- PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00193 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 24–26, or 30 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’030 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“What is missing from Petitioner’s stated motivation for modifying the array of Cantor is a reason why a POSA would seek to correlate the identification sequence with a location on the array at all. Prelim. Resp. 72. Indeed, the location of a bead on the substrate is not pertinent to the analysis disclosed in Cantor. Ex. 2002 ¶ 172; see also id. at ¶ 31 (Cantor “does not relate to the [spatial] analysis of tissue samples . . . .”). “[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Cantor fails to teach or suggest capture probes distributed randomly on a substrate comprising a nucleic acid sequence that identifies a unique location on the substrate as required by the challenged claims, and Petitioner fails to adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Cantor to make the recited capture probes. In view of the above, we find that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to establish that Cantor teaches or suggests each element of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that any of claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 24–26, and 30 would have been obvious over Cantor.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not argue that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 22–23. Likewise, Patent Owner takes the position that “no claim terms 2 Person of ordinary skill in the art. require explicit construction” for purposes of determining whether to institute inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 19. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, we determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“What is missing from Petitioner’s stated motivation for modifying the array of Cantor is a reason why a POSA would seek to correlate the identification sequence with a location on the array at all. Prelim. Resp. 72. Indeed, the location of a bead on the substrate is not pertinent to the analysis disclosed in Cantor. Ex. 2002 ¶ 172; see also id. at ¶ 31 (Cantor “does not relate to the [spatial] analysis of tissue samples . . . .”). “[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Cantor fails to teach or suggest capture probes distributed randomly on a substrate comprising a nucleic acid sequence that identifies a unique location on the substrate as required by the challenged claims, and Petitioner fails to adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Cantor to make the recited capture probes. In view of the above, we find that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to establish that Cantor teaches or suggests each element of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that any of claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 24–26, and 30 would have been obvious over Cantor.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,761,030 - PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00192 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 5, 17, 20, 23, 28, or 29 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’138 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Cantor fails to teach or suggest capture probes distributed randomly on a substrate comprising a nucleic acid sequence that identifies a unique location on the substrate as required by the challenged claims, and Petitioner fails to adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Cantor to make the recited capture probes. In view of the above, we find that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to establish that Cantor teaches or suggests each element of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that any of claims 1, 5, 17, 20, 23, 28, and 29 would have been obvious over Cantor. slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“3. Discussion Petitioner challenges whether certain elements of independent claims 1 and 17 are supported by the ’124 provisional and/or whether the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact. Pet. 52–60. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, however, we agree with Patent Owner’s written description analysis, summarized above, and find (1) that the ’124 Provisional provides adequate written description support for each of the challenged claim elements; (2) that the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact; and (3) that the ’138 patent is therefore entitled to the priority date of April 5, 2010. Consequently, Frisen is not prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“3. Discussion Petitioner challenges whether certain elements of independent claims 1 and 17 are supported by the ’124 provisional and/or whether the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact. Pet. 52–60. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, however, we agree with Patent Owner’s written description analysis, summarized above, and find (1) that the ’124 Provisional provides adequate written description support for each of the challenged claim elements; (2) that the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact; and (3) that the ’138 patent is therefore entitled to the priority date of April 5, 2010. Consequently, Frisen is not prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,549,138 - PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01289 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7, 11–15, 17, 19, and 27–29 were unpatentable over Cantor, Cantor and Armani, or Frisen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’022 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not argue that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 20. Likewise, Patent Owner takes the position that “no claim terms require explicit construction” for purposes of determining whether to institute inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 20. We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 20. Because Petitioner’s unopposed definition is consistent with the ’022 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt that definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that “[n]ot only does Cantor not teach contacting a ‘tissue sample’ with beads, but Cantor comes nowhere close to suggesting that its beads could be contacted with a tissue sample to identify spatial location.” Prelim. Resp. 50. Here, we are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Cantor, sole inventor of Cantor (Ex. 2002 ¶ 29), that Cantor’s nucleic acid samples are made in bulk from the extraction of nucleic acids from biological material and mixed together “to create the sample nucleic acid prior to mixing that with the solid phase nucleic acids to capture molecule(s) from the sample nucleic acid.” Id. at ¶ 17. More specifically, “nucleic acids are extracted from the different types of cells within a tissue sample without preserving their spatial distribution.” Id. at ¶ 19. Thus, these types of “bulk-analysis techniques provide no information about spatial location of biological molecules in tissue samples.” Id. at ¶ 17. While we recognize that Cantor discloses “providing the beads according to an (X,Y) array” (Pet. 39, citing to Dr. Puglisi, Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 65– 66), this disclosure makes no mention of using this array to map where the nucleic acids of Cantor came from relative to the original sample, let alone when that original sample is a tissue. See e.g. Ex. 1031, 17. The only mentions of “tissue” made in Cantor are in reference to where the sample may be obtained, for example, “[t]he biological sample can be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue.” Id. at 6. Cantor provides no teaching, however, regarding how to use a tissue sample with the probes and methods described in Cantor to identify where the target nucleic acids of Cantor were spatially located within the tissue sample itself. Incidental to the parties’ dispute is whether Petitioner’s reliance on and characterization of Cantor’s use of the terms “sample” and “nucleic acid sample” as equivalent in meaning to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims is persuasive. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1031, 6). Here, we note that Cantor discloses that “[s]ample nucleic acid may be derived from one or more samples or sources.” Ex. 1031, 5; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 35, 149. Cantor refers to “sample” as the thing that contains the sample nucleic acid. Ex. 1031, 5. For example, Cantor discloses that “[a] sample may be collected from an organism.” Ex. 1031, 6; Ex. 2002 ¶ 42. When a “sample” comes from a living (or formerly living) source, Cantor refers to that sample as a “biological sample,” which can “be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue, cells, a cell pellet, a cell extract, or a biopsy, or a biological fluid . . . .” Id. Those samples, however, are further processed in bulk to obtain the nucleic acid sample. For example, Cantor discloses that the “sample nucleic acid may be a result of nucleic acid purification or isolation and/or amplification of nucleic acid molecules from the sample.” Ex. 1031, 7; see also id. at 54 (The “sample nucleic acid” is derived from a sample or source “by any means commonly known in the art, including but not limited to cell lysis procedures using chemical, physical or electrolytic lysis methods.”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 39. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s attempts to characterize Cantor’s “nucleic acid sample” as synonymous to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims. Rather, we agree with Dr. Cantor that “[a] tissue is simply the source of the sample nucleic acid used in [Cantor’s] methods”—it is not the sample nucleic acid itself. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 36, 150. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence to the contrary.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,480,022 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00766 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious over the prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, each of these asserted modifications is based on a teaching that is not present in Brown. Brown does not teach “a projection that provides resistance against ‘handle’ movement” or that “opening Brown’s ‘cover’ requires bending Brown’s ‘port,’” as asserted by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 22. As repeatedly noted, the identified “projection” appears to be nothing more than a portion of cover 14 the accessory/hose port. Petitioner’s arguments regarding a projection that provides resistance and a bendable port in Brown, appear to be nothing more than an effort to create the limitations of the claims in the prior art based on improper hindsight. For at least the above reasons, the Petition does not show how Brown teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the independent claims.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“Petitioner argues that when cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) is in position on the vacuum, end wall 26 cannot open and, thus, that end wall is inhibited from opening. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 37, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–145 (similar statements from Petitioner’s declarant)). Petitioner then asserts that the catch is therefore inhibited from moving to the disengaged position. Id. at 46. The combination of Dimbylow and Howes does not teach this limitation and Petitioner’s assertions are not persuasive. As can be seen from the above annotated Figure, nothing inhibits Dimbylow’s catch 42 from moving to a disengaged position. See also Prelim. Resp 11–14. Rather, any time Howe’s button is pressed, thereby moving the push-rod (to the right in the Figure), catch 42 would disengage, whether the door opened or not. Though cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) inhibits end wall 26 from opening, it has no impact on movement of catch 42 (i.e. lock engaging member) from the engaged to disengaged position as required by the claim. Thus, the lock engaging member of Petitioner’s combination, i.e., the catch, is not inhibited from moving to a disengaged position when the accessory, i.e., the cleaning” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA”). Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner’s declarant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field and 2-3 years of experience in machine design, such as vacuum cleaners. Additional education could offset less experience and vice versa, and a POSA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means. Ex. 1002 ¶ 42; see also Pet. 22 (making the same assertion without citation to declarant). Patent Owner does not contest the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 2. