Curium US LLC v. Universität Heidelberg

Curium US LLC has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Universität Heidelberg concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,980,901 (the '901 patent). Plaintiff Curium US LLC is a prominent global developer and manufacturer of nuclear medicine solutions, providing radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic imaging (SPECT, PET) and therapeutic applications, primarily in oncology. On the other side, Defendant Universität Heidelberg is a public research university in Germany, recognized for its strong research programs, including in the life sciences and medicine, making it a likely patent holder for medical innovations.

The '901 patent, titled "Treatment of PSMA expressing cancers," broadly covers methods for treating Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) expressing cancers, such as prostate cancer, using specific dosages of one or more Actinium-225 (Ac-225)-radiopharmaceuticals. While an IPR itself does not directly involve an "accused product," this validity challenge by Curium US LLC is strategically significant given Curium's extensive portfolio and activities in the radiopharmaceutical market, particularly in developing and manufacturing agents for cancer treatment. The filing of this IPR suggests that Curium may be challenging the patent to clear the path for its own products or to defend against potential infringement allegations related to its radiopharmaceutical offerings.

This case is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number IPR2025-01582, having been filed on September 25, 2025. The procedural posture indicates that the PTAB will review Curium's petition to determine if there is a reasonable likelihood that the claims of the '901 patent are unpatentable, leading to a decision on institution. The IPR is particularly notable due to its linkage with parallel district court litigation: Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. et al v. Curium US LLC et al, Case No. 24-1161 in the District of Delaware. This underlying litigation likely involves allegations of patent infringement against Curium, making the outcome of this IPR a crucial determinant of the validity of the '901 patent and potentially impacting the competitive landscape for advanced radiopharmaceutical cancer treatments.

This report outlines the key legal developments and current posture of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01582, filed by Curium US LLC against Universität Heidelberg, concerning U.S. Patent 10,980,901. It also details relevant parallel district court litigation involving Curium US LLC.

IPR2025-01582: Curium US LLC v. Universität Heidelberg

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-09-25: Curium US LLC filed an Inter Partes Review petition, IPR2025-01582, challenging claims 1, 2, and 4-13 of U.S. Patent 10,980,901, titled "Treatment of PSMA Expressing Cancers." The original petition identified only Curium US LLC as the real party-in-interest.
• 2025-10-03: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Notice of Filing Date Accorded.
• Patent Owner: Universität Heidelberg and The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), represented by The European Commission, are the Patent Owners.
• Discretionary Denial Request & RPI Issue: The Patent Owners subsequently filed a request for discretionary denial, arguing that Curium's parent companies, Curium US Holdings LLC and France-based Curium Pharma (Curium Netherlands BV), should have been listed as real parties-in-interest (RPIs) due to their ownership, control, and interest in the patented technology.
• 2026-01-05: Curium US LLC submitted an updated mandatory notice identifying Curium US Holdings LLC and Curium Netherlands BV as RPIs "to moot this issue," without admitting they were RPIs.
• New Filing Date: The PTAB accepted the updated RPI disclosure and assigned the petition a new filing date of January 5, 2026. This re-determined filing date did not trigger any statutory time-bars under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), allowing the IPR to proceed. All future deadlines for the IPR were to be calculated from this new date.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance (Institution Decision):

• 2026-02-25: Director John A. Squires issued a decision regarding the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.
• 2026-04-21: The Director issued a "Director Discretionary Decision: Refer" in IPR2025-01582. This decision means that the petition was not discretionarily denied at this stage and has been referred to a three-member PTAB panel for a decision on the merits and other statutory considerations regarding institution. This action falls under the new interim process where the Director personally determines whether to institute trial proceedings.

Claim Construction & Discovery Milestones:

• As of May 27, 2026, the IPR is still in the pre-institution phase following the Director's referral. Therefore, formal claim construction by a PTAB panel (which would occur if the IPR is instituted) and specific discovery milestones are pending the institution decision.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• No trial or verdict has occurred in the IPR, as it is still pending a decision on institution.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The IPR is currently pending a decision on institution of trial.

