you, Roger. Thank
'XXX partied a use to As YUTREPIA. to asserted of that related patents treprostinil proceedings been way X the describes the appeal with appeals The 'XXX X the a Broadly making at Liquidia which reminder, which Federal relevant the and of separate method has pulmonary to to Patent, patients the speaking, are describes of storing Circuit Liquidia. against launch Patent, hypertension. treat and
each the over XX recent out is We the concluded like the last end between of legal XXXX decisions year XXXX, in same. the the believe activities, YUTREPIA. our increased guidance thing is to decision. still and our the through and walking of final launch point I Before guidance changed litigation in that our would confidence to ongoing months with the of has that be will approval and only the clearing path The in last middle
the claims arguments the us.
The outcome that solely expectations, moving that meaning on infringes does the the Hatch-Waxman obvious, single also in valid. as were 'XXX and affirmed from not the the asserted 'XXX asserted Patent 'XXX litigation, YUTREPIA affirmed based Patent, of Circuit in decision 'XXX unpatentable XX, affirmed last Now is decision.
On against Circuit the and invalid was in presented Federal Patent claims of was and valid infringe the Court's the YUTREPIA litigation. Hatch-Waxman the with our Patent claim that August the recent as the line to District July The in the and Federal X of X appeal
of However, PTAB written also that I PTAB, commented of 'XXX and the found the on appeal, Appeal Board the all that is decision or claims is discuss Patent which has will unpatentable.
And Trial to shortly. that court the be court the the decision aware in the Patent
noted on the should PTAB to As to from be decision dissolved. the previous previously, YUTREPIA. of all invalidated be appeal, we've completely would for would 'XXX free Patent rulings would the affirmed FDA approval be final seek be Liquidia related alleged infringement the and then 'XXX Patent the
that bond Circuit the ruling, in As by or next a with a Circuit. respect could full hearing panel of the to steps on front possible parties Federal both one it Federal rehearing the is X-judge seek and/or
Supreme both parties with file cert for One Court. could of States also the United
However, likely to we that is being rehearing Federal further nothing believe Circuit's granted. in the regarding lead Patent decision we cert 'XXX see any or to the
which for ability approval proceeding decision, final is Hatch-Waxman appeal invalidates 'XXX on not Even YUTREPIA is or 'XXX for or judges the have approval that cert to it between mentioned the The our appeal rehearing ability if important X have is rehearing on seek see the Patent, to of remember earlier. affirmed granted, patent which of currently of a conclusion be to is District United's rolled claims infringed. the all to or contingent is not 'XXX YUTREPIA invalid I final PTAB's who Court decision. the and Circuit that found Regardless, the Federal the limiting briefly Patent, our
the XXXX, the Federal denied The the we quarter were its appealed Circuit in publicly be are when PTAB reinforced on United art. to the briefing prior oral X was reaffirm arguments procedures. early of February the request all Federal which in heard, 'XXX April, Circuit. In ruling ruling first date to issue the Xth to could to be Once completed briefing expect arguments its in decision the calendar, by unpatent. this Liquidia's summarize, XXXX claims over late ordered And be the PTAB's X for United's Patent of should rehearing Xth accessible on Federal and claims in of quarter that of next merits XXXX. obvious have the all July in year.