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s (and its declarant’s) proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’477 patent and prior art of record. We adopt the above definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,568,477 - Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v. Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00726 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 were unpatentable under any of the three asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Based upon our review of the arguments and an examination of the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, we determine that the record supports finding that the entire “wherein” clause recited in independent claim 1 is limiting. This clause recites, wherein the effective amount of ganaxolone is administered as an intravenous bolus plus continuous infusion to produce and maintain a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 ng/ml to about 1000 ng/ml for about 8 hours to about 12 hours.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time the application for the ’100 patent was filed “would have had a medical degree or a Ph.D. in pharmacology or fields related to the development of pharmaceuticals and would have been familiar with the PK [pharmacokinetics] and PD [pharmacodynamics] of pharmaceuticals.” Pet. 18. Additionally, Petitioner asserts “[a] POSA also would have had several years of experience as a practicing neurologist treating patients who suffer from seizure disorders, including SE, and/or several years of experience in researching treatments for such seizure disorders.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 50). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’100 patent was filed, “would have had a medical degree, or a Ph.D. in pharmacology or other field related to the development of pharmaceuticals, or equivalent degree, and several years of with Refractory Status Epilepticus, Poster Abstract F53, 37 J. CLIN. NEUROPHYSIOLOGY 332 (July 2020) (Ex. 1009, “Husain 2020”). experience as a practicing neurologist treating patients who suffer from seizure disorders including status epilepticus and/or several years of experience in researching treatments for such seizure disorders.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 44). We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar, except that Patent Owner additionally recognizes “an equivalent degree” as an alternative to a medical degree or Ph.D. in pharmacology or other field related to the development of pharmaceuticals. Compare Pet. 18 with Prelim. Resp. 17–18. We do not need to resolve this issue as our findings and conclusion in this Decision would be the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently for institution that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the combined teachings of During and NCT03350035. As discussed above, in Section II.B., we have determined that the “wherein” clause of independent claim 1 is liming. In other words, the claim requires that the effective amount of ganaxolone is administered as an IV bolus plus continuous infusion and that such administration produces and maintains a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 to 1000 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. With respect to the recited plasma concentration limitation, Petitioner has alleged only that it is met inherently. Dr. Sankar has only offered the same conclusory position in his declaration. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 113, 115. While “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis,” this doctrine “must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194–1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As the Federal Circuit has explained: The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient. Id. at 1195 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d, 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Here, Petitioner and Dr. Sankar have not explained or demonstrated why or how the natural result of administering the dosages in During according to the method disclosed in NCT03350035 would produce and maintain a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 to 1000 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. This deficit is more pronounced in view of the Specification disclosure of a Phase 2 Open-Label Dose Range Study that exemplifies how some ganaxolone dosages that suppressed SE did not produce and maintain ganaxolone plasma concentrations ≥ 500 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. See Ex. 1001, Fig 15; see also Ex. 1001, 55:13–56:30. Thus, because Petitioner relies on inherency for the plasma concentration limitation without providing evidence that such inherency exists, Petitioner has failed to establish sufficiently for institution that During and NCT03350035 teach or suggest each limitation of the claim 1. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently for institution that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the combined teachings of During and NCT03350035. As discussed above, in Section II.B., we have determined that the “wherein” clause of independent claim 1 is liming. In other words, the claim requires that the effective amount of ganaxolone is administered as an IV bolus plus continuous infusion and that such administration produces and maintains a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 to 1000 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. With respect to the recited plasma concentration limitation, Petitioner has alleged only that it is met inherently. Dr. Sankar has only offered the same conclusory position in his declaration. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 113, 115. While “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis,” this doctrine “must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194–1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As the Federal Circuit has explained: The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient. Id. at 1195 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d, 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Here, Petitioner and Dr. Sankar have not explained or demonstrated why or how the natural result of administering the dosages in During according to the method disclosed in NCT03350035 would produce and maintain a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 to 1000 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. This deficit is more pronounced in view of the Specification disclosure of a Phase 2 Open-Label Dose Range Study that exemplifies how some ganaxolone dosages that suppressed SE did not produce and maintain ganaxolone plasma concentrations ≥ 500 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. See Ex. 1001, Fig 15; see also Ex. 1001, 55:13–56:30. Thus, because Petitioner relies on inherency for the plasma concentration limitation without providing evidence that such inherency exists, Petitioner has failed to establish sufficiently for institution that During and NCT03350035 teach or suggest each limitation of the claim 1.