- Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH / Miltenyi Biotec Inc. v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00853 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art had been presented to the Office and no material examination error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that: A POSA is a person skilled in the art of administering CAR T-cell therapies. The person would possess a relatively high level of skill and have at least an MD, together with several years of experience in administering CAR T-cell therapies. The person would also have experience designing CARs. The POSA would have knowledge of the scientific literature pertaining to immunology, including CARs and methods for utilizing CARs before the priority date. A POSA would also be knowledgeable about laboratory techniques related to engineering and testing the function of CAR T-cells. A POSA would also be knowledgeable about designing clinical trials, including selecting dose ranges, that evaluate CAR T-cell therapies. Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not presently contest this definition. Although Petitioner’s definition generally comports with our understanding of the high level of skill in the art, we are not persuaded all of the asserted qualifications must be embodied in a single person. For example, it seems unduly limiting to require that the person of ordinary skill in the art have “at least an MD” degree, and “be knowledgeable about laboratory techniques related to engineering and testing the function of CAR T-cells,” as Petitioner suggests. Accordingly, we provisionally adopt Petitioner’s definition with the caveat that the asserted qualifications may be shared among multiple individuals working as part of a multidisciplinary team. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached
“Patent Owner points out that the structure of independent claim 1 here is similar to those addressed in Eli Lilly. Prelim. Resp. 18. And, as in Eli Lilly, the Specification of the ’140 patent underscores the centrality of the method recited in the preamble. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, codes (54), (57), 1:55– 57). Unlike in Eli Lilly, however, the body of independent claim 1 does not recite merely “an effective amount” but “an anti-tumor effective amount” of the composition administered. Petitioner argues that whereas the preambles in Eli Lilly “provide the only metric by which one practicing the claim could determine whether the amount administered is an ‘effective amount,’” the term “anti-tumor effective amount” in independent claim 1 “is well-defined by the specification and provides sufficient guidance for determining effectiveness.” Prelim. Reply 3 (citing Eli Lilly at 1342). On balance, Petitioner appears to have the better argument. Nonetheless, even if we were to construe the treatment language of the preamble to mean “reducing the frequency or severity of at least one sign or symptom of cancer” as Patent Owner proposes, this definition is coextensive with, if not subsumed by, the term “anti-tumor effective amount,” discussed below. As such, the outcome of this proceeding does not turn on whether the preamble is limiting.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“As we understand it response, Patent Owner does not appear to contest that “anti-tumor effect” can comprise a decrease in the number of tumor cells, but argues that the claim term requires “a palpable therapeutic effect,” which is more than “just the death of a single cancer cell or handful of cells.” Prelim. Resp. 19–23; Prelim. Sur-reply 4–5. In support, Patent Owner points to the ’140 patent’s express definition of “[a]n ‘effective amount’” as meaning “an amount which provides a therapeutic or prophylactic benefit.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:53–54). Relatedly, we note that the Specification also teaches that a “‘therapeutically effective amount’ includes that amount of a compound that, when administered, is sufficient to prevent development of, or alleviate to some extent, one or more of the signs or symptoms of the disorder or disease being treated.” Ex. 1001, 18:12–15. Patent Owner further contends that “[t]he specification teaches that ‘an antitumor effective amount’ is an amount to be administered that is “determined by a physician” as part of determining ‘[t]he optimal dosage and treatment regime for a particular patient . . . by monitoring the patient for signs of disease and adjusting the treatment accordingly.’” Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 37:53–38:5). Considering the argument and evidence of record, we agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand an “anti- tumor effective amount” as used in claim 1 to require more than the killing of a single tumor cell. Accordingly, we provisionally construe “anti-tumor effective amount” as any amount of CAR T-cells administered to a patient in need of cancer treatment that reduces the frequency or severity of at least one clinically relevant sign or symptom of the disease. To the extent this functional limitation is satisfied, claim 2 indicates that an “anti-tumor effective amount” may be limited to between 104 to 109 CAR T-cells/kg body weight. At this stage of the proceeding, no other term requires construction.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“reasonable expectation of success in light of the unpredictability of cancer therapy and the “uninspiring” results and failures of earlier CAR-T clinical trials. Prelim. Resp. 23–28 (citing e.g., Ex. 2037, 1036; Ex. 2010, 1824– 1825; Ex. 2032, 1250–1251). In support, Patent Owner points to OSI Pharms. as “directly on-point.” Id. at 24 (citing OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The claims at issue in OSI Pharms., were structurally similar to those at issue here and directed to a method of treating non-small cell lung cancer (“NSCLC”) in a mammal using a therapeutically effective amount of erlotinib, which had previously been shown to inhibit the epidermal growth factor receptor (“EGFR”) in vitro. 