Insights
Search Results
Client Highlights
2.03.25
Wilson Sonsini Successfully Represents Impossible Foods in First-of-Its-Kind FoodTech Patent Suit
Wilson Sonsini served as lead counsel for Impossible Foods in a patent infringement litigation alleging infringement of seven Impossible Foods patents covering manufacturing processes, ingredients, and finished products relating to plant-based food containing heme and Impossible’s innovative transgenic yeast used to manufacture that heme. Our team successfully represented Impossible Foods in defense of six inter partes review petitions before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2022 and 2023. Wilson Sonsini defeated the defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay the District Court litigation. The matter was closely watched as the first patent infringement case in the burgeoning foodtech industry. With trial approaching, the parties resolved the matter and released a joint statement that said: “This resolution affirms Impossible Foods’ category leadership and the strength of its product portfolio related to heme.”
Client Highlights
12.01.21
Federal Circuit Affirms Moderna Loss Against Wilson Sonsini-Led Arbutus Biopharma in Patent Dispute
On December 1, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) earlier rulings that ModernaTX, Inc. (formerly Moderna Therapeutics Inc.) failed to invalidate claims in two Arbutus Biopharma Corp. patents, known as the '069 and ’435 patents, and left the ‘069 patent fully intact. The trading price of Arbutus shares jumped as much as 95 percent after the court posted its opinions on its electronic docket. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented Arbutus in the matter.
Newsletters
1.25.21
2020 PTAB Year in Review
The firm's post-grant practice is pleased to present its 2020 PTAB Year in Review. The publication begins with a review of 2020 petition filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and takes a closer look at the impact of the precedential Fintiv decision on discretionary denials of institution. It also provides a summary of recent precedential decisions and administrative directives, explores important appellate decisions relating to PTAB trials, offers an update on the PTAB's Motion to Amend Pilot Program, and addresses the continuing dispute over whether PTAB judges are constitutionally appointed.
Client Highlights
7.27.20
Moderna Loses Challenge to Wilson Sonsini-Led Arbutus Biopharma in Patent Dispute
On July 23, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that Moderna Therapeutics Inc. failed to invalidate any of the claims in Arbutus Biopharma Corp.'s patent, known as the '069 patent, covering a drug delivery composition, leaving the ‘069 patent fully intact. The trading price of Arbutus shares more than doubled after the patent board posted its opinion on its electronic docket. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented Arbutus in the matter.
Alerts
10.04.17
En Banc Federal Circuit Paves the Way for Easier Claim Amendments in Inter Partes Review Before the PTAB
On October 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc., v. Matal, finding that the petitioner has the burden of proving the unpatentability of claims—even amended claims—entered in an inter partes review (IPR). This decision overrules earlier Federal Circuit decisions finding that the burden rested on the patent owner to prove patentability of amended claims and will force immediate changes to amendment practice in trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Alerts
4.01.16
USPTO Issues Second Round of AIA Rule Changes
On April 1, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued another round of amendments to the rules governing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) trial proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The new rules will become effective May 1, 2016.
Alerts
3.21.16
Federal Circuit Ruling in Dell v. Acceleron Limits New Late-Stage Grounds of Challenge in America Invents Act Trials
On March 15, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) places constraints on when petitioners may present evidence and arguments against the patentability of claims during inter partes review (IPR). In particular, the Federal Circuit found that the APA requires that patent owners be given notice and a fair opportunity to respond to evidence or arguments put forward by petitioners in an IPR.