- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00719 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Levy grounds and § 325(d) warranted denial of the Christensen ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“example, claim 5 recites “data that identifies a source of the data stream,” “third party encoded data,” “analysis data,” “identifying data,” and “additional data.” Ex. 1001, 34:47–35:11. Petitioner relies on Levy’s broadcaster ID as both (1) “data that identifies a source of the data stream” because it identifies the broadcaster and (2) “third party encoded data” because it originates from outside of Levy’s user device and is embedded with the broadcast. See Pet. 49. Petitioner, however, does not explain whether the Specification of the ’806 patent indicates that “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and the “third party encoded data” can refer to the same data. See id. at 48–49. Petitioner also does not explain further if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the asserted “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and the “third party encoded data” can be the same data. See id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that “Levy teaches finding, extracting, and decoding ‘identifiers’—including a ‘broadcaster ID.’” Pet. 48–49. Claim 5 requires “determining . . . data that identifies a source of the data stream through analysis of said data stream” and “extracting at least third party encoded data obtained from the data stream.” Ex. 1001, 34:47–35:11. By reciting another step for another type of data, claim 5 indicates by its own words that “third party data” has some difference with “data that identifies a source of the data stream.” See id.; see also Pet. 5 (arguing that “[t]erms not expressly construed should be given their plain and ordinary meaning”). “broadcaster ID” identifies the source, is encoded, and can originate from a third party, the arguments presented in the Petition and the cited evidence do not sufficiently persuade us that Levy’s finding, extracting, and decoding the broadcaster ID discloses, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand discloses, both the steps of “determining, using at least one processor, data that identifies a source of the data stream obtained through analysis of said data stream” and “extracting at least third party encoded data obtained from the data stream.” See Pet. 48–49; Ex. 1001, 34:47–58. The presented arguments and cited evidence may be sufficient for one step, but not both. Moreover, even if one of ordinary skill in the art understood that Levy’s broadcaster ID could be both “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and “third party encoded data,” Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently how Levy analyzes the asserted third party code to generate analysis data that includes at least an identifying data, as required by claim 5. The relied-upon portions of Levy do not disclose analyzing the broadcaster ID (i.e., the alleged third party encoded data). Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 13–15, 22, 26, 55, 56, 65, 68, Fig. 1. Petitioner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand forwarding broadcaster ID with context information to a server discloses the step of “analyzing” third party encoded data. See Pet. 50–53. Petitioner also does not provide an interpretation of “analyzing” that supports the argument. See id. at 5–6, 50–53; see also Prelim. Resp. 38–39 (responding that Petitioner’s anticipation challenges lack particularity).” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“proceeding.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in determining whether to institute an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In evaluating the exercise of discretion to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non- exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). Factors (a), (b), and (d) of the Becton, Dickinson factors relate to whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or a related field), and approximately three years of experience working in the communications- or Internet-related industries, or, alternatively, an advanced degree (such as a master’s degree) in computer science or electrical engineering (or a related field).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Petitioner also argues that “more education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes an interpretation for “media segment” with citations to the record. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:18–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42, 43). Patent Owner provides a response. Prelim. Resp. 53–54. At this stage, because determining whether Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing does not depend on a particular interpretation for any claim term, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy);” slip op. at 10
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,294,806 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2021 · IPR2021-00607 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 14–38 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and Petitioner failed to show material Examiner error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“[U]nder § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. If the petitioner fails 7 to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his or her discretion not to institute inter partes review. Id.; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24 (exercising discretion where “Petitioner has not pointed to error by the Examiner”). 1. Part I – whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Fourth, Petitioner argues that, because the subject matter added from Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain before it was added by amendment in the ’138 application and then filed with the U.S. Application No. 13/294,108 (“the ’108 application”), the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’140 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is the date of filing the ’108 application, November 10, 2011. Pet. 14−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, “[w]hen claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification,” in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p), 8th Ed. Rev. 8 (July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 26−30. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’140 patent is November 10, 2011. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that “the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu 21 ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’140 Patent.” Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24.” slip op. at 21
