- Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted and IPR instituted on claims 1–28 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Linnarsson, McCloskey, and ordinary skill.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. WHETHER REHEARING IS WARRANTED Petitioner argues that we misconstrued the claims “as requiring one to add tags in a way that can provide a distinction based on a ‘polynucleotide sequence.’” Req. 6 (quoting Dec. 14 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Petitioner is correct. More specifically, we implicitly construed the claim language reciting “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell,” as requiring said “distinguishing” to be based on the sequences of the sample polynucleotides. See, e.g., Dec. 14 (“[E]ach strand of cDNA that is tagged in Linnarsson is tagged regardless of the polynucleotide sequence of the cDNA or its corresponding mRNA. Thus, Linnarsson’s tags do not distinguish between ‘sample polynucleotides,’ whether cDNA or mRNA, of different sequences.”). Based on that misunderstanding, we erroneously determined that the proposed modification could not achieve the claim language, stating the following: Petitioner’s proposal appears to defeat satisfaction of another portion of claim 1, namely a “second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell.” Ex. 1001, 30:62–64. For if the second tag is “added to the CDS or TSO after extension,” as opposed to the sample polynucleotide, as Petitioner argues (Pet. 39 (emphasis added)), it would appear that the second tag would be incapable of distinguishing any sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides. Rather, the second tag would be ligated to each and every extension product bearing a CDS or TSO without regard to the sequence of any sample polynucleotide. Dec. 16. We now reconsider whether to institute.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Cited”). Because we find that the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, we proceed to part two of the analysis. 2. Advanced Bionics Part Two Patent Owner argues that the Petition “fails to show any error in the Examiner’s application during prosecution of the prior art teachings Petitioner now purports to invoke from . . . McCloskey.” Prelim Resp. 23; see also id. at 24–25 (“Revisiting the same art and arguments already overcome during prosecution is a waste of the Board’s limited resources and would unfairly burden PO.”). However, Petitioner argued that “the Examiner committed major error in Examination by erroneously stating that the prior art fails to teach a dual tagging approach when, in fact, this approach is plainly taught in both McCloskey and McCloskey II.” Pet. 67. The record supports Petitioner’s position, and we agree that the error was material to patentability. See Ex. 1005, 131 (Notice of Allowance). Accordingly, and having considered all of the Becton, Dickinson factors, we do not exercise discretionary denial.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Linnarsson and McCloskey with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed subject matter. 8. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“the three references is analogous art to the ’013 patent as opposed to each other. Prelim. Resp. 46 (citing Pet. 35; Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). As Sanofi- Aventis holds, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, the Petition should not be denied for failing to state explicitly that the cited prior art references are analogous art to the ’013 patent. Rather, as Sanofi-Aventis further held: “A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to ‘respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.’” Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23). Accordingly, we need not address this issue for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,697,013 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing granted and IPR instituted on claims 1–26; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. WHETHER REHEARING IS WARRANTED Petitioner argues that we misconstrued the claims “as requiring one to add tags in a way that can ‘provide a distinction based on a polynucleotide’s sequence.’” Req. 6 (quoting Dec. 15 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Petitioner is correct. More specifically, we implicitly construed the claim language reciting “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell,” as requiring said “distinguishing” to be based on the sequences of the sample polynucleotides. See, e.g., Dec. 14 (“[E]ach strand of cDNA that is tagged in Linnarsson is tagged regardless of the polynucleotide sequence of the cDNA or its corresponding mRNA. Thus, Linnarsson’s tags do not distinguish between ‘sample polynucleotides,’ whether cDNA or mRNA, of different sequences.”). Based on that misunderstanding, we denied the Petition because “adding a second tag sequence to Linnarsson’s CDS and/or TSO would do nothing to achieve such a distinction,” i.e., “a distinction based on a polynucleotide’s sequence.” Id. at 15. That was error. We now reconsider whether to institute.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“the ’197 patent. See Ex. 1001, code (56) (listing McCloskey II under “References Cited”). Because we find that the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, we proceed to part two of the analysis.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Linnarsson and McCloskey to obtain the claimed subject matter. 6. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). As Sanofi-Aventis holds, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, the Petition should not be denied for failing to state explicitly that the cited prior art references are analogous art to the ’197 patent. Rather, as Sanofi-Aventis further held: “A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to ‘respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.’” Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23). Accordingly, we need not address this issue for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,240,197 - PTAB · Feb 14, 2023 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Rehearing
