Pharma Companies Must Factor Tough Standing Requirements into IPR Strategies
Recent Publications
5 IP Rules to Know to Protect Your Business in the United States (article in French)
Coaching INPI Newsletter
Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.
1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.
Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.
Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.
From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.
April 28-30, 2024
November 16, 2023 - In-Person in Munich
October 27, 2023
Grace Kim is interviewed by IAM and is quoted in an article on the Supreme Court’s recent denial of Argentum’s petition for certiorari, which removes the chance for review of the Federal Circuit’s ruling of lack of standing in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The article discusses the tough strategic decisions would-be IPR petitioners must make:
“Companies, particularly in the generic pharma space, face a strategic decision over when to file at the PTAB,” comments Rachel Elsby of Akin Gump. “If you decide to clear the deck early, you have to bear the risk that you will not be able to appeal an adverse decision. If you wait, there are downsides to that too, because you may already be into district court litigation, which has significant costs associated with it.”
In innovator-versus-innovator disputes, where infringement questions may be less clear-cut, further risks exist. “The practical reality is that IPRs aren’t cheap, so there is almost always a real-world dispute underlying the IPR’s filing, which current IPR standing law doesn’t adequately address,” comments Grace E. Kim of Oblon. “The current law puts certain petitioners in an unfortunate bind where they need to not only consider the technical merits of the IPR decision when determining whether to appeal, but also whether they want to create a record about the potential for an infringement suit,” she continues.
“For now, we are in the same place where standing is something that needs to be considered before pulling the trigger on an IPR before being sued or threatened with a suit,” Kim suggests, “and then considered again to determine if an appeal is worthwhile in view of the standing briefing that is likely to occur.”
Coaching INPI Newsletter