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - Passage Bio, Inc. v. The Trustees Of The University Of Pennsylvania And Regenxbio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 6, 2021 · PGR2021-00073 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–15, finding the § 112 arguments substantially repeated prosecution arguments without material Office error and exercising discretion under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Under § 325(d), in determining whether to institute a post-grant review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition 1 U.S. Patent No. 7,906,111 B2, issued March 15, 2011 (Ex. 1019, “the ’111 patent”). The ’111 patent is in the same family as the challenged ’441 patent. See infra, Section II.A.1. 2 Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Petitioner discusses the ’111 prior art patent, other printed publications – all within the ’441 patent’s family – are also prior art because they published more than one-year prior to October 2, 2018.” Pet. 73 n.14. 6 or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Our § 325(d) analysis employs a two-prong framework: (1) whether the arguments presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office; and (2) if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in its prior consideration of those arguments. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). When analyzing the second prong, “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 9. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id.” slip op. at 6
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Petitioner further asserts that the challenged claims lack utility. Pet. 68–72. Institution of post-grant review is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); see also SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018) (“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”).6 6 Even though SAS and Harmonic address inter partes reviews, we see no reason to interpret the statute governing post-grant reviews differently. 26 In exercising that discretion, we are guided by the statutory requirement, in promulgating regulations for post-grant review, to consider the effect of any regulations on “the efficient administration of the Office [and] the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings,” 35 U.S.C. § 326(b), as well as the requirement to construe our rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Under the Office Guidance, “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018).7 Here, we determine that 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that instituting review on all grounds would undermine the statutory purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Accordingly, we deny the entire Petition. SAS Q&A’s, Part D, Effect of SAS on Future Challenges that Could Be Denied for Statutory Reasons, answer to Question D1 (June 5, 2018).8” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther
“As an initial matter, we agree with Patent Owner that “the only functional requirement of the claims is the ability to form a functional 19 capsid.” Sur-reply 8; see also Pet. 21 (proposing that we construe the term “AAV capsid protein” to mean “a protein that can form an AAV capsid”). More importantly, contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the examiner, during the prosecution of the ’218 application and priority applications, specifically considered the formation of the capsid. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 5172 (“[T]he lack of characterization of the capsid protein at the time of filing means one could not know which of the 736 amino acids or 2208 nucleotides could be modified without affecting the ability to form a ‘capsid’ protein.”); Ex. 1011, 1374, 2198 (“The specification teaches only SEQ ID NO: 123 and does not provide those variable amino acids nor any fragments such that a person of skill in the art would recognize those amino acids that are related by 95% to SEQ ID NO: 123 and have capsid formation and function.”); Ex. 2023, 11 (“[T]he specification teaches only that SEQ ID NO: 123 is essential to form a capsid.”).” slip op. at 19
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,695,441 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding substantially the same arguments had been presented before and Petitioner failed to show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under § 325(d), in “determining whether to institute [an inter partes review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons stated below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’654 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“3. § 325(d) Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the ’654 Patent claims. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review. 26 IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain before the amendments in the ’138 application, the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under § 112, ¶ 1, is the filing date of the ’108 application, i.e., November 10, 2011, “the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 Patent claims relying on this subject matter.” Pet. 15−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, when claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential 25 material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p) (8th Ed. Rev. 8 July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 28−33. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’654 patent is November 10, 2011.” slip op. at 25
