Axinn Secures IPR Victory for Par in Challenge to Horizon’s Ravicti Patent
September 29, 2016
On behalf of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., attorneys from Axinn successfully challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,404,215 via an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ’215 patent is listed in FDA’s Orange Book for Ravicti (glycerol phenylbutyrate), a brand name drug used to treat urea cycle disorders. On July 26, 2016, the PTAB heard oral argument on the validity of the ’215 patent, and on September 29, 2016 the PTAB issued a Final Decision finding all claims unpatentable.
The company that markets Ravicti and owns the ’215 patent, Horizon Therapeutics, Inc., had previously asserted the ’215 patent against Par in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In a separate action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Horizon has also asserted against Par three closely-related patents in the same family as the unpatentable ’215 patent, which claim nearly identical subject matter.
The Axinn team representing Par in the ’215 patent IPR consisted of Aziz Burgy and Matthew Murphy.
To subscribe to our publications, click here.
Featured Insights
Featured Insights
CCWC 21st Annual Career Strategies Conference
Speaking Engagement
SCCE 23rd Annual Compliance & Ethics Institute
Speaking Engagement
Antitrust
HNBA/VIA Annual Convention 2025
Sponsorship
Antitrust
Key Appellate Decisions Shaping Antitrust Strategy
Webinar
Antitrust
ACI 12th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law
Speaking Engagement
Intellectual Property
National LGBTQ+ Bar Association Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair 2025
Sponsorship
National Bar Association 100th Annual Convention and Exhibits
Sponsorship
Antitrust
Axinn Attorneys Named to the 2025 Lawdragon 500 X – The Next Generation Guide
Awards & Recognitions
Keeping Pace: Updates in Cartel Enforcement
Webinar
Antitrust
Hanging in the Balance: Supreme Court Declines to Decide the Uninjured Class Member Question in Labcorp v. Davis
Axinn Viewpoints
Antitrust