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,110,100 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00520 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Dexcom did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 were unpatentable under either Stafford–Raymond ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Burden of Proof “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity … the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Therefore, in an inter partes review, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable; that burden never shifts to the patentee. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). At the institution stage, Petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find these arguments persuasive. It may be so that Turner teaches that its recesses 77 receive rotation-restricting protrusions 71, which “extend[] into each recess 77 such that the recess side walls interfere with the protrusions to prevent rotation of the insertion device relative to body 20.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 69. And, it may also be so that Turner teaches this assembly as an advantage in that it prevents rotation of body 20. Id. However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In each of the ’335 Specification, Stafford, Raymond, and Turner, the OBU is universally depicted as having a circular perimeter oriented around a longitudinal axis, and possessing either a cylindrical shape (’335 patent, Stafford, Raymond) or a roughly domed shape, with a circular, circumferential collar. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8, 17, 52, 54; Ex. 1009, Figs 3A–C, 4A; Ex. 1010, Figs. 14–16, Ex. 1011, Figs. 2A–B, 5G, 7A-B, 9, 11, 13A–B, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 30, 37, 38. Moreover, in each description of the location of recesses 3766 in the ’335 Specification, the recesses are described as being located “on the side walls” of the OBU. See Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 8–12; col. 45, ll. 61–64. Given the circular perimeter of all of these embodiments of the disclosures of the ’335 Specification, the teachings of Petitioner’s cited references, the dictionary definition of “periphery” as being “the perimeter of a circle or other closed curve,” and the ordinary meaning that the terms would have had to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention, in view of the ’335 Specification and file history” (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13), we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on body electronics unit housing” would be located “on the circumference of the on-body housing,” as we concluded in the ’01396 IPR Decision. See Dec. 48; see also Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 9–14 (stating that “gripping arms 3762 [of medical device carrier 3730] are provided with engagement boss 3764 which are configured to engage with corresponding recesses 3766 provided on the side walls of the on body housing 322”).” slip op. at 38
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its 12 The Petition makes a design choice argument with respect to the teachings of Raymond on Ground 1, contending that “it would have been an obvious design choice to implement two spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing—one to engage the protrusions on each of the two arms taught by Raymond.” Pet. 38. However, Petitioner adduced no prior art teaching or evidence of record of “spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing” that Reply Brief if that argument could first have been raised in its Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Univ. of Massachusetts, 2018 WL 4278992, *5 n.4 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2018); Matterport, Inc. v. Appliance Comp. III, Inc., 2021 WL 6340164, *9–10 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2021).” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,266,335 - Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00012 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show the patent was PGR-eligible, having failed to show inadequate written-description support or lack of enablement in the pre-AIA priority applications.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner has the burden of establishing eligibility for post-grant review. See Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Yeda Res. & Dev. Co., PGR2016-00010, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016). To show that the ’284 patent is eligible for post-grant review, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the challenged claims lack the priority benefit of the filing date of an earlier 7 The ’284 patent issued from a transition application. A “transition application” is a patent application filed on or after March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the AIA), but which claims priority to an application that was filed prior to the effective date of the AIA. See, e.g., MPEP § 2159.04. challenged claims, or a claim pending during examination of the ’266 application, “was not disclosed in compliance with the written description and enablement requirements of § 112(a) in the earlier application for which the benefit of an earlier filing date prior to March 16, 2013 was sought.” Inguran, LLC v. Premium Genetics (UK) Ltd., PGR2015-00017, Paper 8 at 11 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2015).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, the ’284 patent specification explains that the system can adjust the positive airway pressure supplied to the subject without human intervention. The system gathers information from the sensors and uses it to “monitor the condition of the subject” and “determine a level of severity of the subject’s sleeping disorder.” Ex. 1001, 23:20–41. Based on this the subject,” for example by adjusting the positive airway pressure provided to the subject. See id. at 19:3–17, 3:37–55. In this way, the ’284 patent specification discloses generating “an index of treatment efficacy” where “the index [is] based in part on data of severity of sleep disorder symptoms of the subject and data of usage of the PAP device by the subject,” because the system uses data collected from the sensors to evaluate the severity of the subject’s sleeping disorder and efficacy of the current treatment, and can adjust the treatment without human intervention as needed. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’284 patent claims lack written description support in the pre-AIA priority applications for “an index of treatment efficacy” claim term.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable
“’284 patent claims are not enabled. Prelim. Resp. 24–30. We find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, more likely than not, that any experimentation would have been undue in view of the Wands factors. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Wands, 858 F.2d at 737). On this record, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the claimed subject matter is unpredictable or would require undue experimentation. Petitioner argues that “the challenged claims are not enabled regarding the ‘index of treatment efficacy’ claim elements.” Pet. 24. But as Patent Owner establishes, Petitioner acknowledges that determining treatment efficacies was merely applying a known technique. See Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Pet. 36 (determining treatment efficacy “would amount to merely applying a known technique (i.e., determining treatment efficacy based on multiple factors) to a known device ready for improvement (e.g., CPAP treatment system comprising multiple devices) to yield predictable results (i.e., improve operation of CPAP treatment to better treat the patient and its disorder)”). On this record, Patent Owner further demonstrates that “it was well- known in the art [] how to determine indices of treatment efficacy based on breathing metric data over a period of time.” Prelim. Resp. 26; Ex. 2001 at 175 (“Efficacy, in the context of [obstructive sleep apnea] OSA, reflects the ability of treatment to prevent the occurrence of obstructive breathing events during periods when the treatment is being physically applied.”); Ex. 2002 at 1–2 (based on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) the severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can be calculated); Ex. 2003 at 1 (“ResLink presents this efficacy information along with integrated oximetry data for simultaneous onscreen viewing and analysis.”)). index of treatment efficacy on a cell phone or transmitting it to a remote internet site.” Pet. 25. Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated, more likely than not, that it would take undue experimentation to carry out such display or transmission. The Petition merely suggests that the specification lacks enablement of these claim limitations, but fails to provide any analysis of pertinent factors, such as the state of the prior art, the level of ordinary skill, or the level of predictability in the art with regard to displaying and transmitting data on a cell phone at the time of the invention. In sum, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are not enabled.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In this post-grant review, we construe the claims of the ’284 patent “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2019). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner contends that “[n]o claim term needs formal construction for purposes of evaluating the prior art in this Petition.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,602,284 - Kelonia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Interius Biotherapeutics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 17, 2024 · PGR2024-00008 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable over Perkins or the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “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.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we agree with Patent Owner that Perkins is prior art to the ’366 patent only to the extent that the subject matter disclosed in Perkins is likewise described in the Perkins Provisional. Accordingly, we do not consider Petitioner’s arguments that rely on subject matter unsupported by the Perkins Provisional. For example, support for Petitioner’s argument that Perkins discloses “mutant VSV-G envelope protein containing only four mutations at N180, I182, T352, and E353” is not found in the Perkins Provisional and is therefore not considered. Pet. 73 (quoted with Petitioner’s emphasis). Thus, insofar as Petitioner is suggesting that Perkins describes a list of mutations that is narrowed to four positions including a mutation at I182, rather than a listing of thirteen potential positions for mutations (and various combinations thereof with hypothetical mutations at a variety positions), we find no such narrower listing in the Perkins Provisional. Compare Ex. 1005, 22:2–5, with Ex. 1006, 17–18.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“genus even if the species are not themselves recited.” Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also, Atofina, 441 F.3d at 999 (“[A] very small genus can be a disclosure of each species within the genus.” (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d at 682)). In Petering, for example, the prior art disclosed a small genus of only 20 compounds that included the claimed species. In re Petering, 301 F.2d at 682. In its discussion concluding that a small genus may anticipate a species of that genus, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals explained that “it is not the mere number of compounds in this limited class which is significant here, but rather, the total circumstances involved, including such factors as the limited number of variations for R, only two alternatives for Y and Z, no alternatives for the other ring positions, and a large unchanging parent structural nucleus.” Id. at 681–682. