Litigation

CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. v. Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd

Pending - Instituted

PGR2025-00057

Filed
2025-06-20

Patents at issue (1)

12234236PTAB challenge active

Summary

This post-grant review (PGR) case, PGR2025-00057, was filed by CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. against Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd at the PTAB concerning US patent 12234236.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. has initiated a post-grant review (PGR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd, challenging the validity of US patent 12234236. CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. is a biopharmaceutical company based in Princeton, NJ, focused on preclinical and clinical research and development for oncology, cardiology, and central nervous system (CNS) diseases, operating as a subsidiary of China-based CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited. Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd, the patent owner, is a subsidiary of Ascletis Pharma Inc., a Hong Kong-listed biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Hangzhou, China, specializing in the discovery, development, and commercialization of small-molecule and peptide therapeutics for metabolic diseases, infectious diseases, and other specialty indications.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 12,234,236, is titled "GLP-1R agonist and therapeutic method thereof." This patent broadly describes compounds that act as agonists or modulators of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R), which are intended for the treatment and prevention of GLP-1R-mediated diseases and conditions, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. Specifically, the patent discloses novel small molecule GLP-1R agonists, some of which maintain the core structure of orforglipron—an orally bioavailable, non-peptidic small-molecule GLP-1R agonist under development by Eli Lilly & Co.—but with modifications designed to provide improved properties. CONJUPRO is challenging claims 1-9, 12-17, and 21-25 of this patent, arguing they are unpatentable as obvious over prior art.

This case, PGR2025-00057, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and has been instituted, meaning the PTAB has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. The choice of the PTAB as a venue for a post-grant review is significant in the pharmaceutical industry, as it allows for an administrative challenge to patent validity on a broader range of grounds than inter partes review, and often with a different evidentiary standard than district court litigation. The case is notable for its involvement in the highly competitive and rapidly evolving field of GLP-1R agonists, particularly the development of oral small-molecule therapies for metabolic diseases, an area seeing substantial investment and therapeutic advancements.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

PTAB Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent 12,234,236 Instituted

The Post-Grant Review (PGR) case, PGR2025-00057, initiated by CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. against Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd, concerns the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,236, titled "GLP-1R agonist and therapeutic method thereof." The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has instituted review of the challenged claims.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments:

PGR Filing & Institution:

  • 2025-06-20: CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. filed a petition for Post-Grant Review of claims 1-9, 12-17, and 21-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,236. The petition argued that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable as obvious over prior art, specifically discussing compounds that function as modulators of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor.
  • 2025-07-09: Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd., the Patent Owner, filed its Mandatory Notices, indicating consent to electronic service.
  • 2025-09-08: A Patent Owner Document Discovery Request was filed.
  • 2025-10-08: The Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response to the petition. In its response, Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd. argued that the petitioner's challenge was a "calculated maneuver" following an unsuccessful attempt to license the patent, noting the petitioner's own development of oral GLP-1 agonists.
  • 2025-11-20: A Director Discretionary Decision was made.
  • 2025-12-01: The PTAB issued a decision instituting the Post-Grant Review. This institution was among the first IPRs and PGRs under the tenure of Director Squires. The case is currently in the "Trial Instituted" status.

Discovery & Pre-Trial Motions:

  • 2026-01-29: The parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Modify Due Dates 1-3.
  • 2026-03-05: The Patent Owner filed a Response.
  • 2026-05-11: A Notice of Deposition of Dr. Michael C. Pirrung Ph.D. was filed.

There is no information available to indicate any parallel district court litigation specifically involving the infringement of U.S. Patent 12,234,236 that has been stayed or otherwise affected by this PGR. The current status of PGR2025-00057 is "Trial Instituted," and no final written decision or appeal has been rendered as of the current date.The user asked for legal developments and outcome for a patent infringement litigation. However, the provided case number PGR2025-00057 clearly indicates a Post-Grant Review (PGR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. Therefore, I will provide the key legal developments and current posture for this PTAB PGR case.

