Post-Grant for Practitioners: A bi-monthly series of webinars focusing on developments in post-grant proceedings and related practice tips.
Fish & Richardson is the most active firm in post-grant proceedings at the PTAB. In 2012, we kicked-off a webinar series designed to share practice tips, nuances, observations, and strategy. Recordings for previous webinars in this series are included below, with the most recent appearing first.
On July 18, please join life sciences attorneys John Adkisson, Tasha Francis, and Jenny Shmuel, who will provide a mid-year review on the current status of the U.S. biosimilars space. Topics to be discussed include recent developments regarding:
The U.S. biosimilars market: approvals, launches, and anticipated launches
Select court cases and appellate guidance
Trends in IPRs in the biosimilars space
What’s on the horizon for biosimilars
Recent legislative proposals with potential impact on the biosimilars market will also be reviewed. Be sure to register at the link below to remain current on developments in the rapidly-evolving U.S. biosimilars market.
Thursday, July 18 1:00-2:00 PM EDT
This program is designed for and open to all attorneys. If you have questions, please contact Jane Lundberg at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Fish & Richardson, P.C., is an accredited CLE provider by the California, New York, and Texas State Continuing Legal Education Boards. (California Provider Number 4933) Fish & Richardson will apply for 1.0 hour of CLE credit in some additional states. Credit will be awarded only to attorneys who report their required CLE states during the registration process and who log in and complete the webinar in its entirety. Note that Fish is unable to grant CLE credit to attendees who listen to the audio portion only.
The PTAB recently designated two decisions as precedential that expanded the factors upon which it may rely when exercising its discretion to deny IPR petitions under §§ 314(a) and 325(d). In NHK Spring v. Intri-Plex, the PTAB held that the Board may consider the status of co-pending district court litigation when evaluating whether to institute IPR proceedings. In Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, the PTAB held that the General Plastic factors permit the Board to deny follow-on petitions even when filed by different petitioners where the petitioners are closely related or similarly situated.
In this Post-Grant for Practitioners Webinar, Principal and Post-Grant Practice Co-Chair Karl Renner, Principal Joshua Griswold, and Associate Kenneth Darby discuss these cases and their implications, including:
In-depth analysis of the NHK and Valve decisions
Trends and takeaways from other recent § 314(a) discretionary denials
Strategic and tactical considerations for petitioners and patent owners
In April of 2018, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decisions in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC and SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, both of which have had significant impacts on post-grant practice. In Oil States, the Court upheld the constitutionality of IPR proceedings under the public rights doctrine. In SAS Institute, the Court ended the PTAB’s practice of partial institution, holding that it must institute IPR proceedings either on all of the challenged claims or none of the challenged claims.
At the one year anniversary of these decisions, Fish Principals Dorothy Whelan, Karl Renner, and Rob Courtney look back over the previous year and discuss how these cases have changed post-grant practice. Topics of discussion include:
The implications of SAS for post-grant estoppel (and beyond)
Lingering questions left unanswered by the “narrow” holding of Oil States
Strategic considerations for petitioners and patent owners
Inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have become an attractive option for generic drug manufacturers wishing to utilize the PTAB’s streamlined patent validity decision process while also reaping the benefits of the Hatch-Waxman Act. However, many believe that allowing generics to apply both of these strategies disrupts the balance between encouraging pharmaceutical innovation and lowering drug prices that the Hatch-Waxman Act intended to preserve. This debate has escalated since the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018, which seeks to force generics to choose between the Hatch-Waxman framework and IPR.
In this webinar, Principal and Post-Grant Practice Co-Chair Dorothy Whelan and Principal Chad Shear address these complex issues and more, including:
IPR basics and how they apply to Hatch-Waxman cases
The “who, when, and where” of IPR filings and the decisions that go into filing
Recent decisions and arguments impacting Hatch-Waxman and IPR strategy
The U.S. biologics and biosimilars markets evolved rapidly in 2018. In this webinar, life sciences attorneys John Adkisson, Tasha Francis, and Jenny Shmuel review the U.S. market for biosimilar products and provide insights into:
Which biosimilars have been approved and launched
Recent regulatory and legislative actions impacting the biosimilars market
Select court cases and settlements
Recent trends in IPR filings in the biosimilars space
2018 was a watershed year for PTAB practitioners. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued several important decisions relating to the constitutionality of post-grant practice itself, RPI/privity, partial institution decisions, and printed publications. In addition, the PTAB adopted new claim construction rules replacing BRI with the Philips standard, and proposed a new pilot procedure for claim amendments. Changes to the trial practice guide included patent owner surreplies as a matter of right and institution standards governing multiple petitions/petitioners.
In this webinar, Fish Principals and Post-Grant Practice Co-Chairs Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner took a closer look at these significant developments and examined their impact on practitioners. Dorothy and Karl discussed:
PTAB Statistics and Trends
Decisions and Case Law Developments at the PTAB, CAFC, and SCOTUS, including:
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC
SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.
Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc.
General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (Board Discretion: 314, 325)