• 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 · Oct 15, 2024 · PGR2024-00023 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because the petition did not show they were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness, utility, written-description, or enablement 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 has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’545 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 as along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 16. 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 ’545 patent, and we adopt it for purposes” slip op. at 6

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

    “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 “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 21. 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 successNot shown unpatentableReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “additional reasons. For example, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at PH4CYJ based on Smalley’s disclosure alone. Prelim. Resp. 51–52. According to the ’545 patent specification, the claimed PH4CYJ inbred maize variety is a cross between inbred line PH1VNA and inbred line PH1KTF. Ex. 1001, 37:62–64. In the simplest terms, PH1VNA and PH1KTF are the parents, and their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety PH4CYJ. The ’545 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,696,545
• Guardant Health, Inc. v. University Of WashingtonInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00449 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the written-description priority arguments were substantially the same as those considered by the Office, and Petitioner did not show material error.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Based on this record, we find Petitioner’s arguments challenging written description support are the same or substantially the same as those considered by the examiner during the prosecution of the ’045 application. 4. Material Error Having found that the condition in the first part of the two-prong framework is satisfied, we next evaluate whether Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in its prior consideration of those arguments. Advanced Bionics, 8. Based on the current record, we determine Petitioner has not met its burden to show the examiner materially erred.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Specifically, Petitioner argues that the ’785 application lacks written description support for “converting” or “attaching” tags to “circulating DNA molecules,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 20. Id. at 17–30. Patent Owner argues that we should deny institution under § 325(d) “because the Office already found that the specification provides § 112 support for tagging circulating DNA.” Prelim. Resp. 10. For the reasons explained below, we find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive.5 5 As another basis for its priority arguments, Petitioner contends that the ’785 application does not enable methods for “converting” or “attaching” tags to “circulating DNA molecules.” Pet. 30. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he Petition gives enablement only cursory treatment.” Prelim. Resp. 36. We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner disposes of the entire enablement argument in a single seven-line paragraph. See Pet. 30. It provides no meaningful analyses of the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “III. CONCLUSION Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness grounds rest on the priority date of the challenged claims. Because we decline to reconsider Petitioner’s challenge of priority date based on lack of written description support, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) and decline to institute inter partes review of the ’699 patent. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 18

  § 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,699
• Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Bosciences, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2021 · PGR2021-00088 · APJ John G New · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all five grounds, finding the petition did not show any challenged claim was likely unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board “may not authorize a post-grant review to 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 consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence presently before us, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’908 patent. We consequently deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “The Specification expressly teaches that, with respect to the clinical phase 2 trial described in Example 4, “Patients will have overnight [pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics] PK/PD assessments performed at baseline, which include an [sic] pre-dose overnight assessment and a post-dose overnight assessment for PK/PD following administration of the first dose.” Ex. 1001 col. 42, ll. 12–16. This is the same quotation and clinical trial relied upon by Dr. Barnes in his Declaration, and is the only definition of a “baseline” in the ’908 patent. See Ex. 1002, 36–37. We note that placebos were evidently not employed in the phase 2 clinical study of Example 4.3 Given the sole exemplary description of “baseline” in Example 4 of the Specification, we construe the claim term reciting “reduced by at least 10% from baseline” as meaning “a reduction of at least 10% in the level of ACTH (claim 1) or 17-OHP (claim 11) compared to measurements of ACTH or 17-OHP made prior to, and/or at the beginning of, administration of the drug.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “likely than not that independent claims 1 and 11 are anticipated by Grigoriadis. “For a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The single clinical trial taught by Example 6 of Grigoriadis does not establish a baseline value for patients against which to compare the data obtained from patients receiving 300 mg or 600 mg of the test drug, NBI- 77860 (verucerfont). See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 90–94. Specifically, Example 6 does not establish a baseline “which include[s] an [sic] pre-dose overnight assessment and a post-dose overnight assessment for PK/PD following administration of the first dose,” as disclosed by the ’908 patent. See Ex. 1001, col. 42, ll. 12–16. We therefore conclude that Grigoriadis fails to disclose expressly the limitations of claims 1 and 11 severally reciting “wherein [the] … hormone … level in the human is reduced by at least 10 % from baseline.”” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference may anticipate if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed is inherently disclosed because it “is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question”).” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,849,908
• Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2019 · IPR2019-00266 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its anticipation and obviousness challenges to claims 1–22.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A rehearing request “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “CONCLUSION In sum, we determine that, in its Petition, Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of the challenged claims. On rehearing, Petitioner does not persuade us that our decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in denying institution of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “In our Decision, we agreed with Patent Owner that “a patent applicant need not describe information that is ‘well-known in the art’ in order to satisfy the written description requirement.” Dec. 14 (citing Prelim. Resp. 31 (quoting Boston Sci., 647 F.3d at 1366)). We further explained that the Federal Circuit had set forth a number of factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure for generic claims, including “the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. at 14 (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). And we noted that Petitioner did not address the factors, whereas Patent Owner directed us to evidence in the record “indicating that the broader category of heaters was well-known before 2003, given the existing knowledge in the field, the extent and content of the prior art, and the maturity of the technology.” Id. at 15. Based on that evidence, we concluded, “the disclosure in the priority applications of a lid heater reasonably conveys to those of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the broader genus of a ‘heating element’/‘heater.’” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 4