Parallel District Court Litigation

Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. et al. v. Curium US LLC et al., C.A. No. 24-1161 (MN) (D. Del.)

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-10-17: Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. and Advanced Accelerator Applications SA ("Plaintiffs") filed an initial complaint in the District of Delaware, alleging that a new drug application filed by Curium US LLC, Curium US Holdings LLC, Curium Netherlands BV, and Curium International Trading BV ("the Curium Defendants") infringed several of Plaintiffs' patents. This case began as a patent infringement action under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
• 2024-12-13: Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, adding trade secret-related claims for alleged violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act against the Curium Defendants, and against Maarten de Jong, a former employee of Curium Netherlands BV.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-04-09: Defendant Maarten de Jong moved to dismiss the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Curium Defendants also filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction in the case.
• 2026-02-17: The District Court denied both Defendant Maarten de Jong's motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' motion to sever and transfer the trade secret-related claims.

Trial Events:

• 2025-12-15 to 2025-12-19: A bench trial was held on the patent infringement claims.

Post-trial Motions:

• Following the bench trial, the District Court granted the parties' joint stipulation to sever the patent infringement claims from the trade secret-related claims. Trial has not yet been held on the trade secret-related claims.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• The patent infringement claims have been tried, and the trade secret-related claims are awaiting further proceedings.

Effect of Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings on the Litigation:

• The IPR (IPR2025-01582) challenges U.S. Patent 10,980,901, which is owned by Universität Heidelberg and The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).
• The district court litigation (C.A. No. 24-1161) involves Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. asserting its patents against Curium US LLC.
• Based on the available information, U.S. Patent 10,980,901 (the patent challenged in the IPR) is not one of the patents asserted by Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. against Curium US LLC in the district court litigation. Therefore, the IPR is not directly "on the asserted patents" of the litigation, meaning it does not directly challenge the validity of the patents being litigated in the district court.
• While Curium US LLC is a party in both proceedings, the IPR is a separate action challenging a patent owned by a different entity (Universität Heidelberg) that does not appear to be a plaintiff in the district court case. Consequently, the effect of IPR2025-01582 on the specific patent infringement claims tried in C.A. No. 24-1161 is indirect, if any, and relates more to Curium's broader strategic actions in the radiopharmaceutical market.

Despite extensive searches of publicly available information, including docket summaries and legal news articles pertaining to IPR2025-01582, the specific counsel of record representing Curium US LLC in this Inter Partes Review proceeding has not been explicitly identified.

While several documents related to the case, such as the Petition (Paper 2) and a Director Discretionary Decision (Paper 11), are mentioned in the search results, the names of the attorneys and their associated law firms representing Curium US LLC as the Petitioner were not directly extracted or listed in the provided snippets. The available information primarily focuses on the procedural aspects of the IPR, particularly regarding real party-in-interest disclosures.

It is worth noting that the counsel of record for the Patent Owner, Universität Heidelberg, has been identified as Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, with Richard M. Bemben serving as a lead attorney. However, this pertains to the opposing party. While Curium US LLC has been involved in other patent litigation, such as a district court case in Delaware (Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. et al v. Curium US LLC et al, D. Del. 2025, Case No. 1:2025cv01156), the attorneys listed for Curium in that separate proceeding (e.g., Kelly E. Farnan and Sara M. Metzler of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.) cannot be confirmed as representing them in this specific IPR.

Therefore, based on the current search results, the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s), Curium US LLC, in IPR2025-01582 cannot be identified with the requested details.

The counsel of record representing Universität Heidelberg in IPR2025-01582 is not readily identifiable through publicly accessible web search results, including general PTAB databases or legal news platforms. While the case is acknowledged as a pending Inter Partes Review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, specific docket entries listing the appearing attorneys for Universität Heidelberg are not available via the conducted searches.

Information regarding counsel for PTAB proceedings is typically found within the official Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) or through specialized legal databases that aggregate such docket information. However, direct access to these systems or detailed, publicly available summaries that name the specific attorneys for this particular IPR are not provided in the search results. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed who is representing Universität Heidelberg in this matter at this time.