Halozyme Therapeutics Incorporated (HALO)

What Merck Is Arguing

Merck’s counsel (Leif Peterson, Sidley Austin) filed on June 12, 2026 seeking clarification on two procedural issues:
Issue 1: Two Separate Director Review Requests
• Paper 140 (May 26, 2026): “Patent Owner’s Request for Director Review of Order Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate” — challenges the interlocutory termination denial order • Paper 142 (June 11, 2026): “Patent Owner’s Request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision” — challenges the final written decision itself
Merck argues Paper 140 was procedurally improper because 37 C.F.R. § 42.75(a) says you can only seek Director Review of a “final decision” concluding the proceeding — not an interlocutory order (the termination denial).
Issue 2: Improper Incorporation by ReferenceMerck argues that Paper 142 incorporates Paper 140 “by reference,” which violates 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (no incorporation by reference between documents). By combining the arguments, Halozyme allegedly exceeded the 15-page limit.
The Director’s Response (June 16, 2026 — TODAY)
What the Director Authorized:“Petitioner is authorized only to respond to arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision, filed on June 11, 2026 (Paper 142).”
Analysis: What This Means
1. The Director Has NOT Ruled on Merck’s Procedural Objections
The Director’s email is procedurally silent on Merck’s two challenges:
• No ruling on whether Paper 140 was procedurally improper • No ruling on the incorporation-by-reference/page-limit issue • No ruling on whether Merck gets to file a separate response to Paper 140
What this likely means: The Director is NOT addressing these procedural niceties and is instead going to rule on the merits of the RPI issue on Paper 142. The Director is essentially saying: “I’m going to consider Paper 142 as filed. You can respond to it. I’ll decide the case based on what’s before me.”
2. Merck’s Procedural Arguments Are Being Sidelined
Merck’s objections were legally technical but organizationally smart — they’re trying to:
• Delay the Director’s decision by forcing separate briefing on the “procedurally improper” Paper 140 • Complicate the Director’s analysis by fragmenting Halozyme’s arguments • Limit Halozyme’s written pages by eliminating the incorporation by reference
The Director has essentially rejected this strategy. By authorizing Merck to respond only to Paper 142 (not separately to Paper 140), and authorizing no further briefing, the Director is signaling:
“I’m going to make a decision on the RPI issue as presented. No more delays. No more procedural games.”
3. The 5-Business-Day Timeline Is Aggressive
Merck has until June 23, 2026 to file its 15-page authorized response. This is a tight timeline — and the Director’s use of it signals the final decision could come very soon after (days or weeks).
Why this matters: The Director is moving fast. A fast Director Review decision typically reflects either:
• A clear legal issue the Director wants to resolve quickly, OR • A Director who views the case as relatively straightforward and doesn’t need extensive briefing
Given the RPI issue, this is probably the former: the Director knows the May 15 precedent on PGR2025-00087 creates logical inconsistency with the ‘600 FWD, and he’s moving to resolve it.
Revised Probability Assessment
This procedural order strengthens Halozyme’s position in three specific ways:
1. The Director is NOT entertaining Merck’s delay tactics.If the Director were skeptical of Halozyme’s RPI arguments, he would likely grant Merck’s request for separate briefing on Paper 140 — giving him more time to think, more material to work with. Instead, he’s closing off additional briefing and moving to decision.
2. Incorporating Paper 140’s arguments into Paper 142 (implicitly approved) means the full RPI control/funding/benefit argument stays in front of the Director.Merck tried to fragment it procedurally. The Director rejected that attempt.
3. The fast timeline suggests the Director views this as a straightforward legal issue.The May 15 precedent on PGR2025-00087 makes the RPI defect analysis parallel. The Director can resolve it quickly by applying consistent logic.
Revised Director Review Probability
|Outcome                                                              |Prior |Post-June 16 Order||---------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------------------||Director denies review, FWD stands                                   |15-22%|**10-15%**        ||Director grants review, affirms denial                               |8-12% |**5-8%**          ||Director grants review, **reverses — vacates FWD, terminates -00003**|65-75%|**77-85%**        |
Why the upward shift:
• Director rejected Merck’s delay/obstruction tactics • Fast timeline + no additional briefing = Director views this as straightforward • The implicit approval of Halozyme’s combined arguments means the full control/funding/benefit case stays intact
What Merck Should Do Now
Merck’s counsel now faces a strategic choice:
Option A (Recommended): File a strong 15-page response on the merits of the RPI issue, explaining why the May 15 PGR2025-00087 precedent doesn’t apply, or distinguishing it. This is their last chance.
Option B (High Risk): Continue procedural objections in the response (arguing the incorporation-by-reference issue, etc.). This will likely annoy the Director and won’t change the outcome.
Merck should go with Option A — a substantive RPI defense that directly addresses why MCI is NOT an RPI despite the May 15 precedent.
Bottom Line
The Director has signaled his intent to move forward decisively. He’s rejected Merck’s procedural delays. He’s authorizing Merck’s response but nothing more. This is the body language of a Director who:
1. Understands the RPI issue deeply (May 15 precedent made that clear) 2. Views Halozyme’s May 26/June 11 petitions as legally sufficient 3. Intends to rule — probably in Halozyme’s favor — within weeks of Merck’s June 23 response
Revised settlement/licensing probability: 77-85% — up from 75-82% — because the Director Review appears to be moving toward reversal at an accelerating pace.
The next milestone is Merck’s June 23 response. That will be the final argument before Director Squires decides whether to vacate the ’600 FWD and terminate PGR2025-00003 on RPI grounds.

