REGENXBIO And Sarepta Agree To Stay Litigation Pending Outcome Of Sarepta's IPR Petition

GP
Goodwin Procter LLP

Contributor

At Goodwin, we partner with our clients to practice law with integrity, ingenuity, agility, and ambition. Our 1,600 lawyers across the United States, Europe, and Asia excel at complex transactions, high-stakes litigation and world-class advisory services in the technology, life sciences, real estate, private equity, and financial industries. Our unique combination of deep experience serving both the innovators and investors in a rapidly changing, technology-driven economy sets us apart.
As we previously reported, REGENXBIO Inc. and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania filed suit in Delaware in June 2023 against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Sarepta Therapeutics Three...
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

As we previously reported, REGENXBIO Inc. and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania filed suit in Delaware in June 2023 against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC, and Catalent, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,680,274 by Sarepta's gene therapy product, ELEVIDYS (delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl). On September 19, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order setting trial for November 17, 2025. On February 21, 2024, Sarepta filed a petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) seeking inter partes  review of claims 1, 3-6, and 8 of the ‘274 patent. In view of Sarepta's IPR petition, the parties filed on March 19, 2024 a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay the District Court litigation. In the Joint Stipulation, the parties indicate that “the PTAB will render an institution decision on the IPR no later than August 28, 2024, and, if instituted, is expected to issue a final written decision and terminate the IPR no later than August 28, 2025.” Because the litigation is in the early stages and “may be substantially impacted if any or all of the Asserted Claims are invalidated in the IPR Proceeding,” the parties “have agreed to stay the Litigation pending final resolution of the IPR Proceeding.” On March 20, the Court issued the proposed order and administratively closed the case.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

REGENXBIO And Sarepta Agree To Stay Litigation Pending Outcome Of Sarepta's IPR Petition

United States Intellectual Property

Contributor

At Goodwin, we partner with our clients to practice law with integrity, ingenuity, agility, and ambition. Our 1,600 lawyers across the United States, Europe, and Asia excel at complex transactions, high-stakes litigation and world-class advisory services in the technology, life sciences, real estate, private equity, and financial industries. Our unique combination of deep experience serving both the innovators and investors in a rapidly changing, technology-driven economy sets us apart.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More