The Board granted Petitioner’s third rehearing request and instituted PGR of claims 1–5, 9, and 10, finding the petition presented compelling evidence of unpatentability.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“The Guidance Memo defines “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges” as “those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo 4. The phrase “plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable” was further clarified in the Director’s precedential decision in OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology, LLC, as only satisfied when “it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49–50 (PTAB Oct. 3, 2022) (Decision by the Director) (precedential). Thus, a compelling challenge is one “in which the 8 evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would” render it “highly likely that the petitioner would” show “that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.; Guidance Memo 4.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitutedInstituted
“one claim is unpatentable and that one of Petitioner’s challenges presents strong merits—are sufficient to show that the likelihood of Petitioner’s success at trial falls within the uncertain bounds of “highly likely.”5 Accordingly, we determine that the Petition “presents compelling evidence of unpatentability” as that phrase is defined in the Guidance Memo and the OpenSky decision. For this reason, we erred by “discretionarily deny[ing] institution in view of [the] parallel district court [proceeding].” Guidance Memo 2. We grant Petitioner’s request for rehearing and do not exercise discretion to deny institution. We acknowledge that instituting review in this proceeding when the district court already has reached its result requires the parties to duplicate the efforts they have put into the district court proceeding and requires us to duplicate the efforts of the district court and its jury. We are not insensitive to the fact that such a situation “can increase, rather than limit, litigation costs,” contrary to what “Congress designed the America Invents Act (AIA) 5 Our determination that Petitioner is “highly likely” to succeed in proving at least one claim unpatentable on at least one ground should not be understood to mean that we have prejudged the outcome of the trial. In particular, under OpenSky and the Guidance Memo, a compelling challenge is one “in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would” render it “highly likely that the petitioner would” show “that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” OpenSky, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49–50; Guidance Memo 4. Thus, in making our compelling-challenge determination, we are not permitted to consider any rebuttal evidence that has been entered, let alone any rebuttal evidence that may be entered during the trial. Our final determination will not be so limited and will be made based upon the full arguments and evidence developed during the trial. 11 post-grant proceedings” to accomplish. Guidance Memo 1. But the Guidance Memo is unequivocal: “the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Id. at 2. In the absence of such discretionary denial, we institute trial for the reasons discussed in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 16–41.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“likely” one, are not entirely clear, and this case likely falls somewhere near that boundary. We note first that the standard for instituting trial in a post-grant review requires a showing that “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). We previously held that this standard had been met in the present case. Inst. Dec. 3. In particular, we determined that Petitioner had made the necessary “threshold showing” as to its arguments that (1) “the claimed subject matter [was] not enabled for the full scope as claimed,” and (2) “Ogitani anticipates at least one of the challenged claims.” Id. at 26, 40. Moreover, “[w]e previously described ‘Petitioner’s argument that the claims lack enablement’ as presenting ‘strong merits.’” Second Denial Dec. 6 (quoting Inst. Dec. 3). slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,808,039 - PTAB · Jul 15, 2022 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing
Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted, and institution was denied for all challenged claims based on changed circumstances in the parallel district court proceeding under Fintiv.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we agree with Patent Owner that a rehearing of our prior institution decision is appropriate due to the changed circumstances of: (1) the statutory disclaimer of claims 6–8 of the ’039 patent, (2) Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment of related proceeding PGR2021-00042, and (3) the additional investment in the parallel proceeding by the district court and the parties, including the completion of a jury trial that resulted in a jury verdict not finding invalidity of the challenged claims. We further agree with Patent Owner that “[c]ontinuing with this proceeding would result in duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting results between the district court and the Board.” Reh’g Req. 9. It is the combination of these changed circumstances, rather than any one of them individually, that compels the result we reach.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“In considering the parties’ positions and the evidence of record, we note that we have been instructed not to exercise discretion to deny a petition when “the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge.” Guidance Memo 4–5. We previously described “Petitioner’s argument that the claims lack enablement” as presenting “strong merits.” Paper 17, 3. Despite that determination, we believe the record as it stands currently does not “present[] a compelling unpatentability challenge” on the lack-of-enablement issue. Guidance Memo 4–5. The district court already has substantially completed its review of the enablement issue, and a jury has determined that the claims do not lack enablement. Given this new information, we cannot conclude that Petitioner’s enablement case is compelling.” slip op. at 6
- Adverse judgmentOther