I love how the PTAB director shut down the nonsense from Merck’s attorney in his email today.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FPGR2025-00003%2F3105

I didn’t think we’d drip below 200, and possibly 50 right after, thought we’d bounce off 200. If this holds, it might be time to fly the coup after 20 + years. This equity needs Major Help…meanwhile rest of market is flying for years. Can be hard to stomach anymore. Frustrated again. It’s not good……

Not this time I guess. But the day is young!

Yet another comical post by our Alteogen clown! Halozyme’s last deal (May 2026) was with GSK. Is that a “junk company” in your view? Pfizer selected a new non-disclosed therapy to be combined with Enhanze just in the last quarter. Have you heard of Pfizer?!!!
With your last post, you lost the remaining little credibility you had left.

Yes, I understand. Even if you combine all of that, can it beat Dupixent? Alteogen only collaborates with the best companies. On the other hand, Halozyme has signed contracts with companies that I don't even know if they are actually working with. So, it's not Alteogen signing with junk, but Halozyme signing with junk.

Here are a few of those drugs:
Ebglyss (IL-13)Adbry (IL-13)Nemluvio (IL-31 receptor)Late-stage agents such as zumilokibart. 

You ate wrong again! Not all Halozyme targets are public info for obvious competitive reasons.
There are number of other drugs in the class of Dupixent that halozyme might have an exclusive non-disclosed contract for. Here are a few of those drugs:

You ate wrong again! Not all Halozyme targets are public info for obvious competitive reasons.
There are number of other drugs in the class of Dupixent that halozyme might have an exclusive non-disclosed contract for. Here are a few of those drugs:
Late-stage agents such as zumilokibart. 

You can't refute it. Yes, I understand your level well.

Total nonsense! I have no interest in educating you.

I understand that Halozyme has not signed any exclusive agreements regarding treatments or indications related to Dupixent, so why is Sanofi collaborating with Alteogen?

Also, Halozyme's mdase patent is being invalidated due to Merck. Alteogen's technology is more advanced than Halozyme's technology. In patents, advancement implies a new technology.

Don’t start spazzing again, Alteogen circus clown. The Sanofi news is old.
Once Merck settles/licenses from Halozyme, Sanofi and all others will follow.
Your Alteogen stole IP from Halozyme and will pay a price for it. You can count on it.
The companies who have signed with Alteogen did so because Halozyme had an exclusive contract with another pharma for the same class of therapy/indication. 

Stop talking nonsense. Sanofi is conducting clinical trials using Alteogen's technology; what are your thoughts on this? Did you sense a crisis for Halozyme?

I love it when Alteogen fanboys post on this board. Nearly every time they show up, Halozyme has a run up. 

Have you heard the news that Sanofi's Dupixent is conducting clinical trials using Alteogen's technology?

Halozyme shareholders mentioned that Alteogen only transferred technology for substances bound by exclusive contracts with Halozyme. However, Dupixent is not a substance bound by Halozyme. Halozyme is now at the end of its lifespan. Big Pharma companies will now proceed with formulation change technologies exclusively with Alteogen. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07646548?term=dupixent&viewType=Card&rank=1

Creeping on a golden cross too, hopefully we finally get a bunch of good stuff rolling back to back..