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

    “to improve similar and related devices.” Id. at 4 (quoting Pet. 57). But a generalized desire to improve existing devices is different from a specific reasoning to combine the prior art asserted in this proceeding. See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Recognition of a need does not render obvious the achievement that meets that need.”).” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,236,504
• Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00739 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–11 and 14–17 under § 325(d), finding the priority issue and Nabholtz ground had been considered during prosecution.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Prelim. Resp. 10–11; see also id. 11, n.3 (arguing that Applicant demonstrated support for a three-part combination comprising a “further therapeutic agent”). Having considered the Specification of the ’649 Application and the arguments raised during prosecution, as discussed section II(B), above, Petitioner has not presented any further evidence in this proceeding that would persuade us to reach a conclusion different from the Examiner’s position that the challenged claims are adequately disclosed in the priority document.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “established priority for those claims based upon the parent application’s specific disclosure of using growth inhibitory agents as part of the present invention. (Ex. 1119-5 at 179 (citing Ex. 1121 at 20 (16:11- 24), 39 (35:6-14), 41 (37:9-18).) Based upon that disclosure, the examiner agreed that the claims reciting a combination with “a further growth inhibitory agent” were supported by, and thus entitled to priority to, the parent applications. (Ex. 1119-5 at 41; id. at 292-93; Ex. 1119- 6 at 245.) Prelim. Resp. 10–11; see also id. 11, n.3 (arguing that Applicant demonstrated support for a three-part combination comprising a “further therapeutic agent”). Having considered the Specification of the ’649 Application and the arguments raised during prosecution, as discussed section II(B), above, Petitioner has not presented any further evidence in this proceeding that would persuade us to reach a conclusion different from the Examiner’s position that the challenged claims are adequately disclosed in the priority document.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledDecided for patent owner

    “combination are needed to demonstrate that they can be usefully combined,’” flatly contradicts Patent Owner’s position that the ’649 Application and ’346 Provisional Application adequately disclose the claimed invention. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1119-5, 308–09). We do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. As an initial matter, Petition fails to address the “Wands” factors in its enablement analysis. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “As discussed in section II(B), above, the Examiner considered fully the written description and enablement issues underlying Applicant’s claim to priority in allowing the claims to issue, and Petitioner has not presented new evidence or arguments that would convince us that the Examiner’s determination was unreasonable. The Examiner’s decision to withdraw the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Nabholtz was expressly predicated on that priority determination, which removed Nabholtz as prior art. In Ground I of this Petition, Petitioner also asserts that the claims are unpatentable under § 102(b) over Nabholtz, thus raising “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously [] presented to the Office” as contemplated under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Under the circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) and decline to institute inter partes review based on Ground I.” slip op. at 18

