• Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 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 (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29

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

    “Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,906,508
• Viant Techology LLC v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00422 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–152 unpatentable based on the asserted obviousness grounds and struck Section II of Petitioner’s reply claim-construction brief.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Decision issues pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

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

    “1. “Contracted to Display a TV Ad Petitioner argues that the term means “contracted to display any form” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentGranted

    “FURTHER ORDERED that Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief is stricken from the record; and” slip op. at 80

  Patent outcomesUS 7,861,260 unpatentable
  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• Viant Technology, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00128 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–152 unpatentable based on obviousness grounds and struck Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “1. “Contracted to Display a TV Ad Petitioner argues that the term means “contracted to display any form” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Baig, Costa, and Zwicky. 5. Analysis of Claims 2–5, 7–9, 12, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 42, 44, 53, 54–58, 61, 62, 69, 71–80, 83, 84, 86–88, 91, 94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 106, 116–119, 122, 125, 128, 135, 137– 145, 147, 148, 151, and 152 Petitioner argues that the combination of Baig, Costa, and Zwicky teaches the limitations recited in claims 2–5, 7–9, 12, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26–28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 42, 44, 53, 54–58, 61, 62, 69, 71–80, 83, 84, 86–88, 91, 94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 106, 116–119, 122, 125, 128, 135, 137–145, 147, 148, 151, and 152 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 28–60; 422Pet. 29–51. Petitioner’s arguments are supported by citations to the prior art and the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Pet. 28–60; 422Pet. 29–51. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, agree with them, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as our own. Patent Owner does not separately address those claims. See PO Resp.; 422PO Resp. Instead, Patent Owner only relies on the arguments discussed above for claim 1. See PO Resp. 13–16; 422PO Resp. 13–16. For the same reason as discussed above in Section II.D.4(b), we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the reason to combine the references. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence” slip op. at 50

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “F. Sua Sponte Striking Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief Our order allowing post-hearing claim construction briefing stated that “[t]he parties may not address any issues besides claim construction.” Paper 38, 1. Despite that order, Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief addresses obviousness under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Pet. Reply Post-hearing Br. 2–3 (Titled: “The Petition’s Obviousness Theory Renders Claims 121 and 146 Obvious Even Under Patent Owner’s Improper Construction.”). Because the section is in violation of our order, we sua sponte strike that section. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.” slip op. at 74

  Patent outcomesUS 7,861,260 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• Viant Techology LLC v. Intent Iq, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00421 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–152 unpatentable over the asserted prior art and struck Section II of Petitioner’s reply claim construction brief.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a” slip op. at 50

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

    “1. “Contracted to Display a TV Ad Petitioner argues that the term means “contracted to display any form” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentGranted

    “F. Sua Sponte Striking Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief Our order allowing post-hearing claim construction briefing stated that “[t]he parties may not address any issues besides claim construction.” Paper 38, 1. Despite that order, Section II of Petitioner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief addresses obviousness under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Pet. Reply Post-hearing Br. 2–3 (Titled: “The Petition’s Obviousness Theory Renders Claims 121 and 146 Obvious Even Under Patent Owner’s Improper Construction.”). Because the section is in violation of our order, we sua sponte strike that section. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.” slip op. at 74

