- PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01174 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 10–23, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 are unpatentable, including over Lesniak-based grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We determine that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Although the Examiner did not specifically apply Lesniak, Phinney, or Sturgis to the grounds of rejection for ’706 patent application, the Examiner considered these references as evidenced on the face of the ’706 patent indicating these were cited references, as well as by the Information Disclosure Statement that listed these three references. See Ex. 1001, code (56); Ex. 2001, 287, 297, 304. Various combinations of these references are asserted in six of the nine grounds before us in this proceeding. Therefore, we determine that same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“summarized above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that Petitioner has shown sufficiently a reasonable likelihood of succeeding with respect to at least claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 challenged in Grounds I through IV.2 We are persuaded, based on the current record, that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the different combinations of Lesniak, Phinney, Lamb, Bianchi ’518, Bianchi ’254 and Anconi for Grounds I through IV to arrive at the deodorant stick of at least claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 with a reasonable expectation of success. Below, we discuss how Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success that the teachings of Lesniak for claim 1 and the various combinations of Grounds II through IV would render obvious claims 3, 4, and 8, representative claims for these grounds.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“rational motivation to combine, supported by Dr. Michniak-Kohn’s testimony, stating that Lesniak and Phinney are in the same field of endeavor as the ’706 patent—personal care compositions, including deodorant and/or antiperspirant sticks, that contain known antimicrobials and focus on the use of natural ingredients. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:26–44, 14:32– 60; 17:58–12, 18:65–26:36; Ex. 1003, Abstract, Title, 1:16–35, 3:39, 4:22, 4:61–67; 5:5–31, 8:43–46, 9:45, 10:27–33; Ex. 1004, Abstract, Title, 1:5–9, 5:52–60, 6:1–34, 8:40–44; Ex. 1002 ¶ 80). Petitioner points to Phinney’s teaching that that “’a mixture of the hydroxides of zinc and magnesium could provide long lasting protection against odour due to perspiration,’” versus using zinc oxide alone, which was less effective “due to insolubility and low hydrolysis rate to a hydroxide form that could show some activity.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:12–22, 2:33–37; 5:64–66, 5:48–49; Ex. 1002 ¶ 82); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 77.” slip op. at 32
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Dr. Michniak-Kohn testifies that “a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate magnesium hydroxide into Lesniak’s composition following Phinney’s guidance, as this combination would improve odor protection while maintaining the ‘natural’ composition intended by Lesniak.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Dr. Michniak-Kohn also testifies that “a POSA would have appreciated that deodorant compositions could be formed through various combinations of known ingredients, such as antimicrobials, as simple design choices.” Id. ¶ 79. We credit Dr. Michniak-Kohn’s testimony here as supported by the record before us at this stage of the proceeding. On the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently a reason to combine the teachings of Lesniak and Phinney to arrive at claim 3.” slip op. at 33
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,497,706 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01173 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 9–19 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 14–17 are unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“the following two-part framework: (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 [the] 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.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the information presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of claims 1–7 and 9–19 of the ’647 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“this record, articulate a rational motivation to combine supported by Dr. Michniak-Kohn’s testimony, stating that both Lesniak and Bianchi are in the same field as the ’647 patent, which all relate to personal care compositions like deodorant and/or antiperspirant sticks and all discuss hardness as a relevant and measurable parameter for stick compositions. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1001, Abst., 15:6–44, 18:64–26:36; Ex. 1003, Abst., 3:39, 4:22, 8:43–46, 9:45, 9:60–62, 10:17–27, 15:41–42; Ex. 1006, Abst., 1:8–35, 2:56–58, 6:23–29); Ex. 1002 ¶ 81. As Petitioner points out, Lesniak discloses formulating deodorant sticks that have a desirable “skin feel,” prompting a POSA to review a publication like Bianchi ’518 to determine consumer-acceptable hardness ranges in formulating a stick composition. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–79). As Dr. Michniak-Kohn testifies, testimony which we credit based on the record before us, “by the time of the filing of the ’647 Patent, a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance,” such as Bianchi ’518. Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Although Bianchi ’518 describes typical hardness levels of suspensoid antiperspirant sticks as they relate to “the invention,” there is nothing in Bianchi ’518 that would limit the application of preferred hardness levels only to the formulations of Bianchi ’518. See Ex. 1006, 6:23–29; see generally Ex. 1006. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions about a dearth of explanation by Petitioner as to how Lesniak would be modified to achieve the hardness disclosed in Bianchi ’518, Petitioner explains how the hardness of Lesniak’s deodorant stick could be adjusted to achieve the hardness Petitioner sufficiently explains on this record how this would be done: A POSA would have readily understood how to adjust the hardness of the stick, using Lesniak’s ingredients, inasmuch as a POSA would have known that adjusting the amount of structurant (using less if the deodorant was too hard, and vice-versa) could achieve the target hardness. For instance, Lesniak describes formulating a deodorant stick with 8% to 19% of a primary structurant, such as beeswax, and also optionally including 3% to 15% of a secondary structurant, such as sunflower seed wax and/or hydrogenated castor oil. A POSA would have understood that the hardness could be adjusted by altering the amount of the primary structurant and/or by incorporating secondary structurants.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“sticks that have a desirable “skin feel,” prompting a POSA to review a publication like Bianchi ’518 to determine consumer-acceptable hardness ranges in formulating a stick composition. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–79). As Dr. Michniak-Kohn testifies, testimony which we credit based on the record before us, “by the time of the filing of the ’647 Patent, a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance,” such as Bianchi ’518. Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Although Bianchi ’518 describes typical hardness levels of suspensoid antiperspirant sticks as they relate to “the invention,” there is nothing in Bianchi ’518 that would limit the application of preferred hardness levels only to the formulations of Bianchi ’518. See Ex. 1006, 6:23–29; see generally Ex. 1006. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions about a dearth of explanation by Petitioner as to how Lesniak would be modified to achieve the hardness disclosed in Bianchi ’518, Petitioner explains how the hardness of Lesniak’s deodorant stick could be adjusted to achieve the hardness Petitioner sufficiently explains on this record how this would be done: A POSA would have readily understood how to adjust the hardness of the stick, using Lesniak’s ingredients, inasmuch as a POSA would have known that adjusting the amount of structurant (using less if the deodorant was too hard, and vice-versa) could achieve the target hardness. For instance, Lesniak describes formulating a deodorant stick with 8% to 19% of a primary structurant, such as beeswax, and also optionally including 3% to 15% of a secondary structurant, such as sunflower seed wax and/or hydrogenated castor oil. A POSA would have understood that the hardness could be adjusted by altering the amount of the primary structurant and/or by incorporating secondary structurants.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,905,647 - PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01105 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–15 based on all six asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We determine that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. While the Examiner did not specifically apply Lesniak to the grounds of rejection for the ’542 application, the Examiner was aware of Lesniak during its prosecution as evidenced by the fact that Lesniak appears on an IDS signed by the Examiner, which is not disputed by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 11–15; Ex. 2001, 79; Pet. 21. We turn to whether Petitioner demonstrates that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims when it considered Lesniak. 2. Whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims Under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6, 8. “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.” Id. at 8 n.9. We evaluate Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated material error. Id. at 10. Those factors are:” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the information presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of claims 1–15 of the ’915 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Lesniak and Phinney. Claims 2 and 10 depend from claim 1 and further require that the antimicrobial to be selected from, among other things, magnesium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide. Ex. 1001, 15:44–46, 16:1–14, 16:29–30. Petitioner concedes that Lesniak does not expressly teach the use of magnesium hydroxide. Pet. 34. However, Petitioner asserts that, in view of Phinney, a POSA would have found it obvious to add magnesium hydroxide to the composition of Lesniak. Id. Phinney states that metal oxides, such as zinc oxide, are not particularly efficacious antimicrobials in deodorants when used alone and describes using magnesium hydroxide as an antimicrobial in a deodorant stick in combination with zinc oxide. Id., 35. adequately articulate a reason why a POSA would combine Lesniak and Phinney. Prelim. Resp. 16–18. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 2 and 10 of the ’915 patent are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Lesniak and Phinney. At this stage in the proceedings, we disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated an adequate motivation to combine Lesniak and Phinney. Petitioner has articulated a clear motivation to combine these two references. Pet. 35. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “[b]oth Lesniak and Phinney are directed to deodorants with ‘natural ingredients”’ and “[b]oth describe using known antimicrobials” and “[b]ecause Lesniak teaches using zinc oxide (a known antimicrobial) and Phinney teaches that using magnesium hydroxide in combination with zinc oxide improves antimicrobial properties, a POSA would have had a reason to follow Phinney’s teaching and add magnesium hydroxide to Lesniak’s composition.” Pet. 35.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree; and (2) at least two years of experience in cosmetics formulations.