Untitled case

This Post-Grant Review (PGR) case, PGR2026-00036, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and was filed on April 2, 2026. The patent owner is Inforlife SA, a pharmaceutical company based in Switzerland that develops, registers, and produces ready-to-use medicines, often in plastic packaging, for markets including the USA. Inforlife SA operates as a subsidiary of the Italian chemical-pharmaceutical company, ACS Dobfar. While the specific petitioner for PGR2026-00036 is not publicly identified in the available search information, petitioners in PGRs are typically third parties seeking to challenge the validity of an issued patent.

The patent at issue is US patent 12370153. A detailed one-line technical sketch of this patent is not readily available in the provided search results; however, given Inforlife SA's business, the patent likely pertains to pharmaceutical substances, formulations, or related manufacturing processes. The PGR proceeding at the PTAB challenges the patentability of the claims within US patent 12370153 based on various grounds of invalidity under U.S. patent law, excluding the "best mode" requirement.

This case is situated within the PTAB, an administrative tribunal of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which offers a streamlined, generally faster, and less costly alternative to federal court litigation for patent validity challenges. A key aspect of PTAB proceedings, particularly PGRs, is the lower burden of proof for invalidity ("more likely than not") and the adoption of the "broadest reasonable interpretation" for claim terms, which can be advantageous to petitioners. PGRs must be filed within nine months of a patent's issuance, making this a timely challenge to the patentability of US 12370153. While the specific impact of this particular PGR remains to be seen without knowledge of the petitioner or detailed patent claims, challenges to pharmaceutical patents can be notable given their potential to influence market entry for generic drugs and competitive landscapes within the industry.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["PGR2026-00036 docket", "PGR2026-00036 outcome", "PTAB 12370153 PGR timeline", "Inforlife SA patent litigation", "Par Health, Inc. patent litigation", "US Patent 12370153 PTAB", "PGR2026-00036 institution decision date", "PGR2026-00036 final written decision date"]))
thought
The user is asking for key legal developments and outcomes for the PGR case PGR2026-00036. I need to cover filing, pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery, trial events, settlement/dismissal/judgment/appeal, and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Based on the provided information:

• The case is a PGR, not a district court patent infringement litigation. This means the typical "filing & initial pleadings (complaint, answer, counterclaims)" and "trial events, verdict" structure of district court litigation won't directly apply. Instead, I'll focus on the PGR specific milestones: petition filing, patent owner preliminary response, institution decision, discovery (limited in PGRs), oral hearing, and final written decision.
• The case was filed on 2026-04-02.
• The status is "Pending". This means there won't be a final outcome yet.
• The PTAB will make an institution decision within six months of filing (around October 2, 2026) and a final written decision within one year of institution.

Therefore, the key developments I can realistically find or infer given the current date (2026-05-30) are:

1. Filing of the Petition: This already happened on 2026-04-02.
2. Patent Owner Preliminary Response: Inforlife SA would typically have three months from the filing of the petition to file this (around July 2, 2026).
3. Institution Decision: This would be due by 2026-10-02. Since the current date is 2026-05-30, this decision has not yet occurred.
4. No trial events, verdict, or claim construction (Markman) in a PGR. These are district court specific.
5. Limited discovery: Discovery in PGRs is limited compared to district court.
6. No final disposition yet as the case is pending and the institution decision is still months away.
7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings: The prompt is about a PGR, so I need to check for other IPR/PGRs on the same patent.

I will use web search to look for:

• Specific docket events for PGR2026-00036 (though it's very early in the process).
• Any news or articles about this specific PGR.
• Information on the standard PTAB PGR timeline to infer next steps if specific docket entries aren't found.

Given the very recent filing date, it's highly unlikely there will be any "key legal developments" beyond the petition filing and perhaps the Patent Owner's preliminary response being due. The institution decision is still months away.

Let's refine the plan:

1. Confirm the filing date (already given).
2. Identify the deadline for the Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
3. State the expected timeline for the institution decision.
4. Acknowledge that no further substantive developments like claim construction, discovery milestones, trial, or final outcomes would have occurred yet given the pending status and early stage of a PGR.
5. Check for any other parallel PTAB proceedings for US 12370153 (though the prompt explicitly mentions this PGR, it's good to ensure no other IPRs/PGRs exist on the same patent).Given that PGR2026-00036 was filed on April 2, 2026, and the current date is May 30, 2026, the case is in its very early stages before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Therefore, most of the typical legal developments seen in full patent infringement litigation, such as extensive pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery milestones, trial, or final judgment, have not yet occurred and will not directly apply to this Post-Grant Review proceeding.