  Patent outcomesUS 7,861,260 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• Synthego Corporation v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00403 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–33 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–21, and 24–33 are anticipated by Pioneer Hi-Bred; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner agrees that a POSA would have this educational level. Resp. 23. Patent Owner “also agrees that a POSA would have knowledge of prior art RNA based gene regulating technologies, but disagrees that the teachings of those technologies are relevant in the manner that Dr. Furneaux [and Petitioner] attempt[] to apply them” in the Petition’s grounds. Id. at 23– 24. We find the parties’ agreed understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be supported by the record and apply that description in our analysis herein. To the extent the parties disagree regarding the application of a POSA’s general knowledge of nucleic acids and related prior art techniques to the Petition’s grounds, such disputes are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Independent claims 1 and 19 recite a guide RNA or crRNA molecule having “gRNA functionality comprising associating with a Cas protein and targeting the gRNA:Cas protein complex to the target sequence.” Ex. 1001, 257:42–44, 259:5–7. This claim language makes clear that the recited “gRNA functionality” requires a molecule that can: (1) associate with a Cas protein, and (2) target that complex to a target sequence in a polynucleotide. To the extent Petitioner suggests that a gRNA “need only bind to the Cas protein” to have “gRNA functionality,” we disagree because the claims additionally recite the above-quoted targeting functionality. See Reply 16 (emphasis added). At the same time, we agree with Petitioner that “a gRNA need not cleave the target DNA” to have the claimed “gRNA functionality.” Reply 16. The Specification defines “gRNA functionality” as “one or more functions of naturally occurring guide RNA, such as associating with a Cas protein, or a function performed by the guide RNA in association with a Cas protein” and lists various gRNA functions, e.g., “associating,” “targeting,” “binding,” “nicking,” and “cleaving,” that may be present “in certain embodiments” of the invention. Ex. 1001, 6:56–7:1. However, as noted above, the claims recite “gRNA functionality comprising” only the associating and targeting functions. Thus, while a molecule may have additional functions such as cleaving a target polynucleotide, it need only exhibit the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions to have the “gRNA functionality” in claims 1 and 19. Our determination that “gRNA functionality” requires the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions, but not additional, unrecited functions such as cleaving, is also consistent with the parties’ position that the claim language has its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 17; Resp. 24. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other terms, nor do we discern that any further claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad OceanMotor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that it is only necessary to “construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “established that “anticipation does not require actual performance of suggestions in a disclosure.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, the Petition need not assert that “gRNA functionality” is inherently disclosed because Petitioner has shown that Pioneer Hi-Bred’s expressly discloses this limitation. Pet. 25–26 (citing evidence). There is no additional requirement that this express disclosure be backed by test data in order for the reference to be anticipatory. See, e.g., Novo, 424 F.3d at 1355; Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[P]roof of efficacy is not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation.”).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Second, even if those sequences were truncated, the record does not support Patent Owner’s argument that a POSA would doubt that they have gRNA functionality. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Dr. Marshall’s testimony that these sequences “are truncated to a point that would render them nonfunctional.” Ex. 2025 ¶ 200. But the references he cites do not support that position. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Ex. 1033 (“Fu”); Ex. 2044 (“Cencic”); and Ex. 2045 (“Mali”)). To the contrary, Fu evidences that “truncated gRNAs, with shorter regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” are functional and that truncation to 17 nt is beneficial. Ex. 1033, Abstr.; see also id. at 283 (“[W]e found that [truncated] gRNAs with 17 or 18 nucleotides of complementarity generally function efficiently at the intended target site and have improved specificities.”). Cencic and Mali likewise do not suggest that a 17 nt VT domain would lack gRNA functionality. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Cencic as showing “truncated gRNA tests showed that a guide sequence of only 16 nucleotides” abolished cleavage activity); Ex. 2045, Supp. Fig. 10 (“1-3 bp 5’ [gRNA] 11 Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Furneaux “adopted the definition of ‘truncated gRNAs’ as those with ‘regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” in paragraph 79 of his opening declaration. Sur-reply 8 n. 1. We disagree. The testimony in paragraph 79 refers to the particular results in Fu. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (citing Ex. 1033). We see nothing there that suggests Dr. Furneaux agrees with Patent Owner’s position that any gRNA with a VT region of less than 20 nt is truncated. truncations are indeed well tolerated, but larger deletions lead to loss of activity”). Accordingly, we credit Dr. Furneaux’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 78, Ex. 1059 ¶¶ 73–75) over the competing testimony offered by Dr. Marshall on these points.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,900,034 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,900,034
• Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2022 · IPR2021-00902 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 81–96 and 133 were not shown unpatentable because a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the asserted art with Chiu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposed POSA level is too broad. Under that proposal, an individual with, for example, an undergraduate degree in microbiology and three years’ work experience studying the habitats of bacteria might qualify as a POSA. It is not clear that such person would have sufficient, relevant experience in the detection of chromosomal abnormalities, especially through non-invasive methods for detecting fetal genetic abnormalities in maternal samples, as described in the ’277 patent and the prior art here. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:31–5:59 (Field of Invention and Background Art); Ex. 1003 (Chiu). Petitioner’s proposal of the POSA level is more precise because it requires familiarity with techniques for detecting cell-free DNA in biological samples, which is relevant to the prior art and the claimed technology. Petitioner’s proposal also appears to be more consistent with the cited prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 14 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s POSA level here, but note that our other determinations on this record would not change under Patent Owner’s POSA level.13” slip op. at 14

