Atossa Therapeutics Inc. v. Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc.

This case, Atossa Therapeutics Inc. v. Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc., PGR2026-00015, involved a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, initiated by Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. against Atossa Therapeutics Inc. Atossa Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel therapeutics for oncology, particularly breast cancer, with its lead product candidate being (Z)-endoxifen, a potent Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator/Degrader (SERM/D) also being explored for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. is also an operating pharmaceutical company engaged in the research, development, and commercialization of therapeutic products for cancer and other medical conditions, and has been developing Endoxifen in collaboration with Intas Pharmaceuticals.

The dispute centered on intellectual property related to Endoxifen. While the case metadata and previous sections specify U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997 as the patent at issue, public patent databases do not show an issued patent with this number related to Endoxifen or owned by Atossa Therapeutics. This suggests a potential transcription error in the provided information. However, within the broader settlement that resolved this PGR, Atossa Therapeutics' patents, particularly U.S. Patent Nos. 11,261,151 and 12,071,391, titled "Methods for Making and Using Endoxifen," were explicitly mentioned as being part of the resolved disputes. These patents generally cover methods for preparing and using Endoxifen, a key active metabolite of tamoxifen that is under development for treating various conditions, including estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. In a PGR, there is no "accused product" in the traditional sense of infringement; instead, Jina Pharmaceuticals, as the Petitioner, challenged the validity of Atossa's patent to potentially clear the path for its own Endoxifen-related products or research.

The procedural posture of this case as a Post-Grant Review before the PTAB is significant because it provides an administrative alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. PGRs allow for a broad range of patentability challenges and typically offer a faster and more cost-effective resolution compared to traditional litigation. This case is notable for several reasons. It involves Endoxifen, a drug with substantial market potential for breast cancer and other indications, representing a multi-billion dollar market. The proceeding was ultimately concluded by a comprehensive settlement agreement that included not only Jina Pharmaceuticals but also Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., resolving multiple parallel PTAB challenges concerning Endoxifen-related intellectual property. This broader resolution highlights the strategic importance of Endoxifen in the pharmaceutical industry and the parties' efforts to secure their respective positions in its development and commercialization.

This Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding, PGR2026-00015, initiated by Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. against Atossa Therapeutics Inc., focused on the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997. The case was ultimately resolved through a comprehensive settlement agreement.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-12-10: Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed the petition for Post-Grant Review (PGR) against Atossa Therapeutics Inc., challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997.

Pre-Institution Proceedings & Related Filings:

• 2025-12-12: Counsel for Petitioner (Intas Pharmaceuticals, with Jina Pharmaceuticals as a real party-in-interest) requested permission from the PTAB to amend its mandatory notices to formally add Jina Pharmaceuticals as a real party-in-interest (RPI) in related proceedings (IPR2025-00799 and PGR2025-00043). Atossa Therapeutics requested a conference call with the Board for guidance on this request and its interrelationship with Atossa's own motion for discovery.
• 2025-12-19: A conference call was held between counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner and the PTAB judges to discuss adding Jina Pharmaceuticals as an RPI and whether this would moot Atossa's motions for additional discovery related to the RPI dispute.
• 2026-01-05: The PTAB issued an order in related proceedings (IPR2025-00799 and PGR2025-00043), addressing the request to add Jina Pharmaceuticals as an RPI and its impact on discovery motions.
• 2026-01-30: In a separate but related PGR (PGR2023-00043 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,572,334), the PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. Atossa Therapeutics chose not to appeal this decision, stating it would pursue new patent applications for its current formulations.

Institution Decision:

• 2026-04-22: The PTAB instituted the Post-Grant Review for PGR2026-00015.

Final Disposition – Settlement:

• 2026-04-13: Atossa Therapeutics Inc. entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement with Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. to resolve all Endoxifen-related patent disputes, including the pending PTAB challenges such as PGR2026-00015.
• 2026-04-16: Atossa Therapeutics publicly announced the settlement.
• 2026-05-11: The PTAB officially recorded the outcome of PGR2026-00015 as "Settlement".
  • The settlement agreement included mutual covenants not to challenge specified Endoxifen-related patents and applications, with limited exceptions. It preserved Atossa's ability to develop and commercialize Z-endoxifen base for oncology, endocrine dysfunction disorders, and muscular dystrophy-related diseases. Atossa expected its two issued U.S. Patents 11,261,151 and 12,071,391, titled "Methods for Making and Using Endoxifen," to remain issued and enforceable against other third parties.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• This PGR was one of several parallel PTAB challenges concerning Endoxifen-related intellectual property. Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. was identified as a real party-in-interest in other related PTAB proceedings, specifically IPR2025-00799 and PGR2025-00043, both involving Atossa Therapeutics' patents 11,261,151 and 12,071,391. The comprehensive settlement resolved these multiple challenges.
• The broader landscape of PTAB proceedings in 2025 and 2026 saw evolving policies, including the USPTO Director's increased control over institution decisions and consideration of U.S. manufacturing activity as a discretionary factor, aiming to make the PTAB a more patent owner-friendly forum.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Atossa Therapeutics Inc. v. Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. PGR2026-00015 PTAB counsel", "Atossa Therapeutics Inc. PTAB counsel Endoxifen", "Atossa Therapeutics Inc. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. PTAB counsel", "Attorneys for Atossa Therapeutics in PGR2026-00015", "Atossa Therapeutics patent litigation counsel", "Atossa Therapeutics Inc. Endoxifen patent counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) in the case Atossa Therapeutics Inc. v. Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc., PGR2026-00015.

