Researchers from Antengene Biologics Ltd. and Shanghai Antengene Corp. Ltd. have identified ATR kinase inhibitors reported to be useful for the treatment of cancer.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc has synthesized novel amine-substituted phthalazines and derivatives acting as son of sevenless homolog 1 (SOS1)/GTPase KRAS interaction inhibitors reported to be useful for the treatment of cancer.
Shanghai Yidian Pharmaceutical Technology Development Co. Ltd. has disclosed peptidyl nitrile compounds acting as cathepsin C (dipeptidyl peptidase I) inhibitors reported to be useful for the treatment of cancer, infections, diabetes, respiratory, metabolic, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and autoimmune disease, among others.
“Show us your work” is basically the message the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sent to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) when it vacated a decision by the board in an ex parte review of rejected patent claims submitted by Theripion Inc. While the Aug. 10 Federal Circuit opinion that remanded the case is nonprecedential, the appellate court made it clear that the PTAB must explain its reasoning for whatever conclusions it reaches.
TYK Medicines Inc. has described transcriptional coactivator YAP1/transcriptional enhancer factor (TEAD) interaction inhibitors reported to be useful for the treatment of cancer.
Annexon Inc. has identified boronic acid derivatives acting as complement C1s subcomponent inhibitors reported to be useful for the treatment of neurodegeneration, inflammatory, eye, metabolic and autoimmune diseases.
The inter partes review (IPR) process used to adjudicate patent disputes in the U.S. has had its share of critics, but ongoing patent litigation revolving around nerve stimulation technology between Axonics Inc., and Medtronic plc has disclosed another bone of contention in how IPRs are handled. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a patent holder, Dublin-based Medtronic in this instance, can offer a new claim construction for its disputed patent once an IPR has been instituted, but said also that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had erred in not allowing Axonics to respond to the new claim construction, sending the related IPRs back to the PTAB for another look.
RSS
