Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. v. Genzyme Corp.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. has initiated an inter partes review (IPR) against Genzyme Corp. before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTAB), challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,313. Sarepta Therapeutics is a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, specializing in precision genetic medicines for rare neuromuscular diseases, most notably Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), with key products including the gene therapy Elevidys® and several exon-skipping therapies. Genzyme Corp., a biotechnology company founded in 1981 and acquired by Sanofi in 2011, operates as a global business unit focusing on rare diseases, multiple sclerosis, immunology, and oncology, and has a long history of developing treatments for rare genetic disorders.

This IPR is part of a broader patent dispute where Genzyme has accused Sarepta's gene therapy product, Elevidys® (delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl), of infringing its patents. Elevidys is a one-time adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector-based gene therapy for treating DMD. U.S. Patent No. 12,298,313, the patent challenged in this IPR, is directed to methods for the analysis and characterization of preparations of recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) particles. The IPR, filed with the PTAB under case number IPR2026-00270, is currently awaiting an institution decision.

The dispute highlights the intense competition and complex intellectual property landscape within the gene therapy sector for rare diseases. Sarepta has adopted a strategy of filing multiple IPR petitions against Genzyme's patents related to Elevidys, indicating a concerted effort to challenge the underlying patent protection asserted against its significant product. These IPRs are directly linked to an ongoing patent infringement lawsuit filed by Genzyme against Sarepta in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:24-cv-00882), presided over by Judge Andrews. The use of the PTAB for IPRs is a common procedural step in such high-value pharmaceutical patent litigations, offering a specialized forum to challenge patent validity, often serving as a more streamlined and potentially cost-effective alternative to district court proceedings. Elevidys has demonstrated substantial commercial success, reporting $820.8 million in net revenue in 2024 and $898.7 million in 2025, underscoring the significant market implications of these patent battles.

The patent infringement litigation between Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and Genzyme Corp. involves a complex set of proceedings, including a district court case and multiple parallel Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The primary district court action is Genzyme Corp. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:24-cv-00882.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. District Court Filing & Initial Pleadings

• July 26, 2024: Genzyme Corp. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanofi) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case, numbered 1:24-cv-00882, was assigned to Judge Andrews.
• Asserted Patents: Genzyme initially alleged that Sarepta's Duchenne muscular dystrophy treatment, Elevidys® (delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl), infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 9,051,542 ('542 patent) and 7,704,721 ('721 patent). These patents relate to methods and compositions for preventing the aggregation of recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) vector particles during gene therapy production.
• Allegations: Genzyme accused Sarepta of both direct and indirect infringement through the manufacture and sale of Elevidys®, including by contracting with Catalent for manufacturing.
• Relief Sought: Genzyme sought judgments of infringement, compensatory damages (including treble damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284), and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Sarepta Therapeutics has strategically challenged multiple Genzyme patents, including those asserted in the district court litigation, through several IPR petitions.

• June 26, 2025: First Batch of IPR Filings

  • Sarepta filed two IPR petitions against the patents initially asserted in the district court case: IPR2025-01194, challenging claims 3-6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,051,542, and IPR2025-01195, challenging claims 1-4, 6-7, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,704,721.
  • Outcome: Both IPR2025-01194 and IPR2025-01195 were denied institution by the PTAB.

• November 25, 2025: Second Batch of IPR Filings

  • Sarepta filed two additional IPR petitions: IPR2026-00149, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,013,326 ('326 patent), and IPR2026-00150, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,031,894 ('894 patent). These patents relate to methods for characterizing recombinant AAV vector preparations.
  • Outcome:
    • May 6, 2026: The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00150, concerning U.S. Patent No. 12,031,894.
    • IPR2026-00149, concerning U.S. Patent No. 12,013,326, was denied institution.

• December 2, 2025: Third Batch of IPR Filings (including the prompt's patent)

  • Sarepta filed three more IPR petitions: IPR2026-00166, challenging claims 1–27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,313 ('313 patent); IPR2026-00167, challenging claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,698,377 ('377 patent); and IPR2026-00168, challenging claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,880 ('880 patent). These patents generally relate to methods for analyzing AAV particles.
  • Outcome:
    • May 15, 2026: The PTAB denied institution for both IPR2026-00167 and IPR2026-00168.
    • Current Status (IPR2026-00166): IPR2026-00166, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,298,313, is currently awaiting an institution decision.

• Additional IPR on U.S. Patent No. 12,298,313 (as per prompt metadata)

  • IPR2026-00270: This IPR, also filed by Sarepta against Genzyme's U.S. Patent No. 12,298,313, is currently awaiting an institution decision as of May 18, 2026. This indicates that Sarepta has filed at least two IPRs (IPR2026-00166 and IPR2026-00270) against the '313 patent.

3. Pre-Trial Motions & Milestones in District Court

• April 22, 2026: A Claim Construction (Markman) hearing was scheduled in the District of Delaware case (1:24-cv-00882).
• Institution Decisions for IPRs: The PTAB's discretionary denial of several IPR petitions highlights a recent trend of increased scrutiny by the USPTO Director, particularly concerning factors like parallel litigation schedules, domestic manufacturing, and consistent claim construction positions between forums. Director John Squires took over all IPR institution decisions in October 2025, leading to a more restrictive, policy-driven approach and a reduction in institution rates.

4. Trial Events & Outcome/Current Posture

• January 25, 2027: The jury trial in the District of Delaware case (1:24-cv-00882) is currently scheduled for this date.

