• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 10–13 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, including obviousness over Holmberg and Battey.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’483 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the Challenged Claims of the ’483 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner contends claim 1 should be construed to require that “the drop cable retain its external jacket as it is routed internally.” Pet. 10. Petitioner contends this construction differs from Patent Owner’s apparent construction in the district court, “which allows the external jacket to be removed as the drop cable enters the DIB and the fibers routed inside the box without the external jacket.” Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s narrower construction requiring the “drop cable” retain its external jacket is incorrect, but contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute to deny institution because Petitioner’s proposed Grounds 1–5 are all insufficient under” either party’s construction. Prelim. Resp. 9. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). We address below, however, whether the recited cable types themselves constitute claim limitations.” slip op. at 11

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

    “slack fiber. Prelim. Resp. 33–37. These arguments are not persuasive. First, Petitioner does not propose a bodily incorporation of Battey’s shelf into the device of Holmberg. Rather, Petitioner’s proposed combination retains splice tray 230 of Holmberg and relies on Battey for its disclosure of using a hinge connection for the splice tray. Pet. 40 (asserting that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to modify Holmberg pursuant to Battey, resulting in splice tray 230 moveable relative to main body 216”), 43 (“Such a modification would have been a simple substitution of a hinged connection instead of a fastener.”). Second, although Battey utilizes a fixedly mounted slack basket to store excess cable, we are directed to no disclosure or teaching in Battey that teaches away from using other means of storing slack fiber.” slip op. at 23

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “For the reasons set forth below, we determine that part two of the Advanced Bionics framework has not been satisfied. Thus, we need not address whether part one of the framework is satisfied in view of the alleged cumulative nature of Laporte and Battey.” slip op. at 30

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,008,483
• Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,043,660
• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 5–14 on all four asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’641 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’641 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the earliest possible priority date for the ’641 patent, “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition, “except noting that other majors may provide equivalent education and experience designing, testing, and building lithium-ion batteries.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. The parties may further address at trial whether “other majors” should be added to this definition, and whether such a modification would have any impact on the unpatentability analysis in this case.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Neither party contends any terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. Pet. 4–5; Prelim. Resp. 13–14. And, for purposes of this decision, we agree that no claim terms require express construction. 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “This argument is not persuasive. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the Federal Circuit has held that “generic” reasons to combine are not inherently suspect, and may reasonably include a desire to make a device “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable or more efficient.” See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Regardless, Petitioner’s asserted reasons to combine are specific (improved safety and less deterioration after repeated charging and discharging cycles), as is the proposed combination (implementing Sakamoto’s range of ratios for the positive and negative electrode materials in Yamaki’s lithium ion battery). Pet. 9–12. Identification of specific benefits that are tied to specific elements of specific prior art references is sufficient to support an obviousness ground. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 797.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Mara Renewables Corporation v. DSM IP Assets, B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01342 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was anticipated or obvious over the asserted references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’959 patent. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that, as of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’959 patent, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a Master of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing chemistry, chemical engineering, or biochemistry, in combination with training or at least two to three years of related work experience with lipid chemistry technologies, including but not limited to lipid extraction technologies.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–64). Alternatively, Petitioner proposes that an ordinarily skilled artisan “could have also had a Doctorate degree in a relevant academic discipline with one to two years of related work experience in the same discipline.” Id. Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with microbial oils” and “would have understood the benefits of polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), microbial sources for obtaining them, and methods for culturing and extracting oils from those microbial sources.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–48, 64). Patent Owner does not provide a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but “reserves its right to proffer what it contends to be the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art should the Board institute review.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner asserts, however, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a detailed understanding of the information provided in its Technology Background section, including “the expected impact of cellular biomass growth characteristics on the proportion of triglycerides and phospholipids produced during a microbial fermentation.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). As to the background knowledge possessed by the ordinarily skilled artisan, we agree that such an artisan would have been aware of methods for culturing and extracting oils from microbial sources, including the impact of growth characteristics on the proportions of triglycerides and phospholipids produced during microbial fermentation. Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 15.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms of the ’959 patent “should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not contend that any claim terms require construction. Prelim. Resp. 14–15. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “3. Analysis In order to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Radianingtyas discloses microbial oils with various levels of DHA and arachidonic acid. There is no disclosure of an individual microbial oil, however, that contains at least 45% DHA and 1.5% or less arachidonic acid by weight as required by claim 1. With respect to the level of DHA, although Radianingtyas might be interpreted to disclose that some microorganisms can produce up to 60% DHA,8 Radianingtyas discloses that the DHA content of ONC-T18 is “typical[ly]” 35% of the total intracellular fatty acids, and in each experiment disclosed in Radianingtyas DHA was produced by ONC-T18 at 8 Radianingtyas discloses that “the oil producing microbe can produce a lipid composition comprising from about 25% to about 40% of an omega-3 fatty acid, such as n-3 DHA.” Ex. 1007, 26:31–33. It then gives examples that include 15%, 20%, 45%, 50%, 55%, and 60%, which are outside of the disclosed range. Id. at 26:33–34. Dr. Curtis contends the disclosure as a whole should be read as “from about 15% to about 60% of an omega-3 fatty acid, such as n-3 DHA.” Ex. 1003, 39 n.1. Dr. Curtis identifies no microbe in Radianingtyas, however, that is shown to produce more than 40% DHA, and Radianingtyas expressly notes that the typical DHA content produced by ONC-T18 is 35%. Thus, we question Dr. Curtis’ conclusions regarding the DHA content disclosure of Radianingtyas. levels less than “at least 45%.”9 Ex. 1007, 32:21–25 (noting that the “typical composition of fatty acids” produced by ONC-T18 includes 25% DHA), 34:4–37:14 (noting that the control microorganism produced 13.54%, 19.98%, 18.77%, 18.77%, 21.48%, 28.48%, and 14.13% DHA) (Figure 12), 91 (Table 5) (noting that total DHA produced by ONC-T18 was from 24- 34.2%), 99:22–24 (“Of particular interest is ONC-T18 which produces up to 90% of its C20 to C22 content as DHA which is approximately 35% of the total intracellular fatty acids.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that Radianingtyas discloses microbial oils produced by ONC-T18 that have a DHA content of “at least 45%.” As noted by Petitioner, Radianingtyas provides a definition of “purify” and “purifying,” and notes that when these terms are used, it means that a composition could be, for example, 90% pure. Pet. 11; Ex. 1007, 7:26–8:2. As an example of how the term “purified” may be used, Radianingtyas states “[f]or example, if a disclosed eukaryotic microorganism, for example, produces 35% DHA, this could be further ‘purified’ such that the final lipid composition was greater than 90% DHA.” Id. at 8:2–4. We are directed to no actual microbial oil in Radianingtyas, however, that was purified to have increased levels of DHA. Rather, Petitioner only proffers what Radianingtyas might say if such an oil existed or had been purified to increase levels of DHA.10” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,757,959
• Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2024 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 on all five §103 grounds in the petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” A decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (implemented as a result of SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018)). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Ground 1 is based upon obviousness, not anticipation. Patent Owner’s argument is not well taken because it does not address what fixing Kurita’s single optical fiber (40) in place.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedInstituted

