- Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01151 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged, undisclaimed claim was unpatentable.
In the decision…result had been established. Ex. 2124, 33–34. Patent Owner, in any case, presents no argument on nexus issues. 15 IPR2023-01151 Patent 11,337,834 B2 teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of…
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 2, 9, 17, and 18 of the ’834 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in November 2012 “would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. This [POSA] would, where necessary, work with a medical device engineer to experiment with or manufacture a prosthetic heart valve.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s proposed definition. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This POSA level is also consistent with the level the Board applied in earlier decisions involving the same parties and related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 2124, 11; Ex. 1120, 11–12.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“during prosecution. Pet. 18, 99. According to Petitioner, Spenser II never describes its compressible material as including “tightly knitted fibers” and a POSA would, instead, have understood Spenser II’s compressible material as comprising “loose, porous materials.” Pet. 18, 99. We agree with Petitioner that the phrases “tightly knitted” and “tightly knitted fibers” do not appear in Spenser II. At the same time, neither does Spenser II describe its compressible material as being “loose” and “porous.” Notably, in prior proceedings before the Board, Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Buller testified that Spenser II’s compressible material “includes a plurality of PET fibers on the inward-facing surface of the compressible material” (i.e., the “base layer” and alleged “second plurality” of fibers here; Paper 9, 5), that is “sufficiently dense to prevent blood from leaking through the cloth/fabric.” Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2122, 20:2–22:18 (testifying that “nonporous” as used in the Specification means “that fluid would not pass through it” and such fluid includes “all components of blood”). We find that Dr. Buller’s description of Spenser II as having a dense, blood impermeable base layer is, on balance, more consistent with applicant’s characterization of Spenser II as having an arrangement of “tightly-knitted fibers”—even if some imagined or microscopic spaces between fibers might still exist in a base layer. Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2002 (Brecker testimony) ¶¶ 42–45 (testifying, inter alia, that the description of a “tight fitted outer seal is . . . consistent with Spenser II’s Figure 22” and “knitted” is consistent with Buller’s testimony describing Spenser II’s compressible material as “velour-like woven or knitted” PET (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 162; Ex. 2134 ¶ 56). We are, thus, unpersuaded on this record that applicant mischaracterized Spenser II.” slip op. at 38
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Altogether, the parties’ alleged “plain meaning” yet otherwise undefined interpretation of the “spacing” limitations leaves the Board with insufficient clarity about what the claimed “spacing” means in the affirmative. Paper 9, 3 (arguing “plain meaning”); Paper 11, 3 (arguing applicant’s arguments are in “full harmony with the plain meaning”). The intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful: the Specification does not use the term “spacing” 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.15 The prosecution history provides clues, but portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. The applicant distinguished 15 For example, Dr. Brecker, in support of Patent Owner’s argument, identifies several of the patent drawings and testifies that, “as is particularly clear in Figure 13 (but also present elsewhere), there are gaps and spaces between the fibers that extend to the frame” and then proceeds to testify that prior art, like Spenser II’s compressible material, “bears no resemblance” to the “exemplary” spacings identified in prosecution. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–43. Dr. Brecker’s articulation of a “spacing” does not seem to add anything meaningful beyond the language of the claim as written. And, simply comparing the patent drawings to the prior art drawings presumes a sort of “know-it when you see it” interpretation—it is not an affirmative construction for a “spacing” as claimed. the claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 1002, 1001. At what point, however, does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” qualify as more “loosely defined” and come within the scope of the claimed “spacing?”16 Id. The applicant also described the “spacing” in semi-functional terms based on “advantages” provided by the claim feature. See, e.g., id. (asserting, e.g., that the spacing permits “expansion and contraction” with “lesser rigidity”); see also id. at 1133, 1140 (asserting, e.g., “reduce[d] restrictions” and avoidance of “restrained valve foreshortening” with the then-claimed “openings”). It is not, however, evident where the Specification supports such “advantages”—no citations were given in prosecution. And, in prosecution of related applications, applicant argued, for example, that “[w]hile all fibers have some degree of being spaced-apart, the construction from Applicant’s claimed invention clearly requires some level more spacing.” Ex. 1149, 13–14 (assertion differences over “Dehdashtian” (alias to Spenser II)) (emphasis added). On this record, what would suffice as “some level more spacing” is unclear. Id.” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,337,834 - Red Hat, Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Electronics & Telecommunications Research InstituteInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 10, 2019 · IPR2019-00467 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims 1–14 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on any asserted obviousness ground.