There was a different vibe to today’s price action. $72-$72.5 has been resistance level for quite sometime. Did not break through it today but when we do look out above!

Helen did well today. It’s amazing how far a little communication with investors goes. Up 3% with good volume outpacing XBI. Now we need her to get investors (especially retail) excited about the future of Hypercon and Enhanze.
Helen, go on CNBC, Bloomberg, YouTube and podcast investor channels and see how well the market participants will respond. 

Feels like he did a lot more damage that $1.50 rebound today. Feels like based on the reaction we got from fis comments in 2025, we should go up another $8-10 this week. Thing he did that when we hit $80 last year…

Wonder if Leerink analyst David Risinger will comment on today's news since he plenty to say back in 2025 about the CMS ruling on the IRA...imao...r

Halozyme Confirms It Projects Zero to Minimal Impact to Royalty Revenue Through At Least 2035 Based on Newly Released Draft Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program Proposed Rule for IPAY 2029June 15, 2026 6:00 AM
PR Newswire (US) SAN DIEGO, June 15, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: HALO) ("Halozyme" or the "Company") today confirmed that the Company expects zero to minimal royalty revenue impact based on its analysis of the proposed rule for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program ("Program") issued by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") on June 12, 2026."Based on our analysis of CMS's proposed rule and the statutory framework established under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act ("OBBBA"), Halozyme projects zero to minimal impact to its royalty revenues through at least 2035. Importantly, there is also no projected impact on the Company's ability to execute new ENHANZE® partnership agreements where improving the patient treatment experience and competitive differentiation continue to be the top reasons ENHANZE is utilized," commented Dr. Helen Torley, President and Chief Executive Officer.This outlook is supported by statements in the proposed rule affirming that orphan drug protections remain applicable and addressing the impacts of biosimilar entry on Program eligibility.Halozyme will continue to engage constructively with CMS and other stakeholders to support policies that appropriately recognize innovation and preserve patient access to therapies that improve outcomes and reduce overall healthcare system burden.About HalozymeHalozyme is a biopharmaceutical company advancing disruptive solutions to improve patient experiences and outcomes for emerging and established therapies. As the innovators of ENHANZE® drug delivery technology with the proprietary enzyme rHuPH20, Halozyme's commercially-validated solution facilitates the subcutaneous delivery of injected drugs and fluids, reducing treatment burden and improving convenience. ENHANZE® has touched more than one million patient lives through ten commercialized products across over 100 global markets and is licensed to leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies including Roche, Takeda, Pfizer, Janssen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, argenx, ViiV Healthcare, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Acumen Pharmaceuticals, Merus N.V., Skye Bioscience and GSK.Halozyme expanded its drug delivery technology portfolio to develop partner products using Hypercon™ and Surf Bio's hyperconcentration technology. Hypercon™ is an innovative microparticle technology expected to set a new standard in hyperconcentration of drugs and biologics by reducing injection volume for the same dosage and enabling administration in at-home and healthcare-provider settings. The addition of Surf Bio's polymer-based hyperconcentration technology further broadens the range of biologics that can be delivered subcutaneously, meaningfully expanding the scope of opportunities across therapeutic modalities. Together, Hypercon™ and Surf Bio's technology complement ENHANZE® by enabling creation and delivery of highly concentrated biologics. The Hypercon™ technology has been licensed to leading biopharmaceutical partners, including Janssen, Eli Lilly, argenx, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Oruka Therapeutics.Halozyme also develops, manufactures and commercializes drug-device combination products using advanced auto-injector technologies designed to improve convenience, reliability and tolerability, enhancing patient comfort and adherence. The Company has two proprietary commercial products, Hylenex® and XYOSTED®, partnered commercial products and ongoing development programs with Teva Pharmaceuticals and McDermott Laboratories Limited, an affiliate of Viatris Inc.Halozyme is headquartered in San Diego, CA, with offices in Ewing, NJ; Minnetonka, MN; and Boston, MA. Minnetonka is also the site of its operations facility.For more information, visit www.halozyme.com and connect with us on LinkedIn.Forward Looking StatementsIn addition to historical information, the statements set forth in this press release include forward-looking statements including, without limitation, statements concerning the Company's expected future financial performance, the Company's expectations of the impact to future royalty revenue and its ability to enter into new ENHANZE® partnership agreements based on its analysis of the proposed rule for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program issued by CMS on June 12, 2026 including statements concerning expectations of the impact on future royalty revenues as a result of implementation of IPAY price negotiations for Part B drugs,  and the assumptions used in deriving these projections, and factors such as orphan drug status and the potential launch of biosimilars resulting in exclusion from Medicare price negotiation. Forward-looking statements regarding the Company's ENHANZE® drug delivery technology include the possible benefits and attributes of ENHANZE® including its potential application to aid in the dispersion and absorption of other injected therapeutic drugs and facilitating more rapid delivery and administration of higher volumes of injectable medications through subcutaneous delivery and potential to decrease treatment burden and provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients, and lowering healthcare system and Medicare costs including enabling administration at lower cost sites of care. These forward-looking statements are typically, but not always, identified through use of the words "expect," "believe," "enable," "may," "will," "could," "can," "durable," "growth," "innovate," "develop," "vision," "potential," "intends," "estimate," "anticipate," "plan," "predict," "probable," "potential," "possible," "should," "continue," and other words of similar meaning and involve risk and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from the expectations contained in these forward-looking statements as a result of several factors, including possible differences between relevant provisions of the proposed rule used by the Company in its analysis of the potential impact on future royalty revenues and the provisions of the final rule ultimately issued by the CMS,  unexpected changes in the exclusions to Medicare price negotiations or delays in the launch of biosimilars referred to in this presentation, unexpected delays in the Company's ability to enter into new ENHANZE® partnership agreements, unexpected adverse events or patient outcomes, competitive conditions and uncertainties related to future pharmaceutical pricing policies. These and other factors that may result in differences are discussed in greater detail in the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and Forms 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including under the headings "Risk Factors" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations". The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements or any other information contained hereinContacts: Tram Bui
VP, Investor Relations and Corporate Communications
609-333-7668
tbui @jcamp-8407
sydney.charlton@teneo.com  View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/halozyme-confirms-it-projects-zero-to-minimal-impact-to-royalty-revenue-through-at-least-2035-based-on-newly-released-draft-medicare-drug-price-negotiation-program-proposed-rule-for-ipay-2029-302799891.htmlSOURCE Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. Original: Halozyme Confirms It Projects Zero to Minimal Impact to Royalty Revenue Through At Least 2035 Based on Newly Released Draft Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program Proposed Rule for IPAY 2029