Here's a chronological overview of the key developments and the current posture:

• Filing of Petition (2026-04-02): Par Health, Inc. filed a petition for Post-Grant Review against U.S. Patent No. 12,370,153, owned by Inforlife SA. This marks the initiation of the PGR proceeding.
• Patent Owner Preliminary Response Due (estimated 2026-07-02): Inforlife SA, as the patent owner, typically has three months from the filing date of the petition to submit an optional preliminary response. This response allows the patent owner to argue against the institution of the PGR.
• Institution Decision (estimated by 2026-10-02): The PTAB is statutorily required to decide whether to institute the Post-Grant Review within six months of the petition's filing date. As of the current date, this decision is still pending.
• Current Posture: The case PGR2026-00036 is currently pending before the PTAB, awaiting the patent owner's preliminary response and subsequently, the Board's decision on whether to institute the review. There have been no further substantive legal developments, such as claim construction, discovery, trial, or a final written decision, given the early stage of the proceeding.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:
There is no indication of other parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 12,370,153 found in the available information. This specific PGR2026-00036 is the identified challenge to the patent before the PTAB.The Post-Grant Review (PGR) case PGR2026-00036, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12370153, is in its early stages before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). As of May 30, 2026, the case is pending an institution decision, and many of the typical legal developments found in district court patent infringement litigation have not yet occurred or are not applicable to a PGR proceeding.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• PGR Petition Filing (2026-04-02): Par Health, Inc. filed the petition for Post-Grant Review against U.S. Patent No. 12370153, owned by Inforlife SA. This action initiated the PGR proceeding before the PTAB.
• Notice of Filing Date Accorded (2026-04-02): On the same day the petition was filed, the PTAB issued a "Notice filing date accorded" for PGR2026-00036. This notice is typically issued within 14 days of a petition's filing and marks the formal start of the timeline for the patent owner's response.
• Patent Owner Preliminary Response Due (estimated 2026-07-02): Inforlife SA, as the patent owner, has three months from the date of the "Notice of Filing Date Accorded" to file an optional preliminary response to the petition. This response allows the patent owner to argue against the institution of the PGR.
• Institution Decision (estimated by 2026-10-02): The PTAB is statutorily mandated to issue a decision on whether to institute the Post-Grant Review within six months of the petition's filing date. Given the filing date of April 2, 2026, the institution decision for PGR2026-00036 is expected by early October 2026. As of the current date, this decision is still pending.

Current Posture:
The case is currently in the pre-institution phase. No substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction (Markman) rulings, or discovery milestones typical of district court litigation would have occurred at this stage in a PTAB PGR. Likewise, there have been no trial events, verdicts, or final dispositions such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment, as the case is actively pending before the PTAB.

Parallel Proceedings:
While Inforlife SA has been involved in other patent litigation in district courts concerning different patents (e.g., a Hatch-Waxman case against Sagent Pharmaceuticals related to U.S. Patent No. 10,888,534 in the District of Delaware, case 1:25-cv-00387), and a case against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, there is no public information indicating any other parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 12370153 beyond the current PGR2026-00036. The petitioner, Par Health, Inc., has also been involved in other patent litigations and settlements, primarily in the pharmaceutical sector, but these do not relate to U.S. Patent No. 12370153.

Recent PTAB policy developments, such as the Director's memorandum on March 11, 2026, establishing new discretionary factors for institution decisions, including domestic manufacturing presence and small business status, could potentially become relevant if the patent owner argues for discretionary denial. Additionally, PTAB decisions in early 2026 have emphasized that PGR petitions generally hold a favored position in the discretionary denial calculus, particularly as they are filed close in time to patent issuance.

As of May 30, 2026, the specific counsel of record for petitioner Par Health, Inc. in PGR2026-00036 has not been explicitly identified through public docket searches. PTAB dockets, especially in the early stages, typically do not immediately list all counsel in a format easily searchable by general web queries.

However, based on the background of Par Health, Inc. (formed from the merger of Mallinckrodt and Endo) and the nature of the patent in question (pharmaceutical formulations), it is possible to identify firms known for representing generic pharmaceutical companies in high-stakes patent litigation, particularly in Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the PTAB.