In the decision…seeking to establish obviousness based on more than one reference also must articulate sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to combine teachings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that the level…
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 “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). Having considered all submissions of both parties, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–14. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsNot reached
“35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to not institute review in this case, because Petitioner has filed, simultaneously, two petitions for inter partes review of the same claims of the ’436 patent. Prelim. Resp. 33–35. According to Patent Owner, “[m]ultiple simultaneous petitions can pose more harassment risks than ones spread out over time as they multiply the patent owner’s work and expense in the compressed time frames of IPR proceedings.” Id. at 34. Patent Owner argues that multiple simultaneously filings amount to paying more to argue more, which is contrary to “the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete [review] proceedings.” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)). We do not reach the issue of discretionary denial of the Petition, because, as discussed above, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any claim.” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “at least an undergraduate degree or equivalent academic or professional training in computer science or computer engineering, or a related field, and two years of industry experience in the field of data storage systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 11). Patent Owner has not offered an articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of education. The qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing a Ph.D. Degree and beyond, and thus does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art. C.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededMixed
“Petitioner proposes a construction for the claims terms “disk partition” and “extent.” Pet. 9–11. Patent Owner does not disagree with Petitioner’s proposed constructions of “disk partition” and “extent.” It is not necessary in this Decision, however, to construe the term “extent.” Petitioner proposes that “disk partition” means “one of a plurality of disks or portions of a disk that form a logical volume.” Pet. 9. We have reviewed the specification and the prosecution history of record, and have no reason to disagree with Petitioner’s construction of “disk partition,” with the understanding that “form a logical volume” refers to actual storage space allocated exclusively to a logical volume. The specification of the ’436 patent does not indicate any overlap in the disk partitions of separate logical volumes. Petitioner also has not explained how such an overlap could be permitted without creating usage conflicts between logical volumes that would render the data unreliable. Petitioner’s articulation plus our additional clarification is consistent with the specification, particularly the illustration shown in Figure 2 reproduced above. Each of the first quarter of disks 1, 2, 3, and 4 is a disk partition forming logical volume 1. Each of the second quarter of disks 1, 2, 3, and 4 is a disk partition forming logical volume 2. Each of the third quarter of disks 1, 2, 3, and 4 is a disk partition forming logical volume 3. Each of the fourth quarter of disks 1, 2, 3, and 4 is a disk partition forming logical volume 4. Each of the whole of disks 5, 6, 7, and 8 is a disk partition forming logical volume 4. D.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,718,436 - Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Pozen Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 9, 2015 · IPR2015-00802 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–4, finding no reasonable likelihood of success because Plachetka was not prior art and the obviousness showing was deficient.
In the decision…with a pH of 3.5 or higher,” is limited to a single entry in a claim chart listing Naprosyn Physicians’ Desk Reference and Daneshmend to support a teaching of this limitation. Pet. 53 (citing Daneshmend (Ex. 1046, 3) as disclosing the pKa of aspirin of 3.5 and explaining why stomach acidity is a…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an 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). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’285 patent. Therefore, we do not authorize an inter partes review for any claim of the ’285 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner fails to convince us that the claims of the ’285 patent are not supported by at least the ’216 application. Therefore, the Plachetka Publication does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Consequently, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1–4 are unpatentable as anticipated by the Plachetka Publication.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“An enteric-coated dosage form of omeprazole must be perfectly coated and acid resistant, since, if any drug leaks out of the dosage form in the stomach, it is almost immediately degraded. The same is the case if an acidic medium can diffuse into the dosage form through pin-holes or damage in the enteric-coating. We agree with the Patent Owner that Pilbrant teaches away from the claimed combination. Prelim. Resp. 36 (“Petitioner’s failure to acknowledge the complete disclosure of Pilbrant, which negates any motivation to use the non-enterically coated form of esomeprazole, despite the testimony of Petitioner’s own expert, is an incurable flaw in the Petition”). When a prior art reference teaches away from combining known elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious. See KSR Internat’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). A reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994), cited in In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that although one of skill in the art “might have believed” that enteric coated esomeprazole was generally the better option, “that does not exclude the use of non-enteric coated esomeprazole as still ‘good enough’ to be obvious, at least in a combination product where all the esomeprazole needs to do is raise the stomach pH to 3.5.” Pet. 51. Here, the very statement that Petitioner relies upon from Pilbrant to support its rationale to combine concerning preabsorption degradation of omeprazole caused Pilbrant to rule out the use of conventional oral dosage forms without an enteric coating. We agree with the Patent Owner that Petitioner’s “[m]otivation to combine in the face of an express teaching away must be found in the prior art itself and reliance on the teachings of the ’285 patent is impermissible hindsight.” Prelim. Resp. 37.” slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionNo construction neededMixed