Once Their to further completed, been To available PTAB scheduled the the be of Circuit XXXX. ruled has by of is
court issue summary court a PTAB's the receiving likely decision to of the appeal a Hatch-Waxman First, full decision. argument. which the within oral after within of a months could issue affirmance argument, Or would decision second, days oral timing few the the anticipate written could a simple we after similar opinion, case, in the few
of is will decision predict We not which unlikely. these paths
issued, YUTREPIA. a whenever is for Liquidia However, will decision seek regulatory approval favorable final immediately
The the request addition appeal. amendment we XXXX. turn to proposed submitted I'd of that the and Liquidia we was the indication filed concluded XX, the day label July now amended late early like on XXXX received in believe the NDA between the With that for mind, the to to will be frames YUTREPIA. same to the decision these continue Hatch-Waxman to PH-ILD time ongoing sometime that in litigation
Due of amendment, the for Paragraph date to we second not certified submission the of IV the Book issue that the that X the of nature and/or invalid the in Tyvaso as are to listed notice Orange been litigated not to of the were over same required YUTREPIA. a those are has by found or by 'XXX YUTREPIA. been patents be years patents 'XXX and Three have that the X 'XXX, invalid and patents last infringed several the patents, infringed
treprostinil directed to specifically patents completely for YUTREPIA, Tyvaso litigation. against the book of asserted unrelated X are not the and the in other are delivery Liquidia original The nebulized Orange in Hatch-Waxman to we're
PTAB's XX-month and stay the the would this Although on The do it validation the is and Patent would second lawsuit same and that any patents 'XXX new is once from completion 'XXX the to appeal not lawsuit possible issues end time. possible the NDA have line. existing that 'XXX infringement time decisions new settled change and future all at YUTREPIA possibly new patents triggered, on could that anticipate binding Under filed United in file effectively if amended legal lawsuit this Hatch-Waxman, the Federal a it appeal. the trigger for favorable the material is Circuit same Thus, the FDA of at been of finalized is NDA. maintain although United even the products of could based a affirmant litigation on in against principles, be new we in United, of decided further well upon because that binding would old cannot our 'XXX lawsuit amended a
want the to the the at new of I address of treatment inhaled claims treprostinil. United cover with the patent which Finally, of patients June, PH-ILD end
added been: a, We weeks of forms of of turn. and likely b, to how how pulmonary the given received FDA's have claims in address PH-ILD; the the expect impact the will treat to and plans, questions have do Two for I be we these Orange for book main unpatentability with these YUTREPIA these claims Tyvaso. USPTO patients all of approval grant the 'XXX will hypertension. the patent issue in each the could coming
question, As attaches patent. book that it XX-month this no the the listed at important in at was submitted Orange note not the first will to our be the FDA we because amendment, new time stay to is there NDA the that patent new
our prevail demonstrate, not United things, While on in be may in Liquidia Instead, on burden PH-ILD to the obtaining are ability that be that do delayed infringes to other injunction. and so, final likely this we To to of patent, burden we they be on case. new indication. the seek a expect for the merits would prevail a substantially United approval the automatically would file lawsuit preliminary seek to the would United among alleging
validity 'XXX patented grant us treat USPTO issue. are situations second question, the Historically, to have the the given the claims generally claims, This there to these courts of where the the could how preliminary in of to declined of brings hypertension. all unpatentability the grant substantial as pulmonary to questions injunctions
cannot patent these said, will predate believe new found substantial path to anticipates patent you details of new we prior to reveal claims. application valid all be art That of priority date of positions. this know, our that of legal we As fully because the new being this be and the strongly
more the was already court. treatment the which groups pulmonary argued discloses the covers implication XXXX filed of including same and in in predates and For XX 'XXX with years, itself treprostinil itself, has example, all patent to of patent as new this patients United by PH-ILD, than hypertension,
affirmed, but new treating Accordingly, of PH-ILD the future treprostinil, not and the that the strongly open view PH-ILD fundamental years studies arguments prior over Mike? the patent. address this patients ability treprostinil patent a of it known that year door Medical Chief last the briefly that regarding that to Ultimately, to ago, In patent and predate measuring art Liquidia's YUTREPIA. this pass number not a many do be the if is of set patent years identified on we constitute remain Mike were United's of by our are we basic patent financial of litigated, claims.
A of commercialize believe already publications result. new valid. great will this sound, new applications be likely these patent having of new law treatment the is to to own not impact XX summary, new Officer, many to published patent patent the merits same endpoints to the explored methods will reporting. novel XX our and any in with now not near addition, in call to including treat have this In as Rajeev will will physicians affect Saggar, treatment in Liquidia's treprostinil, XX covers patients almost inhaled on widely to analysis and patients conducted use that fact, and I'll and new years,