However, the case is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) before the PTAB. In a PGR, the party initiating the review is the Petitioner, and the party whose patent is being challenged is the Patent Owner.

Looking at the "Key legal developments & outcome" section, it states:
"This Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding, PGR2026-00015, initiated by Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. against Atossa Therapeutics Inc., focused on the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997."

This indicates that Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. is the Petitioner (the party initiating the challenge, often analogous to a plaintiff in some contexts, but more accurately the challenger of the patent), and Atossa Therapeutics Inc. is the Patent Owner (the party defending the patent, often analogous to a defendant).

The user specifically asks for "counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s)". Based on the description, Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. would be the Petitioner or the party bringing the action. However, the previous section already covered "Defendant representatives" and stated that "While specific attorneys representing Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. in PGR2026-00015 are not explicitly named as "defendant's counsel" in the immediate search results for this particular PGR, related documents and general industry practices provide some insights."

There seems to be a slight mismatch in terminology. Given the context of the prompt asking for "plaintiff(s)" counsel, and the prior section covering "Defendant representatives" (which aligns with Jina Pharmaceuticals as the petitioner/challenger), it is more logical that the current request for "plaintiff(s)" counsel is actually seeking the counsel for Atossa Therapeutics Inc., the Patent Owner, who is defending its patent. This is because Atossa Therapeutics Inc. is listed as the first party in the caption, which is usually how plaintiffs are listed in district court cases, even though in a PTAB PGR, they are the "Patent Owner".

To avoid confusion and be precise, I should clarify this and then proceed to find counsel for Atossa Therapeutics Inc. (the Patent Owner).

Let's assume the user is asking for the counsel of Atossa Therapeutics Inc., as they are the party defending their patent and are listed first in the case caption, which can sometimes be mistakenly associated with "plaintiff".

My search queries should focus on identifying counsel for Atossa Therapeutics Inc. in PGR2026-00015 and related Endoxifen PTAB proceedings.In a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the party initiating the challenge is the Petitioner, and the party defending the patent is the Patent Owner. In this case, Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. initiated the PGR against Atossa Therapeutics Inc., making Jina the Petitioner and Atossa the Patent Owner.

While the prompt asks for "plaintiff(s)" counsel, given the case caption Atossa Therapeutics Inc. v. Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the context that Atossa Therapeutics Inc. is the Patent Owner defending its patent, we will identify the counsel representing Atossa Therapeutics Inc. (the Patent Owner) in PGR2026-00015. Information regarding Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Petitioner) was addressed in the "Defendant representatives" section, noting the difficulty in identifying specific counsel due to the settlement and PTAB docketing practices.

Based on publicly available information and general practices for PTAB proceedings that conclude in settlement, specific detailed appearances for counsel can sometimes be less prominent than in fully litigated cases. However, in related proceedings and general patent defense, Atossa Therapeutics Inc. has been represented by counsel from various firms.

The comprehensive settlement that resolved PGR2026-00015, along with other related Endoxifen-related patent disputes, involved active representation for Atossa Therapeutics Inc. While direct docket entries explicitly naming all individual attorneys for this specific PGR are not immediately available through general web searches for the settled case, firms frequently representing patent owners in pharmaceutical PTAB challenges and related litigation can be inferred.

For the purpose of this analysis, without specific counsel named directly on a public docket for PGR2026-00015, we will note that Atossa Therapeutics Inc., as the Patent Owner, would have been represented by counsel specializing in patent prosecution and post-grant review defense, likely from firms with significant experience in pharmaceutical intellectual property and PTAB proceedings. The nature of the settlement agreement, which preserved Atossa's rights to its Endoxifen patents, indicates robust legal representation during the proceedings and negotiation phase.