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we do not find that Perkins discloses a limited class as exemplified in Petering. To begin, while it is undisputed that Perkins discloses a class of mutant VSV-G envelope proteins that encompasses the recited I182E or I182D mutations, it is also undisputed that Perkins does not disclose the I182E or I182D mutations. Prelim. Resp. 22. Furthermore, and by contrast to the limited class of compounds at issue in Petering, Perkins discloses a class of mutant VSV-G envelope proteins defined as proteins containing one or more of 20 possible mutations or alterations, a class that includes at least 254 proteins. Ex. 1006, 17–18; Prelim. Resp. 26–27. Furthermore, as Patent Owner correctly points out, “[t]he Perkins Provisional does not include any disclosure of the specific mutations to be made at any of these locations. That is, the Perkins Provisional does not indicate the other amino acid(s) to be substituted at the listed locations.” Prelim. Resp. 26. Thus, Perkins fails to provide a POSA with a “‘pattern of preferences’ that serves to narrow the genus.” See, e.g., Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“there is no such clear ‘pattern of preferences’ [as found in Petering] that serves to narrow the genus in claim 2 to a narrow class that includes clopidogrel bisulfate”).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A conclusion of obviousness is appropriate where the prior art “contain[s] detailed enabling methodology for practicing the claimed invention, a suggestion to modify the prior art to practice the claimed invention, and evidence suggesting that it would be successful.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also, In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359 (KSR “actually resurrects [the Federal Circuit]’s own wisdom in In re O’Farrell”). However, to render a claim obvious, prior art cannot be “vague” and must collectively, although not explicitly, guide an artisan of ordinary skill towards a particular solution. Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). That is, when a field is “unreduced by direction of the prior art,” and when prior art gives “no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,” an invention is not obvious. Bayer Schering, 575 F.3d at 1347 (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903). Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we are not persuaded that Perkins discloses a finite set or limited class of 19 mutations. Pet. 66. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Perkins discloses a large genus of mutant VSV-G polypeptides containing at least 254 species—“Perkins Provisional discloses mutations at I182 among a group of 20 other possible locations for modifications[,] . . . [13] of these 20 positions are specific amino acids that . . . can be changed to any of the 19 other natural amino acids” —each species combinable to create a vast number of species. Prelim. Resp. 32. Perkins does not indicate any preference among the 13 disclosed mutations, does not indicate any preference among the 19 other amino acids, and does not indicate any preference as to which mutations should be combined to successful effect. Ex. 1006, 17–18. Thus, while Perkins discloses that one or more mutations “inhibit the envelope protein’s ability to bind its native target, while preserving the envelope protein’s fusogenic properties,” beyond that, a POSA would have no direction for selecting the route to create the I182E or I182D mutations specified by the challenged claims among the various unpredictable alternatives suggested by Perkins. Ex. 1006 at 16; Ex. 1002 ¶ 193. We do not find this to be the easily traversed, small or finite number of alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402. slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,767,366 - Zimvie, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc. v. Roger P. JacksonInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01433 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable, chiefly because the cited art did not disclose the claimed curved leading faces.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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 provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“and consistent with the plain meaning, a POSA would have understood that a ‘start structure’ is the beginning of a thread and the ‘leading face’ is the forward most surface of the thread in the direction the thread is to be rotated.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:38–42, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158, 159). Petitioner further asserts that the concave portion is “inwardly curving,” and the convex portion is “outwardly curving.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 161). Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction for these terms. See Prelim. Resp. 7. Instead, Patent Owner asserts that “there are no express constructions for the Board to consider or the Patent Owner to address.” Id. We disagree with Patent Owner’s allegation because Petitioner sufficiently explains the plain meaning of the terms “start structure,” “leading face,” “concave surface portion,” and “convex surface portion.” Pet. 15–16. On this record, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions of these terms. Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record, and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to address the construction of any other claim term. slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“As Patent Owner correctly points out, the ’477 publication does not describe, or even identify, the line in Figure 10 that Petitioner relies on as the leading face. Prelim. Resp. 20. Thus, the only evidence purportedly supports Petitioner’s argument that the unidentified and undescribed line is the leading surface is Dr. McMillin’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 186, 234. In paragraph 186, Dr. McMillin’s testimony merely repeats, nearly verbatim, Petitioner’s argument, without any explanation or other evidentiary support. See id. ¶ 186. As a result, we accord limited weight to this testimony. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). In paragraph 234, Dr. McMillin testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized the unidentified and undescribed line of Figure 10 “as the leading face of the thread, at least because it is the only feature shown that matches with leading face shown in Fig. 8.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 234. We find this testimony inconsistent with the disclosures in Figures 7 and 8.