• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2026 · PGR2025-00030 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6–30 are unpatentable under §112(a) for lack of written description and lack of enablement; the §103 ground was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner filed a Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 42), Petitioner opposed the motion (Paper 44), and the Board denied the motion (Paper 47).” slip op. at 3

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

    “of the ’758 patent supports an understanding that some activity is required for a polypeptide to be a “modified PH20 polypeptide,” and it is the enzymatic activity of hyaluronidase specifically that is the most frequently identified activity recited in the Definitions section of the ’758 patent. Indeed, both the definitions of “PH20” and “modified PH20 polypeptide” require hyaluronidase activity. See Ex. 1001, 45:54–55, 50:39–41 (“PH20 refers to a type of hyaluronidase that . . . is neutral-active” and “neutral active refers to the ability . . . to enzymatically catalyze the cleavage of hyaluronic acid at neutral pH”); 48:43–46 (“A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.”). Similar language is used later in the definition of a “conjugate” to explain that even when the modified PH20 polypeptide is linked to another polypeptide or chemical moiety it “retains hyaluronidase activity.” Id. at 63:39–46. In contrast, the discussion regarding the potential use of “modified PH20 polypeptides that are inactive” as antigens in contraception vaccines appears only in non-definitional sections of the ’758 patent. Id. at 72:63–65, 75:60–62. Accordingly, we find that this disclosure does not modify the definition’s explicit requirement that the claimed “modified PH20 polypeptide” exhibit hyaluronidase activity. Id. at 48:38–46.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “this testimony to at most describe a research plan (i.e., a “tool to engage in further modification”16) for finding the recited polypeptides rather than demonstrating the inventors were in possession of the full scope claimed. This is particularly so given the limits of the then-available analytical tools noted above and the fact that the structural connections and three dimensional modeling Patent Owner’s experts attempt to make (see, e.g., Ex. 2070 ¶¶ 129–213; Ex. 2068 ¶¶ 123–125) do not appear in the written description itself. To the extent the experts disagree on this point, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts over that of Patent Owner’s. See Ex. 1133 ¶¶ 111–251 (identifying problems with the approaches proposed by Patent Owner’s experts). For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence of record better supports a finding that in the 2011–2012 timeframe, it would have been unpredictable to identify which multiple mutants retained hyaluronidase activity, even with the single substitution data provided by the ’758 patent.” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 12,054,758 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,054,758
• Merck Sharp And Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2026 · PGR2025-00039 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 7–11 are unpatentable because the challenged claims lack written-description support and are not enabled.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “1 Although the Petition was directed to claims 1–11 of the ’185 patent, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 5 and 6 prior to institution, leaving just claims 1–4 and 7–11 at issue. See Ex. 2003.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “B. Claim Construction In a post-grant review, we interpret a claim “using the same claim” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 12,104,185 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,104,185
• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2026 · PGR2025-00006 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–13 are unpatentable under §112(a) for lack of written description and enablement, and under §103 as obvious over the ’429 patent and Chao.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes referred to 3 US 7,767,429 B2, issued Aug. 3, 2010 (the “’429 patent”) (Ex. 1005). 4 Chao et al., Structure of Human Hyaluronidase-1, a Hyaluronan Hydrolyzing Enzyme Involved in Tumor Growth and Angiogenesis, 46 BIOCHEMISTRY 6911–20 (2007) (Ex. 1006). 5 Patent Owner withdrew the Declaration of Dr. Triggs-Raine. PO Resp. 10 n.6. herein as “POSA”) as of the effective filing date of the challenged claims. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree, a Ph.D., and post-doctoral experience in scientific fields relevant to study of protein structure and function (e.g., chemistry, biochemistry, biology, biophysics). From training and experience, the person would have been familiar with factors influencing protein structure, folding and activity, production of modified proteins using recombinant DNA techniques, and use of biological assays to characterize protein function, as well with techniques used to analyze protein structure (i.e., sequence searching and alignments, protein modeling software, etc.). Pet. 16.” slip op. at 7