A direct search for "Atossa Therapeutics Inc. counsel PGR2026-00015" or "Atossa Therapeutics Inc. PTAB counsel Endoxifen" in public databases or legal news outlets like Law360 or Reuters Legal for this specific case does not yield immediate, explicitly named individual attorneys or firms for Atossa Therapeutics Inc. in PGR2026-00015. This is often the case for settled PTAB matters where the focus is on the outcome rather than the individual attorney appearances in public reports.

Therefore, without specific docket entries or detailed public announcements naming counsel for Atossa Therapeutics Inc. in this specific PGR (PGR2026-00015), it is not possible to provide a list of individual attorneys with their roles, firms, and experience notes as requested. The filings would likely be found on the PTAB's Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) docket, which is accessible to parties but not always fully indexed by general web search engines for specific attorney names.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Atossa Therapeutics Inc. PGR2026-00015 PTAB counsel", "Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. PTAB counsel Endoxifen", "Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. PTAB counsel Endoxifen", "Attorneys for Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. in PGR2026-00015", "Jina Pharmaceuticals patent litigation counsel", "Intas Pharmaceuticals patent litigation counsel", "Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Atossa Therapeutics Inc. PTAB docket", "PGR2026-00015 docket counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in PGR2026-00015.
Based on the case caption "Atossa Therapeutics Inc. v. Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc." and the "Key legal developments & outcome" section, Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. is the Petitioner (the party challenging the patent), and Atossa Therapeutics Inc. is the Patent Owner (the party defending the patent).

In PTAB proceedings, the party whose patent is being challenged (the Patent Owner) is analogous to a defendant in some contexts, as they are defending against a challenge. However, the previous "Plaintiff representatives" section addressed Atossa Therapeutics Inc.'s counsel, after clarifying the roles. This implies that the current request for "defendant(s)" counsel is actually seeking the counsel for Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Petitioner, who initiated the PGR.

The "Key legal developments & outcome" section already noted: "Counsel for Petitioner (Intas Pharmaceuticals, with Jina Pharmaceuticals as a real party-in-interest) requested permission from the PTAB to amend its mandatory notices to formally add Jina Pharmaceuticals as a real party-in-interest (RPI) in related proceedings (IPR2025-00799 and PGR2025-00043)." This indicates that Intas Pharmaceuticals was also involved and that Jina Pharmaceuticals was an RPI.

My task is to find the counsel for Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. (and potentially Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. as an RPI) in PGR2026-00015. I need to look for specific names, roles, firms, locations, and relevant experience.

Given the previous note that "While specific attorneys representing Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. in PGR2026-00015 are not explicitly named as "defendant's counsel" in the immediate search results for this particular PGR, related documents and general industry practices provide some insights," I will need to search again and see if more specific information has become available or if I can infer it from related filings.

The previous search indicated difficulty in finding specific counsel for Jina Pharmaceuticals directly from web searches for this specific PGR. It's likely that direct docket access (PRPS) would be needed for the most precise information. However, I should try with the provided search strategy again.In a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the party initiating the challenge is the Petitioner, and the party whose patent is being challenged is the Patent Owner. In this case, Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. initiated the PGR (PGR2026-00015) against Atossa Therapeutics Inc., making Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. the Petitioner. For the purpose of this request, Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. and its real party-in-interest, Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., are considered the "defendant(s)" in the sense that they are the party bringing the action against the patent owner.

Identifying the specific counsel of record for Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. (as the Petitioner) in PGR2026-00015 through general web searches is challenging, especially for cases that concluded in a settlement. PTAB dockets, while public, do not always yield individual attorney names through broad internet searches, and detailed attorney appearances are often best confirmed directly through the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) accessible to parties.

However, based on the legal developments, counsel representing the Petitioner (Intas Pharmaceuticals, with Jina Pharmaceuticals as a real party-in-interest) was actively involved in the proceedings. In related PTAB matters concerning Endoxifen and involving Intas Pharmaceuticals and Jina Pharmaceuticals as real parties-in-interest against Atossa Therapeutics, firms specializing in pharmaceutical patent litigation and PTAB proceedings would typically represent the challengers.

Without direct access to the specific docket entries for PGR2026-00015 that explicitly list the appearing attorneys, a definitive roster of counsel for Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. cannot be provided from publicly available web search results. The settlement agreement, which resolved this and parallel PTAB challenges, typically leads to a less public-facing detailed record of individual attorney appearances compared to cases that proceed to a final written decision or appeal.

Therefore, specific names, roles, firms, office locations, and detailed experience notes for counsel representing Jina Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in PGR2026-00015 are not explicitly available in the general public domain through web search, and cannot be fabricated. The comprehensive settlement agreement has likely superseded the need for public disclosure of individual attorney appearances for these now-resolved proceedings.