- Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01383 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not sufficiently establish a reason to modify the asserted prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s argument because it fails to address Dr. Schubert’s academic and other experience with GaN transistors. Dr. Schubert is currently a tenured full professor in the Department of Electrical Computer, and Systems Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and was previously a tenured full professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boston University. Ex. 2001, 129. Additionally, Dr. Schubert was the director of Boston University’s Semiconductor Devices Research Laboratory. Ex. 2001, 129. Dr. Schubert persuasively explains that his general expertise is in the field of electrical engineering and applied physics, including semiconductors, processing, and devices and his specific expertise is in the field of semiconductor materials (such as GaN), semiconductor devices, semiconductor integrated circuits, ohmic contacts, Schottky contacts, HEMTs, and optoelectronic devices such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Ex. 2001 ¶ 11, App’x A pp.129–137. His experience includes “the design, growth, fabrication, and testing of semiconductor devices as well as the employment of these devices in a variety of applications” and he is “familiar with both the design of such transistors [HEMTs] and the manufacturing processes used for FETs. Ex. 2001 ¶ 11, App’x A, pp. 129–137. He is an author or co-author of numerous text books and articles, and co-inventor of numerous patents, including those dealing with HEMT transistors and GaN devices. Ex. 2001 ¶ 13, App’x A, pp. 129–137. Petitioner fails to present any persuasive argument or evidence that Dr. Schubert’s extensive education and experience regarding GaN transistors is insufficient or lacking such that his testimony should be given little weight. Finally, we disagree with Petitioner’s additional argument that that its expert’s testimony (Dr. Shealy) should be given more weight than Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony (Dr. Schubert) because “[u]nlike Dr. Schubert, Dr. Shealy is one of the pioneer scientists in the field of GaN transistors.” Reply 34 (stating that Dr. Shealy’s research lab built the first GaN HEMT device on silicon in 1999 and citing Ex. 2002, 87:19–238). Obviousness is determined through the lens of a “person of ordinary skill in the art,” not through the lens of a person with extraordinary skill or a pioneer in the field. Given Dr. Schubert’s extensive relevant education and experience, Petitioner does not persuasively explain why Dr. Shealy’s testimony on any specific topic, or his testimony in general, should be given more weight than Dr. Schubert’s.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”). Graham, , 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or material science or a closely related field and at least two years of experience in semiconductor device design or fabrication, including the processing of semiconductor materials, analysis of device operation, or the development of new device topologies. Additional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex 1003 ¶ 69). Patent Owner did not dispute this proposed definition prior to institution. See generally Prelim. Resp. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. After institution, Patent Owner asserted a slightly different definition of a POSITA, namely someone who “would have possessed at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, physics, material science, or a closely related field, and three years of professional work experience in the epitaxial growth, design, and fabrication of semiconductor electronic devices, including those of GaN.” Resp. 17. Relevant graduate education could substitute for the professional work experience. Id. Upon review of the full record, we see no reason to modify, and we thus maintain, the definition of a POSITA applied in our Decision on Institution. We also determine that our decision would be the same under either of the parties’ proposed definitions.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“During the proceeding, the parties also dispute the proper construction of “etching away the doped GaN layer, except a portion of the doped GaN layer beneath the gate contact” as recited in step [1e4] and provided briefing on this issue. Papers 35, 36, 37, 38. Because, as explained below, our determination rests upon Petitioner’s failure to show a sufficient reason to modify the asserted art, which is not dependent upon any particular claim construction, we need not, and do not, address these claim construction issues. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeDenied
“III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBIT 2008 Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 25, “Mot.”) Exhibit 2008, which is a hearing transcript from the parallel ITC investigation. Mot. 1. Because we do not rely upon Exhibit 2008 in our Decision, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot.” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 8,404,508 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,404,508 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00183 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 10, 11, 13–20, 22, 23, and 26–33 because the asserted combinations of ICMSF, Hughes, and Price showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’584 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’584 patent on the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (POSA/POSITA), “would most likely have an advanced degree in microbiology, food science, or animal science and at least two years of work experience but may alternatively have a bachelor’s degree in those areas and at least four years of experience with validation methodologies.” Pet. 11. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a working knowledge of microbiology,” “would have been involved in developing sampling and testing methodologies for analysis of food products (“validation methodologies”),” and “would have been familiar with relevant scientific literature and industry regulations, directives, and guidelines relating to validation methodologies.” Id.