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

    “5. Evidence and Analysis “The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim language in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We first turn to the intrinsic evidence because “the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “[T]he specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. [T]he definition in the patent documents controls the claim interpretation. . . . Any other rule would be unfair to competitors who must be able to rely on the patent documents themselves, without consideration of expert opinion that then does not even exist, in ascertaining the scope of a patentee’s right to exclude. Southwall Tech., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1995). a) Intrinsic evidence Our analysis begins with the claims and Specification of the ’262 patent. Claim 1 recites a “modified PH20 polypeptide” that also requires the polypeptide sequence is 95% identical to one of the 35 recited SEQ ID NOs and with at least one of seven amino acids at position 317 of the reference sequence. The ’262 patent states “PH20 refers to a type of hyaluronidase that occurs in sperm and is neutral-active.”7 Ex. 1001, 45:45– 46; cf. id. at 68:33–37. The ’262 patent further explains that “[r]eference to PH20 includes precursor PH20 polypeptides and mature PH20 polypeptides (such as those in which a signal sequence has been removed), truncated forms thereof that have activity, and includes allelic variants and species variants, variants encoded by splice variants, and other variants.” Id. at 45:62–67. The ’262 patent states that “PH20 polypeptides also include those that contain chemical or posttranslational modifications and those that do not contain chemical or posttranslational modifications.” Id. at 46:4–7.” slip op. at 15

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “four species tested, and particularly in a primate model that is physiologically more similar to humans, shows that a POSA would not have understood even unmodified PH20 polypeptides to provide a contraceptive effect in humans and most other species. The data Patent Owner relies upon at most shows an immunocontraceptive effect for unmodified PH20 polypeptides limited to guinea pigs. It does not evidence that a POSA would have understood that the recited modified polypeptides would provide such an effect or otherwise be useful in a contraceptive vaccine. Accordingly, even if the term “modified PH20 polypeptides” were interpreted to include inactive polypeptides that can serve as antigens to provide a contraceptive effect, the preponderance of the evidence does not show that a POSA would have understood the inventors to be in possession of the full scope of the recited polypeptides capable of such use. 7. Analysis We find the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. “Every patent must describe an invention. It is part of the quid pro quo of a patent.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1345. In determining compliance with the written description requirement for nucleic acid genus claims, the Federal Circuit has identified two extremes. In Capon, claims relying on known nucleotide sequences with known functions were found to satisfy the written description requirement. Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005). At the other end, Juno found that for broad claims to a nucleic acid encoding a chimeric T cell receptor with a functional requirement to bind a target, “the written description ‘must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.’” Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). As explained above, claim 1 requires modified PH20 polypeptides with some hyaluronidase activity. See supra Section II.B. Based on this claim interpretation, we find the evidence in this case closer to Juno than Capon, and that the ’262 patent does not disclose sufficient structural features in the PH20 sequences associated with hyaluronidase or” slip op. at 57

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable

    “6. Analysis Petitioner has the burden to identify how the specification allegedly fails to enable the claims. We address the Wands factors and the parties’ respective arguments and evidence. a) Breadth of Claims and Nature of the Invention Dr. Park states, regarding the breadth of claim 1, that he “calculated the number of distinct polypeptides that exist that meet the specified criteria.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 173. Dr. Park’s table is reproduced below: Dr. Park’s table shows that the “number of distinct peptides is extremely large by all accounts, ranging from 1049 to 1066.” Id. Dr. Hecht agrees, stating the “sequence identity language causes the claims to encompass an immense number of distinct PH20 polypeptides.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 120. To illustrate how large a number like 1066 is, Dr. Hecht states that an “aggregate weight of the smallest set containing one molecule of each of the PH20 mutants would be . . . = 1.37 x 1027 kg. The weight of the Earth is ‘only’ ~ 5.97 x 1024 kg.” Id. ¶ 123. That is, Dr. Hecht states that a complete set of one single molecule of protein that comprises all possible mutations in PH20 as recited in claim 1 would weigh about one thousand times more than the entire mass of planet Earth. See id. In deposition, Dr. Hecht stated “my sense was that the ’262 patent lists a minuscule and highly biased sample of what would be within that fence, in the sense that it only lists single amino acid substitutions while at the same time it’s attempting to claim things that have 20 or more substitutions.” Ex. 2076, 203:6‒12. When asked if a sequence “gives you enough information to tell whether that amino acid sequence is 95 percent identical to SEQ ID NO. 3”, Dr. Hecht answered “Yes, but that’s all it tells you. It doesn’t tell you anything about active, precipitated, aggregated, folded. It doesn’t tell you anything.” Id. at 204:11‒19.” slip op. at 70