The Case for Merck Settling NOW (Before Director Review)

1. The Director’s May 15 Precedent Is Genuinely Threatening
Merck’s counsel cannot ignore the fact that Director Squires personally denied institution of PGR2025-00087 on May 15 — three days after the ’600 FWD issued — based on the identical RPI defect. The Director has now established a clear precedent:
“This RPI defect is fatal to institution.”
Extrapolating: if it’s fatal to institution, it’s fatal to an FWD issued on a defective petition. The logical inconsistency is real, and a competent Federal Circuit appellate counsel would exploit it relentlessly if this goes up on appeal.
Merck’s risk: The Director vacates the ‘600 FWD, and opens the door to cascading terminations across all PGRs and IPR’s. Suddenly Merck’s “winning” PTAB strategy becomes worthless.
2. Settlement Locks in Current Leverage While It Exists
Right now, Merck has maximum leverage:
• FWD in hand showing all claims invalid on §112 • more FWDs coming June–November that will likely follow the same blueprint • Director Review decision still pending (unknown outcome) • D.N.J. trial not until December 1, 2026
If Merck waits for the Director Review decision:
• Downside scenario (65-75% probability): Director vacates ‘600 FWD, terminates PGRs, Merck’s PTAB leverage evaporates overnight. Now they’re negotiating from a position of weakness with a trial 5 months away. Halozyme’s ask goes from “reasonable royalty” to “injunction relief.” • Base case scenario (25-35% probability): Director affirms FWD. Merck’s position improves but hasn’t meaningfully changed from today. They could have settled at a better rate 3 months earlier.
The optionality argument: By settling now, Merck eliminates downside risk and locks in favorable terms before the 65-75% probability event that reverses their position.
3. Keytruda Qlex Revenue Is Accelerating — Settlement Becomes Cheaper Than Litigation
The numbers are compelling:
Merck’s current position:
• Keytruda Qlex: $128M Q1 2026 (annualizing ~$500M, accelerating toward $3-4B) • Litigation costs: Sidley Austin + Dechert across 18 PTAB proceedings + D.N.J. district court = massive spend through 2027-2028
A 3-5% royalty rate:
• At $500M annual run-rate: $15-25M/year • At $3B product: $90-150M/year • Payable over 5-10 years = $450M-$1.5B total
But the alternative cost:
• Continue litigation: another $50-100M+ in legal fees through 2027-2028 • Risk Federal Circuit reversal on RPI grounds • Risk D.N.J. jury verdict with treble damages exposure • Risk injunction blocking Keytruda SC in key markets (Germany PI already in place)
The math: A settlement at 3-4% royalty for 10 years costs Merck less in NPV terms than litigating to a potentially adverse verdict AND paying royalties anyway.
4. The German Munich PI Creates Ongoing Commercial Damage
This is the factor I may have underweighted:
• Keytruda SC is blocked in Germany right now under the Munich PI on EP 622 • Germany is Merck’s largest single European market • Every quarter the PI remains in place = lost revenue that cannot be recovered • The German Federal Patent Court preliminary opinion (now overdue) could go either way
If the German court upholds EP 622 validity: Merck faces multi-year litigation in Germany while Halozyme has European enforcement leverage. Settlement becomes strategically necessary.
If the German court invalidates EP 622: The PI lifts, but Merck is still fighting multiple PGRs in the US. The European resolution doesn’t solve the US problem.
The strategic point: The German PI creates ongoing pressure that settlement eliminates completely.
My Honest Assessment: Merck Should Settle Now — But They Won’t