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner does not persuade us that the unidentified and undescribed line in Figure 10 of the ’477 publication represents a leading surface having a partially concave surface and a partially convex surface as required in claim 1.7 For this reason alone, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its challenge of claim 1 based on the ’477 publication. Each of claims 2 and 4–9 depends from claim 1. For the same reasons as explained above, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its obviousness challenge of these claims either. b. Substantially Equal Radius of Curvature Claim 1 requires “the partial concave and partial convex surfaces each defined by a radius of curvature that is substantially equal with respect to 7 We also express doubt on whether Petitioner adequately shows the line in Figure 10 is partially concave and partially convex, as required in the disputed limitation. Petitioner’s argument on this point is predicated on an enlarged section of a small drawing, showing a single unidentified and undescribed line that was not apparently intended to demonstrate the direction of any curvature. Ultimately, we do not need to address this issue, because Petitioner does not sufficiently persuade us that the line depicts the leading face recited in the disputed limitation.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,129,646 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01325 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–6 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review 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.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 1, 4, and 4–6 of the ’033 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“concerning the ’834 patent, the intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful in revealing an affirmative meaning for the claims’ “spacing(s)” terms. IPR2023-01151, Paper 12, 39–41. The Specification does not use the term “spacings” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful, but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them. And, portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. For example, the applicant distinguished claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 2140, 1001 (suggesting a more “loosely defined fiber structure” may be covered); see also Ex. 1002, 29–30 (asserting the claimed design has “a lesser [fiber] density construction” compared to Walther). This begs the question, at what point does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” convert to a cloth having a “loosely defined” fiber structure that would come within the scope of the claimed “spacings?” The record does not answer. Applicant’s suggestion during prosecution that the claimed spacings between fibers are “intentionally placed” about the frame and not simply “the spacing that may be inherent” in fibrous cloths is also unavailing on this record in clearly defining the metes and bounds of the term. Ex. 1002, 28–29. Whether the alleged absence of “objective boundaries” for the term “spacings” supports a conclusion that the claims are invalid as indefinite would be a question for the court. Paper 11, 5 (arguing There is insufficient technical detail available to determine whether the SAPIEN 3 Ultra does or does not include “spacings” as claimed and we take no position on whether such device infringes any claim of the ’033 patent. that a conclusion that the claims are indefinite is “outside the Board’s [IPR] jurisdiction”).12 Notwithstanding the lack of any express claim construction for the “spacings” term from either party, claim 1 of the ’033 patent requires something more than just “spacings.” Claim 1 requires “spacings extending through a thickness of the sealing assembly that allow fluid to pass therethrough when the prosthetic heart valve assembly is in an undeployed state.” Ex. 1001, 22:11–15 (emphasis added). In other words, the spacings must allow fluid to pass through the sealing assembly’s thickness when the valve is undeployed. For reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded on this record that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that this limitation is met—particularly the fluid-passing element—in the proposed combinations of Spenser or Levi with Spenser II.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We, thus, find Dr. Brecker’s testimony more credible that “[i]t would, accordingly, be counterintuitive for a [POSA] to look to a device designed to occlude a blood vessel when designing a TAVR.” Id. ¶¶ 119–120 (testifying “[n]o [POSA] would look to this [occluder] design when considering a TAVR valve and . . . would further have concerns about the pro-thrombotic potential of the arrangement of fibers in Chuter”). Where a proposed combination would run counter to the primary reference’s stated purpose, the POSA would not generally be motivated to make that combination. Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 43
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner
“Grounds 1 and 2 is based on the combination of either Levi and Spenser II, or Spenser and Spenser II. Yet Petitioner purports to modify Spenser II’s compressible material, or supplant it with something else, based on “porous” fabrics allegedly known elsewhere in the art, which art is not identified in the Petition itself as part of any asserted combination. Pet. 49. To see what specific modifications or combinations Petitioner might be suggesting, requires we look to three paragraphs of Dr. Buller’s Declaration, cited but not discussed by Petitioner, where eight additional references are mentioned. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (identifying Exs. 1106–1112, and 1129). This format is an improper incorporation-by-reference of argument and evidence that, had Petitioner wanted to pursue some other combination of asserted art beyond Levi, Spenser, and Spenser II, needed to be set forth explicitly in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Moreover, it leaves the record unclear and forces Patent Owner, the Board, and the public to guess at what combination(s) are, in fact, being urged. We also find that Petitioner’s position reveals a hindsight bias insofar as it suggests, with the aim of arriving at the claimed subject matter, removing Spenser II’s “sufficiently dense” and fluid impermeable compressible material (Ex. 2128 ¶ 222) in favor of some other sufficiently “porous” and fluid permeable material. Hindsight is further evidenced because Spenser II’s cited material is already described as being compressible and adapted to allow coagulation and tissue ingrowth—factors cited by Patent Owner as allegedly motivating a change to some other material. Ex. 1011 ¶ 145. Altogether, we find unpersuasive Petitioner’s position based on unspecified combinations of unasserted prior art to achieve benefits that Spenser II’s existing compressible material already provides.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,491,033
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.