- Xencor, Inc. v. Merus N.V.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00604 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 7–24, 26–28, and 30–32 on all four grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions in view of the existing record, we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’286 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. See Pet. Therefore, we grant institution of inter partes review. Our reasoning is discussed below. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A POSA at the time of the alleged invention would have at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering, molecular and structural biology, biochemical engineering, or similar disciplines; several years of post-graduate training or related experience (including industry experience) in one or more of these areas; and two or more years of experience in the production of bispecific antibodies. (EX1002, ¶¶16-17.) Pet. 15. Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 10. At this point, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed, and unopposed, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’286 patent, itself. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“The ’286 patent uses the term “heavy chain” or “heavy chains” repeatedly; however, we find no express definition of the term. See generally Ex. 1001. Rather, the ’286 patent uses the term “heavy chain” in relation to antibody structure in a way that suggests the term is standard and well known in the art. See, e.g., id. at 3:19–59 (Background). The parties’ briefing on the technology reinforces this fact. See Pet. 5–14 (“The basic structure of natural IgG comprises four protein chains—two identical heavy chains (shown in red) and two identical light chains (shown in blue)—which are arranged in a Y-shaped configuration: . . . (EX1013, 112-13; EX1002, ¶¶23-30.)”); Prelim. Resp. 3–4 (“Natural or wild type Igs have a particular structure made of two identical light (L) chains and two identical heavy (H) chains. See EX2008 at ¶ 23. Each Ig heavy chain consists of three constant domains (CH1, CH2, and CH3) and one variable domain (VH), which is also isotypes, or a functional derivative and/or fragment of these. In a preferred embodiment, Ig-like molecules are produced that are antibodies of the IgG isotype because IgG antibodies e.g. have a longer half life as compared to antibodies of other isotypes. Ex. 1001, 11:9–21. As noted above (see supra Section I.C), IgG antibodies’ heavy chains have three constant domains, but IgE and IgM have four. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that heavy chain means one variable and three constant domains, and two differently-binding Fab arms, ignores embodiments of the invention. consistent with the definition of heavy chain in the ’286 Patent. See EX2008 at ¶ 24; EX1001 at 11:58–66.”). This is also how the ’286 patent generally uses the term. See Ex. 1001, 11:58–12:1. But, the Specification does not limit its embodiments to only IgG antibodies because it also describes that the invention may be “IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgA, IgE, and IgM” type antibodies, and fragments. Ex. 1001, 11:9–21; see also supra n.10 (quoting the ’286 patent’s definition of antibody). Other embodiments would not necessarily have the heavy chains as argued by Patent Owner. There is no evidence of record that the ’286 patent’s claims or the Specification generally use or limit the term “heavy chains” (or “heavy chain”) in any way deviating from its ordinary and customary meaning in the art. Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to expressly interpret this claim language. 2. Summary on Claim Construction At this stage of the proceeding, we expressly construe no claim terms and give each claim term the ordinary and customary meaning it would have had to the person of ordinary skill in the art as of the invention date. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. If either party intends to further argue claim construction at trial, they should do so in a clearly designated section of their briefing so as to expressly identify such arguments. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (content of petition); see also Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (CTPG) at 46, 48–45 (Nov. 2019).12 Claim construction arguments should not be relegated to patentability arguments on the facts.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“In brief summary, these limitations require one CH3 heavy chain to have a positive amino acid substituted in place of a neutral one, the other CH3 heavy chain to have a negative amino acid substituted in place of a neutral one, and that when the heavy chains are expressed by culturing the host cell these positive and negative amino acids interact and the antibody produced is a heterodimeric antibody. Petitioner asserts that Lazar expressly teaches engineering two CH3 domains so that, when expressed, they interact and form a heterodimeric CH3 interface by making neutral-to-positive and neutral-to-negative amino acid substitutions at known interacting residues on each CH3 domain, e.g., S364E (changing neutral serine to negative glutamic acid at residue 364) on one CH3 domain, and L368K (changing neutral leucine to positive lysine at residue 368) on the other CH3 domain; or T366D (swapping neutral threonine for negative aspartic acid at residue 366) on one CH3 domain and L351K (swapping neutral leucine for positive lysine at residue 351) on the other CH3 domain; that these residues were known in the art to be respective interfacing contact residues; that these modifications favor Fc heterodimerization; and that they result in a heterodimeric antibody (proof-of-concept shown by synthesizing and screening). Pet. 23–28 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:1–17, 17:67–18:3, 19:5–12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–119; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 121, 183, 241 (Tables 1, 2); Ex. 1007, 8:9–10, 17:19–20 (Table 1); Ex. 1008, 244–36).