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

    “n.3; PO Sur-Reply 14–15; see generally Papers 51 and 52.14 It is not necessary for us to further construe those dependent claims to resolve this case. Petitioner relies on formaldehyde or formaldehyde donors, as disclosed in Bianchi, Granger, and Rao, to satisfy the claimed “agent” term, and urges the addition of such compounds to Chiu’s method for isolating and detecting cffDNA in a maternal sample. There is no dispute on this record that formaldehyde and formaldehyde donors meet the claimed “agent” term. We are, thus, able to determine if the asserted art discloses an “agent” as claimed and whether a POSA would have been motivated to add formaldehyde or a formaldehyde donor to Chiu, which issue we find is decisive here, without further interpreting dependent claims 90, 91, or 133. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 The disagreement on interpretation of this handful of dependent claims arose in relation to Rao’s prior-art status for those claims (Pet. Reply 5 n.3; PO Sur-Reply 14–15), and Patent Owner’s nexus showing for secondary considerations of nonobviousness (id. at 21). See Pet. Reply 3 n.2 (noting the priority “arguments are only relevant to Ground 3” because the prior art status of Chiu, Bianchi, or Granger is uncontested). But, as we discuss below, Petitioner’s challenge to the claims fails on this record regardless of the disagreement on Rao’s prior art status and, because Petitioner has not made the necessary threshold showing that a POSA would have combined the asserted art in the manner proposed, we need not reach secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “detection method of Chiu.27 More specifically, we find on this record that a POSA would have been dissuaded from adding Bianchi’s paraformaldehyde because the POSA would have expected Bianchi’s paraformaldehyde to create gaps in the cell membranes, providing a means for maternal DNA to escape into the sample. We also find on this record that a POSA would have been dissuaded from adding paraformaldehyde to Chiu’s methods because formaldehyde was known to damage nucleic acids.28 Patent Owner’s reasoning and evidence on those issues, separately and cumulatively, outweigh Petitioner’s comparatively weak showing on whether a POSA would have combined the art in the manner proposed. We discuss in greater detail below. We begin with the issue that paraformaldehyde contributes to permeabilization of the cellular membrane. We credit Dr. Van Ness’s opinion that adopting Bianchi’s approach to treating cells with paraformaldehyde creates a means for cellular DNA to escape. Ex. 2078 27 WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the teachings of a reference is a question of fact.”) (citations omitted); Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact”). 28 When asked whether he considered “any differences between paraformaldehyde and formaldehyde that might be relevant to DNA damage in forming your opinions,” Dr. Edwards testified “[t]here should be no differences” and that “[i]n this field, these terms are often used interchangeably.” Ex. 2299, 69:3–20. We find, therefore, that the issues, including DNA damage, with formaldehyde would have been understood to also apply to paraformaldehyde on this record. 38 ¶¶ 96–98; Ex. 2101, 106:4–19 (testimony of Dr. Edwards agreeing that “DNA is one thing that can escape a cell when you permeabilize it”). Although Bianchi discloses a desire to keep “substantially all” of the target molecules inside the cells, by Bianchi’s own definition, “substantially all” includes leakage of up to 50% of the target molecules and cellular DNA. Ex. 1004, 1:42–49; Ex. 2078 ¶¶ 99–101. We find that increasing potential leakage of DNA from the maternal cells runs counter to Chiu’s objectives. As Dr. Edwards concedes, “DNA leaking out of cells” is something “Chiu tells us you do not want it to happen.” Ex. 2101, 107, 21–25.” slip op. at 38

