On Sept. 1, 2015, the PTAB issued an order in Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD) v. NPS Pharmaceuticals for the parties to brief the following questions in seven business days:
“1) the standing requirement for challenging the validity of that patent in an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311(a);
2) to what extent, if any, the business objective or intent of the Petitioner should be considered in reaching a determination of abuse of process;
3) the intent of Congress to provide an alternative to litigation and to provide a mechanism to increase patent quality by allowing expedited administrative patent challenges; and
4) the resulting social costs/benefits associated with a decision to address the merits of the Petitions versus a decision to dismiss the Petitions for abuse of process without reaching the merits of the Petitions.”
The request for additional briefing could signal that PTAB is going to address the question of Kyle Bass’ hedge fund standing to file IPRs head on in this particular proceeding, perhaps within a month or so after the briefing.
As noted in our earlier post, “Kyle Bass Loses Round 1 of IPR Attack Against Pharma/Biotech Patents”, the PTAB declined to address the standing or abuse of process issue in an earlier CFAD IPR petition against Acorda, instead declining to institute on the basis that the particular cited prior art in that petition was not publicly accessible to qualify as prior art. The request for additional briefing on the questions above implies that the PTAB may be readying itself to issue a detailed opinion on the issues.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.