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,358,286 - PTAB · May 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00028 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 and 17–22 on all asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Shapero and Delseny render claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“To accord substantial weight to evidence of secondary considerations, it “must have a nexus to the claims, i.e., there must be a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence and the patented invention.” Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (instructing that “the Board, in considering the evidence of unexpected results, should determine whether there is a nexus between the unexpected [results] and aspects of the claimed invention not already present in the prior art”). Moreover, “when unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Laboratories, 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). On this record, it is unclear what Dr. Brooks considered to be the closest prior art when he alleged unexpected results. See Ex. 1002, 2013–17. We also find no persuasive evidence in either Brooks Declaration or the Examiner’s analysis on the requisite nexus. See id., 2055–56. As a result, we agree with Petitioner that “the Examiner erred in exclusively relying on Dr. Brooks’ declaration” to withdraw the obviousness rejection based on Jones and Tucker. See Pet. 58.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the skill level insufficient. As Patent Owner recognizes, the challenged claims relate to sequencing methods using a next-generation sequencing (“NGS”) platform. See id. at 8; see also Ex. 1001, 35:56–57 (claim 1 reciting “sequencing the enriched nucleic acid sequence of interest on a massively parallel sequencing platform”). Also, as Patent Owner recognizes, [c]ompared to traditional, Pre-NGS sequencing methods, NGS sequencing utilized a new design that no longer relied upon disassembling and then piecing together a single original template DNA strand. Instead, NGS now allowed for hundreds of thousands of original template strands to be sequenced in the same reaction. With NGS, a user could perform massively parallel sequencing, allowing for elements of the genome to be sequenced in a fast, scalable manner. Prelim. Resp. 5 (internal citations omitted). As such, we disagree with Patent Owner that a POSA only need to have education “in a field related to molecular biology” or experience “in a molecular biology lab,” because an artisan having only experience with pre-NGS sequencing methods would not qualify as a POSA. Instead, for purposes of this Decision, we find a POSA would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, molecular genetics, bioinformatics, biochemistry, or a related field. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. Additionally, the POSA would have had experience with NGS sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned. This definition of a POSA is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’012 patent and prior art. We further note” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any claim term expressly.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“It is true that Delseny recognizes the limitations and challenges of NGS. Ex. 1007, 411, 417. But the language in Delseny that Patent Owner identifies does not amount to teaching away, which requires that prior art references “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Instead, Delseny notes the limitations of hybridization technology in genotyping. Ex. 1007, 417. According to Delseny, “[t]he ultimate resolution is at the base-pair level and NGSTs now open the possibility to genotype a line by sequencing it.” Id. In fact, Delseny specifically teaches that NGS “can substitute for the genotyping microarray strategy because of its higher resolution.” Id.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,036,012 - PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01504 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Iafrate and Kivioja.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“On this preliminary record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is higher than warranted when Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill “further would have had specific experience with implementing and designing library preparation methods.” Pet. 21–22. However, we disagree with Patent Owner that a POSA only need to “have had experience with DNA sequencing methods” (Prelim. Resp. 8) because an artisan with experience with only pre-NGS sequencing methods would not qualify as a person of ordinary skill. Instead, for purposes of this Decision, we find a person of ordinary skill would have had a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, molecular biology, or biochemistry. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. The person of ordinary skill would have had experience with NGS sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned. This definition of a person of ordinary skill is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’357 patent and prior art. We further note that neither aspect of the dispute over the skill level affects our decision to institute review.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. “indexing site” Petitioner argues that the ’357 patent defines “indexing site” as a sample index, specifically, “a nucleic acid sequence that acts as an index for multiple polynucleotide samples, thus allowing for the samples to be pooled together into a single sequencing run, which is known as multiplexing.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:40–44). Patent Owner does not disagree other than to argue that no claim requires construction. The ’357 patent states: An indexing site is a nucleic acid sequence that acts as an index for multiple polynucleotide samples, thus allowing for the samples to be pooled together into a single sequencing run, which is known as multiplexing. provide a definition for “indexing site,” and we construe the term in accordance therewith.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“3. “identifying sequence reads with identical identifier and target sequences as duplicates” Although the parties do not request construction of this limitation, we note that the parties may wish to address the construction of this limitation after institution. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims are construed only to the extent necessary the term “duplicates” means that the sequences are identical. We observe that the ’357 patent states: “A duplicate sequencing read can be a sequencing read with the same identifier site and target sequence as another sequencing read in the population of sequencing reads.” Ex. 1004, 4:12–15. The claim does not use the exact wording as the Specification.4” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“4. “comprising” The parties may address the meaning of the transitional phrase “comprising” and whether the prior art meets the claim if the prior art discloses a method of identifying as duplicates those sequence reads with identical labels and target fragments and, in addition also identifies other sequence reads as duplicates, including sequence reads with some mutations resulting from PCR or SBS error. See Ex. 1079 ¶ 117. On this preliminary record, we construe “comprising” as an open-ended transition that is not limited to the listed steps. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 811.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,098,357 - Nike, Inc. v. Sherrywear LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01126 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 on all three obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Barg and Pintor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework to assess: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. In applying the two-part framework, we consider the non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part) (“Becton, Dickinson”), which “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17–18. “If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office.” Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10.4” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(xiii) Conclusion for Claim 1 Based on the evidence and arguments of record at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has shown that each element of claim 1 of the ’550 patent is disclosed by the combination of Barg and Pintor. Since Petitioner did not assert that Pintor discloses any limitation of claim 1, we determined that Petitioner did not need to establish a motivation to combine Pintor or reasonable expectation of success in doing so for claim 1. Lastly, Patent Owner’s objective indicia did not relate to claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Barg and Pintor.” slip op. at 41
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts the following: A POSA9 at the relevant time would have had at least two years of experience working in the design and or/construction of women’s exercise apparel, intimate apparel, and/or sports bras and bras, specifically. . . . Formal education in a relevant field, such as fashion and textile design, may compensate for less experience. Id. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 155). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’550 patent and the asserted prior art except that we set the level to “two . . . years of experience” because the qualifier “at least two” may render the level ambiguous. Otherwise, we agree with and will use Petitioner’s proposed level for this Institution Decision.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose any construction for any claim term in this proceeding. Accordingly, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning to the claim terms without special construction.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,219,550 - PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01197 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, 1–40, and all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not proposed a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. On the current record, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’729 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” and “or more” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not apply this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner bears the burden of stating “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). However, only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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))). Based on the preliminary record, we find it unnecessary to construe any claim term to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. Any final written decision entered in this case may include express” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Conclusion as to Ground 1 Based on the foregoing discussion, and having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, including the presently unrebutted testimony of Dr. Parr, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to Ground 1 sufficient for purposes of institution. E. Other Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability Having determined that Petitioner meets the threshold showing necessary to support institution of review based on the ground that asserts obviousness over Dohil in view of the knowledge of a POSA, we decline to address whether any other ground asserted in the Petition also supports institution. See Pet. 15–16 (grounds chart); see also SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60 (requiring the Board’s final written decision to address every claim the petitioner presents for review); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide7 (“Trial Practice Guide”) (Nov. 2019) 11 (“The Board will not institute on fewer than all claims or all challenges in a petition.”); PGS Geophysical, 891 F.3d at 1359–1360. We emphasize our determination in this Decision is not a final determination on the construction of any claim term or the patentability of any challenged claim and, thus, leaves undecided any factual issues necessary to determine whether sufficient evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions by a preponderance of the evidence in the final written decision.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of prior art or arguments,” we agree with Petitioner that the Examiner materially erred because the Examiner did not have the benefit of the teachings of the FDA Guidance, which Petitioner relies on in Grounds 1 (Dohil) and 3 (Dohil and Venkatesh) as representative of the knowledge of a POSA with regard to orally disintegrating tablets. See, e.g., Pet. 23.