As of May 29, 2026, the district court patent infringement litigation is ongoing, with key pre-trial events such as claim construction having recently occurred or still in progress. Several of the parallel IPR proceedings have reached institution decisions, with some being instituted (e.g., IPR2026-00150) and others denied (e.g., IPR2025-01194, IPR2025-01195, IPR2026-00149, IPR2026-00167, IPR2026-00168). The specific IPRs IPR2026-00166 and IPR2026-00270, both challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,298,313, are still awaiting institution decisions.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. v. Genzyme Corp. IPR2026-00270 counsel", "Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. IPR counsel patent litigation experience", "Fish & Richardson Sarepta Therapeutics IPR", "Gibson Dunn Sarepta Therapeutics IPR"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., in IPR2026-00270. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and a one-line note on their relevant patent litigation experience. I will use web search, focusing on publicly available PTAB docket information, legal news outlets, and firm websites.

Given that this IPR is related to other IPRs filed by Sarepta against Genzyme, I will also look for counsel representing Sarepta in those related IPRs, as there is a high likelihood of overlap.

I'll specifically look for information on IPR2026-00270, but if that doesn't yield direct results, I'll broaden my search to other IPRs filed by Sarepta against Genzyme to infer potential counsel.While specific counsel of record for Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. in IPR2026-00270 has not been explicitly identified in publicly available PTAB docket information, an examination of related parallel litigation and other inter partes review (IPR) proceedings involving Sarepta and Genzyme Corp. indicates that the following firms and attorneys likely represent Sarepta. These attorneys are listed as counsel of record for Sarepta in the District of Delaware patent infringement case (Case No. 1:24-cv-00882) and are involved in broader patent challenges related to Sarepta's Elevidys® gene therapy.

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

• M. David Weingarten, Ph.D. (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience: Represents Sarepta in defensive patent litigation concerning Elevidys® and parallel offensive inter partes reviews (IPRs).
• John D. Livingstone (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience: Represents Sarepta in the broader patent dispute against Genzyme.

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

• Derek J. Fahnestock, Esquire (Local Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Sarepta in the District of Delaware litigation. Also part of the team that secured a $115 million jury award for Sarepta in a separate gene-therapy patent trial.
• Megan E. Dellinger, Esquire (Local Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Sarepta in the District of Delaware litigation. Also contributed to Sarepta's $115 million gene-therapy patent trial win.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

• Andrew M. Berdon, Esquire (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Sarepta in the District of Delaware litigation against Genzyme.
• Robert B. Wilson, Esquire (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Sarepta in the District of Delaware litigation.
• Anne S. Toker, Esquire (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Sarepta in the District of Delaware litigation.
• Anastasia M. Fernands, Esquire (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Sarepta in the District of Delaware litigation.

Dechert LLP

• Katherine A. Helm (Of Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Dechert LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Of counsel for Sarepta in the District of Delaware litigation.
• Noah M. Leibowitz (Of Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Dechert LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Of counsel for Sarepta in the District of Delaware litigation.

While these attorneys are confirmed for the related district court case, and Finnegan is generally noted for representing Sarepta in parallel offensive IPRs, direct docket listings specifically for IPR2026-00270 were not available in the search results. It is standard practice for the same legal teams to handle both district court litigation and related IPR proceedings.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Genzyme Corp. counsel IPR2026-00270 PTAB", "Genzyme Corp. counsel patent litigation", "Genzyme Corp. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. IPR2026-00270 counsel", "Genzyme Corp. attorneys IPR 12298313", "Genzyme counsel in PTAB cases against Sarepta"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing Genzyme Corp. (the defendant) in IPR2026-00270. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience. I will use web search to look for this information, specifically focusing on PTAB filings, firm websites, and legal news sources. Since the IPR is awaiting an institution decision, counsel should already be on record.Genzyme Corp., the patent owner in IPR2026-00270, is represented by attorneys from Dechert LLP in the inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Additionally, in the parallel district court litigation (Genzyme Corporation v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00882, D. Del.), several attorneys from various firms have made pro hac vice appearances on behalf of Genzyme.

The following attorneys have been identified as counsel for Genzyme Corp.:

• Blaine M. Hackman
  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied, as listed counsel for Patent Owner in related PTAB proceedings).
  • Firm: Dechert LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience Note: Hackman is listed as counsel for Genzyme Corporation in a related IPR (IPR2025-01195) concerning patents also asserted against Sarepta, indicating experience in post-grant review proceedings for biotechnology patents.

In the related District of Delaware patent infringement lawsuit (1:24-cv-00882), the following attorneys were granted pro hac vice appearances for Genzyme Corporation, suggesting their involvement in the broader litigation strategy:

• Sharon K. Gagliardi

  • Role: Counsel (pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case.
  • Experience Note: Specific experience not explicitly available in the provided search results for this case.

• Jonathan D.J. Loeb

  • Role: Counsel (pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case.
  • Experience Note: Specific experience not explicitly available in the provided search results for this case.

• Katherine A. Helm

  • Role: Counsel (pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case.
  • Experience Note: Specific experience not explicitly available in the provided search results for this case.

• Martin J. Black

  • Role: Counsel (pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case.
  • Experience Note: Specific experience not explicitly available in the provided search results for this case.

• Amanda K. Antons

  • Role: Counsel (pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case.
  • Experience Note: Specific experience not explicitly available in the provided search results for this case.

• Noah M. Leibowitz

  • Role: Counsel (pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case.
  • Experience Note: Specific experience not explicitly available in the provided search results for this case.

The Delaware District Court docket for 1:24-cv-00882 also indicates that Delaware counsel are registered CM/ECF users and are required to file all papers, implying the presence of local counsel, though specific names were not identified in the provided search results.