Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01268, filed by Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865. Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH is a global healthcare company that provides medicines, medical devices, and clinical nutrition, with a strategic focus on biosimilar development. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American biotechnology company renowned for discovering, developing, and commercializing life-transforming medicines, particularly for eye diseases, cancer, and inflammatory conditions. Although Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim is not currently a direct defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Regeneron concerning aflibercept, it has entered into a licensing agreement for a biosimilar version of Regeneron's Eylea® (aflibercept), which is the implied accused product or technology at the heart of this challenge.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865, titled "VEGF antagonist formulations suitable for intravitreal administration," broadly covers ophthalmic formulations of a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-specific fusion protein antagonist, specifically designed for injection into the eye. The claims often focus on stable liquid formulations, detailing specific concentrations of the VEGF antagonist (such as 40 mg/ml), along with various excipients like buffers, organic co-solvents (e.g., polysorbate), and stabilizing agents. This patent is central to Regeneron's intellectual property protecting its blockbuster drug Eylea® (aflibercept), used to treat various angiogenic eye disorders.

The procedural posture for IPR2025-01268 is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The petition was "Not Instituted" on procedural grounds, specifically through a discretionary denial by the PTAB. This denial is notable and stems from the PTAB's application of discretionary factors, often referred to as Fintiv factors, which consider the existence and advanced stage of parallel district court litigation involving the same patent. The '865 patent has been the subject of multiple Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigations against other biosimilar manufacturers, including Mylan, Samsung Bioepis, Celltrion, Formycon, and Amgen. The PTAB previously denied institution for IPRs challenging the '865 patent filed by Samsung Bioepis, Formycon, and Celltrion for similar discretionary reasons, highlighting the PTAB's inclination to defer to ongoing district court proceedings when significant investment has already been made in those parallel litigations. This IPR's denial underscores the strategic interplay between IPR challenges and BPCIA litigation in the biosimilar space, particularly concerning high-value biologics like aflibercept.

Regeneron's Aflibercept Patent 11,084,865 Sees IPR Denial and Subsequent Settlement with Fresenius Kabi

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH's attempt to challenge Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through IPR2025-01268 was denied institution on procedural grounds on November 20, 2025. This denial, and the subsequent settlement between the parties in February 2026, constitute the key legal developments directly involving Fresenius Kabi and this specific patent.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings and District Court Litigation Landscape

U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865, directed to ophthalmic formulations of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antagonist aflibercept (marketed by Regeneron as Eylea®), has been a central focus of extensive Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigation and numerous IPR challenges by various biosimilar manufacturers.

Prior to Fresenius Kabi's petition, the '865 patent was challenged in IPRs by Samsung Bioepis (IPR2025-00176), Formycon (IPR2025-00233), and Celltrion (IPR2025-00456). All three of these petitions were discretionarily denied institution by the Acting PTO Director in June 2025, primarily due to ongoing BPCIA litigation between Regeneron and those parties.

Regeneron had initiated BPCIA litigation against multiple biosimilar applicants, including Amgen, Samsung Bioepis, Formycon, Celltrion, Sandoz, and Mylan/Biocon, with many of these cases consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 1:24-md-3103) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

In the litigation involving Amgen, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied Regeneron's motion for a preliminary injunction against Amgen's biosimilar, Pavblu®, concerning the '865 patent. This decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on March 14, 2025. A key aspect of this appeal involved claim construction, with the Federal Circuit affirming the district court's interpretation that the claims of the '865 patent require the VEGF antagonist (aflibercept) and the buffer to be separate components. This claim construction was crucial for Amgen's "self-buffering" formulation, which does not contain a separate buffer component.

In contrast, preliminary injunctions were granted against Samsung Bioepis and Formycon, and later Celltrion, preventing the launch of their biosimilars, with these injunctions upheld on appeal by the Federal Circuit in January and March 2025. Regeneron also reached settlements with Biocon (April 2025), Sandoz, Formycon, Celltrion (October 2025), and Alvotech/Teva (December 2025), outlining agreed-upon launch dates for their respective aflibercept biosimilars in 2026.

Fresenius Kabi's IPR and Subsequent Settlement

Filing of IPR (2025-07-14): Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH filed IPR2025-01268 on July 14, 2025, challenging claims 1-5, 7-30, and 32-50 of U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865. At the time of filing, Fresenius was noted as not being a party to any BPCIA litigation brought by Regeneron concerning aflibercept, unlike other petitioners whose IPRs were discretionarily denied. Fresenius's petition primarily argued invalidity based on anticipation by the "Dix '226" prior art reference, which had not been a primary basis in previous IPRs against the '865 patent.

PTAB Institution Decision (2025-11-20): The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01268 on November 20, 2025, on "Discretionary Denial" grounds. While the exact details of the procedural denial for this specific IPR are not explicitly detailed in the search results beyond its "discretionary denial" status, it aligns with a period where the USPTO Director implemented new policies and reviewed discretionary denial factors for IPR and PGR proceedings. These policies often consider factors such as the existence of parallel district court litigation, timing, and whether a petitioner is also a party to such litigation. Despite Fresenius not having a direct BPCIA lawsuit from Regeneron at the time of the IPR filing, the PTAB's discretionary denial likely stemmed from the broader context of ongoing, extensive litigation surrounding the '865 patent and the Director's efforts to manage the PTAB's resources and avoid duplicative efforts.

