• Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. / Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP v. Seagen Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 24, 2021 · PGR2021-00042 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 6–8 under § 324(a), finding that the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial despite potential merit in the enablement challenge.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied

    “parties. We recognize that many legitimate reasons may lead a party not to file a motion to stay a parallel proceeding prior to the Board’s institution decision, including because such a motion may be viewed as premature. Be that as it may, our precedential guidance instructs us to consider whether the court has granted a stay of the parallel proceeding, or whether evidence exists that a stay may be granted upon institution. Fintiv Order at 5–6. As it stands, the record lacks sufficient evidence to suggest that a stay has been granted, or may be granted in the future. It is a judge who determines whether to grant a stay based on the facts of each specific case as presented in the briefs by the parties. We decline to infer, based on actions taken in different cases with different facts, how the district court judge would rule should a stay be requested in the Texas Litigation. For these reasons, we determine that the facts underlying this factor are neutral.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied

    “35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard is set forth in § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review shall not be instituted unless “the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,808,039
• Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. / Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP v. Seagen Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 24, 2021 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of post-grant review for claims 1–5, 9, and 10 under § 324(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “Additionally, the Board’s precedential Fintiv Order identifies several factors to be considered when analyzing issues related to the Director’s discretion to deny institution, with the goal of balancing efficiency, fairness, and patent quality. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5‒6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“the Fintiv Order”). These factors include: 1) whether a stay exists or is likely to be granted if a” slip op. at 10

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,808,039

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.