litigation Three primary flavors: 1 IPR (Inter Partes Review) 2 PGR (Post Grant Review) 3 CBM (Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents) 2

Proceeding When Does It Apply? Legal standard Grounds (Prior Art) PGR: Postgrant review (9 month window) -First available on Sept. 16, 2012 -Applies only to patents having a claim with a priority date on or after March 16, 2013 More likely than not that at least 1 claim is unpatentable Any invalidity ground Estoppel? Raised or reasonably could have raised IPR: Inter partes review (after PGR) -First available on Sept. 16, 2012 -Applies to all patents -Must file within 1 year of being served with infringement complaint Reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail on at least 1 claim Patents Published patent apps Printed publications Raised or reasonably could have raised CBM: Covered Business Method -First available on Sept. 16, 2012 -Applies to all patents related to financial services but excludes technological inventions -More likely than not that at least 1 claim is unpatentable -Petitioner sued or charged with infringement Any invalidity ground Narrow: Raised (USPTO and Civil) or reasonably could have raised (USPTO) 3

Features Claim construction: Broadest reasonable interpretation Burden of proof: Preponderance of the evidence Limited discovery Limited ability to amend claims Fast relative to reexamination and district court litigation Estoppel Can be settled 4

Background - Timeline Early post-grant webinars speak to the timeline in detail: http://fishpostgrant.com/webinars-2012/ http://fishpostgrant.com/webinars-2013/ 5

Post-Grant Are defendants and license targets using Post-Grant? YES!! 6

Post-Grant: Number of Filings (2/24/15) 7

Post-Grant: Overall Technology Breakdown 8

Post-Grant: Petition Dispositions (2/24/15) 9

Who is Filing? Generics Non- Generics Accord Healthcare Amneal Apotex Aurobindo Breckenridge Impax Mylan Par Perrigo Ranbaxy Roxanne Sandoz Sun Torrent BioDelivery Sciences Eli Lilly Endo Galderma MonoSol Rx Phigenix Purdue Shire St Jude 10

Who has been Targeted? Allergan Alza Alcon Pharma Brigham and Women's Hospital BTG International Choongwae Pharma. Corp. Cubist Depomed Eli Lilly Endo Genentech Gilead Grifols SA Helsinn Healthcare SA Immunogen Jazz Pharma LifeScan Kyoto University Mayo Merck MonoSol RX, LLC Myriad Genetics Novartis Reckitt Benckiser Roche Palo Alto Senju Pharma. Co., Ltd Supernus UCLA Med. Ctr. Univ. of Michigan Univ. of Utah Vertex Viiv Healthcare Wyeth (Pfizer) 11

IPR vs District Court IPR Timing IPR Written Decision - 18 months CAFC Decision - 18 months DCT Timing 18 months 4 months Fact Discovery Expert Discovery Trial 30 months to End of Stay/Typical Written Decision 12

Resources General Info fishpostgrant.com Details on each proceeding, timelines, links to searchable versions of relevant rules 24+ hours of webinars on post-grant topics (audio and video) News alerts, case summaries, case studies/testimonials Listing of stays relating to IPR Fish Post-Grant App Available for iphone and Android through their respective app stores Details at fishpostgrant.com/app USPTO Sites: AIA Main: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/index.jsp Inter Partes: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bpai.jsp 13

Thank You! Leslie Robbins Coherus BioSciences Vice President, Intellectual Property lrobbins@coherus.com Dorothy Whelan Fish & Richardson Principal whelan@fr.com Chad Shear Fish & Richardson Principal shear@fr.com 14

Contact Fish & Richardson Download the presentation and access other valuable materials at www.fishlifesciences.com Contact us with your questions and comments. Robin Chance Senior Marketing Manager Fish & Richardson chance@fr.com; +1-612-766-2023 Copyright 2015 Fish & Richardson P.C. These materials may be considered advertising for legal services under the laws and rules of professional conduct. The materials contained in this presentation has been gathered by the lawyers at Fish & Richardson P.C. for informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. Transmission is not intended to create and receipt does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Legal advice of any nature should be sought from legal counsel. For more information about Fish & Richardson P.C. and our practices, please visit www.fr.com