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,771,729 - PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00563 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, and 28 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Gil, Norden, Dean, Alphagan, and Federal Register.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Our § 325(d) analysis employs a two-prong framework: (1) whether the arguments presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office; and (2) if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in its prior consideration of those arguments. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (“Advanced Bionics”), 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“the District of New Jersey is more than three years, argues that “a trial may not be held until 2026—well after a FWD would be expected in this proceeding.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1027, 2); Reply 8. Based on this evidence of the median time to trial in the district, we find factor 2 weighs in favor of institution. See Fintiv Memo 3 (“[W]hen considering the proximity of the district court’s trial date to the date when the PTAB final written decision will be due, the PTAB will consider the median time from filing to disposition of the civil trial for the district in which the parallel litigation resides.”)” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingOther
“guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d 1314. Claim 1 is directed to “[a] method for reducing eye redness in a human subject having ocular hyperemia.” The preamble is limiting because (1) it provides the antecedent bases for “said human” and “said reduction of eye redness” recited in the body of the claim; and (2) “it is a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method must be performed.” See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1341–43 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The preamble, however, does not require that eye redness is actually reduced. Id. Nor does the body of the claim recite any efficacy requirement.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for petitioner
“In claim construction, “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d 1314. Claim 1 is directed to “[a] method for reducing eye redness in a human subject having ocular hyperemia.” The preamble is limiting because (1) it provides the antecedent bases for “said human” and “said reduction of eye redness” recited in the body of the claim; and (2) “it is a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method must be performed.” See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1341–43 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The preamble, however, does not require that eye redness is actually reduced. Id. Nor does the body of the claim recite any efficacy requirement.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,596,600 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00278 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15–17 on all grounds presented in the Petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Considering the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that the Petition demonstrates “a reasonable likelihood that [P]etitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in engineering or a related discipline and (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices, including medical devices that deliver energy to tissue. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–28). Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s description of a POSITA in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends “the Board need not construe any terms because the Challenged Claims are invalid under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 20. At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to this contention, nor propose any express claim construction of its own. For this decision, and given that neither party seeks any express claim construction, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. To the extent our consideration of Petitioner’s grounds touches on any implicit issues of claim construction, those are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“several reasons. First, Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Edwards-535 and Stern is supported by testimony from Dr. Martin who identifies multiple, specific reasons for the combination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–122, 129–148. This testimony is not conclusory and is supported with numerous citations to other evidence of record. Id. Patent Owner does not offer any countervailing testimony with its Preliminary Response, electing instead to rely on attorney argument at this stage. Second, Patent Owner’s assertions that Petitioner’s reasoning is insufficient because Stern describes treating the endometrium and ablating different tissue, i.e., surface versus underlying tissue, are undermined by Edwards-535’s citation to Baker. As Petitioner points out, “Edwards-’535 points a POSITA” to, and incorporates teachings from, Baker. Pet. 47. This is true even though Baker, like Stern, is largely focused on treating the uterus and describes preferred embodiments for delivering RF energy to the endometrium. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, Abstr., 3:5–9, 5:50–65. Moreover, Petitioner offers evidence to show that Baker and Stern depict similar devices, including the figure from Dr. Martin’s declaration reproduced below. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–119, 144–147. Dr. Martin’s figure above is a side-by-side comparison of Figure 8 of Baker and Figure 4a of Stern, depicting devices that, at least on their face, appear to share a similar shape and configuration. See id. ¶¶ 119, 146 (testifying that the comparison above shows “Baker and Stern both depict very similar devices”). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner’s comparison is apt, nor otherwise address Petitioner’s reliance on Baker as evidence of a motivation to combine Stern. Thus, on the current record, we agree with Petitioner that Edwards-535’s express citation to Baker suggests that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the similar teachings Petitioner identifies in Stern. Third, Stern also contradicts Patent Owner’s assertion that a POSITA would have considered its teachings to be inapplicable to treating the nasal concha as taught in Edwards-535. While Stern is primarily concerned with endometrial ablation applications, that does not mean its teachings are limited to such. Indeed, Stern explains that its “electrode partitioning structure” may be used to treat “other body organs or tissues either externally or internally” and that its “principles with respect to the delivery of controlled RF energy” can be applied “not only for controlled destruction of tissue but also for controlled heat treatment of tissue.” Id. Such teachings further support the testimony of Dr. Martin that “[a] POSITA would have known that technology from ablation devices for one part of the body would be applicable to devices used in other areas of the body.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117–121; Ex. 1033, 18:27–40). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Edwards-535 and Stern are so in conflict with one another that they rise to the level of teaching away.” Prelim. Resp. 21. A teaching away requires that the reference “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). But Patent Owner has not shown that any of the references cited here discourage the articulated combination of Stern’s electrode configuration, i.e., multiple pairs of bipolar electrodes connected to separate radiofrequency output channels, with Edwards-535’s device. To the contrary, Stern expressly states that its “electrode partitioning structure” can be used for other applications (see Ex. 1033, 18:27–40), which on the current record would seem to include Edwards-535’s device for ablating nasal tissue.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,033,318 - PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00313 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–54 on all three obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Under our precedent, where there is no time bar or estoppel implication with respect to alleged unnamed real parties-in-interest, the Board need not address, for the purposes of institution, whether such parties should be so named. SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020- 00734, Paper 11, 18–20 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential) (“SharkNinja”). In this case, Patent Owner has not alleged that either Lin BioScience or Belite Bio is barred or estopped from this proceeding. Patent Owner suggests that “Belite Bio’s status as a publicly traded company with a vested interest in the outcome of this Petition, and the Petition’s failure to disclose Belite Bio as a [real party-in-interest,] raise concerns about its motivations.” Prelim. Resp. 75. However, Patent Owner has not pointed to any evidence tending to show beyond speculation that Petitioner purposefully omitted these parties to gain an unfair advantage. SharkNinja at 19. Accordingly, on this record, we will not consider whether Lin BioScience and Belite Bio must be named as real parties-in-interest and” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had an advanced degree (e.g., Ph.D., M.D., M.S., or equivalent), in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceutical science, medicine, or a related field. This individual may have worked in consultation with a team including, e.g., a practicing physician who diagnoses and treats macular degeneration. Moreover, skilled artisans would have had practical knowledge about biological studies, pharmaceutical formulation, and the deuterium isotope effect, including the patents and publications discussed herein.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“First, the Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021). And where, as here, the claims are directed to methods of using a compound for a specific purpose (i.e., treating a macular degeneration), and the method comprises a single step of administering that compound in an 30 effective amount, the Federal Circuit “[has] generally construed statements of intended purpose in such method claims as limiting.” Id. at 1340. Moreover, “[w]hen limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th at 1341. In this case, claim 28 recites “[a] method of treating a macular degeneration, comprising administering an effective amount of a substituted C20-D1-3-retionoid to a patient in need thereof.” The preamble of “treating a macular degeneration” is necessary to understand the patients to whom the substituted C20-D1-3-retionoid should be administered; thus, it limits the claim. See Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th at 1341–42 (citing Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding the preamble to be limiting in a claim directed to “[a] method for treatment of sleep apneas comprising administration of a therapeutically effective amount of a [recited] compound . . . to a patient in need of such treatment,” because otherwise “the phrase ‘to a patient in need of such treatment’ would not have a proper antecedent basis”). Thus, we construe the preamble of claim 28 as limiting and give patentable weight to the phrase “method of treating a macular degeneration.” To the extent either party disagrees with our construction, the parties are welcome to further address this issue at trial.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“The Petition points to Mata’s express suggestion of “‘[p]harmacologic inhibition of one or more steps in the A2E synthetic pathway’ as ‘an effective treatment strategy for other macular degenerations associated with lipofuscin accumulation.’” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1010, 7159) (alteration in original). The Petition, again relying on Dr. Guengerich’s testimony, further explains Mata taught that deprotonation at C-20 of retinal — involving cleavage of a carbon-hydrogen bond — was “a pre-requisite for undesirable A2E formation,” and that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that this deprotonation likely was a rate-limiting step in A2E formation” such that slowing the deprotonation “would slow A2E formation,” i.e., lower the production of a toxic reaction product. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 259– 260). Moreover, although the evidence of record may suggest that, at least as of 1999, “there are no drugs on the market that contain deuterium in the molecule,” Ex. 1046, 85, left col., Petitioner has also provided evidence, for instance in the form of Dr. Calman’s testimony, that “there was significant interest in making deuterated versions of known therapeutics in order to slow rates of undesirable reactions.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 96; see also Pet. 15 (stating that “it was known before 2007 to . . . use deuterium to slow undesirable reaction”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 123; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 96–102). 18 Kushner et al., Pharmacological Uses and Perspectives of Heavy Water and Deuterated Compounds, 77 CANADIAN J. PHYSIOLOGY & PHARMACOLOGY 79 (1999) (Ex. 1046, “Kushner”). 37 Finally, we note that claim 1, at least, is not directed to a method of treating any particular disease, but only a method of retarding the accumulation of particular compounds (i.e., lipofuscin pigments). We are persuaded, at least at this stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a skilled artisan would have had a reason to use C20-deuterated vitamin-A in the manner suggested in the Petition, with a reasonable expectation of success, based on alleged similarities between the use of deuterated compounds in the claimed method and use of such compounds to, e.g., lower production of toxic metabolites.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham - PTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01064 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–50 under all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, including anticipation by COLCOT protocol for claims 27, 29–36, and 39.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented in the parties’ briefs, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–50 of the ’063 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“For these reasons, we determine that all the references that Petitioner asserts in the Petition (i.e., Bouabdallaoui, COLCOT protocol, Nidorf, ESC guidelines, and COLCRYS) are the same or substantially the same art that were previously presented to the Office. Accordingly, we determine that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Part 2: Whether the Petitioner Demonstrates Material Error Next, we consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, 8. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Examiner also did not make any material error in evaluating the prior art, or even determining the closest prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner contends that “Examiner did not err in evaluating the COLCOT Protocol as neither version of the protocol discloses key limitations of the claims that eventually issued, including the claim limitation that early intervention with colchicine reduces the risk of stroke.” Id. at 11–12. During prosecution, Examiner identified Hennessy as being the closest prior art. See Ex. 1002, 348–349, 399. Hennessy describes treating a patient population that has had a recent myocardial infarction (MI). The patient population described in Hennessy received 0.5 mg of colchicine once a day and describes the population as adults 18 years or older that have had a MI event within the prior 7 days. See Ex. 1028, 2 (“[a]dult (>18 years old) patients were eligible for enrolment if they had sustained a type 1 acute MI (by the 3rd universal definition[]) within the prior 7 days.”). Hennessy teaches that the “[r]eadmission rates [for their patient population] were significantly lower in the colchicine treated patients but [recognizes that] the numbers are small.” Ex. 1028, 6. This comports with the “Low Dose Colchicine (LoDoCo) study, treatment with 0.5 mg colchicine per day in addition to standard treatment in patients with stable [coronary heart disease] CHD significantly reduced the risk of developing an acute coronary syndrome, an out of hospital cardiac arrest or non-cardioembolic stroke.” Ex. 1028, 7. In the notice of allowability, Examiner asserts that the closest prior art also appears to be [Hennessy (Ex. 1028)] American Heart Journal (September 2019), Vol. 215, pp. 62-69, outlined above. The reference does not teach, show, suggest or make obvious the instant method of reducing the risk of a stroke in a patient having had a myocardial infarction by the administration of daily low dose colchicine within about 30 days of the myocardial infarction.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“If the body of the claim sets out the complete invention, and the preamble is not necessary to give “life, meaning and vitality” to the claim, “then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim limitation.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed.Cir.1999). Here, the body of claim 27 recites “initiating the administration of colchicine at a daily low dose to the patient within about 30 days of an MI.” Ex. 1001, 42:34–36. The claim body, therefore, identifies the patient population that is to be treated with the low dose colchicine and the time frame in which to initiate treatment. The preamble, therefore, does not narrow the patient population nor change the way colchicine is administered – all that is required by the claim is that colchicine is administered to patients that have suffered a MI within a particular time period after the MI event. The step of the method is preformed the same way whether or not the patient experiences a reduction in the risk of stroke. See, e.g., In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 70 (CCPA 1976) (“the preamble merely recites the purpose of the process; the remainder of the claim . . . does not depend on the preamble for completeness, and the process steps are able to stand alone.”); see Pet. 23 (“‘reducing the risk of a stroke’ does ‘not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim’ and is [therefore] non-limiting.” (citing