PTAB Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent 12,234,236 Instituted

The Post-Grant Review (PGR) case, PGR2025-00057, initiated by CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. against Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd, concerns the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,236, titled "GLP-1R agonist and therapeutic method thereof." The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has instituted review of the challenged claims. The patent owner is Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd, and the petitioner is CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments:

  • 2025-06-20: CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. filed a petition for Post-Grant Review of claims 1-9, 12-17, and 21-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,236. The petition argued that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable as being obvious over prior art. The challenged claims are directed to a class of compounds that function as modulators of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor.
  • 2025-07-09: Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd., the Patent Owner, filed its Mandatory Notices and consented to electronic service.
  • 2025-09-08: A Patent Owner Document Discovery Request was filed.
  • 2025-10-08: The Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response to the petition. Ascletis Pharma China Co Ltd. contended that the PGR was a "calculated maneuver" following an unsuccessful attempt by Conjupro Biotherapeutics to obtain a license for the patent, especially given Conjupro's active development of oral GLP-1 agonists.
  • 2025-11-20: A Director Discretionary Decision was made.
  • 2025-12-01: The PTAB issued a decision instituting the Post-Grant Review. This institution decision was among the first IPRs and PGRs issued under the tenure of Director Squires. The case's status became "Trial Instituted."
  • 2026-01-29: The parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Modify Due Dates 1-3.
  • 2026-03-05: The Patent Owner filed a Response.
  • 2026-05-11: A Notice of Deposition of Dr. Michael C. Pirrung Ph.D. was filed. Dr. Pirrung is mentioned in the initial petition as having provided a declaration in support of the unpatentability arguments.

Current Posture: The PGR case PGR2025-00057 is currently active and in the trial phase following the institution decision. No final written decision regarding the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,236 has been issued yet. There is no information available in the search results about parallel district court patent infringement litigation specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 12,234,236.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. is represented by attorneys from Fox Rothschild LLP in this PGR proceeding.

Here is the identified counsel of record for CONJUPRO BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.:

  • Jin Zhu, Ph.D. (Lead Counsel)
    • Firm: Fox Rothschild LLP, Princeton, NJ office.
    • Note: Dr. Zhu holds a Ph.D. and is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 62,869), indicating a focus on patent law, likely in the chemical or biotechnological fields.
  • Joe G. Chen, Ph.D. (Counsel)
    • Firm: Fox Rothschild LLP, Princeton, NJ office.
    • Note: Dr. Chen also holds a Ph.D. and is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 70,066), suggesting expertise in technical areas relevant to patent prosecution and litigation, such as biotechnology or pharmaceuticals.
  • Luke Toft (Counsel)
    • Firm: Fox Rothschild LLP, Minneapolis, MN office.
    • Note: Mr. Toft is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 75,311).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll search for docket and counsel information for this PGR.

Key clue: the Patent Owner's exhibit list was signed by Cooley LLP. Let me confirm counsel of record via mandatory notices and PHV orders.

Now let me confirm the full counsel roster, including later-added backup counsel and PHV admissions.

Counsel of Record — Defendant-Side Party (Patent Owner Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.)

Framing note / correction: This is a PTAB post-grant review, not a district-court infringement suit, so there is no PACER docket and no "defendant" in the Rule 12 sense. The party answering the challenge — the one your prior sections and the case metadata label "Defendant" — is the Patent Owner, Ascletis Pharma China Co., Ltd. (more precisely Ascletis Pharma (China) Co., Limited, a subsidiary of HKEX-listed Ascletis Pharma Inc., 1672.HK). All counsel below are identified from PTAB papers filed in PGR2025-00057 (Patent Owner's Mandatory Notice, Updated Mandatory Notices, Power of Attorney, PHV papers), not from PACER.

