Seagen Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

    136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)   Cited 274 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board's interpretation of the petition to have implicitly presented a challenge was unreviewable
  2. Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co.

    546 F. Supp. 3d 515 (E.D. Tex. 2021)   Cited 16 times
    Analyzing whether an action could have been originally filed in the proposed transferee forum, finding that there was no evidence that the transferee forum had personal jurisdiction over the defendant and explaining that to the extent the defendant would argue that it consented to jurisdiction in the potential transferee forum by litigating a prior case in that court, that prior litigation was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction because “[i]n general, consent to suit in one instance does not operate as a waiver of jurisdiction forevermore.”
  3. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 375 times   632 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"
  4. Section 324 - Institution of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 324   Cited 42 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Requiring threshold determination that it is "more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims . . . is unpatentable"
  5. Section 321 - Post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 38 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to petition for PGR "to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph or of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim")
  6. Section 326 - Conduct of post-grant review

    35 U.S.C. § 326   Cited 26 times   23 Legal Analyses

    (a) REGULATIONS.-The Director shall prescribe regulations- (1) providing that the file of any proceeding under this chapter shall be made available to the public, except that any petition or document filed with the intent that it be sealed shall, if accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed pending the outcome of the ruling on the motion; (2) setting forth the standards for the showing of sufficient grounds to institute a review under subsections (a) and (b) of section 324; (3) establishing

  7. Section 42.4 - Notice of trial

    37 C.F.R. § 42.4   Cited 54 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[t]he Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director"