百济神州 艾伯维

BeiGene USA, Inc. and BeiGene, Ltd. (collectively, “Petitioner”)
filed a Petition requesting a post-grant review of claims 1–8, 12, and 20 of
U.S. Patent No. 11,672,803 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’803 Patent”). Paper 2
(“Pet.”). Pharmacyclics LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner
filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim.
Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 8, “Prelim. Sur-Reply”).
We have authorityunder 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a
post-grant review may not be instituted “unless. . . the information
presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims
challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments
and evidence presentedby the parties, we determine Petitioner has shown
that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the
Petition is unpatentable.#Seeking# #biotech#