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

    “detection method of Chiu.27 More specifically, we find on this record that a POSA would have been dissuaded from adding Bianchi’s paraformaldehyde because the POSA would have expected Bianchi’s paraformaldehyde to create gaps in the cell membranes, providing a means for maternal DNA to escape into the sample. We also find on this record that a POSA would have been dissuaded from adding paraformaldehyde to Chiu’s methods because formaldehyde was known to damage nucleic acids.28 Patent Owner’s reasoning and evidence on those issues, separately and cumulatively, outweigh Petitioner’s comparatively weak showing on whether a POSA would have combined the art in the manner proposed. We discuss in greater detail below. We begin with the issue that paraformaldehyde contributes to permeabilization of the cellular membrane. We credit Dr. Van Ness’s opinion that adopting Bianchi’s approach to treating cells with paraformaldehyde creates a means for cellular DNA to escape. Ex. 2078 27 WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the teachings of a reference is a question of fact.”) (citations omitted); Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact”). 28 When asked whether he considered “any differences between paraformaldehyde and formaldehyde that might be relevant to DNA damage in forming your opinions,” Dr. Edwards testified “[t]here should be no differences” and that “[i]n this field, these terms are often used interchangeably.” Ex. 2299, 69:3–20. We find, therefore, that the issues, including DNA damage, with formaldehyde would have been understood to also apply to paraformaldehyde on this record. 38 ¶¶ 96–98; Ex. 2101, 106:4–19 (testimony of Dr. Edwards agreeing that “DNA is one thing that can escape a cell when you permeabilize it”). Although Bianchi discloses a desire to keep “substantially all” of the target molecules inside the cells, by Bianchi’s own definition, “substantially all” includes leakage of up to 50% of the target molecules and cellular DNA. Ex. 1004, 1:42–49; Ex. 2078 ¶¶ 99–101. We find that increasing potential leakage of DNA from the maternal cells runs counter to Chiu’s objectives. As Dr. Edwards concedes, “DNA leaking out of cells” is something “Chiu tells us you do not want it to happen.” Ex. 2101, 107, 21–25.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,277 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,277
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02139 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis”) timely submitted a Petition presenting substantially the same challenges as set forth in Pfizer’s Petition along with a request for joinder to IPR2017-01488. IPR2017- 02139. Paper 1. We granted Bioepis’s Petition and associated request for joinder to this case. IPR2017-02139, Paper 11, 6–7.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner. 11 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest: Tabulation and Analysis of Amino Acid and Nucleic Acid Sequences of Precursors, V- Regions, C-Regions, J-Chain, T-Cell Receptor for Antigen, T-Cell Surface Antigens β2-Microglobulin, Major Histocompatibility Antigens, Thy-1 Complement, C-Reactive Protein, Thymopoietin, Post-Gamma Globulin, and α2-Macroblobulin, 41–175 (4th Ed. 1987). Ex. 1052. See PO Resp. 47. Moreover, in a parallel proceeding involving the same patent, Patent Owner did not dispute that the reference to “all sequences” in the patent, “refer[s] to all known sequences and there’s no dispute . . . that was really synonymous with Kabat 1987.” See IPR2017-01374 Paper 82, Tr. 15:4–16:4; see Ex. 1202 ¶ 157; Ex. 2105 ¶¶ 24–25; Ex. 2107 ¶¶ 18–19; Ex. 1198, 56:20–61:24; Ex. 1199, 27:14–28:13, 29:25–36:2, 57:1–58:6, 115:7–17, 165:17–169:9. Indeed, in a similar parallel proceeding, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term “all human immunoglobulins” refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” IPR2017-01373, Paper 83, 47:21–48:5. Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ proposed construction, with a clarifying modification, specifically, “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure, as set forth in Kabat 1987.”” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient.” In our institution decision, we determined that this claim language “refer[s] to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” Dec. 10–12. Neither party disputes this interpretation. See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 5–6. Consistent with claim 63’s express comparison between the immunogenicity of the claimed humanized antibody and that of its non-human parent, the Specification states that one object of the invention is to “to provide methods for the preparation of antibodies which are less antigenic in humans than non-human antibodies but have desired antigen binding and other characteristics and activities.” Ex. 1001, 4:24–28. The Specification similarly states that embodiments within the scope of the claims have “low immunogenicity,” or are designed to “minimize the potential immunogenicity of the resulting humanized antibody in the clinic.” Id. at 52:54–58, 61:56–61. Moreover, with reference to claim 63 in particular, Patent Owner points to the ’272 application as “explain[ing] that the purpose of humanizing antibodies using its consensus sequence approach is to reduce immunogenicity versus the non-human parent antibody. (Id., 6:24–30, 84:24–30.).” Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2032 (File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/715,272 (“the ’272 application”)); see also id. at 38 (indicating that the limitation is satisfied where “[o]nly 1 out of 885 patients experienced an immunogenic response . . . which was a substantial improvement over the murine 4D5 antibody”). In light of the above, we do not alter our prior determination that “[a] humanized antibody which lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient,” refers to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2017 · IPR2017-00731 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted Hospira’s rehearing request and instituted review of claims 1–14 for obviousness over Baselga ’94 and Baselga ’96.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “recites “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative.” In the Petition and the Preliminary Response, neither party proposed a construction for that term. Patent Owner, however, argues that “[e]ven if a person of ordinary skill would have chosen to combine an anti-ErbB2 antibody and a taxoid, there is no reason an ordinarily skilled artisan would have avoided anthracyclines as part of that treatment.” Prelim. Resp. 52 (emphasis added). In our Decision denying institution, we agreed with Patent Owner, stating that evidence of the record is “insufficient to suggest that an ordinary artisan would have avoided anthracyclines while pursuing the combination therapy with anti-ErbB2 antibody and a taxoid in a treatment regimen for humans.” Dec. 10 (emphasis added). In its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner contends that we erred in interpreting the limitation “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative” as requiring “avoidance” of an anthracycline derivative. Reh’g Req. 6. According to Petitioner, this term “is a negative limitation that is satisfied by anti-ErbB2 antibody–paclitaxel combinations that do not include an [anthracycline] derivative.” Id. at 5. After reconsidering the current record, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. In particular, because Baselga ’94 suggests a therapeutic composition consisting of an anti-ErbB2 antibody and paclitaxel, and does not suggest that doxorubicin must necessarily be included as part of the same treatment regimen, we are persuaded that the reference satisfies the limitation “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative.” Cf. Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C., 412 F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (concluding the prior art anticipates a claim requiring a composition “essentially free of antioxidants,” because the prior art teaches “optional inclusion” of antioxidants, “despite no express teaching to exclude the antioxidants”).” slip op. at 17

