• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 9-23 of 687 results

17 Order: Order Denying POP Request

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 17 Order - Order Denying POP Request (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2019)
Before ANDREI IANCU, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, ANDREW HIRSHFELD, Commissioner for Patents, and SCOTT R. BOALICK, Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
The Office received a request for Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) review of an issue raised in this case.
The request was referred to the POP panel referenced above.
Upon consideration of the request, it is ORDERED that the request for POP review is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that the original panel maintains authority over all matters.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

10 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner: Decision Denying Petitioners Request for Rehearing of Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 CFR 4271d

Document IPR2019-00449, No. 10 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner - Decision Denying Petitioners Request for Rehearing of Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 CFR ...
Formulations 1 and 2 also include, inter alia, a polyhydric alcohol in the form of polyethylene glycol (PEG-600) and a carboxyvinyl polymer (Carbopol 940) that acts as a gelling agent.
Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have continued to use the same amounts of ethanol and benzyl alcohol in Cartt ’865 in the absence of the 15% or 20% polyethylene glycol and the 0.8% or 0.6% carboxyvinyl polymer used in formulations 1 and 2 of Ueda.
1 Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing includes additional citations to Dr. Peppas’ declaration that were not provided in the section addressing Petitioner’s obviousness ground based on Cartt ’865 and Ueda.
Patent 9,763,876 B2 ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use the same levels of ethanol and benzyl alcohol in Cartt ’865’s benzodiazepine-based nasal spray, especially in the absence of the additional 15% or 20% polyethylene glycol and 0.8% or 0.6% gelling agent used in formulations 1 and 2 of Ueda.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that we erred in not instituting an inter partes review with respect to Petitioner’s obviousness ground based on Cartt ’865 and Ueda.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

15 Notice: Notification of Receipt of POP Request

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 15 Notice - Notification of Receipt of POP Request (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2019)
The Office has received a request for Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) review of an issue raised in these cases.
The request is under review.
The Office will provide another notification after a decision on the request has been made.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Patent Owner: Decision Denying Patent Owners Request on Rehearing of Decision on Institution 37 CFR 4271d

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Patent Owner - Decision Denying Patent Owners Request on Rehearing of Decision on Institution 37 CFR 4271d (P.T.A.B. Sep...
Neurelis, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision (Paper 8) (“Decision”) instituting inter partes review of claims 1– 36 of U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’876 patent”).
First, Petitioner did challenge the ’876 patent priority claim in contending that “the presence of any alkyl glycosides (either generally or particularly) – regardless of amount – was not disclosed, described, or enabled by [the] ’558 Provisional.” Petition 20.
Furthermore, with supporting testimony from Dr. Nicholas A. Peppas, Petitioner further asserted that the ’558 provisional’s “generic disclosure of ‘surface active agents (especially non-ionic materials)’ ... does not disclose, describe, and/or enable alkyl glycosides in general (or dodecyl maltoside in particular).” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 152; Ex. 1041 ¶ 68).
As explained in Dynamic Drinkware, a petitioner has the initial burden of going forward to show that there is invalidating prior art.
On this record, Patent Owner fails to satisfy its burden of production to show entitlement to an earlier filing date.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

9 Order: SCHEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 9 Order - SCHEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Institution Decision: Institution of Inter Partes Review35 USC sec 314

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 8 Institution Decision - Institution of Inter Partes Review35 USC sec 314 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

7 Institution Decision: Decision Denying Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2019-00449, No. 7 Institution Decision - Decision Denying Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Institution Decision: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2019-00450, No. 8 Institution Decision - Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

5 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED...

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 5 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITIONANDTIME FOR FILING PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE (P.T....

cite Cite Document
Analyze

3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Accord Filing Date

Document IPR2019-00449, No. 3 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Accord Filing Date (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

4 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Accord Filing Date

Document IPR2019-00450, No. 4 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Accord Filing Date (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

42 Reply: Patent Owners Reply to Petitioner¿¿¿s Opposition to Patent Owner¿¿¿s Mo...

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 42 Reply - Patent Owners Reply to Petitioner¿¿¿s Opposition to Patent Owner¿¿¿s Motion to Exclude Evidence (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

41 Reply: PETITIONERS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVID...

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 41 Reply - PETITIONERS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

39 Opposition: Patent Owners Opposition to Petitioners Motion to Exclude

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 39 Opposition - Patent Owners Opposition to Petitioners Motion to Exclude (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

38 Opposition: PETITIONERS OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNERS MOTION TO E...

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 38 Opposition - PETITIONERS OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNERS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... >>