- Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals Limited / Padagis US LLC et al. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01114 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–11 because substantially the same art and arguments were previously considered, and Petitioner did not show material error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“factors. In the first part, we consider factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine 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, 8–10. “If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office,” then we advance to the second part of the analysis to determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in view of factors (c), (e), and (f). Id. Advanced Bionics instructs that “[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.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,311,482 - Eyenovia, Inc. v. Sydnexis.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 8, 2022 · IPR2022-00963 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–27 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art and arguments had been presented to the Office and no material error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, 8–10. “If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office,” then we advance to the second part of the analysis to determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in view of factors (c), (e), and (f). Id. Advanced Bionics instructs that “[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 9–10.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,421,199 - Eyenovia, Inc. v. Sydnexis.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00965 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art and arguments had been considered during prosecution and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“For these reasons, we determine that both the art and the arguments presented in the Petition are substantially the same as those previously presented to the Examiner.” slip op. at 21
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,076,515 - Eyenovia, Inc. v. Sydnexis.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00964 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1–19 under § 325(d), finding the art and arguments substantially similar to those previously presented and no material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“We again determine that Patent Owner has the better position. As explained above, the Examiner considered substantially the same art during prosecution. Although there was no rejection issued over the particular references cited in the Petition, those references were either before the Examiner (Siegel) or are cumulative of references (Chua & Tan and Lund) before the Examiner. There is no evidence that suggests the Examiner overlooked the most pertinent teachings in the art presented during prosecution. Indeed, the Teva rejection presented substantially the same arguments as the grounds in the Petition, including Patent Owner’s argument that there was “insufficient rationale to combine Teva and other references to produce a D2O-based formulation in which atropine is the monotherapeutic agent because atropine and its derivatives are specifically recognized as stable in ordinary water.” Ex. 2003, 69, 87–88. The Examiner credited this argument by withdrawing the Teva rejection and allowing the ’447 patent. Thus, we do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that the Examiner failed to consider whether it would have been “obvious to improve low-concentration atropine with D2O as a monotherapy for treating myopia.” See Pet. 63.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“D. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that the circumstances of this case warrant the exercise of discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and therefore deny institution. ORDER After due consideration of the record before us, and for the foregoing reasons, it is: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 25
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,770,447 - Eyenovia, Inc. v. Sydnexis.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00966 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1–13, 15–27, and 29–30 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art and arguments had been presented to the Office and no material error shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“For these reasons, we determine that both the art and the arguments presented in the Petition are substantially the same as those previously presented to the Examiner.” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“D. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that the circumstances of this case warrant the exercise of discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and therefore deny institution. ORDER After due consideration of the record before us, and for the foregoing reasons, it is: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 26
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,201,534 - Nitro Fluids, L.L.C. v. Cameron International CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2019 · IPR2019-00804 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the rehearing request and maintained denial of institution for claims 1–15 under § 325(d) based on Kajaria and Guidry.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s 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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part) and determined that the balance of these factors favored denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Dec. 11–23. As part of this analysis, we determined that: Kajaria was previously presented to the office during prosecution and was the basis for a rejection by the Examiner; Petitioner and the Examiner relied on the same disclosures of Kajaria to support their arguments; Petitioner did not sufficiently point out how the Examiner erred in his evaluation of Kajaria; and the declaration testimony of Mr. Ely did not warrant reconsideration of the prior art previously analyzed by the Examiner. Id. at 12–22.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“fracturing tree, wherein the single outlet is coupled to the fracturing tree by a single fluid conduit that is the only fluid conduit connecting the skid apparatus in fluid communication with the well at which the one fracturing tree is positioned. Ex. 1001, 7:6–30.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther
“obviousness ground relies solely on modification of distribution modules 42. Req. Reh’g 14. According to Petitioner, the Petition specifically alleges that “it would have been obvious to modify any module, including specifically module 40, to use a single manifold, to support only a single valve group, for delivery of fluid to a single well, via a single fluid conduit.” Id. (citing Pet. 35–42, 49–52, 56–57; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92, 96, 99, 102, 103, 122, 124–126, 128, 138). We did not misunderstand or misapprehend this argument; indeed, we noted its logical appeal. Dec. 21 n.10. We instead declined to credit the inference underpinning this argument, i.e., that a single-manifold embodiment would use a single fluid conduit, because the only reference of record having a single distribution module coupled to a single manifold had two fluid conduits extending from the distribution module to the well. Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misunderstood or overlooked Petitioner’s obviousness arguments.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,903,190
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.