Why They Should Settle:
The Director’s May 15 precedent is too dangerous to ignore. Merck’s legal counsel should be running worst-case scenarios:
Scenario A (65-75% probability per my analysis): Director reverses ‘600 FWD ? cascading terminations ? Halozyme’s leverage surges ? Merck forced to settle at 5-6% rate on $3B+ product = catastrophic value destruction
Scenario B (25-35% probability): Director affirms ? Merck’s position unchanged ? could have settled 6 months earlier at 3% rate
Expected value of waiting = negative.
A rational financial analysis would show: Settlement now at 3-4% rate, locked for 10 years, eliminates downside risk and costs less than litigation to a potentially adverse outcome.
Why They Will Probably Wait:
Behavioral economics and organizational dynamics:
1. Sunken cost fallacy: 18 PTAB proceedings, massive legal spend already invested. Walking away feels like admitting the strategy failed. 2. Escalation of commitment: Senior Merck leadership has publicly committed to the PTAB strategy. Settling now = public admission it didn’t work. Board optics are bad. 3. Recency bias: The ‘600 FWD issued on May 12. It’s fresh. The momentum feels real. Waiting for more FWDs feels rational, not dangerous. 4. Organizational silos: The PTAB litigation team is separate from the business/licensing team. The litigation team benefits from continuing litigation (more billable hours, more “wins”). The business team bears the royalty cost. These incentives aren’t aligned. 5. Lawyer bias: Patent litigators are trained to fight to the end. Settlement = “losing.” Most PTAB counsel will argue for maximum trial before accepting defeat.

JNJ announced on Saturday that its bispecific T-cell engager Talvey, when used with Halozyme -partnered Darzalex Faspro, reduced the risk of death by up to 53% compared to standard treatment in a late-stage trial for multiple myeloma. https://seekingalpha.com/news/4603099-jj-multiple-myeloma-drug-talvey-cuts-mortality-risk

5-8k a day…. Now only a million when we’ve traded 2 for months, coupled with the 50/200 - the math isn’t that hard…

We Only a million share today is the tell tale. I’ve been watching this days we traded 5-8,000 shares. Their math is relatively simple to figure out..

These are some nasty traders in complete control of this thing. 200 day is 69.70 ish. 50 day is 66. So by dropping this to sit at the 200 day, they’ve bought a bunch more time to 1. Potentially cover their short position right here, before the 50 days crosses over the 200. By dropping it to 200 day, they’ve bought months of time. Hopefully Halo has trick up sleeves to force their hands and accelerate the time line. Dont think they do, its become very predictable- the only real wild card out there is the Merck lawsuit, and potentially a JnJ contract (but that’s likely years out).