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

    “In sum, Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence, for purposes of instituting trial, to show that in considering prior therapy received, an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to treat patients with ErbB2- overexpressing breast cancer by administering a combination of an anti- ErbB2 antibody and a taxoid, and “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative.”” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “Petitioner, however, points to other evidence to show that prior art teaches an ordinary artisan to combine an anti-ErbB2 antibody with a taxoid. Specifically, Petitioner refers to Baselga ʼ94 for teaching that, in mouse xenografts, “individual treatment with either anti-HER2 4D5 or paclitaxel alone resulted in 35% growth inhibition whereas the combination ‘resulted in a major antitumor activity with 93% inhibition of growth’ without increasing toxicity.” Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1005 at 4). Similarly, Baselga ’96, citing Baselga ’94, teaches that “[i]n preclinical studies, both in vitro and in xenografts, rhuMAb HER2 markedly potentiated the antitumor effects of several chemotherapeutic agents, including … paclitaxel without increasing their toxicity.” Id. at 44 (quoting Ex. 1004, 15). Based on these teachings, we are persuaded that an ordinary artisan would have had a reason to treat HER2-positive breast cancer patients with a combination of rhuMAb HER2 and a taxoid.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that Exhibit 2029, which states that “breast cancers that overexpress p185 [i.e., HER2] will not respond well to Taxol,” teaches away from the claimed combination therapy. Prelim. Resp. 51 (citing Ex. 2029,5 1362). We are not persuaded on this record. In an obviousness inquiry, we must analyze the prior art as a whole, and not individually. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that the question is “whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination”). Other evidence of record shows paclitaxel had been approved for treating breast cancer (see, e.g., Ex. 1025, 10), demonstrates synergy of paclitaxel and an anti-ErbB2 antibody in human breast cancer xenografts (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1004, 15), and suggests clinical trials of the combination therapy (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1004, 15). Weighing all evidence of record, we are not persuaded that prior art as a whole teaches away from combining paclitaxel and an anti-ErbB2 antibody in treating HER2-positive cancers.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,846,441
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Ucb Pharma GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00517 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–8 were held not unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove either obviousness ground by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For the purpose of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s undisputed contention that: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Ph.D. in chemistry, medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, or a related field, and at least one year of industrial exposure to drug discovery, drug design, and synthesis. In lieu of an advanced degree, the individual may have additional years of industry experience, including, for example, in drug discovery, drug synthesis, and structure-activity work. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20); see Prelim. Resp. 9; PO Resp. 6. Based on our review of the ’772 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’772 patent and cited prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner submits that the “claims in the ʼ772 patent are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s position that no claim terms require construction, which the Board also accepted for purposes of institution.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 6; Inst. Dec. 7). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that “for purposes of this Decision, none of the terms in the challenged claims require express construction at this time.” Inst. Dec. 7. As in the Decision on Institution, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard here, and see no reason to construe explicitly any claim term. B. Principles of Law” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner, however, fails to point to any evidence that 5-HMT is metabolized through the CYP2D6 pathway, or that administering 5-HMT would have resulted in the same risks of drug interaction and adverse effects that Petitioner contends are the result of administering tolterodine. See Pet. 22–24 (describing alleged problems associated with tolterodine, not 5 HMT); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–100 (Dr. Patterson’s testimony regarding the drawbacks of tolterodine). Indeed, such an argument appears to undermine Petitioner’s position, discussed in Section III.D.1 supra, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected 5-HMT as a lead compound over tolterodine to avoid the CYP2D6 metabolic pathway, and Dr. Patterson’s testimony that the prior art collectively “indicated to a skilled drug designer interested in overactive bladder treatment that 5-HMT would avoid the issues associated with dosing [] tolterodine.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 101. Petitioner’s argument also is contradicted by Dr. Patterson’s testimony that “5-HMT is not metabolized by both CYP2D6 and CYP3A4, but only by CYP3A4.” Id. ¶ 111; see also Ex. 1010, 289 (Postlind indicating that 5-HMT is not a CYP2D6 substrate).