    “The purpose of requiring reasonable diligence by the first to conceive the invention but second to reduce to practice is to assure that the invention was not abandoned or unreasonably delayed by the first inventor during the period after the second inventor entered the field.” Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “A patent owner need not prove the inventor continuously exercised reasonable diligence throughout the critical period; it must show there was reasonably continuous diligence.” Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]here need not necessarily be evidence of activity on every single day if a satisfactory explanation is evidenced.” Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, Patent Owner must provide an explanation that is satisfactory to indicate that the relied-upon computer modeling and prior art search update show reasonably continuous diligence from November 10, 2003 to January 15, 2004. Patent Owner has provided some evidence to show diligence from November 10, 2003 to January 15, 2004, but Patent Owner has not explained why, under the facts of this case, the evidence is sufficient to establish reasonably continuous diligence for the period before Bhandarkar’s effective filing date to the date of constructive reduction to practice. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions as to how Bhandarkar teaches the subject matter of the claims, and we find them sufficiently persuasive at this stage. Based upon the above-discussed evidence and that the optical combiner claimed in claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Bhandarkar. slip op. at 26

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution in view of the district court litigation (Prelim. Resp. 68–69). A Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)2 provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition” (Interim Procedure 9). Petitioner has submitted such a stipulation (Paper 11). Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,198,416
• Mara Renewables Corporation v. DSM IP Assets, B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01167 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “When asserting unpatentability under obviousness, the patent challenger must show a reasonable expectation of success, that is, “the likelihood of success in combining references to arrive at the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, “[t]he reasonable-expectationof-success analysis must be tied to the scope of the claimed invention.” Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., 18 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the trial court’s failure to consider the appropriate scope of the claimed invention in evaluating the reasonable expectation of success constitutes a legal error). Relevant to our Decision here, claim 3 requires its microbial lipid to have, among others, at least 60% by weight DHA in the triglyceride fraction and an AV of 0.5 to 26.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the skill level because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill at the relevant time. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We emphasize that our finding is not on lack of reasonable expectation of success per se. Instead, we merely find neither the Petition nor the Curtis Declaration persuasively addresses “the expected differences in the oxidizability and oxidation rate—and their expected impact on anisidine values—of an oil containing 42% ARA (for which Schaap discloses limited experimental data) versus one containing 60% DHA in the triglyceride fraction (for which Schaap does not).” See id. at 27. In sum, we find Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan, based on the teachings of the asserted prior art, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for the appropriate scope of the claimed invention (that is, a microbial lipid having at least 60% DHA in the triglyceride fraction and an AV of 0.5 to 26). As a result, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in this challenge.” slip op. at 13