Roster

Attorney Role Firm / Office Admission Note
W. Chad Shear Lead counsel Cooley LLP — notice address: 1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004 (phone 858 area code; he is San Diego–based) USPTO Reg. No. 47,938 Life-sciences patent trial lawyer; lead counsel for Gilead in Atea Pharms. v. Gilead Sciences (PTAB PGR denied institution) and for Moderna in Alnylam v. Moderna (D. Del.); Fed. Cir. clerk (Judge Haldane Robert Mayer, 2001–03)
Geoffrey D. Biegler Back-up counsel (initially designated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)(2) on 2025-07-18; deemed admitted pro hac vice per Updated Mandatory Notices of 2025-10-09) Cooley LLP (San Diego; notice address Washington, DC) Admitted pro hac vice; not a registered practitioner per the notice Lead counsel for NeuroDerm/Mitsubishi Tanabe in NeuroDerm v. AbbVie (PGR2022-00040) — all challenged claims held unpatentable; co-lead for Gilead in the Atea PGR
Isha Agarwal Back-up counsel (designated a provisionally recognized PTAB attorney under § 42.10(c)(2) by notice filed 2026-01-26; supporting declaration at Ex. 2029) Cooley LLP (iagarwal@cooley.com; office not stated in the papers I retrieved) Registered practitioner (designation route implies admission) Cooley PTAB/IP litigation associate; also appears on Cooley's PTAB team papers in other 2025-filed proceedings
Tae Yeon ("Zoe") Kim Back-up counsel — pro hac vice (Patent Owner's motion; Board issued an Order conditionally granting PHV on 2026-02-10) Firm not stated in the docket entry I retrieved; almost certainly Cooley LLP, but I could not confirm from a primary source — treat as unverified Pro hac vice (conditional) Her PHV declaration/exhibits would supply her firm and experience; not retrieved here

Key record citations

Gaps and things I could not verify

  1. No local counsel / no district-court counsel identified. Searches surfaced no parallel district-court case asserting U.S. 12,234,236, so there is no "local counsel" role to report. (The district-court hits in search results — Ipsen v. Conjuro/CSPC, D.N.J. Nos. 24-4991 and 24-8723 — involve Conjupro as a defendant on unrelated irinotecan-liposome patents and are not related to this PGR.)
  2. In-house counsel. Ascletis's in-house legal team does not appear in the PTAB papers I retrieved; the § 42.8 notices list only Cooley. If Ascletis added in-house backup counsel in the 2026-02-24 Updated Mandatory Notice, I could not open that document to confirm — the "Patent Owner Power of Attorney" and "Updated Mandatory Notice" entries of 2026-02-24 are the most likely place additional names would appear.
  3. Isha Agarwal's office location and Zoe Kim's firm are not stated in the docket text available to me; I have not guessed.
  4. Sign-off practice: The Oct. 9, 2025 notice is signed "/Geoffrey D. Biegler/" with W. Chad Shear's registration number, and the July 18, 2025 filings were signed on behalf of Cooley LLP — consistent with Cooley, not Fox Rothschild (Fox Rothschild is Petitioner Conjupro's counsel, per the § 42.10(b) Power of Attorney signed June 17, 2025), so there is no overlap of firms between the two sides.

Flagged inconsistencies with the previously generated sections

  • Your prior sections describe the case as "instituted" and stop at 2026-05-11 (Pirrung deposition notice). The docket is materially further along: Patent Owner's Response (2026-03-05, Paper 26), Petitioner's Reply (2026-05-28, Paper 34), Patent Owner's Sur-Reply (2026-07-09, Papers 39–40), motions to exclude (2026-08-10/24), oral hearing requests (2026-07-16/20) and an oral hearing held 2026-08-31, plus a Panel Change Order (2026-07-29, Paper 45) and filings through 2026-09-15. Those sections should be treated as stale.
  • Note also a date discrepancy worth reconciling: Ascletis's HKEX voluntary announcement (June 30, 2025) states the Petition was filed June 24, 2025, whereas the PTAB filing date in the metadata and PTAB records is June 20, 2025; the Power of Attorney is dated June 17, 2025. The PTAB filing date should control.