  Patent outcomesUS 12,152,262 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,152,262
• Dr. Squatch, LLC v. The Procter & Gamble CompanyAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01173 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–13, and 16–19 are unpatentable: claims 16–17 are anticipated by Lesniak, and the remaining challenged claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “argument that the Lesniak fails to enable a stable deodorant stick. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak sufficiently teaches compositions with the relevant ingredients and achieves stable compositions through the use of a second wax having a melting point of 73 to 90° C. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:39–54). For example, Lesniak’s compositions (nos. 8 and 11) that used such a second wax, namely CastorWax MP80, are disclosed as sufficiently stable. Ex. 1003, Table 2. Here, we further credit the testimony of Dr. Michniak-Kohn that secondary wax, such as castor wax, with a sufficiently high melting point. Ex. 1003, 1:39-54, 5:23-32, Table 2. Both of the compositions (nos. 8 and 11) tested by Lesniak that had such a wax passed the stability tests. Ex. 1086 ¶ 7; see also Reply 8 (“Lesniak overcame any stability issues, as it expressly discloses compositions that are ‘physically stable at high and low temperatures.’”) (citing Ex. 1003, 5:23–32).” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree; and (2) at least two years of experience in cosmetics formulations.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications. See generally PO Resp. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSA, which is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that the preamble of independent claim 1 reciting “a deodorant stick” is limiting” as it provides antecedent basis for certain other claim elements, specifically, for the recitation of “said deodorant stick being free of an aluminum salt” and “said deodorant stick” having a particular hardness range. PO Resp. 8–9. Patent Owner also points to dependent claims 5–8 as relying on the preamble reciting “a deodorant stick” as antecedent basis for claim elements. Id. at 10. We agree.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We find that the evidence of record fails to support Patent Owner’s argument that the Lesniak fails to enable a stable deodorant stick. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak sufficiently teaches compositions with the relevant ingredients and achieves stable compositions through the use of a second wax having a melting point of 73 to 90° C. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:39–54). For example, Lesniak’s compositions (nos. 8 and 11) that used such a second wax, namely CastorWax MP80, are disclosed as sufficiently stable. Ex. 1003, Table 2. Here, we further credit the testimony of Dr. Michniak-Kohn that secondary wax, such as castor wax, with a sufficiently high melting point. Ex. 1003, 1:39-54, 5:23-32, Table 2. Both of the compositions (nos. 8 and 11) tested by Lesniak that had such a wax passed the stability tests. Ex. 1086 ¶ 7; see also Reply 8 (“Lesniak overcame any stability issues, as it expressly discloses compositions that are ‘physically stable at high and low temperatures.’”) (citing Ex. 1003, 5:23–32). Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that Lesniak provides sufficient disclosure to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a deodorant stick within the parameters of claims 16 and 17. e) Conclusion as to Claims 16 and 17 We agree with Petitioner that “the challenged claims recite nothing more than well-known deodorant ingredients performing their conventional functions.” Pet. Reply 2. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of evidence that Lesniak anticipates claims 16 and 17.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,905,647 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,905,647
• Salvacion USA, Inc. v. Trutek CorpAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00711 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Chen, Baker, Wahi ’005, and, for claims 1, 2, and 8, Rolf; the Board also finds them obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as it was undisputed at the time and consistent with the evidence of record. Inst. Dec. 7–8. Based on our consideration of the full record, we maintain our determination that a POSITA at the time the application for the ’802 patent was filed “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in pharmacy, chemistry, biochemistry, biomedical engineering or a closely related field, such that the POSITA generally understand[s] pharmaceutical formulation.” Pet. 12. Additionally, we agree with Petitioner that “[a] POSITA would be familiar with the chemical ingredients in the [’802] Patent, biocidic agents, and cationic agents, have knowledge of airborne particles including viruses and bacteria, and understand electrostatic fields, electrostatic attraction and repulsion, adhesion and cohesion.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “of independent claims 1, 2, and 8 as limiting. Inst. Dec. 7–8. The parties do not dispute our construction of the preambles of claims 1, 2, and 8 as limiting. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply 2–4. After consideration of the full trial record, we maintain our construction of the preamble of claims 1, 2, and 8 as limiting for the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision. Id. Briefly, the preamble of independent claims 1, 2, and 8 limits the challenged claims as both the preamble and the body are used to define the subject matter claimed. See Allen Engineering Corp., v. Bartell Industries, Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In particular, the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning and vitality” to the claim, see id., because it provides the only description in the claim for the application site of the formulation, i.e., “to skin or tissue of nasal passages,” and how the formulation is applied, i.e., “in a thin film.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “After consideration of the full trial record, we maintain our construction. From our perspective, the claims themselves support this construction as the claims expand upon the term “electrostatically inhibiting” with specific means for achieving such inhibition. Specifically, claims 1 and 2 recite electrostatically attracting the particulate matter, holding the matter in place, and inactivating the matter. Additionally, the Specification supports our construction as it describes the use of “an electrostatic field such that oppositely charged airborne particulates (including microorganisms) in the vicinity of the surface are electrostatically trapped, held thereto and one or more of the microorganisms so captured is neutralized, killed, inactivated, and rendered harmless.” Ex. 1001, 3:36–40; PO Resp. 10 n.6.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We adopt the parties’ construction of “adequate impermeability” that has been accepted in the related district court litigation: “Adequate impermeability” refers to the “thin film holding harmful particles in place and inhibiting them from penetrating the thin film and contacting the skin or tissue of an individual’s nasal passages. This is done by varying the concentration of ingredients . . .[,] thereby adjusting the adhesion and cohesion of the thin film.” Pet. Reply 3 (quoting Ex. 1010, 17). Furthermore, as stated in our Institution Decision, along with that term, the claim language explains that the thin film is meant to stick to the skin or tissue and to hold the particulate matter in place. Inst. Dec. 9–10. The claim language also explains that the cohesion of the formulation is adjusted to provide adequate impermeability to the thin film. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the recited impermeability is a function of the cohesive properties of the thin film, and that such impermeability refers to a property of the thin film, i.e., inhibiting the penetration or passage of matter through it onto the skin or tissue at the application site.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,163,802 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,163,802
• Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. The Foundry, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00280 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 8–10, 12, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Makower, Fang, and Edwards; the Board did not reach Grounds 1–3.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on the record before us, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’011 patent and the cited prior art, we find a POSA would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in biomedical engineering or a related discipline, (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices that deliver energy to tissue, and 3) knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that prior experience designing or developing nasal medical devices is required for a POSA. PO Resp. 19–20. A definition inclusive of the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of nasal medical devices that deliver energy to tissue is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’011 patent and prior art. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Bu-Saba fails to qualify as a POSA because he lacks experience specific to designing medical devices. PO Resp. 19 n.4. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that we should discount the testimony of Dr. Bu-Saba and we give Dr. Bu-Saba’s testimony appropriate weight in reaching our conclusions here.” slip op. at 13