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “lots” does not require construction because on the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of the term, and neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identify any way that claim construction impacts the decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“This definition requires that a “validation” determines that “a particular sample tests negative.” The initial definition sentence makes no mention of “cleared for release” as necessary for “validation.” Rather, the definition only refers to “cleared for release” in the more limited situation where a particular composite sample “tests negative all single-unit production lot samples,” and even then, the “cleared for release” is a separate step that occurs after the samples are “validated.”” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,534,584 - PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-01005 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–23 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. We also determine that the arguments and evidence of record do not support discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“under the sixth Fintiv factor only after a determination that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial. CommScope, 4–5. Here, we do not find the first five factors cumulatively weigh in favor of discretionary denial. Therefore, we determine that the circumstances here do not warrant an analysis of whether the Petition presents compelling merits, and the considerations of the sixth Fintiv factor weigh against exercising discretionary denial. F. Conclusion Having considered the parties’ arguments in view of the Fintiv factors, and taking into account Petitioner’s stipulation, we determine that the circumstances here do not warrant exercising discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. IV.” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Thus, although both parties indicate that no claim construction is necessary at this stage of the proceeding, it is apparent that they disagree as to the meaning of “discrete carbon nanotubes.” While Petitioner appears to construe “discrete carbon nanotubes” as “nanotubes that are generally individually distinct” (Pet. 13), Patent Owner argues a more restricted construction requiring that “discrete carbon nanotubes” not be reacted with other components. Prelim. Resp. 3. The evidence relating to claim 10 In quotations from the Preliminary Response throughout this Decision, we have retained bolding and underlining added to the text by Patent Owner. construction that Patent Owner offers on the current record, however, does not address its proposed restriction. See id. at 9, n. 4, citing Ex. 1001, 3:9, 5:39–40 (“The ’649 Patent describes the ‘discrete carbon nanotubes’ as, for example, ‘individually dispersed’, ‘individualized carbon nanotubes’, ‘dispersed as individual nanotubes’, and ‘essentially discrete individual fibers, not entangled as a mass.’”). As discussed in Section II.D.2 below, we determine based on the record at this stage of the proceeding that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that Sun discloses or suggests “discrete carbon nanotubes.” Therefore, we do not explicitly construe any claim terms in this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). If either party intends to argue a claim construction at trial, however, including what is the ordinary meaning of a term, they should do so in a clearly designated section of their briefing. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 21, 2019) (“CTPG”), 46, 49 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”). Claim construction arguments should not be relegated to patentability arguments on the facts.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least [a] Master’s degree in materials science, chemistry, chemical engineering, a field relevant to polymer science and engineering, or the equivalent, and at least three years of experience in nanomaterials, electrochemistry, batteries, or polymer related activities.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditional work experience can compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’649 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,636,649 - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00900 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13–17 were not shown unpatentable: Lee-based grounds fail on the stackable add-on layer limitation, and Watanabe-based grounds fail on nonvolatile memory, enablement, or motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“meaning in the art. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that, absent an accepted meaning in the art, “we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided for by the patent itself”). Thus, we must attempt to discern the meaning of this term from the claim language itself and from the remainder of the intrinsic record. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, we construe “stackable add-on layer” to not include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. See Pet. 52 (asserting that in Lee “the layers of the array are directly deposited on the layers of each underlying level, and the array is deposited on the interlayer insulating layer formed over a substrate”); see also id. at 70 (“Lee discloses forming vertical memory devices through layer-by-layer sequential deposition on the substrate . . . .”). Therefore, Petitioner does not show that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 54–59. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 15 would have been obvious in view of Lee alone. E. Claims 16 and 17 over Lee and Endoh Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Lee and Endoh. Pet. 59–69. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims, however, do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Lee and its monolithic, sequentially deposited memory array. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over Lee and Endoh.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combined Lee and Watanabe to achieve improved integration density. Pet. 71. Petitioner concedes, however, that the benefits of Lee’s design related to 3-D integration and improved integration density would be obtained if Lee’s memory structures are formed using either Lee’s monolithic construction method or Watanabe’s alternative stacking method. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶ 34). Thus, we are not persuaded that improved integration density provides a sufficient rationale for Petitioner’s combination of Lee’s memory device and Watanabe’s stacking method. Petitioner argues that Watanabe’s stacking method “improves the accuracy of the wiring” because the wiring is made “for each planar member.” Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:1–3). Watanabe also states that its disclosed methods provide “a low interconnection wire resistance.” Ex. 1005, 6:20–23. Petitioner does not, however, explain sufficiently how Watanabe’s stacking method would improve Lee’s device. For example, Petitioner does not address whether the alleged wiring benefit already existed in Lee’s monolithic array or explain how this benefit would also apply to Lee’s particular memory array, which differs in construction and elements from Watanabe’s device. This diminishes Petitioner’s benefits-based motivation to combine arguments. In general, a petitioner need not demonstrate that a particular alternate method would improve a prior art device in order to show a motivation to combine. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023); see Pet. Reply 20 (citing Intel). But here, Petitioner affirmatively invokes improvement of Lee’s device as a reason for the combination, and we must evaluate Petitioner’s contention. Moreover, any relative lack of improvement or benefits must be weighed against any problems the alternative method would introduce. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795–96 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting that simultaneous advantages and disadvantages to a proposed combination must be analyzed to determine whether the disadvantages “outweighed any reason to combine”). Here, as discussed above in more detail with respect to the ground based on Watanabe, the evidence shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Watanabe’s bonding temperature of 900– 1000° C to damage the electronic devices in an underlying substrate. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 75–76; Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7; Ex. 2027, 715. The expected damage to Lee’s device, when balanced against the limited evidence of a benefit to the combination,7 outweighs the reason to combine Lee and Watanabe set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe. 2. Analysis – Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 both depend directly from independent claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claims 14 and 15 do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 73. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe.” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther
“We credit the testimony of Dr. Przybylski that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Watanabe’s stacked structure would be severely impacted if bonded at a temperature above 900° C, as disclosed in Watanabe. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 76–77. Dr. Przybylski’s opinion is supported by Dr. Lee’s testimony (Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7, 125:6–126:7), as well as Watanabe (Ex. 1005, 6:6–14) and Batude (Ex. 2027, 715). As further discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not rebutted Patent Owner’s showing of nonenablement, and Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate that Watanabe was not enabled for bonding temperatures of 900–1000° C, as of the 2004 filing date of the ’702 patent.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,378,702 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Forte Biosciences, Inc. v. University Of MassachusettsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · PGR2023-00014 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable for lack of written description and enablement under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the § 103 challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition, except to modify the level such that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with well-known inhibitors of IL-15 and IL-15R as described in the ’505 patent and recognized in the art as of April 2017.” Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). We adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art with Patent Owner’s proposed modification because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’505 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“this stage of the proceeding and that all terms are to given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 23; Resp. 38. We agree. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, we determine that no claim construction is necessary.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Finally, we are reminded that “a sufficient description of the genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. “[F]unctional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Here, however, the challenged claims are directed to methods using a wide range of different types of compounds purported to be “IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors” that are not part of a known or readily identifiable class, do not target the same biological pathway, do not have any common structural features, and do not appear to always function as inhibitors. See Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1575–77, 1579; Ex. 1046, 189:4–19, 191:15–192:15, 193:18–196:22, 198:21–199:21, 197:12–198:19, 200:1–8, 207:11–14, 203:3–10, 207:15–21, 236:12–24; Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 19–23, 56, 63–64, 80–85. Therefore, we find there is neither a representative number of species disclosed, nor a sufficient” slip op. at 21
