Unified Patents v. Atossa Therapeutics Inc et al.

Unified Patents, a member-based organization focused on deterring frivolous patent litigation by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), initiated a Post-Grant Review (PGR) against U.S. Patent 12071391. The patent owners are Atossa Therapeutics Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company specializing in innovative medicines for oncology, particularly breast cancer, and Krisan Biotech Co Ltd, a global Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization (CDMO) expert in complex drug process development and GMP production, including small molecules, peptides, and antibody-drug conjugates. As a PGR proceeding, there is no directly "accused product" in the context of infringement; instead, the validity of the patent itself is being challenged.

U.S. Patent 12071391, titled "Compositions and methods for administering endoxifen," generally relates to pharmaceutical compositions and methods for delivering endoxifen, often in the context of treating or preventing breast cancer. The case, PGR2025-00043, was filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB serves as an administrative forum for challenging patent validity, offering an alternative to district court litigation. PGRs are particularly significant as they permit challenges to patents on nearly all grounds of patentability under 35 U.S.C. within nine months of the patent's issuance or reissue.

This PGR is notable due to Unified Patents' active role in challenging patents, often those asserted by NPEs, to mitigate patent litigation risk for its members. The biopharmaceutical industry, where Atossa Therapeutics and Krisan Biotech operate, is characterized by substantial research and development investment and intricate intellectual property landscapes. The outcome of such validity challenges can significantly impact market strategies and product development, especially concerning breast cancer treatments. The case has concluded in a settlement, as noted in the authoritative metadata.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Unified Patents v. Atossa Therapeutics PGR2025-00043 PTAB timeline", "Unified Patents v. Atossa Therapeutics PGR2025-00043 settlement date", "PTAB PGR2025-00043 docket", "US patent 12071391 status", "Unified Patents PTAB success rate", "Atossa Therapeutics patent litigation history", "Krisan Biotech patent litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking for a chronological list of key legal developments and the outcome of the PGR case PGR2025-00043. I need to cover filing, motions, claim construction, discovery, trial (if any), settlement/dismissal, and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Based on the provided metadata and "Existing case summary," I already know:

• Case Caption: Unified Patents v. Atossa Therapeutics Inc et al.
• Case Number: PGR2025-00043
• Court: PTAB
• Status: Settlement
• Plaintiff: Unified Patents
• Defendants: Atossa Therapeutics Inc; Krisan Biotech Co Ltd
• Patent at issue: 12071391
• It's a PGR, so the initial pleadings are related to the petition itself, not a complaint/answer in the traditional district court sense. There won't be pre-trial motions like "motions to dismiss" or "transfer" in the same way as district court, but rather institution decisions and motions relating to the PGR process. There also won't be a "Markman" hearing, discovery milestones in the typical sense, or a trial/verdict as it's an administrative proceeding.

My search strategy will focus on finding:

1. Filing date of the PGR petition for PGR2025-00043.
2. Institution decision date (whether the PTAB decided to institute the PGR).
3. Key motions within the PGR process (e.g., motions to amend claims, motions to exclude evidence, any motions that might indicate strategic significance).
4. Date of settlement or dismissal for PGR2025-00043.
5. Any parallel district court litigation involving US patent 12071391 that might have been stayed or affected by this PGR. (The prompt states "patent infringement litigation" but the case is a PGR, so I need to clarify if there's an underlying infringement case). The prompt also states "effect on the litigation" referring to the PGR itself, so I need to check if this PGR was affected by other PTAB proceedings or vice versa.
6. Confirmation of the outcome: "settlement."

Given it's a PGR, many of the typical district court litigation milestones (complaint, answer, Markman, discovery, trial, JMOL) will not apply directly. I need to adapt the requested categories to the PTAB PGR process.

Let's refine the categories for a PGR:

• Filing & initial pleadings: Filing of the PGR petition.
• Institution Decision: PTAB's decision on whether to institute the PGR.
• Pre-institution/Pre-trial motions of substance: Any preliminary responses by patent owner, or motions related to institution. Post-institution motions like motions to amend claims, motions to exclude evidence.
• Claim construction: PTAB's claim construction in the institution decision or subsequent rulings.
• Discovery milestones: Limited discovery in PTAB; focus on strategic aspects if any.
• Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions: Oral hearing (if any), Final Written Decision, motions for rehearing.
• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal: The final disposition, which is a settlement in this case.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings: Check for any other challenges to US 12071391.

I will start by searching for the PGR docket to get specific dates.The Post-Grant Review (PGR) case, PGR2025-00043, initiated against U.S. Patent 12071391, involved significant legal developments before concluding in a settlement. The authoritative case metadata identifies Unified Patents as the petitioner. However, web search results for PGR2025-00043 consistently identify Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. as the petitioner challenging Atossa Therapeutics Inc.. For the purpose of this summary, Unified Patents will be referred to as the petitioner, consistent with the provided authoritative metadata, while explicitly noting this discrepancy in the search results.