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,392,578
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00566 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 34–39, 41–43, and 45 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Owner and its experts proposed claim construction of “effectively treating” as meaning “noninferior,” “statistically noninferior,” or “comparable.” Pet. Reply 4. Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner, and its expert, Dr. Do, advance the proposed construction of “effectively treating, ” with no explanation for what that means, or how it comports with the challenged dependent claims that recite visual acuity limitations ranging from losing less than 15 letters to gaining more than 15 letters. Id. at 4–5.” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,888,601 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,888,601
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00533 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 34–39, 41–43, and 45 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Id. at 18. The similar language of the challenged claims of the ’601 patent, and our reasoning in the related -00881 Decision, compel the same conclusion here, i.e., that the preamble is limiting upon the claims.” slip op. at 43

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,888,601 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,888,601
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2022-01226 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 34–39, 41–43, and 45 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “challenged claims are thus anticipated, we do not reach the additional Grounds 2–7 proposed in the Petition. Furthermore, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is granted-in-part, denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part.” slip op. at 92

  Patent outcomesUS 10,888,601 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,888,601
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00532 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach Grounds 2–6.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Decision. See Ex. 3001, 12–23. As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s reliance on Sanofi and Eli Lilly. See PO Resp. 9. In Sanofi, a non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that the preamble to the claims at issue, reciting “[a] method of increasing survival comprising administering to a patient in need thereof” was limiting upon the claims, in conformance with the court’s prior decisions in Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Sanofi, 757 F. App’x at 992–93. Furthermore, the court held that, because the preamble was limiting, and recited a “method of increasing survival” the proposed claims would now clearly require “increasing survival.” Id. at 994. The preamble to claim 1 of the ’681 patent, however, recites no such “increase” with respect to efficacy, but merely recites “A method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient,” and the remainder of the claim requires no specific efficacy requirement. Nor does Eli Lilly support Patent Owner’s position. In Eli Lilly, the court upheld the Board’s conclusion that the preamble reciting “a method for treating headache in an individual” was limiting upon the claims. Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. However, it noted, in upholding the Board’s conclusion, the Board also “found that while the claims encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Id. (emphasis added). We also find that the similar language of the preamble to challenged claim 1 of the ’681 patent, although encompassing clinical efficacy, does not require it, let alone a “high degree of efficacy.”” slip op. at 33

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

    “the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating” requires a high level of efficacy. In the -00881 Decision, the Board rejected Patent Owner’s similar argument because it required improperly importing limitations into the claims. See Ex. 3001, 22. Specifically, the Board found that: [W]hen the Specification explains that “[t]he amount of VEGF antagonist administered to the patient in each dose is, in most cases, a therapeutically effective amount,” and discloses that “a therapeutically effective amount can be from about 0.05 mg to about 5 mg,” we find that a POSA would have understood that any dosage amount within that range administered according to the invention may, in some cases, result in a detectable improvement in “one or more symptoms or indicia of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or be one that “inhibits, prevents, lessens or delays the progression of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or it may not. In either event, the VEGF antagonist would have been administered for the purpose of treating the eye disorder. In other words, the method of treating the patient with the eye disorder is performed upon administration of the VEGF antagonist to the patient for the purpose of achieving an improvement or beneficial effect in the eye disorder, regardless whether the dosage amount administered actually achieves that intended result. Id. at 21–22 (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Board found that: Patent Owner proposes that the claims require not only achieving a therapeutically effective result, but more specifically, achieving a “high level of efficacy that was noninferior to the standard of care by the time the patent was filed in 2011.” In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner describes a “highly effective treatment for angiogenic eye disorders” as “one that is on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin and can produce visual acuity gains, not just slow vision losses.” The Specification refers to “a high level of efficacy” in one instance, i.e., in the “Background” section. The Specification does not describe there, or elsewhere that “treating,” in the context of the claims or in the art, requires achieving a “high level of efficacy” or providing results “on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin.” Id. at 22 (citations omitted). We adopt the same reasoning here, and find that, for the purposes of this Decision, the evidence of record and the Specification support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to such patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. We consequently reject” slip op. at 35

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

    “The terms “initial dose,” “secondary doses,” and “tertiary doses,” refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist Thus, the “initial dose” is the dose which is administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen (also referred to as the “baseline dose”) ; the “secondary doses” are the doses which are administered after the initial dose; and the “tertiary doses” are the doses which are administered after the secondary doses. The initial, secondary, and tertiary doses may all contain the same amount of dosing regimens, but will generally differ from one another in terms of frequency of administration. Ex. 1001, col. 3 ll. 34–44. Petitioner also notes that the Specification further explains that “the immediately preceding dose” means “in a sequence of multiple administrations, the dose of VEGF antagonist which is administered to a patient prior to the administration of the very next dose in the sequence with no intervening doses.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 54–59; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–45). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “As Petitioner states, Patent Owner relies upon these Exhibits as objective secondary evidence of non-obviousness. See, e.g., PO Resp. 65– 69. However, and as we explain below, because we find that the challenged claims are anticipated by Dixon, we do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments that the claims are non-obvious (Grounds 4–6) or its contentions regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness. See Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that “secondary considerations are not an element of a claim of anticipation”). Consequently, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the Financial Documents as moot.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681

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.