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
- CAFC Says Prosecution History Disclaimer Applies to Design Patents, Too
- Harrity & Harrity Seeks FT Patent Attorney / Agent in Electrical or Mechanical Technologies
- Understanding IP Matters: Celebrated MIT Engineer and Entrepreneur Develops Medical Devices to Treat Cancer and Other Diseases
- CAFC Finds IPR Petitioner Did Not Rely on AAPA as Basis for Obviousness Grounds in Affirming PTAB Invalidation
- Foreign Price Controls: A Risk to U.S. Medical Innovation and Patient Access