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications. Prelim. Resp. 7. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal above, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,966,915 - PTAB · Jan 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01104 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 based on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6, 8. “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.” Id., 8 n.9. We evaluate Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated material error. Id., 10. Those factors are: (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; . . . (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.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“summarized above, we are persuaded, based on the current record, that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianchi ’518 to arrive at the deodorant stick of at least claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons stated in the Petition. Pet. 24–37. In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak teaches natural anhydrous personal care compositions, including a deodorant stick in the form of an antiperspirant stick. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35, 4:22, 5:5–32, 10: 27, 10:32–33). Lesniak explains that such compositions include at least one antimicrobial (i.e., zinc oxide) and a where the compositions are free of an aluminum salt. Id., 24–25. While Petitioner concedes that Lesniak does not expressly teach that its compositions include magnesium hydroxide, for that element, Petitioner combines Phinney disclosure for using magnesium hydroxide as an antimicrobial in a deodorant stick. Id., 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:33–37). And Petitioner provides a reason to combine Lesniak and Phinney, noting that “[b]oth Lesniak and Phinney are directed to deodorants with ‘natural ingredients’ and both describe the use of known antimicrobials”. Id., 26–27 (citing to Ex. 1003, 4:61–5:31, 9:45, 10:27, 10:31–33, 3:39–4:21, 8:31–9:59; Ex. 1004, 1:5–9, 1:15–19, 5:52–67, 6:31–34, 8:40–44). Petitioner concludes that “a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate magnesium hydroxide into Lesniak’s composition following Phinney’s guidance, as this combination would improve odor protection while maintaining the ‘natural’ composition intended by Lesniak.” Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62 (same). Petitioner also concedes that Lesniak also does not expressly teach hardness as measured by penetration within an ASTM-D 1321 needle test, but that Bianchi ’518 discloses a hardness range by needle penetration. Id at 26–28. By combining these references of record in the manner proposed by the Petitioner, we are persuaded on the record before us that those of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianci ’518 to meet each limitation of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition. See e.g. id., 27 (“a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–64 (same). Patent” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“summarized above, we are persuaded, based on the current record, that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianchi ’518 to arrive at the deodorant stick of at least claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons stated in the Petition. Pet. 24–37. In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak teaches natural anhydrous personal care compositions, including a deodorant stick in the form of an antiperspirant stick. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35, 4:22, 5:5–32, 10: 27, 10:32–33). Lesniak explains that such compositions include at least one antimicrobial (i.e., zinc oxide) and a where the compositions are free of an aluminum salt. Id., 24–25. While Petitioner concedes that Lesniak does not expressly teach that its compositions include magnesium hydroxide, for that element, Petitioner combines Phinney disclosure for using magnesium hydroxide as an antimicrobial in a deodorant stick. Id., 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:33–37). And Petitioner provides a reason to combine Lesniak and Phinney, noting that “[b]oth Lesniak and Phinney are directed to deodorants with ‘natural ingredients’ and both describe the use of known antimicrobials”. Id., 26–27 (citing to Ex. 1003, 4:61–5:31, 9:45, 10:27, 10:31–33, 3:39–4:21, 8:31–9:59; Ex. 1004, 1:5–9, 1:15–19, 5:52–67, 6:31–34, 8:40–44). Petitioner concludes that “a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate magnesium hydroxide into Lesniak’s composition following Phinney’s guidance, as this combination would improve odor protection while maintaining the ‘natural’ composition intended by Lesniak.” Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62 (same). Petitioner also concedes that Lesniak also does not expressly teach hardness as measured by penetration within an ASTM-D 1321 needle test, but that Bianchi ’518 discloses a hardness range by needle penetration. Id at 26–28. By combining these references of record in the manner proposed by the Petitioner, we are persuaded on the record before us that those of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianci ’518 to meet each limitation of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition. See e.g. id., 27 (“a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–64 (same). Patent” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree; and (2) at least two years of experience in cosmetics formulations.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications. Prelim. Resp. 8. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal above, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,540,999 - Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Biosciences, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · PGR2022-00025 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable because the ’201 patent lacks written description support for the claimed genus of CRF1 receptor antagonists under § 112(a).