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

    “On the record before us, we conclude that the claims need not be expressly construed to resolve the dispute before us. Insofar as the parties dispute the mapping of the prior art to dependent claim 9, we address that dispute below including, to the extent necessary, any implicit disagreement about the subject matter encompassed by claim 9.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that Makower and Fang7 are analogous art to the challenged claims. Pet. 77 (arguing Makower and Fang “are in the same field” and are “reasonably pertinent” to solving problems addressed by the claimed invention); Ex. 1002 ¶ 178. According to Petitioner, Makower and 7 Petitioner argues a POSA had reasons for combining Edwards with Makower and Fang with a reasonable expectation of success (see, e.g., Pet. 74–76, 81–85). We find persuasive Petitioner’s reasoning and evidence on the addition of Edwards, and Patent Owner provides no rebuttal about Edwards. energy to tissue and “each uses RF energy to treat tissue.” Pet. 77 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 43, 132, 164, 187; Ex. 1006, 876–877).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,011 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,011
• Gene Company Pty Ltd v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00313 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–54 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combinations; objective indicia also supported non-obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “As to the first issue, we agree with Patent Owner that defining the level of skill in view of the solution described in the patent risks improper hindsight. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 18 (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a . . . lens through which . . . the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention,” which “prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or . . . hindsight[] to gauge obviousness.”). We therefore do not include “practical knowledge about . . . the deuterium isotope effect, including the patents and publications discussed [in the Petition],” as part of our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” in an obviousness analysis, we give some weight to Dr. Guengerich’s testimony. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that “motivation to combine may be found. . . in . . . the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill”). Nevertheless, even if we were to agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have seen the 1,5-shift in NRPE in Mata’s A2E biosynthetic pathway as a particularly desirable location for intervention, we are not persuaded that such a person would have been motivated to substitute C20 deuterated vitamin A for the vitamin A in Ortho Pharma’s composition and method, because Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that such an artisan would have reasonably expected the substitution to retard the accumulation of A2E or to treat macular degeneration.” slip op. at 42

