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
- IPWatchdog Unleashed: Patents and the Future of the USPTO in Trump’s Second Term
- No Infringement Intended – The World Wrestling Federation’s Biggest Fight: A Look at Trademark Law and Global Brand Recognition
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 7: CAFC Rejects Untimely Expert Testimony and Reassigns Case; CJEU Clarifies Online Marketplace Responsibilities Under GDPR; and IPWATCHPUPPIES ARE ON THE WAY!
- Commissioner for Patents Takes ‘Fork in the Road’ and Resigns from USPTO
- Reflections from an Inventor on the Return to Office Mandate for PTAB Judges