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“[A] sufficient description of a genus instead requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus. Id. at 1350 (citing Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568–69). Moreover, “an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials.” Id. (citing Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568 (quoting Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171)). Furthermore, “functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. (citing Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001))). “[M]erely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id.” slip op. at 42
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) “would have a medical degree or a Ph.D. in a field related to endocrinology, and would have knowledge of hormone regulation and disorders, as well as knowledge of the treatment regimens employed to treat such disorders . . . [and] would also have at least three years of experience conducting research concerning endocrine disorders, including CAH or other adrenal disorders.” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34 (Dr. Carey Declaration)). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because Petitioner’s definition of a person of skill in the art appears commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the asserted art in this case as well as the ’201 patent itself, see, e.g., Exs. 1024, 1025, 2003, 2004, 2005, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). C.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, we do not find persuasive the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dobs, that: By describing adjustments of dosing protocols to achieve an A4 reduction from baseline, and describing this use of tildacerfont as just one embodiment of the claimed use of the entire well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class, the specification reasonably conveyed to a POSA that the invention extended to the particularly claimed use of the entire recited class. Ex. 2014 ¶ 82. On the contrary, far from being a “well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class” the prior art teaches a heterogeneous assembly of different classes of small molecule CRF1 receptor antagonists (Type I, Type II, and “atypical”) displaying a very considerable variety of structures, both in terms of the core pharmacophore (e.g., monocyclic, bicyclic, tricyclic, phenolic, cyclohexyl amide, etc.) as well as in the various side groups. Moreover, the challenged claims recite only “a CRF1 receptor antagonist or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,” the scope of which also encompasses the much larger (and, according to Williams) much more effective large-molecule (peptide) CRF1 receptor antagonists, about which the Specification is entirely silent. See Ex. 1029, Abstr., 1065. Furthermore, despite Dr. Dobs’ testimony that “[t]he [prior art] references explain the typical CRF1 antagonist consists of a core nitrogen heterocycle with an aryl substituent adjacent to the core nitrogen atom and a branched alkyl group attached at the opposite end of the core,” Dr. Dobs also acknowledged that the “atypical CRF1 receptors depicted in Figures 11 and 12 of Williams had different structures, and lacked the nitrogen heterocyclic core.” Ex. 1042, 127:9–14, 130:13–131:16; see also Ex. 2014 ¶ 83. Additionally, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cutler, testified, by way of example, in his Reply Declaration that two of the ‘“first-generation CRF1 antagonists’ identified in Figure 1 of the Williams article do not fall within the Figure 2 structure Dr. Dobs relies upon.” Ex. 1047 ¶ 93. Indeed, with respect to the alleged core pharmacophore that Dr. Dobs” slip op. at 54
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“with chemical terminology”; “could not answer questions regarding the chemical structures in the prior art articles”; “did not know whether CRF1 receptor antagonists contained the structural features she deemed ‘essential’ in her Declaration”; and “agreed that tildacerfont has structurally unique features” (see Ex. 1042, 52–53, 125–126, 126–128, 128–130) goes to the weight that we assign to such testimony, but we do not find that such testimony, in light of Dr. Dobs’ extensive qualifications as an endocrinologist set forth above, deems Dr. Dobs unqualified to testify concerning the written description issue in this proceeding. For these reasons explained above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Dobs’ written description opinions in paragraphs 20 and 75–87 of Exhibit 2014 is denied.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 11,007,201 unpatentable§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,007,201 - Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Biosciences, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · PGR2021-00088 · APJ John G New · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 are unpatentable because the ’908 patent lacks written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach Grounds 1–3 or 5.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“To the extent that Dr. Dobs has admitted that she is “not comfortable with chemical terminology”; “could not answer questions regarding the chemical structures in the prior art articles”; “did not know whether CRF1 receptor antagonists contained the structural features she deemed ‘essential’ in her Declaration”; and “agreed that tildacerfont has structurally unique features” (see Ex. 1038, 52–53, 125–126, 126–128, 128–130), we will weigh her testimony regarding those matters accordingly. However, for the reasons explained above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Dobs’ written description opinions in paragraphs 19 and 80–91 of Exhibit 2014 is denied.” slip op. at 10
- Strike new argumentOther