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial - Intel Corp. v. Health Discovery Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 14, 2021 · IPR2021-00553 · APJ Per Curiam · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Intel did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 5–7, 13, 18, 22, and 32 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“been obvious over Mukherjee and Platt. Pet. 20–68. As explained below, we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its obviousness challenge based on Mukherjee and Platt.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons set forth below, we deny institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“feature weights because Mukherjee instead “only computes pattern weights, expressed as 𝛼𝛼s.” Prelim Resp. 25. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately bridged the gap between the claimed feature weight and Mukherjee’s pattern weight. Although Petitioner’s expert contends that feature weight and pattern weight “are [] equivalent,” he implicitly concedes they are not in his additional assertion that they are “related and can be derived from one another.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 92 n.14. We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that “a relationship exists between feature weight vectors, 𝒘𝒘, and pattern weight vectors, 𝜶𝜶, such that one can be mathematically derived and calculated from the other.” Pet. 30. Even if correct, Petitioner’s argument falls short because Petitioner offers no explanation as to why a skilled artisan would have done so. As Patent Owner notes, “a conclusion of obviousness is not dependent upon what a person of ordinary skill in the art could do, but rather what the hypothetical individual would do, and there was no motivation for Mukherjee or any person of ordinary skill in the art to [compute feature weights].” Prelim. Resp. 26. In short, we find that Petitioner has not produced the required “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Therefore, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing independent claims 1, 7, 13, 18, 22, or 32 (or claims 5 and 6 which depend from claim 1) would have” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’483 patent (a “POSITA”) would have had “at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the equivalent with three years of experience in machine learning and data-analysis techniques.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). Further, Petitioner asserts that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not contest that a skilled artisan would have this kind of background knowledge and experience; nor does Patent Owner suggest that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill leads to an improper understanding of the prior art or an improper patentability analysis. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage in the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is supported by Dr. Evgeniou’s testimony and appears commensurate with the level of ordinary skill as reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’483 patent.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,095,483 - Triplet Therapeutics, Inc. v. Board Of Supervisors Of Louisiana State University And Agricultural And Mechanical CollegeInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 8, 2021 · PGR2021-00059 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–15: grounds 2–5 lacked a supported reason to combine, and ground 1 repeated arguments considered by the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have the authority and discretion to determine whether to institute a post grant review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that the challenged claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art in asserted grounds 2–5. With regard to ground 1, Petitioner’s written description ground, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments are substantially the same as those previously presented to and considered by the Office, and we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and decline to institute post-grant review of the ’542 patent on that ground alone.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments regarding whether the ’542 patent provides § 112 written description support for the challenged claims are substantially the same as those considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’542 patent. As set forth above, the Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending claims because (1) the claims were overly broad in light of the guidance provided in the specification that was limited to the working examples specific to exon 7 of a gene encoding a MLH3 subunit (Ex. 1006, 623–24); (2) the claims did not enable the oligonucleotides to “hybridize[] to a complementary target nucleic acid sequence of a gene or gene product to modulate the expression of a component of a mismatch repair (MMR) complex” based on the disclosure of the specification, which was limited to the working examples (id.); and (3) the claims did not enable a pharmaceutical composition of the recited nucleotide base length range for the entire scope of the claims based on the disclosure of the specification, which was limited to the working examples (id. at 1183–84). The rejections were based on a broad reading of the claims as interpreted by the ordinarily skilled artisan, and required analysis of whether there is sufficient support in the specification for the entire scope of the claims. Applicant overcame these issues by narrowing the claims until the Examiner agreed that the support present was sufficient.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not found
