What is the status of the iRobot v. SharkNinja patent war?

I previously blogged about the patent tussle between iRobot and SharkNinja when the dispute originally erupted in late 2019. At the time, the prevalent concern was that iRobot would secure a quick injunction against SharkNinja’s sales in advance of the critical holiday shopping season. More than two years on, what started as a single pre-emptive suit commenced by Shark Ninja has ballooned into a multi-front war over whether SharkNinja is infringing iRobot’s patents. This has involved multiple litigations filed in district court, scores of invalidity proceedings filed at the Patent Office, and an investigation commenced before the International Trade Commission. What is the status of this ongoing patent war?

The Federal Circuit cannot say who constitutes a real-party-in-interest in an IPR.

In a precedential decision that issued on May 19, ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the Supreme Court’s recent Click-to-Call decision precludes judicial review of decisions by the PTAB concerning real-parties-in-interest. recent Click-to-Call decision precludes judicial review of decisions by the PTAB concerning real-parties-in-interest.

Korlym: A review of the PTAB’s institution decision for Teva’s PGR of the ‘214 patent.

We previously blogged about Teva’s ($TEVA) petition for post-grant review (PGR) of Corcept Therapeutics’ ($CORT) ‘214 patent. Since then, on November 20, 2019, the PTAB granted institution of Teva’s petition. The proceeding will now be litigated for another year before a final decision. On a recent earnings call, Corcept stated that it believes the standard for institution is “pretty low,” and not necessarily dispositive that Teva will prevail. Now that we have the institution decision, what can we glean from it, and how likely is that Corcept’s patent survives?

Markman AdvisorsDecember 4, 2019Corcept, Corcept Therapeutics, CORT, $CORT, TEVA, $TEVA, PTAB, IPR, PGR, 214 patent, mifepristone, ketoconazole, patent, CYP3A, Greenblatt, Korlym, FDA, DDI, generic, Zachary Silbersher, SilbersherComment

Will Teva’s PGR against Corcept’s ‘214 patent covering Korlym be instituted?

The saga over Corcept Therapeutics’s ($CORT) patent battles against prospective generics for Korlym® is approaching another stage. We previously discussed Teva’s ($TEVA) petition for post-grant review (PGR) of the ‘214 patent. Corcept has filed its preliminary response to Teva’s PGR, and the PTAB is scheduled to decide whether or not to institute the PGR by about November 23, 2019. The ‘214 patent is potentially the strong patent Corcept is currently wielding against generics, since it arguably does read upon Korlym®’s label. Now that the papers are in, what are the odds Teva’s PGR is instituted?

Blog

home | team | valuation | consulting | monetization | news | blog