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,892,549
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 9, 2016 · IPR2016-00145 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, 22–26, 29, and 30 because the asserted combinations relied on references published after the claims’ November 6, 1997 priority date.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “publication, and Ji renders the challenged claims obvious. Pet. 25–60. As explained above, the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date. Touboul was published on May 22, 1998 (Ex. 1003 (43)), while the ’583 publication was published on July 15, 1999 (Ex. 1005 (43)). Thus, neither qualifies as prior art. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combination of Touboul and the ’583 publication, or the combination of Touboul, the ’583 publication, and Ji, renders the challenged claims obvious. CONCLUSION On this record, Petitioner has not shown that Touboul and the ’583 publication are prior art to the challenged claims of the ’926 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to the patentability of at least one of those claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “The ’194 patent describes the code scanner sending the Downloadable and the DSP data to the ACL comparator for comparison with the security policy. Ex. 1007, 6:9–12. Petitioner does not argue that the Downloadable and the DSP data must be transmitted independently. In other words, the Downloadable and the DSP data may be transmitted together, that is, with the DSP data attached to the Downloadable. As stated above, we accept Petitioner’s proposed construction of “append/appending” to mean “attach/attaching.” See supra at 5. Thus, we are persuaded by Patent Owner that the ’194 patent provides written description support for both the appending and the transmitting limitations.” slip op. at 7