To perceive means to become aware of, notice, or understand something...spaceX $173/shr $0 earnings/revs...HALO projected revs of over $2 billion w/ earnings exceeding $1.2 billion

Great info - Thank You!! I forgot about the statute of limitations on the PGRs, that is helpful. Do have a feel - if Mercks PGR strategy fails - and the sign deal, how long they would be on royalty hook with Halo for? Assuming that is based on mdase patent exp. And it could be many different patent exp dates, considering the 15 cited. And Thank You again!!!!

Helen said that she expects Janssen to sign a new contract with halozyme for Faspro and so there might not be any step down in Faspro royalties well into 2030’s.
The rest of Enhanze partner contracts don’t have a step down for as long as there are co-formulation patents (which they all have going to 2030’s.)
Also, remember that once Merck’s signs a deal or settles with halozyme, all the other companies that signed with Alteogen will know that they too will have to sign a deal for MDASE with halozyme. The PGR’s have a statute of limitation and after a certain amount of time post patent issuance, you cannot file for a PGR. That time has passed for all MDASE patents. The only other way to invalidate MDASE patents is to apply for IPR which much harder to win. So the rest will follow Merck’s precedent.

Thank You for info. I hope the tides have turned here…. Question - if that’s OK. If halo wins a settlement, 1. They really need to get mid single digits because they won’t be able to offset as product sales like they’ll do with J & J. And 2 - when do think mdase patent will expire? I’m really hopeful it’s at lest 2032 or 33, and Halo could get 4 or 5 of royalties, to cover the legal bills + some.

The Director’s Own Precedent Now Cuts in Halozyme’s Favor:

What happened on May 15, 2026:Director Squires personally denied institution of PGR2025-00087 — the 15th PGR — on RPI grounds. He found the same MCI/MSD RPI issue present, and denied institution without reaching the merits. Same petitioner, same lead counsel, same parent company and same failure to disclose in all of the 14 other Merck’s PGR’s against Halozyme. 
Why Halozyme’s Director Review Petition Has Dramatically Increased Probability of Success
1. Director Consistency DoctrineThe Director cannot plausibly maintain that:
• PGR2025-00087: “This petition fails to comply with statutory RPI requirements and should not have been instituted” (May 15). 

It would be a logical impossibility to not apply the same RPI standards to the rest of the PGR’s. The Director has just established that an RPI defect is a threshold statutory violation that defeats institution. He cannot then say it doesn’t defeat the finality of a final written decision issued on the same defective petition.
2. Aylo Freesites Precedent Halozyme CitesHalozyme’s petition cites Aylo Freesites (IPR2024-00940, Director Feb. 3, 2026) — a case where the Director sua sponte vacated a final written decision after discovering an RPI defect. The Director exercised authority to go back and undo proceedings that were tainted by improper RPI disclosure.
The Director has already established he will do exactly what Halozyme is asking: vacate an FWD on RPI grounds. PGR2025-00087’s denial on May 15 is a fresh demonstration that the Director is serious about this.
3. Sun Pharm. Precedent (Very Recent)Halozyme also cites Sun Pharm. Industries v. Biofrontera (PGR2026-00021, May 26, 2026) — a Director decision issued on May 26, 2026 (the same day Halozyme filed its May 26 Director Review Request on the termination motion). The Director found in that case that “the Petitioner here likewise has failed to provide sufficient evidence that its parent company did not have the ability to control this proceeding.”
This is a fresh, contemporaneous Director precedent establishing that parent company control/RPI issues are being taken seriously at the Director level right now.
4. The Timing Creates Institutional PressureDirector Squires personally denied institution of PGR2025-00087 on May 15, 2026. 
Revised Director Review Probability Assessment
The Director has now established that the same RPI defect is fatal to institution in PGR2025-00087. He cannot maintain institutional credibility by allowing the nearly-identical defect to stand in the other 14 PGR’s. 
Consistency requires reversal of the already issued FWD.