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s allegations regarding the skilled artisan’s reasons to combine are conclusory and insufficiently supported by evidence. Petitioner cites Dr. Wood’s testimony to explain why the skilled artisan would have understood that Fuselier’s suggestion to “switch[] isoforms of MLH3” could be accomplished by manipulating pre-mRNA splicing to delete exon 7. Petitioner’s discussion on pages 59–60 quotes phrases from Dr. Wood’s referenced testimony, see Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 213–216, but the rationale appearing in the Petition merely comprises repetitive generalized statements akin to “Morcos is a powerful tool that can accomplish what Fuselier suggested.” See Pet. 59–60. Dr. Wood’s underlying testimony lacks key explanation as to the understanding of the ordinary artisan at the time of the invention. What Petitioner has not provided, as Patent Owner argues, are the reasons 1) why Fuselier’s suggestion to “switch[] isoforms” would have led the artisan to pursue deletion of exon 7; and 2) why the artisan would have selected Morcos’ time. See Prelim. Resp. 55–56.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“invention in the field of antisense technology “would have had knowledge of the scientific literature and have skills relating to approaches for utilizing synthetic oligonucleotides to manipulate gene expression” and “have been well-experienced in laboratory techniques and strategies for designing and making SSOs, conducting in vitro and in vivo testing, and application of SSOs in research.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30, 31). Petitioner adds that the artisan “would have had knowledge of laboratory techniques and strategies in creating nuclease-resistant SSOs, and using such SSOs to manipulate gene expression to force expression of selected isoforms of a M.D. or a Ph.D. in physiological science, biochemistry, molecular biology, chemistry, or a related discipline, with at least five years of experience in SSOs design and manipulation” and may have “worked as part of a multidisciplinary team” to permit input by others on the team with specialized skills to assist in solving problems. Id. Patent Owner does not contest the skill level provided by Petitioner for the purpose of deciding institution (Prelim. Resp. 4), and we adopt it as reasonably consistent with the level of skill represented by the ’542 patent and the art of record.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,669,542 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · PGR2020-00063 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–9, finding the § 101 arguments previously presented to the Office and the other grounds insufficient to show likely unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. The Board recently explained a two-part framework that the Board uses under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or 4 “ObjectLabel” (Ex. 1007, “ObjectLabel”). 5 US 2015/0153913 A1, issued June 4, 2015 (Ex. 1008, “Ballard”). substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). The Board further explained that “[i]f a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute.” Id. at 8–9. “If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 9. The Becton, Dickinson6 factors, which address discretion to deny when a Petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, are instructive. Id. (“[T]he Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” (Footnote omitted)).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(“the ’432 patent”). Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) filed a petition requesting post-grant review of claims 1–9 of the ’432 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). GREE, in turn, filed a preliminary response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). After considering the petition and the preliminary response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine the petition does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’432 patent is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Thus, we do not institute post-grant review of claims 1–9 of the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“‘“the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.’” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Rather, ‘the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had ‘possession’ of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” Id. (citing Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)).” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“information.” Id. at 7:34–41. In particular, Ross explains that “[t]he user may interact with the secondary, tertiary, etc., virtual reality content and then return his view back to the movie wherein the movie has been adjusted to reflect the user’s interaction with the secondary, tertiary, etc., virtual reality content.” Id. at 7:41–45. Ross explains further that “while a user views primary virtual reality content, system 10 may be configured to display a ‘pop-up’ cue indicating that additional virtual reality content (e.g., additional characters) is available in a different (e.g., secondary, tertiary, etc.) content area.” Id. at 7:46–50. Thus, we understand Ross to disclose a system wherein a user can turn their gaze from a primary area to a secondary, tertiary, etc., area to view content related to the content in the primary area. See Ross, 7:21–33 (“Responsive to the user turning his view from the primary virtual reality content . . . a sensory cue comprising . . . secondary, tertiary, etc., . . . may be displayed to the user.”). Further, we understand Ross to disclose a system wherein the user’s focus on an item in the primary area may activate a “popup” cue in the primary area directing the user to additional virtual reality content in a secondary, tertiary, etc., area. See id. at 7:46–50 (“[W]hile a user views primary virtual reality content, system 10 may be configured to display a ‘pop-up’ cue indicating that additional virtual reality content . . . is available in a different (e.g., secondary, tertiary, etc.) content area.”). We do not, however, understand Ross’ “pop-up” cue to be activated in a secondary, tertiary, etc. area based on the user’s gaze position moving to the second area from the first area as required by claims 1, 8, and 9. See id. Therefore, because Ross describes displaying a “pop-up” cue while a user is viewing primary virtual reality content (see Ross, 7:46–50), Petitioner does not show persuasively that Ross discloses that “a gaze position moving to the second area from the first area” is an “information providing condition.” Furthermore, Petitioner’s cited testimonial evidence does not explain sufficiently how Ross discloses the recited “information providing condition.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 73. For the reasons above, Petitioner does not show adequately that Ross discloses an “information providing condition [that] is a condition of a gaze position moving to the second area from the first area.”” slip op. at 18