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

    “publication, and Ji renders the challenged claims obvious. Pet. 25–60. As explained above, the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date. Touboul was published on May 22, 1998 (Ex. 1003 (43)), while the ’583 publication was published on July 15, 1999 (Ex. 1005 (43)). Thus, neither qualifies as prior art. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combination of Touboul and the ’583 publication, or the combination of Touboul, the ’583 publication, and Ji, renders the challenged claims obvious. CONCLUSION On this record, Petitioner has not shown that Touboul and the ’583 publication are prior art to the challenged claims of the ’926 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to the patentability of at least one of those claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,613,926
• Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01897 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Symantec did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing: the challenged claims were entitled to the 1997 priority date, making Touboul I and II not prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “requesting inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 B2 to Edery et al. (Ex. 1001, “the ’494 patent”). Pet. 1. Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We review the Petition 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). For the reasons that follow and on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “necessary to provide a written description of a claimed invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 may be incorporated into a patent application by reference, provided that the incorporated reference is a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication that does not itself incorporate such “essential material” by reference, by “[e]xpress[ing] a clear intent to incorporate by reference by using the words ‘incorporat(e)’ and ‘reference’” and “[c]learly identify[ing] the referenced patent [or] application.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c), (d). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has explained that “incorporated patents are ‘effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions (Pet. 11–15), the “boilerplate language” used in the ’822, ’926, ’086, and ’494 patents, broadly stating without further qualification that the earlier-filed patents are “incorporated by reference,” is sufficient in view of Federal Circuit precedent to incorporate the disclosure of at least the ’780 patent2 into each later-filed patent. See, e.g., Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding “entire . . . application disclosure was incorporated by the broad and unequivocal language: ‘The disclosures of the two applications are hereby incorporate[d] by reference’”). We agree with Patent Owner that the facts here are distinguishable from those in cases on which Petitioner relies. Prelim. Resp. 23–24. For example, in Zenon, as Patent Owner asserts, there was a lack of continuity of disclosure in a priority chain because the priority references were not incorporated in their entirety, but only with respect to specific portions. Id. On this record, and particularly in view of Petitioner’s statement that the specification of the ’780 patent, among others, describes the “claim elements and features” not otherwise included in the specifications of the ’822, ’926, ’086, and ’494 patents (Pet. 10)—and, thus, does not itself incorporate such “essential material” by reference (see 37 C.F.R. §1.57(d))—we agree with Patent Owner’s conclusion that “each application in the priority chain contains written description support for the challenged claims, and continuity of disclosure exists up to and including the ’494 [p]atent without interruption.” Prelim. Resp. 16.3” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “among others, it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. 35 U.S.C. § 120. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion that “neither the ’086 patent, nor the ’926 patent, include a priority claim or any reference whatsoever to a number of earlier-filed applications (i.e., the ’194 patent, ’520 patent and ’639 provisional) that are included in the priority chain of the ’494 patent” (Pet. 6), the ’086 and ’926 patents both include priority claims to the ’194 patent and incorporate the ’194 patent by reference in its entirety. Ex. 1002, [63], 1:26–30; Ex. 1003, [63], 1:23–27. Moreover, as Patent Owner points out, the ’520 patent and ’639 provisional are not within the priority chain from the ’494 patent to the ’194 patent, and the failure of the ’926 and ’086 patents to include a priority claim or reference to the ’520 patent and ’639 provisional does not affect the ’494 patent’s entitlement to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date of the ’388 application that matured into the ’194 patent (i.e., Touboul I). Petitioner also argues that the failure of the ’926 and ’086 patents to include a priority claim or any reference to the ’520 patent and ’639 provisional constitutes a break in the priority chain of the ’494 patent. Pet. 17. For purposes of this Decision, however, we need not reach this issue.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “C. Anticipation by and Obviousness over Touboul I and Touboul II On this record and for the reasons stated in Section II.B. above, we are persuaded that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of the ’494 patent are entitled at least to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date of the ’388 patent that matured into the ’194 patent, and, accordingly, that neither Touboul I (i.e., the ’194 patent) nor Touboul II, which issued on November 28, 2000, from an application filed December 22, 1997, constitutes prior art to those claims. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial on any of the asserted grounds. III. CONCLUSION On this record, Petitioner has not shown that Touboul I and Touboul II are prior art to the challenged claims of the ’494 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to the patentability of those claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,494
• Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01895 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the challenged claims were entitled to the November 6, 1997 filing date, making the asserted references unavailable as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “or the combination of Touboul I and Dan, renders the challenged claims obvious. Pet. 32–52. As explained above, the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date. Thus, neither Touboul I (the ’194 patent) nor Touboul II (issued on November 28, 2000, from an application filed December 22, 1997) constitutes prior art to those claims. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 14 combination of Touboul I and Touboul II, or the combination of Touboul I and Dan, renders the challenged claims obvious. CONCLUSION On this record, Petitioner has not shown that Touboul I and Touboul II are prior art to the challenged claims of the ’926 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to the patentability of at least one of those claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for an inter partes review of claims 15, 18–20, 22, 25–27, and 30 of the ’926 patent is denied.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Incorporation by reference “provides a method for integrating material from various documents into a host document . . . by citing such material in a manner that makes clear that the material is effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein.” Zenon, 506 F.3d at 1378 (quotation marks omitted). Incorporation by reference must be set forth in the specification and must (1) express a clear intent to incorporate by reference by using the root words “incorporate” and “reference” (e.g., “incorporate by reference”); and (2) clearly identify the referenced patent, application, or publication. 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c). “Essential material,” such as material necessary to provide a written description of a claimed invention, may be incorporated by reference by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, as long as the referenced patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. Id. § 1.57(d). In Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit concluded that the broad and unequivocal language “[t]he disclosures of the two applications are hereby incorporated by reference” incorporates the entire disclosures of the two applications. Id. at 1335. The incorporation statement in the ’822 patent is similar: 9 This application is also a Continuation-In-Part of and hereby incorporates by reference patent application Ser. No. 09/539,667, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,804,780 . . . . This application is also a Continuation-In-Part of and hereby incorporates by reference patent application Ser. No. 09/551,302, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,480,962 . . . . Ex. 1002, 1:11–19. Petitioner acknowledges that the ’780 patent provides written support for the limitations of the challenged claims. Pet. 10. In other words, the ’780 patent does not itself incorporate such “essential material” by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(d). Thus, the holding of Harari informs our conclusion that the ’822 patent incorporates by reference the ’780 patent in its entirety. Because the ’194 and ’780 patents share essentially the same disclosure (compare Ex. 1004 with Ex. 1005), we agree with Patent Owner that continuity of disclosure exists between the ’194 and ’926 patents.” slip op. at 9