Bristol-Myers, 246 F.3d at 1375–76; Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 104–108)). We agree with Petitioner that Examiner’s claim interpretation is in error. Here, the body of claim 27 defines a structurally complete invention by identifying the target population as any patient that has had a myocardial infarction (MI) and the onset of treatment using 0.5 mg colchicine within a 30-day time window. See Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.”); IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If the preamble adds no limitations to those in the body of the claim, the preamble is not itself a claim limitation and is irrelevant to proper construction of the claim.”). The recitation of “reducing the risk of a stroke” in the preamble, therefore, does not result in a difference in the way colchicine is administered to the identified patient population. See Pet. 23. We have reviewed the parties’ contentions, and determine at this stage of the proceedings that Petitioner has provided a requisite showing that the body of claim 27 describes a structurally complete invention. The preamble of claim 27, therefore, is not limiting because it simply expresses the intended result of the positively recited method step within the body of the claim. See Pet. 23.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The dispute between the parties is directed to the third wherein clause “wherein the patient is at a lower risk of a cardiovascular event, relative to a patient not being administered colchicine.” This third wherein clause simply asks for a comparison between patients receiving colchicine with a similar situated patient population not receiving the colchicine treatment. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We have reviewed the parties’ contentions, and determine at this stage of the proceedings that Petitioner has provided a requisite showing that this third clause merely describes the benefit of the administration of colchicine to the identified patient population. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that this clause is material to how the method is performed. This “wherein clause,” therefore, merely defines the result of the positively recited method steps. See Pet. 23; see, e.g., Minton, 336 F.3d at 1381 (a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.”).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,400,063 - PTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00614 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–3, 6–18, 21–24, and 27–29 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Ducharme, Ianiro, Katzir, and Hasnain.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Patent Owner has not persuaded us to exercise our discretion to deny institution. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, 8. We focus our analysis on Ducharme, one of the primary references asserted in the Petition. Although Ducharme was “not before the Office during examination of the [’]895 Patent,” Patent Owner asserts that it is cumulative to a reference that “was presented to the Office during examination by IDS.” Prelim. Resp. 42–43. Patent Owner does not point to, and we have not found, any evidence showing discussion or application of the previously presented reference by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’895 patent or its related patents. In other words, “the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent.” Advanced Bionics, 10. In such situations, “a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive.” Id.; see also id. at 8 n.9 (“An example of a material error may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.”). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the Examiner overlooked Ducharme’s teachings of the limitations that were the basis for allowing the challenged claims. Indeed, the Examiner allowed the challenged claims, stating that the closest prior art references lack the teachings of the emitted light being suitable for the commercial image recording when the emitted light is simultaneously at least 1000 lumens when either the first or the second LEDs are lit, is broad-spectrum white light having a color deviation corresponding to less than 5 points of both green and magenta of color compensation, and has a color rendering index of light emitted from each of the first or the second LEDs (whichever is lit) that is greater than 90. Ex. 1002, 150. Petitioner’s evidence indicates that Ducharme teaches an LED light suitable for commercial image recording that includes a plurality of first white LEDs having a first spectrum and a plurality of second white LEDs having a second spectrum. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 4:1–7. Petitioner’s evidence also indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to select first white LEDs with a daylight spectrum and second white LEDs with a tungsten spectrum. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 449; Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. Further, Petitioner’s evidence indicates that LEDs satisfying the light quality parameters recited in the challenged claims were known to those of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 480; Ex. 1005, 25:36–43; Ex. 1007, 7:11–15; Ex. 1008, 4:1–3. Thus, the evidence cited in the Petition demonstrates that the Office” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that, for purposes of this Decision, no claim term needs specific construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 14; Prelim. Resp. 14. Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to address the construction of any claim term.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, or a closely related field, along with at least two years of experience in the design of entertaining lighting systems, and the design and use of LEDs.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the skill level at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 13. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the skill level because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the skill level at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,566,895
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.