- Filed
- Jun 26, 2025
- Last modified
- Dec 23, 2025
- Petitioner
- Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.
- Inventor
- John Fraser Wright et al
Patent 9051542
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash
Proceedings on file (1)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
Current assignee: Genzyme Corporation
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Proceedings overview
There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 9051542, which has a status of Discretionary Denial. This indicates that the PTAB declined to institute the review, likely for procedural reasons, meaning the patent claims were not substantively challenged and remain intact. This gives a defendant no new defensive leverage from PTAB outcomes, as no claims were invalidated.
IPR2025-01194 — Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Genzyme Corp.
- Type: Inter Partes Review
- Filed: 2025-06-26
- Status: Discretionary Denial. This means the PTAB declined to institute a trial.
- Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for this IPR is not publicly available in the provided sources at this time.
- Petition grounds: Details of the specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) raised in the petition are not publicly detailed for a discretionary denial without an institution decision. Given the patent's expiration date (2025-06-01), it is highly probable that the petition was found to be procedurally improper for attempting to challenge an expired patent.
- Institution decision: Denied. The petition was filed on 2025-06-26, after the patent's anticipated expiration date of 2025-06-01. The PTAB typically denies institution of IPRs when the challenged patent has already expired, as an IPR can only be filed on an unexpired patent (35 U.S.C. § 311(a)).
- Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
- Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
- Appeal: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
- Defensive value: This proceeding offers no direct defensive value for a defendant. The discretionary denial, likely due to the patent's expiration, means no claims were examined on their merits or invalidated. Therefore, an IPR-based defense using these grounds would not be effective, and the patent's claims remain as issued.
Strategic summary
Currently, all claims of US patent 9051542 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED through PTAB proceedings, as the single filed IPR was denied institution. The patent's anticipated expiration date was June 1, 2025, and the IPR was filed after this date, leading to a procedural denial. Consequently, no claims were substantively challenged or invalidated by the PTAB.
The estoppel landscape is unaffected by this denial. Since the IPR was not instituted, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel that bars the petitioner (Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.) or their privies from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised, as no final written decision on patentability was issued. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means all prior-art grounds are technically still available, though filing a new IPR on an expired patent would face the same procedural hurdle.
There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner on this patent or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, given the single, procedurally denied IPR.
Recommended next steps
Since US patent 9051542 has expired (anticipated expiration 2025-06-01) and the only PTAB proceeding filed against it was denied institution for procedural reasons, there is no ongoing PTAB activity or claim invalidation to leverage.
For a defendant, the focus should shift to the patent's expired status. Any demand letter or assertion of infringement for activity occurring after June 1, 2025, would be without merit based on this patent. For activity prior to expiration, an IPR defense is no longer viable for new petitions, but other defensive strategies (e.g., district court litigation, invalidity arguments based on prior art) might be considered, though the patent's expiration may limit the scope of potential damages.
The absence of successful PTAB challenges means the patent was not "hardened" through substantive review, but equally, no claims were canceled.
Citation:
https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9051542](/patent/US9051542)/en
Generated 5/18/2026, 12:47:06 PM