2ndstr2thert, it would require at least patents in the same domain claiming a same thing in case you are talking about 'pattent conflict'. In all other cases it must be about 'patent infringement'
In the first claim one must defend the position that the patent should not have been granted because it was not new (prior art), it has no industrial application or there was no inventive action. The 3 requirements for every patent.
In the second case one must prove that PPHM infringes on an existing (granted) patent of say a BP plaintiff.
The first thing may be subject to time limits (not sure how that was again) but allows to attack the patents of PPHM. However it would NOT stop PPHM because PPHM does not NEED the patent, they WANT to patent to keeps others from copying them. And PPHM has no obligation yet to disclose its molecule fabrication and hence has all the time to let BP play the patent game. A real patent lawyer will immediately know if the claim holds or not.
In the second case BP will have to say WHICH action PPHM does that infringe their patent. For that BP would have to know what PPHM DOES but they don't because PPHM hasn't disclosed its fabrication. And even better, currently PPHM doesn't sell anything, they are not performing the step as intended by running an industrial process (manufacturing, storing, advertising, selling, exporting, distributing etc Bavituximab to the target group of such public --- paying patients).
So if BP want to play such game they will have to wait until Bavituximab is on the market in which case PPHM will be sufficiently strong to defend itself.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
