- Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 14, 2023 · IPR2023-01030 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 15–16. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications. See generally, Prelim. Resp. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal for the level of skill in the art, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes constructions of four limitations: “insertional enzyme complex,” “nucleic acid insert element,” “adapter sequence,” “barcode sequence,” and “tagged fragments.” Pet. 20–23. Patent Owner, for its part, states that “[n]o terms require construction for considering institution.” Prelim. Resp. 15. We determine that none of the four limitations identified by Petitioner requires an express construction for purposes of this Decision. It bears” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“express construction of the term “chromatin.” The ’207 patent itself provides a definition, stating: The term “chromatin,” as used herein, refers to a complex of molecules including proteins and polynucleotides (e.g. DNA, RNA), as found in a nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. Chromatin is composed in part of histone proteins that form nucleosomes, genomic DNA, and other DNA binding proteins (e.g., transcription factors) that are generally bound to the genomic DNA. Ex. 1001, 12:58–64. This is the meaning that we apply in this Decision.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,619,207 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 19, 2023 · IPR2023-00878 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Grunenwald anticipates claim 1 or that the asserted combinations cure its failure to disclose contacting chromatin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). Determining whether to institute has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Petitioner proposes constructions of four limitations: “insertional enzyme complex,” “nucleic acid insert element,” “adapter sequence,” and “barcode sequence.” Pet. 21–25. Patent Owner, for its part, states that “[n]o terms require construction for considering institution.” Prelim. Resp. 16. We determine that none of the four limitations identified by Petitioner requires an express construction for purposes of this Decision. It bears mentioning, however, that the ’995 patent states that “[t]he insertional enzyme can be a transposase.” Ex. 1001, 3:41–42. There is no dispute that Grunenwald discloses the use of a transposase and, thus, an insertional enzyme complex. See Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶98, 161); Prelim. Resp. 34 (“Grunenwald defines ‘transposase’ to include any transposase, thus including those that comprise antibodies that are specific to a protein that is part of said chromatin.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶93)).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“express construction of the term “chromatin.” The ’995 patent itself provides a definition, stating: The term “chromatin,” as used herein, refers to a complex of molecules including proteins and polynucleotides (e.g. DNA, RNA), as found in a nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. Chromatin is composed in part of histone proteins that form nucleosomes, genomic DNA, and other DNA binding proteins (e.g., transcription factors) that are generally bound to the genomic DNA. Ex. 1001, 12:54–60. This is the meaning that we apply in this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“B. Ground 1 Petitioner asserts that Grunenwald anticipates independent claim 1, as well some of the dependent claims. Pet. 25. “Anticipation requires that all of the claim elements and their limitations are shown in a single prior art reference.” In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Patent Owner argues that Grunenwald fails to anticipate claim 1, which failure undermines the entire Petition. Prelim. Resp. 16–17 (“Petitioner has failed to show that Grunenwald discloses each and every limitation as arranged in the claims, including, e.g., ‘contacting chromatin of a genome region,’ and thus cannot meet its burden as to any claim in Ground 1.” (quoting claim 1)), 38 (“Petitioner cannot meet its burden as to Grounds 2–8 for the same reasons Petitioner cannot meet its burden for Ground 1.”). Accordingly, we turn first to claim 1.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,150,995 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00876 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–6; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable as obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In sum, on the record presented, it appears that Petitioner is correct in stating that “no arguments were made during examination with respect to McCloskey or any similar reference disclosing an oligonucleotide with two tags.” Pet. 70 (underlining added).” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“4. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable on this ground.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Petition states that “Petitioner does not believe that any terms require explicit construction in view of the prior art being presented.” Pet. 36. Despite this stated position, Petitioner proposes constructions for “multiplex-identifier (MID)” and “providing a sample.” Id. Patent Owner, for its part, states that it “agrees that at this time, solely for purposes of an institution decision on the Petition, no terms require explicit construction.” Prelim. Resp. 45. On the record before us, and for purposes of institution, we find there is no need to provide an express construction of any claim term.” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 21–22 (citations omitted). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the disclosure of the ’981 patent and the asserted prior art, and because there is no argument to the contrary at this stage of the proceeding, we apply Petitioner’s formulation in our analysis below.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,155,981 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00794 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art combinations did not establish the claimed messaging through the server system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Tr. 78:6–10. Patent Owner responded “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination.” Tr. 78:13–14. We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” See Inst. Dec. 10. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ289 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. media player Patent Owner contends that, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’289 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 92–93). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player.’” Pet. Reply 1. Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 24–27)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device.” Pet. Reply 2 (alteration in original). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content and selects and controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content according to a media type of the selected media content.” Because Muthukumarasamy teaches that the media device displays media content from various disparate sources depending on the media type and media source, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood the media device loads an appropriate media player depending on the media type and source. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67). Petitioner, however, proffers insufficient evidence or argument that the content choices described in paragraph 47 of Muthukumarasamy would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to understand a media player is obtained and loaded in the content presentation device. Rather, Dr. Bederson makes conclusory statements without providing evidence to support the assertions (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Muthukumarasamy discussed above. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more messages in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file,” and “identify a location of the particular media player.” Pet. 41–45. More specifically, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate control of internet content presented at the content presentation device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward.” Pet. 65. However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the content presentation device” (Pet. Reply 22), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required messages being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward teaches “receiving, in a server system, one or more messages from a personal computing device . . . wherein the one or more messages, . . . identify a particular media player for playing content from the file wherein the media player is a computer application operable to present content and control presentation of the content,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 6. Additionally, because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of claims 2, 7, and 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 8,904,289 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,904,289 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00795 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 5–9 were not shown unpatentable over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward because the claimed signals identifying a media player were not shown to pass through the asserted server system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ251 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“1. Media player Patent Owner contends, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’251 Patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 81–92, 95)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 23–26)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (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 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that Hayward does not cure the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy discussed supra. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more signals in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing the video content” (Pet. 38–41). More specifically, Petitioner contends “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward” (Pet. 15, 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 60, 102)). However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device . . .” (Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis omitted)), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required signals being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00793 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ528 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“‘media player’ in the ’528 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 83–91, 94)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 21–24)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (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 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded. Even if the zHub and the zNode would be used to control the volume on the TV on which the streamed content is displayed, this device cooperation does not show the particular messaging recited in the claim. More specifically, even under Petitioner’s scenario that the “Volume Up” command flows from the IED (“personal computing device”) through the zHub/zNode (“server system”) to the TV (“content presentation device”), this command does not “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file.” Petitioner has not shown any messages in Muthukumarasamy that “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file” and flow from the IED through the zHub/zNode to the content presentation device. Thus, Petitioner’s assertions about devices working together fall short of proving by preponderant evidence that Muthukumarasamy discloses the particular messaging contents and path recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,782,528 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,782,528 - Synaffix B.V. v. Hangzhou Dac Biotech Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01531 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–17, 20–21, 24–26, and 29–34 because petitioner did not show 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
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2018). Upon consideration of the briefing and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1–17, 20–21, 24–26, and 29–34 of the ’682 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1018, 42–43. The Examiner found that Lees discloses NHS vinyl sulfone as a heterobifunctional linker used to attach a derivatized polysaccharide to one end and a protein to the other and found that this compound anticipated formula 55 of the Specification, which was encompassed by claim 1. Id. at 42–43.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“For the reasons discussed above regarding claim interpretation of Y, Z, Q and T, Patent Owner has the better argument for claims 1 and 2. Specifically, Y and Z are independent groups that function without reliance this ground for claims 1 and 2 rely on sulfone to assist vinyl to enable the reaction above, Petitioner is unlikely to prevail in establishing that Morales- Sanfrutos discloses the Y or Z limitations and has therefore not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the disclosures of Morales-Sanfrutos in light of Straus anticipate claims 1 and 2. With regard to claims 3, 6, 24, 25, and 33 we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s assignment of sulfone for the Q moiety is incorrect because that group becomes complexed to HRP through a vinylsulfone mediated reaction, making a derivatized protein, e.g., HRP-11. Prelim. Resp. 48 (citing Ex. 1005, 4046). In this structure, sulfone is no longer an independent group available to be identified as Q because it has been complexed to the Cb moiety, making the Q moiety limitation not shown in the HRP-11 conjugate. Thus, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Morales-Sanfrutos discloses the Q limitation and has therefore not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the disclosures of Morales-Sanfrutos in light of Straus anticipate claims 3, 6, 24, 25, and 33.17” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“d) Petitioner’s allegations of obviousness A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In this section, we determine whether Petitioner shows sufficiently, for purposes of institution, that claims 1, 20, 21, and 29–31 would have been rendered obvious by Harris.” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,131,682 - Apotex Inc. v. Cellgene CorporationInstitutedPTAB · Jul 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00512 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial in showing that at least one of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 of the ’628 patent is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Our decision derives from our review of the preliminary record before us. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of each challenged claim the ’628 patent on each of the grounds asserted by Petitioner. This decision does not reflect a final determination on the patentability of the claims. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is granted and we institute inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 of the ’628 patent based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 53
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Moreover, “[w]hen the specification explains and defines a term used in the claims, without ambiguity or incompleteness, there is no need to search further for the meaning of the term.” Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We agree with the parties that the ’628 patent expressly defines this term in stating “[t]he term ‘non-enteric-coated,’ when used herein, refers to a pharmaceutical composition, formulation, or dosage form that does not comprise a coating intended to release the active ingredient(s) beyond the stomach (e.g., in the intestine),” and we adopt this express definition herein with regard to “nonenteric coated tablet.”9 Ex. 1001, 11:42–48 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“to, and sometimes associated with, but not identical to the claim term “subject”), which appears in claims 11, 12, 18–22, and 38–43, means “a human or other animal who received the recited pharmaceutical composition in connection with a test of the recited parameter.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19 (also asserting Petitioner does not appear to dispute this construction). We first note that the term “test subject” appears in the ’628 patent only in the claims. See generally Ex. 1001. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition comports with the Specification’s express definition of “subject,” a term the Specification appears to use synonymously with the claim term “test subject” and the word patient, and that Patent Owner’s definition adds that the subject received the pharmaceutical composition in connection with a test of the recited parameter, which we find to be a reasonable interpretation of the claim term “test subject,” in accordance with the plain language of the claims on their face, and as supported by the relevant portions of the Written Description that describe testing parameters relating to drug administration. Ex. 1001, 35:45–36:62, 67:61–81:48. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition herein.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014). However, “‘[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.’” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted, alterations in original). “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.” Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999). slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,846,628 - Candela Corporation v. Nikolai TankovichInstitutedPTAB · Jun 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00234 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–28, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would be unpatentable under the five asserted § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“when no part of the distribution patterns of the two beams cross each other at the point of reference, identified above in Figure 2D–F as “in a tissue.” Id. As both claim 1 and claim 11 refer to tissue treatment, we interpret the point of reference for determining whether the beams overlap to be the point at which the beams first intersect the tissue being treated. This interpretation is supported by the diagrams in Figure 2 above and in the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:4 (“The invention can avoid interference of the wavelengths by delivering the wavelengths simultaneously and in spatially separated and overlapping regions of the tissue being treated.”). In view of the above, we determine that the term “overlapping,” as used in the claims, refers to the crossing of the beam pattern at the point at which the beams intersect the tissue being treated.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“when no part of the distribution patterns of the two beams cross each other at the point of reference, identified above in Figure 2D–F as “in a tissue.” Id. As both claim 1 and claim 11 refer to tissue treatment, we interpret the point of reference for determining whether the beams overlap to be the point at which the beams first intersect the tissue being treated. This interpretation is supported by the diagrams in Figure 2 above and in the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:4 (“The invention can avoid interference of the wavelengths by delivering the wavelengths simultaneously and in spatially separated and overlapping regions of the tissue being treated.”). In view of the above, we determine that the term “overlapping,” as used in the claims, refers to the crossing of the beam pattern at the point at which the beams intersect the tissue being treated.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Black discloses that its combined beam can be controlled to rotate the mirrors to “generate various different kinds of treatment patterns” and can “create any type of three-dimensional paths and treatment pattern.” See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 61, 62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. On this record and at this stage, the ability to generate treatment patterns meets the limitations of the claims, which each require a pattern of “overlapping beams and non-overlapping beams. We credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that a scanner could be used with or instead of a modulator to provide adjustability to one or more lasers, that the artisan would have been familiar with the control and programming of multiple scanners taught in Black, and that the artisan would have been able to implement these features in Hsia’s system without undue experimentation. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93, 95, 97, 98. Additionally, we credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious from the teachings in Black to combine and scan multiple beams into a desired pattern, such as overlapping and non-overlapping in order to optimize treatment results and because the combination would have provided multiple potential benefits. Id. ¶¶ 98, 101, 112, 116, 118–128. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Milner’s testimony regarding the ordinary artisan’s motivation to combine references parrots the rationales identified and discussed in the ’481 patent. Prelim. Resp. 36–38. Dr. Milner, however, also cites disclosures in both Hsia and Black citing advantages of combined beams including improved treatment efficacy, improved healing, the ability to treat simultaneously at multiple depths, and reduction in the number of required treatments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–119. “[T]he motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one. Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 420 (alterations, emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Black discloses that its combined beam can be controlled to rotate the mirrors to “generate various different kinds of treatment patterns” and can “create any type of three-dimensional paths and treatment pattern.” See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 61, 62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. On this record and at this stage, the ability to generate treatment patterns meets the limitations of the claims, which each require a pattern of “overlapping beams and non-overlapping beams. We credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that a scanner could be used with or instead of a modulator to provide adjustability to one or more lasers, that the artisan would have been familiar with the control and programming of multiple scanners taught in Black, and that the artisan would have been able to implement these features in Hsia’s system without undue experimentation. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93, 95, 97, 98. Additionally, we credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious from the teachings in Black to combine and scan multiple beams into a desired pattern, such as overlapping and non-overlapping in order to optimize treatment results and because the combination would have provided multiple potential benefits. Id. ¶¶ 98, 101, 112, 116, 118–128. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Milner’s testimony regarding the ordinary artisan’s motivation to combine references parrots the rationales identified and discussed in the ’481 patent. Prelim. Resp. 36–38. Dr. Milner, however, also cites disclosures in both Hsia and Black citing advantages of combined beams including improved treatment efficacy, improved healing, the ability to treat simultaneously at multiple depths, and reduction in the number of required treatments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–119. “[T]he motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one. Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 420 (alterations, emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,675,481 - Vifor (International) AG v. Biofer S.P.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01608 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16, 19–21, and 23–25 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“step of reacting a sugar with bromine occurs “in a solution at a pH between 7.0 and 9.0.” Ex. 1001, 16:46–47. A dispositive question arises, on this record, as to whether Petitioner’s information, directed to this pH range limitation, is sufficient to support institution of review. For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner’s information is not sufficient and deny the Petition on that basis.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and 12 and that Stoll suggests a pH range of 7 or greater. Pet. 29–30 and n.7, 39. Those prior art pH ranges overlap or encompass the specified pH range of “between 7.0 and 9.0.” Pet. 38–39 and n.10. Under these circumstances, the burden of production shifts to Patent Owner to come forward with evidence of the criticality of the specified pH range limitation. See id. at 39–40 (quoting E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Patent Owner meets that burden by directing us to the Marchi Declaration. Resp. 9–12; Ex. 1004, 432–440. That evidence contains experimental results that support Dr. Marchi’s opinion that the claimed method, when performed at a pH of 8, “can be run with equimolar amounts of oxidant without increasing depolymerization,” but when performed at a pH of 10, results in an undesirable “depolymerizing attack on the main chain, even employing only 0.9 equivalents of oxidant.” Ex. 1004, 434–435 (¶ 7). As Patent Owner points out, moreover, the oxidation reaction in each of the examples in Geisser is carried out at a pH of 10. see Prelim. Resp. 26 and n.8 (citing Ex. 1006, Examples 1–8).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We assess the ground based on anticipation by Geisser in view of the principle that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim “if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The ground based on anticipation by Geisser rests on a conclusory opinion that Geisser’s disclosure of a pH range between 8 and 12 “describes” an oxidation reaction that occurs “at a pH between 7.0 and 9.0.” Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 178, which repeats that conclusory opinion verbatim without objective evidence or analysis). It is unclear on this record, and Petitioner does not explain adequately, how or why Geisser anticipates the pH range limitation of claim 1, which is “critical” for reasons explained above in our analysis of the ground based on obviousness over Geisser and Stoll. Ex. 1004, 435 (the Marchi Declaration, ¶ 7). Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing “with respect to at least [one] of the claims” based on any ground asserted in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner proposes that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would hold an advanced degree, such as an M.S. or doctorate, in chemistry, medicine, pharmacy, or a related degree,” as well as post-graduate experience “in areas of carbohydrate chemistry, synthetic chemistry, medicinal chemistry, inorganic chemistry, and/or metal carbohydrate complexes, or the clinical use of such complexes.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,759,320
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.