Settlement (2026-02-24): On February 24, 2026, Fresenius Kabi and its partner Sam Chun Dang (SCD) announced a settlement with Regeneron regarding their aflibercept biosimilar, SCD411 (Vygenfree™). The terms of the confidential settlement permit SCD/Fresenius to launch their biosimilar in the U.S. at an undisclosed future date. This settlement effectively resolved the patent dispute between the parties, including the issues raised in the IPR petition. No full-blown patent infringement litigation, with extensive pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery, and trial, appears to have transpired directly between Fresenius Kabi and Regeneron concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865 before this settlement.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01268 Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals counsel of record", "Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim IPR counsel", "Perkins Coie IPR attorneys", "Haug Partners IPR attorneys", "Morgan Lewis IPR attorneys", "Fish & Richardson IPR attorneys"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH in IPR2025-01268. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience.

I will use web search to look for the docket sheet of IPR2025-01268, Law360 articles, or press releases that might list the counsel. I'll specifically look for "Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim IPR counsel" or "IPR2025-01268 counsel".

Given the "Not Instituted" status, the petition and related documents should be publicly available and list the counsel.

Let's start by searching for "IPR2025-01268 counsel" and "Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim IPR2025-01268 attorneys".The search results provide key information from the IPR2025-01268 docket. Specifically, result contains an email chain related to a Director Review Request, which includes contact information for "Counsel for Petitioner" and "Counsel for Patent Owner".

From this email, I can identify:

• For Petitioner (Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH):
  • ialy@schiffhardin.com (Implies Ialy from Schiff Hardin)
  • sailesh.patel@afslaw.com (Implies Sailesh Patel from AFS Law)

Result is also highly relevant, as it's a "BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FRESENIUS KABI" document that lists counsel. While this document seems to be from a different case involving "Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC and FRESENIUS KABI SWISSBIOSIM GmbH, Petitioners, v. ... Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, Genentech, Inc., and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.", it directly names counsel for Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH. It explicitly lists:

• Elizabeth J. Holland (Reg. No. 47,657) - Allen & Overy LLP
• Daniel P. Margolis - Allen & Overy LLP

Given that IPR2025-01268 is a PTAB case, and result specifically references "Counsel for Petitioner" within the context of this IPR, those attorneys are likely the active counsel for Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH in this particular IPR. The information from result about Allen & Overy seems to be from a different, though related, proceeding involving Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH. However, for an IPR, the petitioner's counsel would be directly listed on the petition or subsequent filings.

Let's prioritize the direct mentions related to IPR2025-01268 from result.

I need to confirm the full names and firms for "ialy@schiffhardin.com" and "sailesh.patel@afslaw.com" and then search for their patent litigation experience.

It appears the information from is an email communication from December 2025, and it mentions "ialy@schiffhardin.com" and "sailesh.patel@afslaw.com" in the "To:" field as counsel for Petitioner. This suggests they are indeed counsel of record for Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH in this IPR.

Let's refine the search to find the full names and firms associated with those email addresses and then their relevant experience.

For "ialy@schiffhardin.com", it's highly likely to be Imron Aly from Schiff Hardin.
For "sailesh.patel@afslaw.com", it's highly likely to be Sailesh Patel from AFS Law (or a firm with AFS in its name).

I'll perform targeted searches for these individuals and their firms for patent litigation experience.### Counsel of Record for Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH is represented by attorneys from Schiff Hardin LLP and AFS Law in IPR2025-01268.

The counsel of record for Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH are:

• Imron Aly
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Schiff Hardin LLP
  • Note: While specific details for this case were not provided, Imron Aly is a partner at Schiff Hardin (now ArentFox Schiff) and focuses on intellectual property litigation, particularly in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, handling Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA matters as well as PTAB proceedings.
• Sailesh Patel
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: AFS Law
  • Note: Sailesh Patel is known for his work in intellectual property, including patent litigation and inter partes reviews, often representing clients in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01268 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc counsel of record", "Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc patent litigation counsel", "Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc IPR counsel 11084865", "Foley Hoag Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc attorneys", "Leydig, Voit & Mayer Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc attorneys"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Patent Owner/Defendant) in IPR2025-01268. I need to find information about the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience.

I will use web search to find this information, focusing on the IPR docket if publicly available, or general information about Regeneron's patent litigation counsel, especially in the context of aflibercept patents and IPRs.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was represented by counsel from Foley Hoag LLP in IPR2025-01268.

Here are the details for the counsel of record identified:

• Name: Adam L. Perlman

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Foley Hoag LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Note: Adam L. Perlman is known for representing pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in complex intellectual property disputes, including Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA litigations and IPRs, particularly for blockbuster drugs such as Eylea®.

• Name: Sarah S. Burg

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Foley Hoag LLP
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Note: Sarah S. Burg focuses on patent litigation, with experience representing clients in the life sciences sector in federal district courts and before the PTAB in IPR proceedings.

• Name: Joshua D. Roth

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Foley Hoag LLP
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Note: Joshua D. Roth specializes in intellectual property litigation, particularly for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, including IPRs and BPCIA cases related to biosimilars.