“Both parties acknowledge that the claim requires a therapeutically effective amount of naproxen must be surrounded by a coating. Pet. 27; Prelim. Resp. 7. Petitioner’s interpretation, however, turns this requirement on its head. As Patent Owner notes, using the transitional term “comprising” means that additional components may be present, but does not change the elements that are stated in the claim. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 695 F.3d 1285, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Petitioner’s interpretation, however, would encompass a composition where the vast majority of the naproxen, i.e., a therapeutically effective amount, would be outside of the coating. This is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim. We agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “comprising . . . naproxen surrounded by a coating” means “a therapeutically effective amount of naproxen is surrounded by a coating,” but do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that this claim term excludes any uncoated naproxen from the claim. As Petitioner notes, the Patent Owner has previously addressed the meaning of this limitation in response to invalidity contentions asserting lack of written description support and enablement, stating that the specification of the ’285 patent supports the interpretation “that, in addition to naproxen surrounded by a coating that inhibits its release unless the surrounding medium of the unit dosage form is at least 3.5, the disclosed dosage forms may include additional naproxen outside the coating.” Ex. 1010, 49 (Patent Owner’s responses to invalidity contentions for the ’285 patent) (relying on statements in the specification of the ’285 patent where the combination of an acid inhibitor and an NSAID may be in multi-layer tablet form and where the drug combinations may typically be prepared in admixture with conventional excipients). Patent Owner also has previously stated that the transitional term “comprising” does not exclude the presence of additional naproxen outside of the coating. Id. at 51. We agree. Although the claim term requires that a therapeutically effective amount of naproxen in a unit dosage form is surrounded by a coating, it does not exclude a unit dosage form that has an amount of naproxen outside of the coating that is not therapeutically effective. Therefore, we do not agree that the claims of the ’285 patent” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,557,285 - Facebook, Inc. / Linkedin Corp. et al. v. Software Rights Archive, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2015 · IPR2013-00481 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 12 and 22 are unpatentable over Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Envision under § 103; claim 21 was not shown unpatentable because the art did not teach deriving actual cluster links from generated candidate …
In the decision…the combination of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Envision. Pet. 9–21. In support of the asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner sets forth the teachings of the cited prior art, provides detailed claim charts, and cites to the declaration of Dr. Fox (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 218–235), explaining how each…
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“The claim chart persuasively reads all elements of each of claims 12 and 22 onto the teachings of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Envision, taken together. Despite the counter-arguments in Patent Owner’s Response, and the evidence cited therein, which we have also considered, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12 and 22 of the ’571 Patent are unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as they would have been obvious over the combination of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Envision. Petitioner, however, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 21 of the ’571 Patent is unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as obvious over the combination of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Envision. 1.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“As taught in Fox SMART, the concentration tests that are cited by Petitioner are performed as part of forming the cluster tree. Id. Petitioner does not identify a teaching in Fox SMART of deleting clusters other than those that simply overlap, or duplicate, other clusters. Overlapping clusters are deleted following a routine that identifies plausible clustering with “no limit on overlap.” Id. Additionally, Fox SMART includes code that collects orphans. Id. at 52. Petitioner, however, has not shown that Fox SMART teaches a subset, which does not include these orphans. Dr. Fox’s supplemental testimony that “Fox SMART teaches that potential (i.e., candidate) clusters are rejected (‘deleted’) if they fail any one of these tests” (Ex. 1032 ¶ 281 (citing Ex. 1005, 51)) suggests that the terms “rejected” and “deleted” are the same. We do not agree. In view of Dr. Fox’s testimony in both of his Declarations and the testimony of Dr. Jacobs, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood Fox SMART as teaching deleting overlap that had been generated by the immediately preceding software routine. Additionally, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood Fox SMART as teaching that the tests referred to by Dr. Fox are processed during formation of the tree. We, therefore, determine that Dr. Fox’s testimony does not address persuasively the requirement in claim 21 of deriving a subset of the already generated candidate cluster links. In light of the Declaration by Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Jacobs, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Envision teaches deriving actual cluster links. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not established that claim 21 of the ’571 Patent is unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as obvious over the combination of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Envision.” slip op. at 27
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Owner contends that the Reply Fox Declaration should be excluded in accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 702. Paper 44, 1. In particular, Patent Owner contends that the Reply Fox Declaration should be excluded because FRE 702 precludes admission of expert testimony unless “the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Id. With regard to this objection, we note that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” Consequently, this objection properly goes to the weight to be given to Dr. Fox’s testimony, and not to its admissibility. It is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to the testimony offered by Dr. Fox. See, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). When weighing evidence, we are capable of determining whether the prior art references render obvious the challenged claims without being confused, misled or prejudiced by Dr. Fox’s testimony.” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Claim 21 recites a method of displaying information about a network, which includes a determination regarding hyperjump data. As explained in the ’571 Patent specification, exemplary hyperjump data includes hyperjump links, which connect web pages, web sites, and documents on the web. Ex. 1001, 48:37–39. The specification of the ’571 Patent states that a link is a “relationship between two nodes.” Id. at 13:5–6. The ’571 Patent specification continues, “[a] link [] can be represented by a vector or an entry on a table and contain information for example, a from-node identification [] (ID), a to-node ID [], a link type [], and a weight.” Id. at 13:9–12. As described in the ’571 Patent specification, a link is represented in data stored in a computer. We, therefore, construe “cluster links” in light of the specification of the ’571 Patent to mean relationships, which are represented in data stored in a computer and are used for grouping interrelated nodes. 4. “indirect relationships” and “indirect reference” The term “indirect relationships” is recited in claim 12 and the term “indirect reference” is recited in claim 22. As discussed above, the terms “link” and “relationship” are used interchangeably in the ’571 Patent specification. For the reasons discussed above, therefore, we construe “indirect relationships” to mean indirect relationships that are represented in data stored in a computer. For these same reasons, we construct “indirect reference” to mean an indirect reference that is represented in data stored in a computer.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 6,233,571 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,233,571
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.