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“598 U.S. at 610. A “specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention. What is reasonable in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art.” Id. at 613. But the person of ordinary skill in the art cannot be left with merely “a hunting license” or obligated to engage in “painstaking experimentation” or “trial and error” to “see what works.” Id. at 614. Patent Owner argues that “the IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors disclosed in the specification were known in the art and “share the common ‘general quality’ of inhibiting a pathway known to be relevant to and having ‘particular fitness for the particular purposes’ of (id.) treating certain autoimmune diseases by blocking IL-15 signaling.” Sur-reply 14 (citing Ex. 1011, 22; Ex. 2013, 3; Ex. 2017, Abstr.; Ex. 2024, 17; Ex. 2025, 2–3, 6; Ex. 2027, 4; Ex. 2028, 9; Ex. 2029, 4; Ex. 2031, 23; Ex. 2118, 53:22–54:9; Ex. 1018, 1; Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 52–63, 80–83, 130; Ex. 1046, 231:20–25). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing, however, because the record shows that different IL-15-specific inhibitors may operate in different ways that may result in differential effects, some of which may not include inhibition at all. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶21, 23, 40, 71; Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1576, 1579; Ex. 2013, 4:1– 8; Ex. 2014, 4:9–15; Ex. 2015 ¶ 22; Ex. 2025, 4:34–5:2; Ex. 1046, 166:21– 24, 168:25–169:5, 207:23–209:22, 210:4–17, 210:24–211:6; Ex. 1011, 1:67–2:4; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 116, 134. Thus, we find that the record supports Drs. Abbas and Plott’s testimony, which we credit, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to hunt down and test every compound through painstaking Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–90, 92; Ex. 1047 ¶ 53 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that the “specification of the ’505 patent is essentially a black box (so far as which aspects of IL-15 signaling it inhibits and how it operates), leaving the reader to guess through trial and error which molecules might operate similarly to ChMBC7 and which do not.”); Ex. 1004 ¶ 61 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that “from the perspective of a clinician, the amount of experimentation required would be extremely burdensome and success would be speculative.”); Ex. 2007, 93:16–97:25, 38:208; Ex. 1046, 234:20–236:11. This is due to the fact that the claims (without limit) encompass any inhibition of any one of the various types of IL-15 signaling and various versions of the receptor, and even implicate other compounds that act on different targets but which inhibit the IL-15 signaling pathway. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 53, 68; Ex. 2005 ¶ 71; Ex. 1046, 254:4–255:11, 158:12–160:20. The evidence has shown that IL-15/IL-15R inhibition is complicated and unpredictable, with some inhibitors also capable of enhancing forms of IL-15 signaling rather than preventing it. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 25–26, 53; Ex. 2013, 2:10–18; Ex. 2014, 2:12–20; Ex. 2015 ¶ 3; Ex. 2025, 2:10–18; Ex. 2078, 267.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 11,278,505 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,278,505 - Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01349 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim on any ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Given this, to show that Blangero’s disclosure of MgO or LiF in its coating teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure, Petitioner needs to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood the compounds to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO or LiF in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. On the first point, Petitioner argues that “‘the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions’ of MgO is ‘a rocksalt cubic structure of NaCl (space group Fm-3m).’” Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1030, 16; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 142). But, as Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hayes, points out, Blangero does not teach forming MgO in a room-temperature process. Ex. 1003 ¶ 142 (Blangero’s “second firing step” occurs at “925 °C for 12 hours”); see Ex. 1005 ¶ 110 (teaching the firing step to which Dr. Hayes refers). Thus, the significance of rock-salt-type MgO being “the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions” is unclear. To the extent that Dr. Hayes explains why MgO, which “is well known to crystallize even at substantially lower temperatures,” such as “room temperature and pressure conditions,” would “do so more readily at [a higher temperature of] 925 °C,” this argument is not discussed, nor even cited, in the Petition. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–94; see Pet. 28. Accordingly, any reliance on this argument by Petitioner constitutes improper incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood MgO to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. Similarly, with respect to LiF, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Hayes sufficiently explains the choice of rock-salt-type material over other options. Pet. 29 (arguing only that Ex. 1013 shows that “LiF has rock salt structure”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 143 (same). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure by virtue of its teaching that either MgO or LiF is present.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“The 2012 study on which Petitioner relies did not find “superior structural stability” over other lithium-titanium-oxygen compounds, as Petitioner argues. Instead, the study noted that the structure of “LiTiO2 prepared by high-temperature sintering TiO2 with lithium salt . . . impl[ies] LiTiO2 has superior structural stability in organic electrolyte as compared to other Li-Ti-O oxides.” Ex. 1029, 1. Thus, the structural stability was implied from the chemical structure of the material rather than found through study of the material. Moreover, the implied structural stability was only for LiTiO2 that was prepared in a particular way, by high-temperature sintering of TiO2 with lithium salt, and Petitioner does not allege that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared the LiTiO2 they substituted for Blangero’s Li2TiO3 using this method. As for Petitioner’s argument that the study found that LiTiO2 outperformed Li2TiO3, we are not persuaded. The study compared particles with an LiTiO2 coating to uncoated particles, not to particles coated with Li2TiO3. Ex. 1029, 4, Figs. 4(c), 4(d). Although the study notes that particles coated with “[m]onoclinic Li2TiO3 and spinel Li4Ti5O12” exhibit “a noticeable capacity decay . . . when charged at high operating voltage and cycled above room temperature,” it concludes only that particles coated with LiTiO2 “exhibited inspiring high-voltage cycling capability as well as thermal stability than the pristine counterpart.” Id. at 1, 4. In addition, the pristine particles used in the study were made from “Li[NixCoyMnz]O2 (0≤x,y,z<1) (called as LNCM),” and the particles in Blangero do not contain either nickel or manganese in their cores. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9–40 (particles contain lithium, oxygen, cobalt, and metals chosen from the group consisting of aluminum, gallium, boron, magnesium, titanium, iron, copper, calcium, barium, yttrium, tin, antimony, sodium, zinc, zirconium, silicon); Ex. 1029, 1. Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the study’s results to extend to Blangero’s particles made from a different material. Pet. 29–30. Because Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a second region comprising a rock-salt crystal structure or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to substitute rocksalt-type LiTiO2 for the materials disclosed in Blangero, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on claim 1 on its Blangero-based grounds.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, “[i]ndividuals with different education and additional experience could still [have been] of ordinary skill in the art if that additional experience compensate[d] for a deficit in their education and experience.” Id. On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’660 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’660 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 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”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,043,660 - PTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2023-01069 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–8 on all three §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We integrate the above considerations into the Advanced Bionics two- part framework in deciding discretionary denial under § 325(d), first considering Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, and if so, evaluating Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, 7–11.” slip op. at 58
- Other 314aDenied
“Patent Owner points to § 314(a)27 as a basis for denying institution but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 2 (citation), 4 (citation), 15 (section heading), 31 (citation in parenthetical). At best, Patent Owner asserts that if we find “that fewer than all three Grounds meet the standard for Section 325(d), institution of Samsung’s petition should still be denied in full, because institution on all three Grounds ‘would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and 27 Under certain circumstances, the Board may apply its discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in light of a parallel district court proceeding involving the same patent. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). But as noted by Petitioner, the patent at issue here “has never been asserted in any litigation.” Pet. 63. 66 resources.’” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative)). Because we decline to exercise our discretion with respect to any of the Grounds under § 325(d), the Board’s Deeper decision is inapposite.” slip op. at 66
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not presently dispute this definition “except to clarify that the POSA would have at least two years of experience in engineering monoclonal antibodies for human therapeutic use, either in the laboratory or industry.” Prelim. Resp. 44–48 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 48–49 (arguing that Petitioner cannot prove unpatentability of the challenged claims under either party’s definition). At this stage in the proceeding, we accept and apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan, as being both unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s additional qualification. In this respect, it appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” encompasses Patent Owner’s proposed modification, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,590,189 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01070 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–29 on all twelve asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage in the proceedings, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, as being both generally unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s supplemental definition. It appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” includes Patent Owner’s proposed level of experience. Pet. 17–18. We also take into account the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the purposes of this institution decision, we find it unnecessary to construe any claim language because it is readily understandable on its face and there is no dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As the case continues, we may determine that certain claim language should be interpreted.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner, supported by the testimony of Dr. Ravetch, contends that Bowdish is analogous art. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128). In this respect, Dr. Ravetch testifies: A POSA looking for the amino acid sequences encoding eculizumab would have easily found Bowdish, and considered it to be analogous art to Bell and Evans for at least three reasons: (1) it provides express disclosures about the structure of the antibody “5G1.1,” (2) it identifies “Alexion Pharmaceuticals” as the inventors’ addressee that is the same as the assignee for Evans, and (3) it cites to the same Evans patent as does Bell for the structure of 5G1.1. Thus, a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bowdish and Evans in view of Bell to arrive at the claimed sequence. Ex. 1003 ¶ 128. On the present record before us, it appears that Bowdish is both reasonably pertinent and within the same field of endeavor as the ’809 patent for the reasons identified by Dr. Ravetch, because it is directed to the construction of a humanized monoclonal antibody comprising a TPO mimetic peptide graft into the heavy chain CDR3 of antibody framework 5G1, and because it uses “the parental 5G1.1” sequence as a control for FACs analysis of the TPO mimetic antibody. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 191–193. Moreover, it is reasonable that an ordinarily skilled artisan seeking to understand the Alexion anti-C5 antibody disclosed in, for example, Bell or Hillmen or Hill as a treatment for PNH, would look to other Alexion prior art for guidance.