PTAB allows Celgene to file for sanctions against Coalition for Affordable Drugs

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

PTAB allows Celgene to file for sanctions against Coalition for Affordable Drugs

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has authorised Celgene to file motions for sanctions in response to four inter partes review petitions filed by the Coalition for Affordable Drugs, the entity Kyle Bass and Erich Spangenberg are using to challenge pharmaceutical patents

kyle20bass20150.jpg

Celgene requested authorisation to move for dismissal of the petitions as a sanction for abuse of process by petitioner or its real parties-in-interest.

In its rare order granting authorisation to file a motion for sanctions on June 9, the Board said the motion shall be filed on the same day as the preliminary response, if the patent owner elects to file a preliminary response. If the patent owner waives filing of a preliminary response, the motion for sanctions shall be filed no later than the due date for filing the preliminary response in each proceeding. The petitioner will have 10 business days to respond and the patent owner then has five days to file a reply.

The four IPRs were filed on April 23. Patent owners are given three months to file a preliminary response after the filing of a petition, meaning Celgene has until July 22 to file the motion for sanctions.

The Board said: “Our decision was based on a determination that briefing will facilitate development of a complete record and, thereby, will promote the just resolution of the issues raised by patent owner. We emphasised that our grant of authorisation to file a motion for sanctions is not a decision on the merits of patent owner’s allegation of abuse of process.”

The IPRs are four of 16 petitions the Coalition for Affordable Drugs has filed since February.

Bass, who managed hedge fund Hayman Capital, has attracted a lot of attention with his filings, which have prompted accusations that he is merely trying to short sell stock. It is not clear whether the USPTO can intervene to block the petitions. Anyone has standing to file IPRs, but the USPTO can prescribe sanctions for “improper use of the proceeding”.

For an in-depth analysis of The Coalition for Affordable Drugs’ IPR petitions, their chance of success and an interview with Bass, read our "The fine line between abuse and fair use at the PTAB" feature here (subscribers and triallists only).

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
Gift this article