The Cascading Effect Across All 14 PGRs
This creates a domino problem for Merck:
If the Director vacates the ’600 FWDs:
• All 14 remaining PGRs are tainted by the same RPI defect • The Director has now established that RPI defects are fatal even post-FWD • Halozyme has precedent (the Director’s own May 15 decision) for terminating all 14 proceedings • Merck’s entire PTAB strategy collapses
The Most Likely Scenario Now

Based on the Director’s May 15 decision on PGR2025-00087 and the May 26 Sun Pharm. decision, the most probable outcome is:
Director grants Halozyme’s Director Review petition, vacates the ’600 FWDs, and terminates the rest of PGR’s on RPI grounds.
This immediately triggers:
1. Halozyme’s ability to file Director Review petitions on all remaining 13 PGRs (using -00003 as precedent) 2. Probable cascading terminations across the 14-proceeding portfolio 3. Collapse of Merck’s PTAB strategy 4. Shift of all leverage to the district court and the 3 PGR-ineligible patents
Bottom Line
The Director has already ruled that the exact same RPI defect is sufficient to deny institution. He cannot now plausibly maintain that the identical defect does not invalidate an FWD that issued on a defective petition.
Revised overall termination probability (final): 75% Director reversal on PGR2025-00003 ? cascading terminations across 14 PGRs ? Merck’s PTAB strategy collapses ? settlement/licensing probability rises to 75-82% as Merck’s negotiating position deteriorates.

This is huge (from a PTAB filling today):
“ Notably, the Director has already addressed the same factual circumstancesbetween these parties, denying institution in MSD’s related petition (PGR2025-00087) after Halozyme raised MSD’s failure to name all RPIs as the sole issue inits Preliminary Response. PGR2025-00087, Paper 22 (May 15, 2026).
…. For the foregoing reasons, including in view of the Director’s recentdecision denying institution in the -087 PGR (with same RPI briefing andunderlying evidence as here) (PGR2025-00087, Paper 22 (May 15, 2026)) and forthe reasons stated in Patent Owner’s May 26 Director Review Request (Paper 140),Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Director grant this request for DirectorReview, vacate the Board’s Final Written Decision, terminate this PGR, and vacateall post-institution decisions.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FPGR2025-00003%2F142
Since the director has already denied the institution of MERCK’s PGR2025-00087 based on Merck’s failure to include its patent company as a Real Party of Interest, it is highly likely that the same director will reverse/vacate the other PGR FWD and other ongoing PGR’s. This is a huge win for halozyme. Merck will sign a deal/settle.

Thank you. Feel free to write to Halozyme and share the message (you have my permission to copy and paste)

Indeed!

To your point, 30% of SpaceX is targeted for retail.

Great Job….

Halozyme’s new CFO, “Mr. Snellgrove led investor relations at Johnson & Johnson, where he oversaw global investor engagement and helped strengthen corporate messaging, analyst relationships, and market performance.”
Welcome aboard! Halzoyme is in need of a major shake up in its IR. One of the biggest contributors to extremely low PEG and forward PE valuations has been an inability to attract non-institutional investors. Prices in modern markets are determined by the marginal buyers. Halozyme is almost 100% institutionally owned.
I hope you and Helen take the time to appear on CNBC, bloomberg, investor YouTube channels and Podcasts.
It would also help a lot if you buy some shares yourself in the open markets.
We look forward to seeing a meaningful improvement in Halozyme’s valuations under your leadership.
https://halozyme.com/leadership/darren-snellgrove/

https://www.wealthenginepro.com/insights/the-case-for-halozyme

Forgot Roche also.

Forgot roche in that post.

Lots of good stuff happening to halo. Jnj and Argx were up big today. Easily going over 100 soon.

Considering the bloodbath in all the indices today to finish at down .1% shows not much selling to jump into space x ipo from the institutions....lol...imao...r

News on argenx... argenx said its main priorities are revenue growth, profitability and execution as it expands the VYVGART franchise and pipeline, with CFO Karl Gubitz stressing the company has evolved into a fully integrated global biotech.

The company is targeting 50,000 patients on treatment by 2030, up from 19,000 at the end of last year, and aims to reach 10 labeled indications and five new Phase III molecules by decade’s end. (not breaking out the subset figures on SC) https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/healthcare/articles/argenx-touts-vyvgart-growth-50-100223333.html ...r

This is the "summation" of Ms Grez testimony that HALO will use to in its appeal to the Patent Director case in hammering home its main legal focal point that MCI and MSD are both RPI's thus spoiling the original PGR request that was sought... https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FPGR2025-00052%2F80 ....imao...r

MERCK is a corrupt company. In their own litigation against John Hopkins University regarding keytruda, Merck named both the subsidiary and the parent company as real parties of interest. (RPI).