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

    “ANALYSIS Claim Construction In an inter partes review, the Board interprets a claim term in an unexpired patent according to its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1278–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 1 Shlomo Touboul, U.S. Patent No. 6,092,194, issued July 18, 2000 (Ex. 1005, “Touboul I,” or “the ’194 patent”). 2 Shlomo Touboul and Nachshon Gal, U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844, issued Nov. 28, 2000 (Ex. 1012, “Touboul II”). 3 Asit Dan et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,825,877, issued October 20, 1998 (Ex. 1013, “Dan”). 4 cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (2016). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,613,926
• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Ltd. / Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Galderma Laboratories, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 16, 2016 · IPR2015-01778 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 were unpatentable over the asserted references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “CONCLUSION Petitioner does not convince us that non-provisional parent applications of the ’506 patent (as represented by the specification of the ’506 patent) fail to provide adequate written descriptive support for the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner’s contention that the ‘506 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the April 5, 2002, filing date of the earliest of those applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120 such that Ashley ’572, Ashley ’267, and/or ORACEA would qualify as prior art.10 Consequently, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 are unpatentable in view of the asserted references. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’506 patent.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “We do not find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive. As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner has not established that the term “acne rosacea” was “antiquated and outdated” as of the earliest filing date of the chain of applications leading to issuance of the ’506 patent. Nor does Petitioner establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that term to indicate rosacea—a condition commonly known to encompass inflammatory papules and pustules, albeit not comedones. See Pet. 22; Prelim. Resp. 18–19; Ex. 1004 ¶ 13; Ex. 1034, 144. To the extent a dermatologist would not, as Petitioner argues, “have lumped [acne vulgaris and rosacea] together in a single genus,” does not persuade us that written description is lacking. An inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer and give terms uncommon meanings if “done with reasonable clarity, deliberativeness, and precision.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the present case, we find no ambiguity in the ’506 patent’s definition of the invention as directed to the treatment of “all known types of acne,” including both acne vulgaris and rosacea. See Ex. 1001, 4:31–43. The ’506 patent characterizes the genus acne as “a disorder of the skin characterized by papules, pustules . . . and other blemishes or skin lesions,” and notes that rosacea evinces specific characteristics of “inflammatory lesions (erythema) and permanent dilation of blood vessels (telangiectasia).” Id. at 4:23–30, 41–43. We are not persuaded that written description is lacking because not all of the symptoms attributed to the genus acne apply to rosacea, or that a symptom specific to rosacea (i.e, telangiectasia) may only be treated surgically. See Pet. 23. Rather, we find it sufficient that the specification teaches the treatment of papules and pustules of the genus “acne”—expressly defined by the inventor as including rosacea.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “CONCLUSION Petitioner does not convince us that non-provisional parent applications of the ’506 patent (as represented by the specification of the ’506 patent) fail to provide adequate written descriptive support for the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner’s contention that the ‘506 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the April 5, 2002, filing date of the earliest of those applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120 such that Ashley ’572, Ashley ’267, and/or ORACEA would qualify as prior art.10 Consequently, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 are unpatentable in view of the asserted references.” slip op. at 17

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

    “i. Rosacea The parties agree that the ’506 patent identifies rosacea (“acne rosacea”) as a form of acne. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 7. Although Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not classify rosacea as a form of acne (Pet. 22; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 12, 13), we apply the inventor’s clearly expressed definition that “acne include[s] . . . acne rosacea” (Ex. 1001 4:31–41). With respect to the symptoms of rosacea, however, neither party contends that uncommon meanings apply. Pet. 30– 31; Prelim. Resp. 6–8. We therefore construe rosacea as a form of acne having symptoms including papules, pustules, erythema, and telangiectasia, where the predominant lesions are papules and pustules. See Ex. 1001, 4:23–43; Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 7, 19 (“‘The predominant lesions [in rosacea] are papules and pustules.’ ([Ex. 1056] at 680; see also Exh. 1046, at 852, 958; Exh. 1047, at 1023, 1175.).”” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,603,506

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.