• Par Health, Inc. v. Inforlife, S.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 20, 2026 · PGR2026-00036 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Institution

  The Director denied institution because the petition did not show that Biomed was publicly accessible as prior art, so it failed to show any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16.” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. In this case, Petitioner merely cites a “date of revision” appearing within Biomed. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 11). Yet, a revision date alone does not establish that Biomed was disseminated or made publicly available. And, although indicia appearing within a reference can sometimes support the printed publication status of the reference, I find the record to be devoid of any such indicia, or other evidence, supporting that Biomed was publicly disseminated or accessible by the June 15, 2021 “date of revision.” See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16–18. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that it is more likely” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. In this case, Petitioner merely cites a “date of revision” appearing within Biomed. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 11). Yet, a revision date alone does not establish that Biomed was disseminated or made publicly available. And, although indicia appearing within a reference can sometimes support the printed publication status of the reference, I find the record to be devoid of any such indicia, or other evidence, supporting that Biomed was publicly disseminated or accessible by the June 15, 2021 “date of revision.” See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16–18. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that it is more likely” slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 12,370,153
• Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Inflexion Point Technologies, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2025 · PGR2025-00045 · APJ Debra L Dennett · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). The burden is on Petitioner to show that the challenged patent is eligible for postgrant review. Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., PGR2016- 00010, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016) (holding that the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with a petitioner to demonstrate that the challenged patent is eligible for post-grant review). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable. We thus determine to not institute a post-grant review of the ’027 patent based on the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural or Mechanical Engineering with 2–4 years of practical, applied experience in the field of agricultural machinery, including systems integration and fluid handling and sprayer control systems, or equivalent experience. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 59). Patent Owner states that the differences in the asserted levels of ordinary skill should not change the outcome of the Petition. Id. For the purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, which appears consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art references of record and the ’027 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Our analysis, however, would not change were we to adopt Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that claim construction is necessary for the “seed-applied substance” term because Petitioner allegedly ignores the teaching of the specification in evaluating the term. Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent Owner points to the specification, which defines a “seed-applied substance” as “includ[ing] any composition applied to seeds prior to the seeds being planted (e.g., when the seed comes in contact with the soil in a field).” Id. at 13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45-48). Patent Owner contends that the term means “a substance that is applied directly to the seed before the seed comes into contact with the soil in a field.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 55). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner erroneously uses a definition that “allows the ‘seedapplied substance’ to be applied to the seed (and soil) as the seed lay planted in the soil.’” Id. For the purpose of addressing Petitioner’s grounds, we use the definition of “seed-applied substance” provided in the ’027 patent, i.e., “any composition applied to seeds prior to the seeds being planted (e.g., when the seed comes in contact with the soil in a field).” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[A] patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “3. Analysis Our analysis of whether Wagers discloses the limitation “individually applying the desired application amount of the selected type of the seed-applied substance to each seed as it is being delivered to the soil” is dispositive of Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 as anticipated.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,102,027
• Therabody, Inc. v. Datafeel Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 21, 2025 · PGR2025-00026 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show claim 4 more likely than not unpatentable on either obviousness or § 112 ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Post-grant review is available for patents that issue from applications that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). Upon considering the arguments and evidence, we conclude that the information presented shows it is not more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’174 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, it is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’174 patent and prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our analysis below would be the same regardless of whether we adopt Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proffered level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that no claim terms need construction. Pet. 14; Prelim. Resp. 6. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of our analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “of Choi to support its argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Choi’s infrared lamp housing to define a concave shape as claimed. See Pet. 61–62. With only this explanation and evidence from Petitioner and Dr. Jenson, however, we cannot not discern how these portions of Choi would have so apprised an ordinarily skilled artisan. For example, the side view of the infrared lamp housing, illustrated in Figure 5 reproduced below, shows the housing having a convex, rather than concave, shape. See Ex. 1008, Fig. 5. Furthermore, paragraphs 20 and 48 refer to the housing’s “circular” shape and outer periphery and also “tubular” shape. See id. ¶¶ 20, 48. But these descriptions, either alone or together with Figure 5, also do not support adequately a finding that Choi’s housing is concave. Choi’s teachings in paragraphs 20 and 46 regarding the lamp housing guiding or directing infrared light from the lamp to irradiate the skin of a user, without more, are similarly deficient. See id. ¶¶ 20, 46. And although Dr. Jensen appears to equate “concave” with “inner circular,” he does not provide the basis for his testimony or explain what “inner circular” means, particularly in the context of distinguishing a convex shape from a concave shape. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 197. Accordingly, we determine there is insufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s conclusory statements that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Choi’s infrared lamp housing to define a concave shape as claimed.” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,036,174
• Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · PGR2024-00047 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any of claims 1–7 was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as encompassing a” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 36

  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,830,546
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00025 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–20 were more likely than not unpatentable over either obviousness ground, for lack of utility, or as indefinite.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’033 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–22, 44–45). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’033 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level”” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner does not offer a specific construction for any claim terms. Pet. 19–20. Rather, Petitioner contends that “the outer boundary of the Challenged Claims lacks reasonable certainty,” and, therefore, “the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b).” Pet. 20. Petitioner further contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious “regardless of the outer boundary of the claims.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s arguments regarding indefiniteness, and does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. As explained in detail below, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, and determine that none of the claim terms require 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” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner focuses its obviousness challenge on 1PNZQ23’s phenotype, and does not address its genotype. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 26–32 (comparing 1PNZQ23’s phenotype with the phenotypes of the asserted prior art). Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any information in the Petition or Reply regarding 1PNZQ23’s genotype that supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding obviousness. Furthermore, Patent Owner offers information suggesting that “the breeding of 1PNZQ23 was unpredictable even with both parents being known in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Schnable addresses unpredictability in the breeding process, stating: distinct even when the F1 plant itself results from a cross of two inbreds. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not expect that a cross of the same parents will produce F2 or D1 progeny identical to 1PNZQ23. . . . [T]he genome of a progeny plant is the result of genetic segregation and recombination in the F1 plant of the two parental genomes and the chance of the exact same child resulting from that initial biparental cross is infinitesimally small. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123. This information undermines Petitioner’s arguments regarding an expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,707,033
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00019 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because the Petition did not show they were more likely than not unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–20 of the ’803 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a post-grant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’803 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner also does not construe 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 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety 1PFLQ21. The ’803 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the selection of the progeny was based on genetic analysis predicting disease, insect, and agronomic phenotypic performance. Id. 37:64–66. “Inbred 1PFLQ21 was developed by producing a doubled haploid from the F1 plants, selfing and using pedigree selection amongst the D1 lines, and selfing and bulking from the subsequent generations.” Id. 37:66–38:3. The ’803 patent specification, therefore, makes it clear that simply crossing both parental inbred maize lines is not reasonably expected to result in the claimed inbred maize variety; rather, it explains that more plant breeding work is required to arrive at the 1PFLQ21 inbred maize line than just having both parental inbred maize lines available.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,659,803
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00020 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  Denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood equivalent under § 324 that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’020 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a high level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist . . . along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art,” but “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’020 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 22. 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 require 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 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on these disclosures in Smalley, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the parental line PH1D84 could have been used as a starting point to arrive at other inbred lines. See Pet. 41. Petitioner, however, fails to demonstrate sufficiently how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in developing 1PFHC43 specifically, when its other parent was not known in the art at the relevant time. As Dr. Schnable explains, 1PFHC43’s genome is derived from its parents. Ex. 2004 ¶ 115. Petitioner does not address how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce the claimed seed, including its unique genotype, without having access to PH1VNA or its genomic and phenotypic information.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,666,020
• Kelonia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Interius Biotherapeutics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,767,366
• Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · PGR2023-00052 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–41 were unpatentable under any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) 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 Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but does not offer a definition of its own. Prelim. Resp. 5. According to Patent Owner, “[t]his Petition and related declaration propose two alternative levels of ordinary skill in the art, where the second alternative does not require any formal education or any experience in the field of oil or gas production.” Id. While Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain how a different level of skill is likely to alter Petitioner’s analysis. Instead, Patent Owner contends that it “applied Petitioner’s articulation and confirmed the analysis detailed below would not change based on disagreements over the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 2101 ¶¶ 16–17). 8 To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s statement on the level of skill in the art. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). The prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Because the meanings of the claim terms “blockchain mining devices,” “mining processor,” and “adapted to mine transactions” are inextricably linked with Petitioner’s indefiniteness grounds, we will address the meaning of those terms in the context of the parties’ arguments to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy as set forth below in Section III.C. Similarly, we will address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed means-plus-function limitations in our discussion of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as set forth below in Section III.E. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable

    “To satisfy the definiteness requirement of § 112(b), a patent’s claims must, when “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. We are not persuaded that the Petition shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that the term “blockchain mining devices,” as recited by independent claims 1 and 24, is indefinite. As an initial matter, we agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s indefiniteness theory is flawed because its ‘alternative interpretations’ are of its incorrect claim construction rather than the claim language in view of the specification as required by Nautilus.” Prelim. Resp. 13. We find the Specification informs, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the meaning of the term “blockchain mining devices.” The 18 Specification informs us that “each blockchain mining device 12 may be composed of suitable components. The blockchain mining device 12 may have a network interface, such as network equipment 88, and one or a plurality of mining processors 92 (92A-92E for example).” Ex. 1001, 15:21–25. And, claim 1 recites that the “blockchain mining devices [are] connected to the generator” and “each have a mining processor and are connected to a network interface.” Id. at 19:59–62. Thus, reading the term “blockchain mining devices” in light of the language of the claim and the Specification, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “blockchain mining devices” to mean a device composed of, for example, a network interface and one or more processors. Id. at 15:21–25, 19:59–62.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,574,372
• Dental Recycling North America, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · PGR2023-00055 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Institution of post-grant review is authorized only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the present record, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden to show that it is more likely than not that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill (“POSA”) “would have been an individual with at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or at least 3 years of experience designing or manufacturing vacuums, filters, medical devices, or the related components.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–95). Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response, but asks its declarant to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art in his analysis. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 86. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Petitioner contends that “[a]ll terms of the ’175 patent should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSA,” but does not propose any express claim construction for consideration. See Pet. 22–23. Petitioner further asserts that the preambles of the independent claims are limiting. Id. at 23–25. Patent Owner argues “that claim construction is not necessary at this time,” but urges that “in the event the Board determines that claim construction is necessary, Petitioner’s proposal to construe the preambles of the independent claims as limiting should be rejected.” Prelim. Resp. 65. We need not determine whether the preambles of the independent claims are limiting to reach the outcome in this decision. Accordingly, no express claim construction is necessary here. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). D. Grounds 1–4 and Petitioner’s Related Priority Challenge” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has the better position. It is well settled that the original drawings may themselves be sufficient to provide description for later-filed claims. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565 (holding that “drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by § 112”). That is the case here with respect to the original figures submitted with the Great-Grandparent application. We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Garris that original Figures 4A–B and 5B show a flange or “radially protruding structure” configured as in the challenged claims. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 106–113. Moreover, the original description in the Great-Grandparent application describes “removable retaining pins 13” that “ensure the recycling container,” i.e., container 12 in Figures 4A–B, “does not detach from the air-water separation tank 5 when there is no vacuum in the system.” Ex. 1002, 213 (¶ 92). Based on this description and the depiction of retaining pin 13 in the original Figure 2, a POSA would have understood that the pins engage with the radially protruding structure to hold the container in place as recited in the challenged claims. Ex. 2001 ¶ 114. Petitioner’s argument that the original figures do not depict the radially protruding structure and retaining pins working together to hold the container in place is unpersuasive. Patent Owner has sufficiently demonstrated that a POSA would have understood how the structures in original Figures 2 and 4A interact based on a side-by-side comparison of the same. See Pet. 38–43; Ex. 2001 ¶ 114. Indeed, the applicants made a similar comparison during prosecution, which proved persuasive to the Examiner. Ex. 1002, 87, 98. The Petition provides no reason to doubt that a POSA would understand the original figures and description just as Patent Owner contends. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the fact that the specification and drawings were amended does not mean that Patent Owner had to add new matter to overcome the Examiner’s rejections. See Pet. 16– 17. In this case, the amendments to the specification during prosecution of the ’175 patent made the operation of the retaining pin and radially protruding structure, as shown by the original figures, even clearer. But that does not mean that the original description was inadequate.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,660,175

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.