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,406,432 - Boragen, Inc. v. Syngenta Participations AGInstitution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2020 · IPR2020-00124 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–12 under § 325(d), finding the asserted prior art and arguments were substantially the same as those considered during prosecution and no material error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated error. Advanced Bionics at 8–10. “If the petitioner fails to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9 (“If a condition in the first part of the framework [i.e., substantially same art or arguments] is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review”). “At bottom, this [§ 325(d)] framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 14 9. On the question of material error, “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence, we deny review of the Petition on a discretionary basis under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Thus, for reasons further explained below, we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1–12 of the ’096 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner makes the same points about Kohn here. According to Petitioner, Kohn teaches “compounds with an oxaborole core structure could be used as fungicides to treat plants and seeds.” Pet. 26–27; see also id. at 42–43 (block quoting, with apparent approval, the Examiner’s findings about Kohn in combination with Austin). Like the Examiner, Petitioner cites Kohn’s teaching of the use of “boroxarophenanthrenes” as fungicides, and the application of such fungicides in effective amounts on vegetative hosts. Pet. 46 (claim chart, citing Kohn’s teachings). Indeed, Petitioner expressly invokes the reasons offered by the Examiner during prosecution as motivating the combination of Austin and Kohn. Pet. 44 (“For all the reasons discussed above and in the prosecution history, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Austin and Kohn with a reasonable expectation of success.”).14 14 In fact, the only reasons that are expressly offered in the Petition for combining Austin and Kohn come from the Examiner. Pet. 42–49 (Ground 2). Petitioner’s assertion that the declaration submitted during prosecution was “misleading” is not a reason for combining Austin and Kohn. Pet. 43–44. Nor do vague citations to testimony of Petitioner’s declarants, without any adequate explanation in the Petition itself, suffice to demonstrate persuasive reasons for combining the art. Id.; see also id. at 23 (asserting vaguely in a section titled “Overview of Grounds” that “[a] POSITA would also be motivated to combine Austin and Kohn to arrive at the claimed invention”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 63–65, 82–85). Even the cited testimony here is unpersuasive. For example, Dr. Hall’s cited testimony merely repeats that a skilled person “would have been motivated to combine Austin and Kohn with a reasonable expectation of success.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 63–65 (conclusory opinion about an alleged “structure similar to that of a benzoxaborole compound” in Kohn), ¶¶ 82–85” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“14 In fact, the only reasons that are expressly offered in the Petition for combining Austin and Kohn come from the Examiner. Pet. 42–49 (Ground 2). Petitioner’s assertion that the declaration submitted during prosecution was “misleading” is not a reason for combining Austin and Kohn. Pet. 43–44. Nor do vague citations to testimony of Petitioner’s declarants, without any adequate explanation in the Petition itself, suffice to demonstrate persuasive reasons for combining the art. Id.; see also id. at 23 (asserting vaguely in a section titled “Overview of Grounds” that “[a] POSITA would also be motivated to combine Austin and Kohn to arrive at the claimed invention”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 63–65, 82–85). Even the cited testimony here is unpersuasive. For example, Dr. Hall’s cited testimony merely repeats that a skilled person “would have been motivated to combine Austin and Kohn with a reasonable expectation of success.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 63–65 (conclusory opinion about an alleged “structure similar to that of a benzoxaborole compound” in Kohn), ¶¶ 82–85” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,130,096 - Apotex Inc. / Apotex Corp. v. Celgene CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 30, 2020 · IPR2018-00685 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d) for grounds I and II and for failure to establish printed-publication status for ground III.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.”” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10 (Feb. 13, 4 2020) (precedential). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. If the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated the Office erred. Id. In evaluating the Petition and accompanying evidence in light of the Becton, Dickinson factors, we determined that grounds I and II were “based on substantially the same prior art and arguments previously presented to the office,” and that Petitioner had “neither sufficiently pointed out how the Examiner erred, nor provided additional evidence or facts that warrant reconsideration of the Examiner’s decision.” Inst. Dec. 26. Accordingly, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and denied institution of grounds I and II on that basis.