939 F.3d at 1378–79. The court stated: Cancer treatment is highly unpredictable. Even though the EGFR was identified in some cancers as a drug target, the in vitro (i.e., in a test tube) effectiveness of a drug in inhibiting the EGFR turned out to be a poor proxy for how effective that drug actually was in treating cancer in vivo (i.e., in the body). Numerous EGFR inhibitors that showed promising in vitro activity failed for a variety of reasons. Id. at 1377; see also id. at 1386 (“1,630 other new drug compounds that, like erlotinib, targeted NSCLC and were studied in Phase II trials. The failure rate for these compounds was 99.5%”). Against this backdrop, the court reversed the Board over its unsupported reading of the two cited references, finding that: the asserted references do not disclose any data or other information about erlotinib’s efficacy in treating NSCLC. The record does not contain any clinical (human) data or preclinical (animal) data. It does not even include in vitro (test tube) data regarding erlotinib’s effect on NSCLC. Id. at 1384. Considering the promising in vitro data presented in Campana and Jensen, Petitioner here has a somewhat better position than the Appellees in OSI Pharms. At core, Grounds 1 and 2, require us to find a reasonable expectation of success in treating a human cancer based on in vitro experiments, the mere existence of a clinical trial, and absent any of the “clinical (human) data or preclinical (animal) data,” highlighted by the court. See id. Considering the inherent unpredictability of the field and the history of failures of similar technology documented by Patent Owner, we do not find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive. As such, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that any claim of the ’140 patent is unpatentable under Grounds 1 and 2.” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,464,140 - 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 - Hologic, Inc. v. Biomérieux, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 31, 2019 · IPR2018-00568 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Hologic’s rehearing request, leaving in place the § 325(d) denial of institution for claims 1–6 because Hologic did not show the Board abused its discretion.
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.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“The Board determined that these factors weighed in favor of denying institution because, inter alia: the Examiner considered the same prior art or prior art cumulative to Petitioner’s prior art during prosecution, id. at 12–13; the Examiner thoroughly considered the patentability of the ’352 patent’s claims over the lengthy period of prosecution, id. at 13–15; Petitioner’s arguments were substantially the same as the findings the Examiner made with respect to prior-art reference Montagnier, which is a strong (if not stronger) reference than the prior art Petitioner asserted in these Petitions for inter partes review, id. at 15–18; Petitioner failed to address §325(d) in the Petition, id. at 18; and Petitioner failed to persuade the Board that the Examiner erred in relying on the unexpected results shown in the Laayoun Declaration, id. at 18–21; see also id. at 21–22 (weighing the factors). As to the final finding, the Board considered Petitioner’s argument that the Laayoun Declaration is not persuasive evidence of non-obviousness because the Declaration compares the claimed invention to Bell’s prior-art primers, rather than Backus’s “closest prior art” primers. Id. at 20–21. The Board explained that Petitioner bears the burden to prove unpatentability in an inter partes review, and had failed, in this case, to provide “some persuasive evidence that the claimed primers would not have been unexpectedly better than Backus’s primers.” Id. at 21. The Board noted that the Examiner was aware of Backus, but nevertheless “accepted Bell as the closest prior art.” Id. The Board “decline[d] to revisit that decision,” because “Petitioner d[id] not persuade us that the Examiner erred in accepting that evidence as showing unexpected results.” Id. at 21–22.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsDecided for patent owner
“Here, Petitioner attempted to show that Bell is not the closest prior art by presenting schematics comparing the nucleotide sequences of Backus’s primers to Bell’s primers and repeating Dr. Linnen’s statements that he considered the Backus primer set “closer” to the claimed primer set than the Bell primer set. Pet. 52–54 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 317–327). But neither Petitioner nor Dr. Linnen attempted to explain—or present any evidence— that Backus’s primers would have achieved the same results as the claimed primers. See Instit. Dec. 21. Put differently, Petitioner’s bare assertions failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that Patentee’s unexpected results would have been any different when compared to Backus. See Kao Corp. v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (calling patent challenger Unilever’s argument that patentee Kao’s unexpected results were not compared to the closest prior art “not sustainable”: “Even if we were to conclude that Gangadharan was clearly the closest prior art, Unilever has not demonstrated, or even alleged, that Gangadharan achieved [the unexpected results] reported by Kao. . . . In the absence of such an allegation, any error made by the trial court in using Gueret for its comparison would be harmless.”). Third, we note that Petitioner’s case appears to rely on an overly mechanical application of the “closest prior art.” See Reh’g Req. 6–12. Although unexpected results must be shown to be unexpected compared to the closest prior art, the Federal Circuit has warned against applying that requirement “so rigidly as to require [patentee] to identify and focus on just one prior art product when multiple, similar” products “existed or were described in the prior art.” Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc., 2019 WL 254418, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2019). Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, we decline to revisit the Examiner’s decision to accept the Laayoun Declaration absent some persuasive evidence that the claimed primers would not have been unexpectedly better than Backus’s primers. Instit. Dec. 21.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,697,352
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.