“Analysis Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2020–2026 play no part in our reasoning and were not relied upon by the Board in reaching our Decision. Petitioner’s Motion to strike Exhibits 2020–2026 is therefore dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“typically possess a medical degree or a Ph.D. in a field related to endocrinology, and would have knowledge of hormone regulation and disorders, as well as knowledge of the treatment regimens employed to treat such disorders. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34). Petitioner argues that such a person of ordinary skill would also have at least three years of experience conducting research concerning endocrine disorders, including CAH or other adrenal disorders. Id. Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the demonstrable level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1025, 2003, 2004, 2005), and in the absence of a different proposed definition of the level of skill in the art by Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, we do not find persuasive the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dobs, that: By describing adjustments of dosing protocols to achieve at least a 10% reduction from baseline, and describing this use of tildacerfont as just one embodiment of the claimed use of the entire well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class, the specification reasonably conveyed to a POSA that the invention extended to the particularly claimed use of the entire recited class. Ex. 2014 ¶ 87. On the contrary, far from being a “well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class” the prior art teaches a heterogeneous assembly of different classes of small molecule CRF1 receptor antagonists (Type I, Type II, and “atypical”) displaying a very considerable variety of structures, both in terms of the core pharmacophore (e.g., monocyclic, bicyclic, tricyclic, phenolic, cyclohexyl amide, etc.) as well as in the various side groups. Moreover, the challenged claims recite only “a CRF1 receptor antagonist or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,” the scope of which also encompasses the much larger (and, according to Williams) much more effective large-molecule (peptide) CRF1 receptor antagonists, about which the Specification is entirely silent. See Ex. 1029, Abstr., 1065.” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 10,849,908 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,849,908 - Shanghai Hongene Biotech Corp. v. Chemgenes Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00875 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable because the ’696 patent anticipates each claim.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed definitions of the level of ordinary skill, although different facially, are similar substantively. For example, both parties argue that a POSA would have high levels of skill, with advanced degrees and/or extensive work experience in organic chemistry.3 See Pet. 16; PO Resp. 21. In addition, Petitioner contends that a POSA would have had experience in the development of oligonucleotide building blocks. Pet. 16. Similarly, Patent Owner asserts that a POSA would have had education” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“have significant background in P(III) chemistry. Id. at 19; Sur-reply 12–13. According to Patent Owner, Dr. Baran published only about a dozen papers that relate to oligonucleotide synthesis, and the focus of those papers appears to be on P(V) chemistry, which is fundamentally different from P(III) chemistry. PO Resp. 19–20; Sur-reply 12–13. Although it does not challenge Dr. Baran’s qualification to provide opinion in this proceeding, Patent Owner asserts that “Dr. Baran’s lack of experience in P(III) synthesis[] should be strongly considered” in our evaluation of the weight of Dr. Baran’s testimony. Sur-reply 13. Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Baran is principally experienced in P(V) chemistry presupposes that experience indicates an ignorance of P(III) chemistry. We do not find this position consistent with the breadth of Dr. Baran’s experience as indicated by his Curriculum Vitae. See Ex. 1003, 50–105. We weigh the testimonies of both Dr. Baran and Dr. Hrdlicka, against the cumulative weight of the evidence of record in assessing their credibility and probative value.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be disclosed in a single piece of prior art. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For a claim directed to a genus, if a prior art reference discloses a species falling within the claimed genus, the species anticipates the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960); see also Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that when a claim 2 US Patent No. 5,869,696, issued Feb. 9, 1999 (Ex. 1014, “the ’696 patent”). element is written in Markush form, “the entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the Markush group is in the prior art”).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsOther
“Resp.”) and a Motion to Amend Claims (Paper 11, “MTA”). In the MTA, Patent Owner proposed to replace claims 1 and 2 with substitute claims 4 and 5. MTA 1–2. Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s MTA (Paper 13) and a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 14, “Reply”). After we entered Preliminary Guidance on Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 15), Patent Owner requested authorization to withdraw its MTA (Ex. 3003). We granted that request. Paper 17. Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20, “Sur-reply”).1” slip op. at 2
Patent outcomesUS 8,309,707 unpatentable§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,309,707 - Shanghai Hongene Biotech Corp. v. Chemgenes Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00862 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable because Aerschot anticipates them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Baran is principally experienced in P(V) chemistry presupposes that experience indicates an ignorance of P(III) chemistry. We do not find this position consistent with the breadth of Dr. Baran’s experience as indicated by his Curriculum Vitae. See Ex. 1003, 47–102. We weigh the testimonies of both Dr. Baran and Dr. Hrdlicka, against the cumulative weight of the evidence of record in assessing their credibility and probative value.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“The parties’ proposed definitions of the level of ordinary skill, although different facially, are similar substantively. For example, both parties argue that a POSA would have high levels of skill, with advanced degrees and/or extensive work experience in organic chemistry.3 See Pet. 12; PO Resp. 20–21. In addition, Petitioner contends that a POSA would have had experience in the development of oligonucleotide building blocks. Pet. 16. Similarly, Patent Owner asserts that a POSA would have had education and/or experience in “the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids.” PO Resp. 20–21. After considering the parties’ arguments and the prior art, we determine that a POSA would have had a Ph.D. (or equivalent degree) in organic chemistry or medicinal chemistry, with at least two to three years of post-graduate work experience in the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids, including, but not limited to, the syntheses of oligonucleotides through solid phase oligonucleotide synthesis. In addition, an individual with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree and at least five years of work experience in these fields also would qualify as a POSA.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be disclosed in a single piece of prior art. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For a claim directed to a genus, if a prior art reference discloses a species falling within the claimed genus, the species anticipates the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960); see also Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that when a claim element is written in Markush form, “the entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the Markush group is in the prior art”).” slip op. at 5
