This past week, IPWatchdog was made aware of a petition for post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that raises interesting arguments about allegedly inconsistent statements on patentability made during legal proceedings by pharmaceutical firm, Gilead Sciences. Filed in early August, the PGR petition from Atea Pharmaceuticals cites 35 U.S.C. § 112 arguments previously raised by Gilead in other cases to challenge the validity of Gilead’s own patent claims that were allegedly obtained to block Atea’s competing hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments.
Recent Posts
- Mixed UK High Court Ruling Fails to Answer Fundamental Questions of AI Copyright Infringement
- Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works
- Squires Emphasizes AI, Dubs Inherited Backlog ‘An Absolute Dumpster Fire’ and a ‘Betrayal’
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Precedent on Pre-AIA Prior Art ‘By Another’
- Squires Restores PTAB’s RPI Identification Requirement to Exacting Pre-SharkNinja Standard