Hedge funds and patents
Hedge funds and institutional investors are financing the latest wave of IP lawsuits.
Enter the AIA, and hedge funds have found a cheaper way to make money in the patent realm.
In January 2015, Financial Times discussed plans by Kyle Bass to target the Pharma industry with inter partes review of Pharma patents, a procedure created by the AIA.
In an IPR challenge to US 8,663,685 in February 2015, the real parties in interest were identified as
Of Spangenberg, see previous IPBiz post -
CAFC outcome in Taurus/Orion/Spangenberg v. DaimlerChrysler
Of relevance to "patent reform," the STRONG bill of Senator Coons would modify the "standing" requirements, so that the IPR of Bass would not be allowed:
Standing: A petition to institute an IPR could not be filed unless the Petitioner had either been sued for infringement or charged with infringement
Separately, one contemplates "how" a successful third party IPR would impact generics filing litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act. This comes up in this IPR.
** Related matters were identified
Of the aftermath of the IPR, Dealbook noted:
Mr. Bass, based in Dallas, has already drawn blood. Acorda Therapeutics stock fell almost 10 percent on news of his challenge on Tuesday. The biotech company, with a $1.5 billion market capitalization, gets nearly all its revenue from Ampyra, a treatment for multiple sclerosis. If cut-price competition emerges sooner than expected, the company would be hurt badly.
**In a more recent matter, Ferrum Ferro Capital, LLC (“Ferrum”) filed a petition for inter partes review against a single claim of a patent assigned to Allergan Sales, LLC (“Allergan”). Reference IPR2015-00858.
Although this claim survived litigation challenge in Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc , the "hook" for Ferrum is the difference in claim interpretation standard between that in an IPR ("broadest reasonable interpretation") and that in litigation. In theory, a claim could be invalid under BRI but not under the district court standard.