Patent outcomesUS 8,541,569 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,541,569 - Apotex Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/SInstitutedPTAB · Sep 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00631 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–10 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, and granted Apotex’s motion to join the Mylan IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), the Board set forth six non-exclusive factors for determining “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. These factors are as follows: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Id. at 5–6. In evaluating these factors, we take a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review. Id. at 6. The Director has also issued interim guidance to the Board on applying the factors. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b), we “may waive or suspend a requirement of [part 42 of the Board’s rules] and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension.” Here, we agree with Petitioner that it has shown sufficient reason for us to waive the one-month from institution joinder motion deadline. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner waited until it had a sufficient business reason to file this Petition, and subsequently promptly filed its Petition and Motion for Joinder. Most critically, Petitioner raises no new unpatentability grounds, the trial schedule for the Mylan IPR need not be adjusted, and Petitioner agrees to serve in a silent understudy role. We determine that joinder with the Mylan IPR is appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,335,462 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00520 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Dexcom did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 were unpatentable under either Stafford–Raymond ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Burden of Proof “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity … the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Therefore, in an inter partes review, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable; that burden never shifts to the patentee. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). At the institution stage, Petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find these arguments persuasive. It may be so that Turner teaches that its recesses 77 receive rotation-restricting protrusions 71, which “extend[] into each recess 77 such that the recess side walls interfere with the protrusions to prevent rotation of the insertion device relative to body 20.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 69. And, it may also be so that Turner teaches this assembly as an advantage in that it prevents rotation of body 20. Id. However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In each of the ’335 Specification, Stafford, Raymond, and Turner, the OBU is universally depicted as having a circular perimeter oriented around a longitudinal axis, and possessing either a cylindrical shape (’335 patent, Stafford, Raymond) or a roughly domed shape, with a circular, circumferential collar. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8, 17, 52, 54; Ex. 1009, Figs 3A–C, 4A; Ex. 1010, Figs. 14–16, Ex. 1011, Figs. 2A–B, 5G, 7A-B, 9, 11, 13A–B, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 30, 37, 38. Moreover, in each description of the location of recesses 3766 in the ’335 Specification, the recesses are described as being located “on the side walls” of the OBU. See Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 8–12; col. 45, ll. 61–64. Given the circular perimeter of all of these embodiments of the disclosures of the ’335 Specification, the teachings of Petitioner’s cited references, the dictionary definition of “periphery” as being “the perimeter of a circle or other closed curve,” and the ordinary meaning that the terms would have had to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention, in view of the ’335 Specification and file history” (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13), we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on body electronics unit housing” would be located “on the circumference of the on-body housing,” as we concluded in the ’01396 IPR Decision. See Dec. 48; see also Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 9–14 (stating that “gripping arms 3762 [of medical device carrier 3730] are provided with engagement boss 3764 which are configured to engage with corresponding recesses 3766 provided on the side walls of the on body housing 322”).” slip op. at 38
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its 12 The Petition makes a design choice argument with respect to the teachings of Raymond on Ground 1, contending that “it would have been an obvious design choice to implement two spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing—one to engage the protrusions on each of the two arms taught by Raymond.” Pet. 38. However, Petitioner adduced no prior art teaching or evidence of record of “spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing” that Reply Brief if that argument could first have been raised in its Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Univ. of Massachusetts, 2018 WL 4278992, *5 n.4 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2018); Matterport, Inc. v. Appliance Comp. III, Inc., 2021 WL 6340164, *9–10 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2021).” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,266,335
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.