So in regards to patent case PGR2025-00052...testimony of Kelly Grez corporate sec...The attorney for HALO produced 7 SEC documents that she signed off on that has names of employees of MSD LLC but were submitted as employees of Merck inc. This nebulous "dual role" claim that Merck employs is being exposed as problematic...some of them weren't even Merck Inc employees... this issue comes up at the very end of the deposition...It was nearly 9 hrs long...interesting that Ms Grez had a dual role herself but no separate office/desk/phone/ or email to delineate each of her capacities at any given time.... https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FPGR2025-00052%2F1225 ...r

The key question is how large VYVGART sales could become if myositis and Sjögren's disease are eventually approved, because Halozyme earns a royalty on VYVGART Hytrulo sales that use ENHANZE.

Here is a reasonable framework:

Scenario Annual VYVGART Sales Halozyme Royalty (approx. 4%–6%)
Current approved indications continue growing $7 billion $280M–$420M
One major new indication succeeds $8–10 billion $320M–$600M
Both myositis and Sjögren's succeed and become large products $10–12+ billion $400M–$720M+

Halozyme's investor presentation cited analyst projections of approximately $7 billion in VYVGART sales by 2028 from just the currently approved indications (gMG and CIDP), and highlighted myositis and Sjögren's as important future growth opportunities. Halozyme also noted that it receives "mid-single-digit royalties" on VYVGART Hytrulo sales.

For perspective:

VYVGART generated $4.2 billion of sales in 2025, up from $2.2 billion in 2024.
Argenx continues to advance studies in myositis and Sjögren's disease and has reported encouraging data in both areas.
Halozyme's presentation places myositis in the 2026–2027 wave of potential launches and Sjögren's in the 2028–2030 wave.
What could it mean specifically for Halozyme?

If VYVGART reaches the projected $7 billion by 2028, Halozyme could be receiving roughly $300–$400 million annually from VYVGART alone, depending on the exact royalty rate.

If myositis and Sjögren's both become approved and commercially successful, an additional $3–5 billion in annual VYVGART sales would not be an unreasonable long-term possibility. At a mid-single-digit royalty, that could add another $120–$300 million per year to Halozyme's royalty stream.

Timing

Based on current development timelines:

Myositis: potential approval opportunity around 2027–2028
Sjögren's disease: more likely 2028–2030
Peak sales contribution would probably occur several years after approval as physicians adopt the drug and reimbursement expands.

So when investors pushed Halozyme higher on the argenx news, they were likely thinking not about a few million dollars of extra royalties, but about the possibility that VYVGART eventually becomes a $10+ billion franchise, which could translate into $500 million to $700+ million of annual royalty revenue for Halozyme over the next decade. That is a very meaningful amount for Halozyme's earnings power

The most likely reason Halozyme (NASDAQ: HALO) jumped today is that its partner argenx released new positive data on VYVGART (efgartigimod) at the EULAR 2026 medical meeting. The data showed:

Sustained, clinically meaningful benefits in patients with myositis.
Continued positive results in Sjögren's disease.
A consistent safety profile across multiple autoimmune diseases.

Why this matters for Halozyme:

VYVGART Hytrulo is a subcutaneous version of argenx's blockbuster drug that uses Halozyme's ENHANZE drug-delivery technology. Halozyme receives royalties on sales of products that use ENHANZE.

Investors are likely looking beyond the current approved indications (generalized myasthenia gravis and CIDP) and focusing on the possibility that:

Myositis could become a future approved indication.
Sjögren's disease could become another large market opportunity.
Every new approved indication could increase VYVGART Hytrulo sales and therefore increase Halozyme's royalty revenue.

For Halozyme shareholders, the key takeaway is not today's data itself, but the possibility that VYVGART continues expanding into additional autoimmune diseases. Since VYVGART is already one of Halozyme's largest royalty-generating products, successful expansion could translate into years of additional royalty growth.

Shares of biopharmaceutical drug delivery company Halozyme Therapeutics (NASDAQ:HALO) jumped 5.2% in the afternoon session after an analyst reiterated a Buy rating on the stock, and a partner company, argenx, presented positive new data for a drug that utilizes Halozyme's technology .Benchmark maintained its Buy rating and $90 price target on Halozyme, with the firm noting the stock has potential for gains this year.