Home > Boards > US Listed > Biotechs > BioVie Inc. (BIVI)


Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Trend-Setter Member Profile
Followed By 6
Posts 798
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/19/13
160x600 placeholder
Trend-Setter   Thursday, 11/07/19 11:58:28 AM
Re: None
Post # of 759 

SEC S-1/A pg.6
On April 30, 2018, we received notice that Mallinckrodt had petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to institute an Inter Partes Review of our U.S. Patent No. 9,655,945 titled “Treatment of Ascites” (the “’945 patent”). Inter Partes Review is a trial proceeding conducted with the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the patentability of one or more claims of a patent. Such review is limited to grounds of novelty and obviousness on the basis of prior art consisting of patents and printed publications.

On August 15, 2018, we submitted a Preliminary Response to the PTAB providing a rationale as to why, in our opinion, Mallinckrodt’s request to institute the IPR should not be granted. On November 14, 2018, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR challenge after determining that there was a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of our 14 claims was unpatentable. On March 7, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Response and a Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend our patent claims, and Declaration of Dr. Jaime Bosch, MD, PhD, our medical expert. On June 26 and June 28, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Reply In Support Of Its Contingent Motion To Amend Under 37 C.F.R.§ 42.121 to amend our patent claims and a Patent Sur-Reply supported by the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jaime Bosch to the Reply and the Opposition to Motion to Amend, filed by Petitioner Mallinckrodt, filed June 6, 2019. On July 29, 2019, we submitted a Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Strike. On July 17, 2019, we received from the PTAB an Order Oral Hearing in response to our request of an Oral Hearing, which was held on August 12, 2019. We are actively defending the ’945 patent and we are exploring the possibility of settlement with Mallinckrodt. However, there can be no assurance that a favorable outcome will result, or if settlement is reached that the PTAB will accept it. Although the PTAB encourages settlement, in view of public-interest considerations, the PTAB may continue the proceeding to a final written decision even if the parties settle. If the IPR is not terminated due to settlement, the PTAB is statutorily required to issue its final written decision in this case before November 14, 2019 (within one year from the date of institution).

We cannot guarantee investors that we will be successful in defending Mallinckrodt’s challenge against our patent. An unfavorable decision could reduce the scope of, or cancel, our patent rights, and allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to exploit our intellectual property or develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Our ability to establish or maintain a technological or competitive advantage over our competitors and/or market entrants may be diminished because of these uncertainties. For these and other reasons, our intellectual property may not provide us with any competitive advantage.

In addition, you should note that as of June 30, 2019, no adjustments or accruals have been reflected in our financial statements related to this matter.


WHO WILL PREVAIL ? Next week, Nov. 14, 2019 <<< FINAL DECISION

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
Current Price
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist
Consent Preferences