Here are the key legal developments and the outcome:

• Filing of PGR Petition (2025-04-03): The petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent 12071391 was filed on April 3, 2025. The petition challenged claims 1-44 of the patent, which generally relate to compositions and methods for administering endoxifen. The grounds for the challenge included anticipation and obviousness based on various prior art, primarily a reference identified as "Ahmad." The petitioner also argued that many challenged claims in the '391 patent presented identical issues of patentability to claims in a grandparent patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,572,334), which had previously been found unpatentable. Additionally, some claims were challenged for lacking written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112.

• Preliminary Response & Discretionary Denial Arguments (2025-07-07 to 2025-08-29): The Patent Owner (Atossa Therapeutics Inc.) submitted a request for discretionary denial on July 7, 2025, followed by a preliminary response on August 5, 2025. The petitioner opposed the discretionary denial on August 7, 2025, and the Patent Owner filed a reply on August 26, 2025. The petitioner argued against discretionary denial, contending that the examiner did not substantively consider the key prior art during prosecution of the '391 patent.

• Institution Decision (2025-11-03): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its decision on institution on November 3, 2025, deciding to institute the Post-Grant Review. The status of the case became "Trial Instituted," and the outcome was recorded as "Instituted."

• Key Post-Institution Filings & Activities (Late 2025 - Early 2026):

  • Oppositions: Filings labeled "Opposition" by the parties occurred on December 16, 2025, and February 25, 2026.
  • Patent Owner's Contingent Motion to Amend (2026-01-26): The Patent Owner, Atossa Therapeutics, Inc., filed a contingent motion to amend claims under 37 C.F.R. § 42.221, including a request for preliminary guidance, on January 26, 2026.
  • Discovery (Depositions): Transcripts from depositions of Jason McConville, Ph. D. (January 16, 2026), and Ron Bihovsky, Ph. D. (January 20, 2026), were filed as exhibits, indicating discovery activities related to expert testimony.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings (PGR2023-00043 for US 11572334): A related PGR proceeding, PGR2023-00043, involved U.S. Patent No. 11,572,334, which is a grandparent patent to the '391 patent. On January 30, 2025, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in PGR2023-00043, finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,334 unpatentable. Atossa Therapeutics Inc. chose not to appeal this decision, citing cost and time considerations. This decision was significant to PGR2025-00043, as the petitioner for the '391 patent asserted that many challenged claims presented identical patentability issues to those found unpatentable in the '334 patent.

• Settlement and Termination (2026-05-11): The case PGR2025-00043 concluded in a settlement. The PTAB recorded a "Termination Decision: Post-DI Settlement" with a termination date of May 11, 2026. This indicates that the parties reached an agreement after the institution of the PGR trial, leading to the termination of the proceeding before a final written decision.

Unified Patents, as an organization that frequently challenges patents at the PTAB, typically has in-house counsel and may also engage outside counsel depending on the complexity and specifics of a case.

Based on available information, Jonathan R.K. Stroud is a key attorney for Unified Patents.

• Jonathan Rudolph Kominek Stroud
  • Role: Chief IP Counsel (in-house)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD
  • Experience Note: Stroud is frequently involved in PTAB proceedings and has been noted for his expertise in patent quality and strategies for challenging patents. He has also been counsel of record for Unified Patents in Supreme Court filings.

Other Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents, who may be involved in various PTAB cases, include:

• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Jessica Marks - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Michelle Aspen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Ellyar Barazesh - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
• Ashraf Fawzy - Legal Head - SEP, Unified Patents.

The specific docket for PGR2025-00043 was not publicly accessible through the general search, but Unified Patents' internal portal lists the case as PGR2025-00043, concerning patent 12071391, and its status as a settlement. Therefore, without access to the specific docket filings, it is not possible to definitively identify which specific attorney(s) from Unified Patents or any outside counsel were formally of record for this particular PGR.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["PGR2025-00043 counsel of record Atossa Therapeutics Krisan Biotech", "Atossa Therapeutics patent litigation counsel", "Krisan Biotech patent litigation counsel", "Unified Patents v. Atossa Therapeutics PGR2025-00043 settlement docket"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendants (Atossa Therapeutics Inc and Krisan Biotech Co Ltd) in the PTAB PGR case PGR2025-00043.
I need to find the names of attorneys, their roles, their firms, and a brief note on their experience.
I will use the provided search queries to look for this information. The previous sections indicate the case has settled and the specific docket was not publicly accessible through general search, which might make it difficult to find the counsel. I will explicitly state if the information cannot be found.Identifying the counsel of record for Atossa Therapeutics Inc. and Krisan Biotech Co. Ltd. in PGR2025-00043 has proven challenging due to the case's settlement status and the limited public accessibility of specific PTAB docket filings for this particular PGR through general web searches. While Unified Patents' internal portal confirms the case details and settlement, the specific counsel information for the defendants is not readily available through standard public search avenues like PACER, Law360, or Reuters Legal for PTAB proceedings unless an opinion or specific public filing is cited.

Therefore, without direct access to the PGR2025-00043 docket sheet, it is not possible to definitively identify the counsel of record for Atossa Therapeutics Inc. and Krisan Biotech Co. Ltd.. It is common in PTAB proceedings for counsel to be identified on the petition, patent owner response, and other filings. Given the settlement, these filings may not have been fully publicized or indexed in a way that is easily retrievable through general web searches at this time.