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“overarching argument that Petitioner’s positions are fatally flawed by hindsight or that “[a] POSA as of March 15, 2007[,] would have understood that Alexion had developed a humanized antibody named ‘eculizumab,’ . . . [b]ut a POSA at that time would not have known that “eculizumab” had the sequence claimed in the ʼ809 patent.” See Prelim. Resp. 4, 7, 9. It appears that Petitioner’s positions here consider only the disclosures of the prior art and how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have read prior art references in view of one another. Regarding Patent Owner’s foundational preliminary argument that all prior art pointed exclusively to Thomas for the structure of eculizumab, rather than to Evans or Tacken or Mueller PCT, for example, we are unconvinced. We find Patent Owner’s position mischaracterizes Bell’s incorporation of Thomas by wholly ignoring that, in the very same sentence, and preceding the cite to Thomas, Bell also incorporates Evans by reference. Ex. 1007 ¶ 52. Bell incorporates Evans as disclosing “[p]articularly useful anti-C5 antibodies . . . h5G1.1-mAb, h5G1.1-scFv and other functional fragments of h5G1.1,” and “[m]ethods for the preparation” of these. Id. It appears that the ordinarily skilled artisan, like Bell’s inventors, would not have looked solely to Thomas for eculizumab’s structure. Moreover, the ’809 patent itself states that Evans, which is a part of Bell, discloses “a preferred whole antibody (now named eculizumab),” and how to produce it. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 12:34–37. Thus, even the ’809 patent, like Bell, acknowledges that Evans is an important reference regarding eculizumab, its structure, and how to make it.” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,703,809 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01037 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–29 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’283 patent’s challenged claims. We decline to deny the Petition on the basis of discretion under § 325(d). We institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“35 U.S.C. § 325(d). In evaluating whether to deny institution under 325(d), the Board has considered several non-exclusive factors: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior art or a patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether a petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Office erred in evaluating the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first para.). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to whether the art or arguments in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in the Office’s prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Under Advanced Bionics’s two-part framework, we first determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Id. at 8, 10. If “either condition of [the] first part of Office has been shown. Id. at 8, 10.” slip op. at 68
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing. Petitioner’s proposal could have been more specific, but it is not so lacking that the institution burden is unmet. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in a “relevant discipline,” Petitioner is referring to the technical areas it cited previously, such as protein/enzyme biochemistry. Pet. 18. Petitioner’s definition does not ignore subject matter like “transgenic plants” because it states that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts here (e.g., protein biochemistry, enzyme activity, and substrate selectivity) to such plants. Moreover, although Patent Owner complains about Petitioner’s POSA definition, it does not offer its own or explain why Petitioner’s challenge fails under any alternative definition. At this stage, Patent Owner’s suggestion that Dr. Hausinger lacks relevant expertise or qualifications of at least a POSA is unpersuasive. The ’283 patent relies on Dr. Hausinger’s own prior work. See, e.g., 1002, 18:44–50 (citing Hogan (Ex. 1027)), 50:51–55 (citing Fukumori (Ex. 2001)) (both references co-authored by Dr. Hausinger). Patent Owner also cites Dr. Hausinger’s work as evidencing what “skilled artisans” understood about the claimed and prior art technology, including αKGD dioxygenases, which is a focus of the parties’ arguments. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8 (“Thus, as reflected in Hogan and Hotopp [(co-authored by Dr. Hausinger)], skilled artisans understood the structure-function relationships of Group II αKG-dependent dioxygenases . . . .”); Ex. 1029 (Hotopp 2002)). During prosecution, Dr. Wright’s declaration relied on Dr. Hausinger’s research. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 462 (Wright I ¶ 13 (citing Hotopp)), 658 (Wright II artisans”)). And, Applicant’s other declarant, Dr. Nair, who testified about the POSA’s perspective at the time of the invention, appears to have academic and prior work history focused on chemistry, biochemistry, and enzymology without significant background in subjects like “controlling weeds” about which Patent Owner questions Dr. Hausinger’s qualifications. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 590–591.17 Patent Owner will have the chance to cross-examine Dr. Hausinger in this proceeding. If Patent Owner feels we should discount Dr. Hausinger’s testimony due to lack of qualifications, it may raise such argument in trial. For now, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, with the” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“C. Claim Construction In inter partes review, we construe claims using the same claim construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA and the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only as needed to resolve the matters in dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 17 The closest work we see from Dr. Nair related to herbicide resistant transgenic plants is his 2019 paper co-written with the applicant’s employees (e.g., Dr. Wright), which paper appears to be a follow-on investigation into the AAD-1 proteins of the patent. Ex. 1008, 594–595; Ex. 1019, Abstr. proceeding. Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 20. It is not apparent at this stage that any terms need further interpretation to resolve the matters in dispute.18” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,149,283
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.