Merck is planning to sell a subcutaneous version of its blockbuster Keytruda that can be injected rather than administered intravenously.  Yet, standing in the way of that is a growing portfolio of patents recently acquired by Halozyme Therapeutics.  In 2024, Halozyme was awarded numerous patents covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase polypeptides.  Merck immediately went to the Patent Office and filed petitions for the patents to be cancelled.  What is the likelihood Merck’s patent challenges will succeed?  Or Merck will be compelled to sign a license for Halozyme’s patents. 

One of the common refrains from the pro-patent drug chorus is that patents are necessary to protect and incentivize expensive research and development by pharmaceutical companies.  While that may be true in some cases, there are examples where it is clearly not.  One current example includes deuterated analogs for ruxolitinib.  One company researched which deuterated analogs among thousands of possibilities might be useful, whereas a different company cornered the market on all deuterated analogs based upon two sentences in patent disclosure years ago.  Guess who wins.

In the latest episode in the long-running CRISPR-Cas9 patent battle between the University of California and Broad, UC has obtained a new patent related CRISPR-Cas9.  UC has touted this patent, as well as another expected to issue shortly, as “useful to locate and edit genes in any setting, including within plant, animal, and human cells.”  So, did UC just win patents covering CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotes?  How does this square with the patent interference that UC recently lost at the Federal Circuit on this very issue?

See our post in IPWatchdog. “The case is important to the growing body of patents covering biologic drugs because it delineates more precisely when functionally-claimed antibody patents can survive enablement and written description challenges.”

Morphosys’ ($MOR) patent trial against Janssen ($JNJ) and Genmab was headed for trial in February.  In advance of that trial, however, the parties traded numerous summary judgment motions.  On January 26, Genmab announced that the District Court granted its motion to invalidate the asserted patents.  What happens next?

On January 18, the District Court in Delaware issued an opinion resolving multiple summary judgment motions filed by both parties.  The key takeaway from that decision is that the case is now teed-up for trial beginning on February 19. But the Court didi highlight some key issues likely to be the focus of the trial.

Earlier this week, we blogged about the series of pending summary judgment motions in MorphoSys’ ($MOR) lawsuit accusing Janssen’s ($JNJ) Darzalex® of infringing its patents.  The Court heard oral argument on December 3.  The transcript of that hearing is not currently publicly available.  The Court, however, did issue oral rulings at the end of the hearing that hit the docket on December 4.  What do the rulings mean?

Amgen’s ($AMGN) patent fight against Regeneron ($REGN) and Sanofi has been quiet for much of this year.  But it is likely to heat up again shortly.  What is coming up?

The parties recently filed a report that appears to identify what the September trial will focus on, but it was filed under seal, which leaves investors in the dark.