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Following our weighing of the experts’ testimony, we find that Dr. Roush’s testimony better addresses the issue at hand and we credit that testimony over Dr. Patterson’s testimony. Dr. Patterson opines generally that the “presence of two hydroxyl groups around the left most aromatic ring (shown above in blue) would have created a product likely to have decreased oral bioavailability compared to tolterodine because of its hydrophilicity and thus lower than acceptable lipophilicity” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 112), and that it “would [have been] a matter of routine experimentation” to confirm that 5-HMT could have significantly less bioavailability than its parent, tolterodine” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 115). Dr. Patterson, however, did not perform any experiments to confirm 5-HMT’s oral bioavailability, and cites to no further evidence to support his opinions. See Ex. 2022 ¶ 92; compare Brynne (Ex.1011) discussed supra § III.C.2. Dr. Roush, on the other hand, conducts an analysis of the compound under the “Rule of 5” to determine that “5-HMT does not meet a single factor, much less two, of the rule” thus teaching the skilled artisan “away from concluding that 5-HMT had an oral absorption problem.” PO Resp. 26– 27 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 56–58, 87, 92). At oral hearing, Patent Owner restated that the analysis under the Rule of 5 indicates that 5-HMT was “not even close to being a problem . . . for all four of these properties, 5-HMT says there’s no red flags; there’s no problem,” and that “Dr. Patterson admitted in his deposition, 5-HMT does not violate the Rule of Five.” Tr. 67:35–68:3; 68:17–21; see Ex. 2020 180:14–181:14.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,985,772 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,985,772
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Ucb Pharma GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · IPR2016-01665 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 21–24 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the petitioner did not establish the motivation and reasonable expectation of success needed to reach the claimed compounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “art. For the purpose of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s undisputed contention that: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Ph.D. in chemistry, medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, or a related field, and at least one year of industrial exposure to drug discovery, drug design, and synthesis. In lieu of an advanced degree, the individual may have additional years of industry experience, including, for example, in drug discovery, drug synthesis, and structure-activity work. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 23); see Resp. 6. Based on our review of the ’650 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’650 patent and cited prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner submits that the “claims in the ʼ650 patent are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s position that no claim terms require construction, which the Board also accepted for purposes of institution.” Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 6; Inst. Dec. 7). In our Institution Decision, we determined that “no claim term requires express construction.” Inst. Dec. 7. After reviewing the entire record developed during trial, we affirm our determination from the Institution Decision that no claim term requires express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Following our weighing of the experts’ testimony, we find that Dr. Roush’s testimony better addresses the issue at hand and we credit that testimony over Dr. Patterson’s testimony. Dr. Patterson opines generally that the “presence of two hydroxyl groups around the left most aromatic ring . . . would have created a product likely to have decreased oral bioavailability compared to tolterodine because of its hydrophilicity and thus lower than acceptable lipophilicity” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 112), and that it “would [have been] a matter of routine experimentation” to confirm that 5-HMT could have significantly less bioavailability than its parent, tolterodine” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 115). Dr. Patterson, however, did not perform any experiments to confirm 5-HMT’s oral bioavailability, and cites to no further evidence to support his opinions. See Ex. 2022 ¶ 92; compare Brynne (Ex. 1011) discussed supra § II.D.1. Dr. Roush, on the other hand, conducts an analysis of the compound under the “Rule of 5” to determine that “5-HMT does not meet a single factor, much less two, of the rule” thus teaching the skilled artisan “away from concluding that 5-HMT had an oral absorption problem.” Resp. 28–29 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 56–58, 87, 92). At oral hearing, Patent Owner restated that the analysis under the Rule of 5 indicates that 5-HMT was “not even close to being a problem . . . for all four of these properties, 5-HMT says there’s no red flags; there’s no problem,” and that “Dr. Patterson admitted in his deposition, 5-HMT does not violate the Rule of Five.” Tr. 67:35–68:3; 68:17–21; see Ex. 2020, 180:14–181:14. Regarding Petitioner’s reliance on the statement in Brynne that “[t]olterodine is tenfold more lipophilic than 5-HM[T], and consequently tolterodine penetrates membranes more rapidly,” Patent Owner does not appear to dispute the substance of that statement. Although such a statement illustrates a relative relationship between the lipophilicity of 5-HMT and tolterodine, it does not demonstrate that the lipophilicity of 5-HMT would have presented an absorption problem that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 5-HMT. Even if 5-HMT were considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be less lipophilic than tolterodine, and thereby less rapidly absorbed, the record lacks sufficient evidence regarding the actual properties of 5-HMT for us to conclude that 5-HMT’s lipophilicity would have presented a bioavailability problem.21 For these reasons, Petitioner’s assertion that 5-HMT “may have bioavailability concerns” that would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 5-HMT is unpersuasive. Reply 13.” slip op. at 31