Firms with strong reputations in this area that have represented similar clients include:

• Sterne Kessler is noted for its extensive experience in pharmaceutical patent litigation, including Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) and Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) matters, and has represented Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals in past patent suits. They are among the most active firms at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP has a significant patent litigation practice, with over 80% of their IP cases involving patents. They have a deep bench of life sciences attorneys who have litigated over 300 ANDA cases and other pharmaceutical licensing disputes. Quinn Emanuel has also secured victories for innovator pharmaceutical companies in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation.
• Paul Hastings LLP is recognized for its patent litigation practice in the pharma and tech industries, with experience in over 200 post-grant review and IPR proceedings. They have represented major corporations, universities, and individual inventors in litigation spanning pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and biotechnology.
• Ballard Spahr handles complex infringement matters for innovators in life sciences, including post-grant review proceedings before the PTAB, and has experience with patent infringement and related antitrust and Hatch-Waxman claims.
• Cozen O'Connor represents diverse clients in complex patent matters, including federal district court litigation and PTAB proceedings, across industries such as pharmaceuticals, life sciences, and medical devices. Many of their IP litigators have advanced degrees in chemistry, biology, immunology, and biophysics.

Without access to the specific docket for PGR2026-00036, it is not possible to definitively name the counsel of record at this time. Filings for PTAB cases are made publicly available through the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system, which would contain the appearances of counsel.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["PGR2026-00036 PTAB docket Inforlife SA counsel", "Inforlife SA patent litigation counsel", "Inforlife SA US patent attorneys", "PGR2026-00036 Patent Owner Preliminary Response date", "PGR2026-00036 PTAB counsel of record"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant (Patent Owner, Inforlife SA) in PGR2026-00036. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for these attorneys.

Given the case's early stage (filed April 2, 2026, and current date May 30, 2026), it's possible that the Patent Owner has not yet filed their preliminary response, and thus their counsel might not be officially on the docket or easily discoverable through general web searches.

I will start by searching for the PTAB docket for PGR2026-00036 to see if any counsel for Inforlife SA has appeared. If not, I will try to search for Inforlife SA's typical patent litigation counsel or any firms they have used in the past for US patent matters. I will also keep in mind the deadline for the Patent Owner Preliminary Response (around July 2, 2026), as counsel would definitely be on record by then.As of May 30, 2026, the Post-Grant Review (PGR) case PGR2026-00036 is in its very early stages before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Patent Owner, Inforlife SA, has until approximately July 2, 2026, to file a preliminary response, if they choose to do so. Consequently, the counsel of record for Inforlife SA in this specific PGR proceeding has not yet formally appeared on the PTAB docket.

However, Inforlife SA (also referred to as InfoRLife SA) has been involved in other patent litigation, which can provide an indication of the attorneys and firms that may represent them in PGR2026-00036. In the district court case InfoRLife SA v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, case number 1:25-cv-00387, filed on March 28, 2025, in the District of Delaware, InfoRLife SA was represented by:

• Steven Lieberman

  • Firm: Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. (Based on Michael P. Ellenberger, who also appeared for InfoRLife SA in the same case, being from this firm).
  • Note: Lieberman is listed as counsel for InfoRLife SA in a patent infringement case in the District of Delaware.

• Gary J. Prato, II

  • Firm: Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. (Inferred, as he is listed alongside Steven Lieberman, and Michael P. Ellenberger from this firm also appeared for InfoRLife SA).
  • Note: Prato is listed as counsel for InfoRLife SA in a patent infringement case in the District of Delaware.

• Michael P. Ellenberger

  • Firm: Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C. (Based on firm's main office).
  • Note: Ellenberger filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance on behalf of InfoRLife SA in the District of Delaware case.

• Cameron Paul Clark

  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware (Based on firm's primary office and role as local counsel in D. Del. cases).
  • Note: Clark is listed as counsel for InfoRLife SA in a patent infringement case in the District of Delaware.

• Megan Elizabeth Dellinger

  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note: Dellinger is listed as counsel for InfoRLife SA in a patent infringement case in the District of Delaware.

• Jennifer P. Nock

  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but associated with the Delaware case).
  • Note: Nock is listed as counsel for InfoRLife SA in a patent infringement case in the District of Delaware.

It is highly probable that Inforlife SA will retain counsel with experience in pharmaceutical patent litigation, potentially including some of the attorneys listed above, to represent them in the PGR proceeding once they choose to file a response. However, at this juncture, no official appearance has been made on the PGR2026-00036 docket for the Patent Owner.