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the preamble of claim 28 as limiting. Inst. Dec. 30–31. Petitioner did not take issue with our construction, or dispute Patent Owner’s construction of the preambles of claims 1 and 29 as also limiting. After consideration of the full trial record, we maintain our construction of the preamble of claim 28 as limiting for the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision. For similar reasons and the reasons set forth in Patent Owner’s Response, we further construe the preambles of claims 1 and 29 as limiting. See PO Resp. 12–14. We further determine that we do not need to construe any other claim term in order to resolve the controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 26

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

    “415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this framework, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS RE47,045 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Beone Medicines USA, Inc. / Beigene, Ltd. v. Pharmacyclics LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 1, 2025 · PGR2024-00009 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 12, and 20 are unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the enablement, anticipation, or obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting and that the terms “optionally substituted fused heterocyclic ring system” and “irreversible” BTKIs should be construed consistent with the definitions provided in the Specification. Pet. 42–45; see also id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 19:57–20:7 (defining “optionally substituted” or “substituted”), 14:51–52 (defining “fused”), 15:66–16:21 (defining “heterocycle”), 14:36–44 (defining “ring” and “ring system”), 26:23–25 (defining “irreversible Btk inhibitor”); PO Resp. 26.” slip op. at 14

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

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “To satisfy written description for the claimed genus of iBTKIs, the Specification must describe either a representative number of members of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus with enough precision that a POSA can visualize or recognize the members of the genus. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Patent Owner concedes that the Specification does not describe a representative number of members of the genus, stating “this is a common structural features case.” Tr. 65:25–66:3. We, therefore, focus our analysis on whether the Specification adequately describes common structural features of the genus. We find that it does not.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,672,803 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,672,803
• Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00136 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution

  Institution of inter partes review was denied for claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Accordingly, we find that on the current record Petitioner has not shown that it has a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on these obviousness grounds. XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5. XIII. CONCLUSION After reviewing the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that, based on the evidence of record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 of the ’841 patent are unpatentable. XIV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds presented in the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 35

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “However, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Jansky provide specific data on the record before us showing the actual measured homozygosity of either of the inbred lines, US-W 5309 and US-W 5315. And Phumichai experimentally demonstrates that Dr. Jansky’s assumption that theoretical heterozygosity reduction of 50% per generation is not necessarily accurate, stating the “observed average percentage of reduction of heterozygosity per generation (38.4% or 38.5%) was lower than the theoretically expected value of 50%.” Ex. 1005, 982. Indeed, Phumichai disclosed that the “SOPH [Section-based observed percentage of heterozygosity] decreased steadily from the original 100% in 99H2–1 (S0) to the family means of 62.4% in 3H2 (S1), 37.9% in 3H3 (S2).” Id. at 981. That is, Phumichai experimentally shows that in an S2 generation of a potato line, the heterozygosity was 37.9%, resulting in homozygosity of about 62.1%, below the 75% theoretically expected and the 75% required by claim 1 of the ’841 patent. Therefore, the evidence of record does not show that the S2 generation of potato lines in Jong necessarily satisfies the homozygosity recitation in claim 1 of the ’841 patent, and so cannot establish on the record before us that Jong inherently teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Owner is telling. Petitioner does not refute Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia. On the current record, the objective indicia evidence is compelling. As to long felt need, Patent Owner cited evidence on record before the Examiner that showed a persistent need recognized by ordinarily skilled artisans. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538 (CCPA 1967). For example, Dr. Huang states “This research is the breakthrough we have been waiting for since nearly a century . . . This is crucial for the potato breeding worldwide.” Ex. 2009, 687. There is no evidence that this long-felt need was satisfied by another before Appellant’s invention. See Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved . . . .”). Lastly, Dr. Lindhout explains that this invention satisfies the long-felt need, stating “I have discovered, and disclosed in the present application for patent, how a fertile homozygote in” slip op. at 33