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

    “On the complete record before us, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner carries its burden of demonstrating that 5-HMT has a bioavailability problem that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify its structure. Regarding the lipophilicity profile of 5-HMT, Petitioner does not provide, or attempt to provide, any actual (as opposed to relative) data concerning the bioavailability of 5-HMT. Cf. supra § II.D.2 (Brynne comparing lipophilicity of tolterodine to lipophilicity of 5-HMT). Although data is not required, and although we do not find that absence of data alone to be fatal to Petitioner’s position on this issue, the absence of any data concerning the actual bioavailability of 5-HMT leaves Petitioner’s argument solely supported by expert testimony. We now turn to the contradictory statements of the parties’ experts. Following our weighing of the experts’ testimony, we find that Dr. Roush’s testimony better addresses the issue at hand and we credit that testimony over Dr. Patterson’s testimony. Dr. Patterson opines generally that the “presence of two hydroxyl groups around the left most aromatic ring . . . would have created a product likely to have decreased oral bioavailability compared to tolterodine because of its hydrophilicity and thus lower than acceptable lipophilicity” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 112), and that it “would [have been] a matter of routine experimentation” to confirm that 5-HMT could have significantly less bioavailability than its parent, tolterodine” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 115). Dr. Patterson, however, did not perform any experiments to confirm 5-HMT’s oral bioavailability, and cites to no further evidence to support his opinions. See Ex. 2022 ¶ 92; compare Brynne (Ex. 1011) discussed supra § II.D.1.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,858,650 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,858,650

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.