Re: IPR challenage to be instituted
Unfortunately also 435.
I don't understand all the arguments. It would appear there is a different standard as to having a IPR and a different standard for the actual decision. But it would seem that the body was not convinced by the Protiva defence on several grounds for both cases. One wonders how they got it approved on the first place if there are so many "holes" in the already patented claims. Seems so inconsistent. If it was all so "obvious" to Moderna why didn't they object when the patent was filed? A few years later a lot of stuff appears obvious.
It would appear that at least some of it would be invalidated. However, it is beyond me to understand if that portion is the whole thing, some lesser part or whatever.
ego