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“we determined that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition, and declined to institute an inter partes review on any of the three grounds asserted. Specifically, with respect to grounds I and II, we declined to institute pursuant to our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 22–26. With respect to ground III, we determined that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing that the Celgene Press Release was available as a printed publication. Id. at 27–31.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“we determined that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition, and declined to institute an inter partes review on any of the three grounds asserted. Specifically, with respect to grounds I and II, we declined to institute pursuant to our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 22–26. With respect to ground III, we determined that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing that the Celgene Press Release was available as a printed publication. Id. at 27–31.” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,741,929 - Universal Imaging Industries, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 27, 2020 · IPR2019-01383 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–22, finding the Adkins ground warranted denial under § 325(d) and the other obviousness grounds lacked a reasonable likelihood of success.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As we explain in detail below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its other asserted grounds of unpatentability. Because each of Petitioner’s grounds should be denied, either for an inadequate showing on the merits or pursuant to our discretion under § 325(d), we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Weighing each of the factors, we conclude that the circumstances of this case, on the record presented, warrant exercise of our discretion to deny institution based on § 325(d). Patent Owner identified the Adkins application as “related” to the ’079 patent, made statements in the Specification attempting to distinguish the ’079 patent’s invention from Adkins, and cited the ’021 patent in an IDS. Further, the Examiner already was familiar with Adkins given that the same Examiner examined both the ’021 patent and the ’079 patent. We infer from these circumstances that the Examiner considered the substance of Adkins and Patent Owner’s statements regarding the disclosure of Adkins and problems with its approach, despite the lack of an express rejection over Adkins. Petitioner has not presented a convincing case that the Examiner erred in allowing the claims of the ’079 patent and Dr. Direen’s testimony does not provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s arguments.” slip op. at 20
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“limitation that the plurality of address change requests occurs “substantially immediately following a predetermined event.”6 Prelim. Resp. 42. We agree. In its analysis of claim 7, Petitioner does not identify any “event” at all or explain how such an event would be “predetermined” or why the alleged address change requests in Mayer or I2C Spec would occur “substantially immediately following” such an event. See Pet. 21–24. Indeed, the “substantially immediately following a predetermined event” claim language does not even appear in Petitioner’s arguments. See id. 6 Patent Owner makes a number of other arguments regarding the asserted combinations with I2C Spec in its Preliminary Response, including that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that I2C Spec is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Prelim. Resp. 26–30, 36–37, 43–48. We need not reach these issues, however, because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted grounds for the reasons explained herein. Although Petitioner does not identify a “predetermined event” in its Petition, Dr. Direen appears to opine that a “power-on reset process” would trigger the plurality of address change requests. Ex. 1002, App. 1002-A, 14. Dr. Direen states that “[i]t is well understood in the electronic industry and by [persons of ordinary skill in the art] that complex devices such as a microprocessor or I2C slave device will go through a power-on reset process to ensure internal states are at known states. This is inherent device operation.” Id. Dr. Direen, however, cites no support for this opinion and does not explain in any detail what a power-on reset process would entail or why a plurality of address change requests in either Mayer or I2C Spec would occur “substantially immediately following” a power-on reset process. See id. Moreover, to the extent Dr. Direen bases his opinion on inherency, Petitioner does not assert that theory in its Petition.7 See Pet. 21–24. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Mayer and I2C Spec teach a “dynamic address generator” wherein “substantially immediately following a predetermined event and in a continual series of a plurality of address change requests received by the interface and corresponding acknowledgements sent thereby in reply, for each address change request received the dynamic address generator generates a new component address,” as recited in claim 7.” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Relevant to factor (f), Petitioner offers the testimony of Dr. Direen, which was not available to the Examiner. However, Dr. Direen’s testimony is entitled to little weight because it consists primarily of quotations from Adkins, many of which are not cited in the Petition, and an unsupported inherency theory that is not argued in the Petition. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, App. 1002-C, 11–16 (testimony for claim 7). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”), 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Thus, Dr. Direen’s testimony does not provide persuasive evidentiary support for Petitioner’s arguments regarding Adkins. This factor is, at most, neutral.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,850,079
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.