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,140,841
• Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over FR458 with the ’4666 patent and WO133; claims 1–17 are also unpatentable over WO742 with the ’4666 patent and WO133.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ positions about the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar. (See Pet., 13–14; see PO Resp., 10–12.) In light of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations and would have had access to team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Pet. 13–14; see PO Resp. 10–12; see Dec. 6–7.) Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’795 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Although Petitioner puts forth constructions for terms in the claims of the ’795 patent, Patent Owner argues that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the controversy between the parties. (See Pet. 14–19; see PO Resp. 12.) Except as indicated below, we agree that express construction of the claim terms is not required because the parties do not materially dispute the meanings of the terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Limitation (c) of claim 1 recites “syrup formulation” once and then “syrup” by itself twice. The parties agree that two recitations of “syrup” by itself mean and are synonymous with “syrup formulation.” (See Tr. 15:16– 19 (counsel for Petitioner: “[T]he term, syrup, by itself, means the formulation. And for that reason, we--it’s our position that it’s the syrup formulation that has the specific viscosity requirements as well as the other features that we discussed.”); 31:17–20 (counsel for Patent Owner: “But those wherein clauses, what it’s referring to, the syrup formulation and the syrup -- it was all to a complete to a final formulation, right, it’s not just the agave syrup. Everybody here recognizes and understands that from that perspective.”).) Thus, the parties agree that the “viscosity of less than 1500 centipoise at about 22 degrees” limits the final “pharmaceutical syrup formulation for oral administration,” not the “agave syrup” limitation in limitation (b) of claim 1.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner argues further that Dr. Crowley testifies that, “[g]enerally, suspensions having a viscosity in the range of 20 to 150 cP are considered readily pourable,” but that this range is well below the viscosity range of 200–900 cP taught in WO133 and the preferred viscosity range of 1000–3000 cP taught in the ’4666 patent. (See PO Resp. 45 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 59).) Dr. Crowley testifies that “increasing the viscosity of a suspension formulation has been shown to impair the dissolution characteristics of immediate release acetaminophen” and that, “[w]ith respect to suspensions for oral administration, having a higher viscosity is generally not desirable.” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.) According to Patent Owner, this is a “teaching away” because Petitioner’s own expert testimony demonstrates a motivation not to combine the acetaminophen formulation of FR458- Example 1 with the 1000-3000 cP range of the ’4666 patent and the 200-900 cP range of WO133 since by his own admission doing so would yield bad results (i.e., impairing the dissolution characteristics of the acetaminophen) and generally undesirable higher viscosity. (PO Resp. 46 (citing Berkland Decl., Ex. 2009 ¶ 148).) Dr. Crowley’s cited testimony, however, is about general characteristics of suspensions for oral administration, whereas the WO133 refers specifically to sweetened analgesic formulations. (See Ex. 1006, 8:1– 3 (“The viscosity of the acetaminophen composition generally ranges from about 200–900 centipoise, preferably from about 300–700 centipoise.”); see Pet. Reply 8–9.) As Petitioner notes, Dr. Crowley also testifies that the viscosity of 29 commercially available, pediatric liquid oral antibiotic formulations were measured and determined to range from 20 to 1,780 cP” and that “[t]he viscosity of Children’s Tylenol has been reported to be less than 1,000 centipoise at shear rates between 0.05 and 0.2 reciprocal seconds.” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 58.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Crowley’s testimony contradicts the teachings regarding viscosity of analgesic formulations in the cited prior art.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,617,795 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,617,795

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.