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,808,039 - PTAB · Apr 7, 2022 · PGR2021-00042 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing, reversed its discretionary denial, and instituted PGR on claims 6–8 based on the threshold showing of likely lack of enablement and anticipation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“We agree with Petitioner that a rehearing of our prior decision to deny institution is appropriate due to the changed circumstances of claims 6–8 of” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“institution is appropriate due to the changed circumstances of claims 6–8 of” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and the evidence cited therein, we determine that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Therefore, we grant institution of a post-grant review.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is supported by Dr. Lambert’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 20) and is consistent with the scope and content of the ’039 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,808,039 - PTAB · Apr 7, 2022 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing
Granted Petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted PGR on claims 1–5, 9, and 10 based on the more-likely-than-not enablement showing and efficiency considerations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“As acknowledged by both Petitioner and Patent Owner, this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve essentially identical issues. See 6 Reh’g Req. 15; Prelim. Resp. 19 n.3. In particular, we note that claims 6–8 of the ’039 patent challenged in PGR2021-00042 depend from claim 1 of the ’039 patent challenged in this proceeding, and are challenged under essentially identical written description, enablement and prior art issues. Reh’g Req. 15. Thus, our decision to institute post-grant review in PGR2021-00042 effectuates our review of issues almost identical to those in this proceeding. Petitioner further argues that this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve related issues, and that “considerations of efficiency . . . therefore counsel in favor of the Board reviewing the patentability of claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of the ’039 patent as well.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that, because we are to review practically the same issues of this proceeding in PGR2021-00042, considerations of efficiency (i.e., efficient use of the Board’s resources) strongly weigh in favor of also instituting trial in this proceeding. See Reh’g Req. 15. Considering all the factors together as a whole, we determine that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the interests of efficiency and integrity of the patent system weigh against exercising discretionary denial under § 324(a). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution. We consider the merits of the Petition with respect to the threshold for institution below.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“3. Analysis “[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) (alteration in original). “The enablement requirement ensures that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement. The scope of enablement, in turn, is that which is disclosed in the specification plus the scope of what would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.” National Recovery Techs. Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1195–96 (Fed Cir. 1999). [Although] a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art . . . , that general, oft-repeated statement is merely a rule 24 of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure. . . . [W]hen there is no disclosure of any specific starting material or of any of the conditions under which a process can be carried out, undue experimentation is required; there is a failure to meet the enablement requirement that cannot be rectified by asserting that all the disclosure related to the process is within the skill of the art. It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement. Genentech Inc., 108 F.3d at 1366. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of the ’039 patent lack enablement. In particular, we are persuaded based on the record at this stage of the proceeding that the Specification does not enable the full scope of the claims. The Specification focuses on dolastatin/auristatin derivatives and does not describe novel ADCs having non-dolastatin/auristatin derivative drug moieties. Ex. 1001, Abstract. For example, the Specification states that “there is a clear need in the art for dolastatin/auristatin derivatives having significantly lower toxicity, yet useful therapeutic efficiency [sic]” and purports that “[t]hese and other limitations and problems of the past are addressed by the present invention.” Id. at 4:25–29 (emphasis added). Moreover, each embodiment, example, figure, and assay disclosed in the Specification appears to use a drug moiety that is a dolastatin/auristatin derivative. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, 4:22–29, 50:56–52:30, 71:19–22, 131:23–48, Figs. 1–19, Examples 2–16. Claim 1, however, recites ADCs” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“As acknowledged by both Petitioner and Patent Owner, this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve essentially identical issues. See 6 Reh’g Req. 15; Prelim. Resp. 19 n.3. In particular, we note that claims 6–8 of the ’039 patent challenged in PGR2021-00042 depend from claim 1 of the ’039 patent challenged in this proceeding, and are challenged under essentially identical written description, enablement and prior art issues. Reh’g Req. 15. Thus, our decision to institute post-grant review in PGR2021-00042 effectuates our review of issues almost identical to those in this proceeding. Petitioner further argues that this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve related issues, and that “considerations of efficiency . . . therefore counsel in favor of the Board reviewing the patentability of claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of the ’039 patent as well.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that, because we are to review practically the same issues of this proceeding in PGR2021-00042, considerations of efficiency (i.e., efficient use of the Board’s resources) strongly weigh in favor of also instituting trial in this proceeding. See Reh’g Req. 15. Considering all the factors together as a whole, we determine that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the interests of efficiency and integrity of the patent system weigh against exercising discretionary denial under § 324(a). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution. We consider the merits of the Petition with respect to the threshold for institution below.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Instituted
“skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) (alteration in original). “The enablement requirement ensures that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement. The scope of enablement, in turn, is that which is disclosed in the specification plus the scope of what would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.” National Recovery Techs. Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1195–96 (Fed Cir. 1999). [Although] a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art . . . , that general, oft-repeated statement is merely a rule 24 of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure. . . . [W]hen there is no disclosure of any specific starting material or of any of the conditions under which a process can be carried out, undue experimentation is required; there is a failure to meet the enablement requirement that cannot be rectified by asserting that all the disclosure related to the process is within the skill of the art. It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement. Genentech Inc., 108 F.3d at 1366.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,808,039 - Neumodx Molecular, Inc. v. Handylab, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Aug 6, 2021 · IPR2020-01133 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
Granted Petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted review of claims 1–15 on all asserted grounds because the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Rehearing Request and conclude that we misapprehended the law of incorporation by reference when evaluating the grounds based on Ganesan- Publ’424, and that the Petition sets forth sufficient grounds and evidence to justify institution of trial.8 We, therefore, grant Petitioner’s Rehearing 8 Because our determination that we misapprehended the law of incorporation by reference is dispositive, we need not address Petitioner’s other arguments in the Rehearing Request. Request and institute an inter partes review of claims 1–15 of the ’103 patent on all the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“‘generally incorporates’ Ganesan-Prov’264, and did not ‘identif[y] with particularity’ any specific subject matter from Ganesan-Prov’264 . . . misapprehended the law of incorporation by reference in a way that is contrary to both Federal Circuit precedent and other Board decisions.” Req. Reh’g 10 (citing Dec. 18; Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). In particular, Petitioner argues that Advanced Display’s statement that “[t]o incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents” (212 F.3d at 1282) does not mean that the host document must identify some specific subject matter or subpart of the incorporated document (such as by page/line). Rather, the quoted statement simply means that the host document must clearly identify what is being incorporated and where it can be found—even when the incorporation applies to the entire document.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“with sufficient particularity such that the entirety of Ganesan-Prov’264 is incorporated therein, and Ganesan-Prov’264 forms a part of Ganesan- Publ’424 for purposes of anticipation. Ganesan-Prov’264 “relates generally to techniques for thermal control of microfluidic devices.” Ex. 1208, 2:29– 30. Ganesan-Prov’264 teaches that “heater/sensors in accordance with the invention may be integral with a microfluidic device or separate from a microfluidic device,” and “may be formed separately from the microfluidic device.” Id. at 12:16–21 (emphases added). Ganesan-Prov’264 further teaches that “one or more heater/sensors may be formed as part of a device configured to operatively receive a microfluidic device,” and “[t]he device may include one or more heater sensors positioned to be in thermal contact with portions of the operatively received microfluidic device.” Id. at 12:21– 26. Based on these teachings, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Mark Burns, testifies that “the heater array of Ganesan-Publ’424 may be formed integrally with the network-containing microfluidic substrate, or may be formed separately in a testing device into which the microfluidic substrate is placed or another part of the system.” Ex. 1101 ¶ 345 (citing Ex. 1109 ¶ 79; Ex. 1208, 12:20–25).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“to begin on April 11, 2022. Prelim. Resp. 45. We note, however, that the parties recently filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend Case Schedule, pushing the trial to December 2022, which the district court granted. Ex. 3001. Given the statutory deadlines, our latest possible date for issuance of a final written decision in this proceeding is in July, 2022, one year after we issue this decision instituting an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(c), 316(a)(11); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Thus, our final written decision would issue at least four months before trial. “If the court’s trial date is earlier than the projected statutory deadline, the Board generally has weighed this fact in favor of exercising authority to deny institution under NHK.” Fintiv Order 9. We find that this factor weighs strongly against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 12
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,415,103 - Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Nov 10, 2020 · PGR2018-00092 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing
The Board granted the petitioner’s rehearing request, vacated the final written decision, and will issue a revised decision after overlooking Varenna 2012 in Grounds 5–7.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,820,999 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research And Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-01981 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Rehearing
Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted as to the Pinchasi–Flechter combination analysis; rehearing was denied on the remaining issues, and a modified final written decision was entered.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“found instead that the data taught that less-frequent-than-daily administration would have been more tolerable than daily administration.” Reh’g Req. 6 (citing Dec. 29). Upon review of the Decision, we agree that the analysis in the cited portion of our Decision does not conflate efficacy with tolerability. See Final Dec. 32–33. Accordingly, we grant this portion of Patent Owner’s Request for Reconsideration and retract our reliance on the efficacy data of Flechter in Section II.C.5 of the Decision as the basis for rejecting Patent Owner’s argument regarding the lack of motivation to combine Pinchasi and Flechter. We concurrently issue a modified Final Written Decision (Paper 90) to reflect this change.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As explained above, we were not persuaded that the prior art suggested decreased tolerability. Indeed, in light of the prior art references each stating that the dosage regimens were well tolerated, we were persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the cited references to reach the claimed dosing regimen with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsDecided for petitioner
“Finally, Patent Owner asserts that the Board overlooked evidence regarding the expected decrease in tolerability in our discussion of secondary considerations. Reh’g Req. 12–13. Patent Owner also states that our “finding that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability over the Pinchasi reference (FWD at 24) is also incorrect.” Id. at 14. First, we did not state that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence 5 Khan et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, 14 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS S296 (2008) (Ex. 1010) (“Khan 2008”). 6 Caon et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in RRMS, 72 NEUROLOGY A317 (Mar. 17, 2009) (Ex. 1011) (“Caon 2009”). of improved tolerability—we stated that Patent Owner provided “insufficient evidence of record showing any unexpected results between the claimed requirement of three doses per week compared to dosing every other day.” Dec. 24 (emphasis added). As explained above, we did not find Patent Owner’s characterizations of the prior art, including Cohen, persuasive.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We note—and agree with—Dr. Ziemssen’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art “generally would not view this type of cross-study comparison between different study populations as a basis for drawing any comparative conclusions.” Ex. 2135 ¶ 87. We are therefore unpersuaded by his ad hoc comparison of Flechter’s data with that of Meiner. Id. ¶ 89. Instead, we find more credible Flechter’s conclusion that alternate-day administration of glatiramer acetate was “well tolerated, comparing favorably with the effects of daily injections of Copolymer 1 in patients with relapsing MS.” Ex. 1008, 1; see also id. at 5 (“The results of this trial suggest that alternate-day treatment with Copolymer 1 is safe, well tolerated, and probably as effective as daily Copolymer 1 in reducing relapse rate and slowing neurologic deterioration.”).” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,969,302 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-00643 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing on the Pinchasi–Flechter motivation issue, denied rehearing on the remaining issues, vacated the prior Final Written Decision, and entered a modified decision concurrently.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“§ 42.71 (d), which requires the party requesting rehearing to “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMixed
“Patent Owner first asserts that we “misconstrued data in Flechter illustrating that alternate day dosing was as effective as daily dosing and found instead that the data taught that less-frequent-than-daily administration would have been more tolerable than daily administration.” Reh’g Req. 7 (citing Dec. 32). Upon review of the Decision, we agree. See Dec. 32–33. Accordingly, we grant this portion of Patent Owner’s Request for Reconsideration and retract our reliance on the efficacy data of Flechter in Section II.F of the Decision as the basis for rejecting Patent Owner’s argument regarding the lack of motivation to combine Pinchasi and Flechter. We concurrently issue a modified Final Written Decision (Paper 90) to reflect this change.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the expected decrease in tolerability in our discussion of secondary considerations. Reh’g Req. 14–15. Patent Owner argues that our “finding that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability over the Pinchasi reference (FWD at 26) is also incorrect.” Id. at 14. We did not state that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability—we stated that Patent Owner provided “insufficient” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Ziemssen, however, qualifies this comparison and explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “generally would not view this type of cross-study comparison between different study populations as a basis for drawing any comparative conclusions.” Ex. 2135 ¶ 87. We agree. As a result, we are unpersuaded by the conclusion drawn from the ad hoc comparison of the data in Flechter with those in Meiner. This is especially so in view of Flechter’s conclusion that alternate-day administration of glatiramer acetate was “well tolerated, comparing favorably with the effects of daily injections of Copolymer 1 in patients with relapsing MS.” Ex. 1008, 1; see also id. at 5 (“The results of this trial suggest that alternateday treatment with Copolymer 1 is safe, well tolerated, and probably as effective as daily Copolymer 1 in reducing relapse rate and slowing neurologic deterioration.”).” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,232,250
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.