• Swiss Pharma International AG v. Biogen IdecRehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2017 · IPR2016-00916 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing of its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding the obviousness showing insufficient.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Patent Owner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2

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

    “As noted in our Decision, however, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the adjustment of the concentration of natalizumab would have been only routine optimization. Dec. 11. Gordon teaches a 5 mg/ml formulation of natalizumab. Id. The other references relied upon by Petitioner to establish that “IgG formulations containing between 5 and 50 mg/ml were known in the art” do not relate to natalizumab, nor are they limited to the claimed excipient, and Petitioner does not address our concern as to how the concentrations of those antibodies could be extrapolated to natalizumab in the claimed excipient. Id. at 11‒12 (quoting Pet. 27‒28). In fact, the references relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed excipient, contained 10 mg/ml (van Oosten) or 5 mg/ml (Zenepax) of antibody. Id. at 11. Moreover, Petitioner does not address our concern that two of the three references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich to establish that stoppered vials in different sizes were known related to small molecule drugs, and the one that related to antibodies, Zenepax, contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. See Dec. 13.” slip op. at 7

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

    “that the adjustment of the concentration of natalizumab would have been only routine optimization. Dec. 11. Gordon teaches a 5 mg/ml formulation of natalizumab. Id. The other references relied upon by Petitioner to establish that “IgG formulations containing between 5 and 50 mg/ml were known in the art” do not relate to natalizumab, nor are they limited to the claimed excipient, and Petitioner does not address our concern as to how the concentrations of those antibodies could be extrapolated to natalizumab in the claimed excipient. Id. at 11‒12 (quoting Pet. 27‒28). In fact, the references relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed excipient, contained 10 mg/ml (van Oosten) or 5 mg/ml (Zenepax) of antibody. Id. at 11. Moreover, Petitioner does not address our concern that two of the three references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich to establish that stoppered vials in different sizes were known related to small molecule drugs, and the one that related to antibodies, Zenepax, contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. See Dec. 13.” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,900,577
• Lindsay Corporation v. Valmont Industries, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01387 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, 1–17, because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of interconnected spans.” Petitioner quotes the “plurality of sensors” limitation and then quotes from Krieger ’362 to establish that Krieger ’362 discloses a plurality of sensors that maintain alignment between the spans. Pet. 31–33. Petitioner, however, offers no construction for the claim limitation “each one of the plurality of sensors associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of interconnected span,” and, in fact, does not specifically address how Krieger ’362 discloses that limitation in its analysis. Id. Petitioner mentions the limitation only in passing when asserting that “Dr. Collins confirms” that Krieger ’362 discloses the limitation. Id. at 32–33. The cited testimony of Dr. Collins, however, does not set forth any opinion regarding the construction of the limitation or how Krieger ’362 discloses the limitation. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 68–71, 90. Similar to the Petition, Dr. Collins quotes the lengthy “plurality of sensors” claim language but does not specifically address the “each one of the plurality of sensors associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of interconnected spans” requirement within it. See id. ¶ 90. Under these circumstances, Petitioner has not provided adequate support in the Petition as to how Krieger ’362 satisfies the claim limitation “each one of the plurality of sensors associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of interconnected span,” and, thus, fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 1 is rendered obvious by Krieger ’362. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring Petitioner to identify how the “challenged claim is to be construed”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (requiring Petitioner to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner first argues that we should decline to institute because Krieger ’362 was before the Patent Office during prosecution and considered by the Examiner. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Although Krieger ’362 was considered on some level during prosecution of the ’979 patent because it was before the Examiner, the reference was never applied or discussed by the Examiner or Patent Owner. Under these circumstances, we decline Patent Owner’s request to use our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “5 Petitioner proposes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’979 patent would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical or mechanical engineering with 3 to 5 years experience in the design of electromechanical systems, including electric motors and variable speed drives.” Pet. 28. Patent Owner does not address this assertion. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Krieger ’362 discloses “each one of the plurality of sensors associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of interconnected spans.” Petitioner quotes the “plurality of sensors” limitation and then quotes from Krieger ’362 to establish that Krieger ’362 discloses a plurality of sensors that maintain alignment between the spans. Pet. 31–33. Petitioner, however, offers no construction for the claim limitation “each one of the plurality of sensors associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of interconnected span,” and, in fact, does not specifically address how Krieger ’362 discloses that limitation in its analysis. Id. Petitioner mentions the limitation only in passing when asserting that “Dr. Collins confirms” that Krieger ’362 discloses the limitation. Id. at 32–33. The cited testimony of Dr. Collins, however, does not set forth any opinion regarding the construction of the limitation or how Krieger ’362 discloses the limitation. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 68–71, 90. Similar to the Petition, Dr. Collins quotes the lengthy “plurality of sensors” claim language but does not specifically address the “each one of the plurality of sensors associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of interconnected spans” requirement within it. See id. ¶ 90. Under these circumstances, Petitioner has not provided adequate support in the Petition as to how Krieger ’362 satisfies the claim limitation “each one of the plurality of sensors associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of interconnected span,” and, thus, fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that independent claim 1 is rendered obvious by Krieger ’362. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring Petitioner to identify how the “challenged claim is to be construed”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (requiring Petitioner to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art”).” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,948,979
• Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2015-01490 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 10–15, 23, 25, 27, 30, and 41–43 are unpatentable; claims 17 and 47 were not shown unpatentable; claims 28 and 29 were cancelled.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “based on the complex as a whole, rather than just the carbohydrate component, as Fishbane related to iron dextran complexes. Reply 10. We agree with Petitioner that the language of the term “substantially non-immunogenic carbohydrate component” itself only requires an assessment of the immunogenicity of the carbohydrate component, and disagree with Patent Owner that the claims require an assessment of the immunogenicity of the iron carbohydrate complex as a whole. In that regard, we note that the Specification of the ’702 patent supports our construction that the “substantially non-immunogenic carbohydrate component” is limited to the carbohydrate component as opposed to the iron carbohydrate complex as a whole. Specifically, the Specification teaches in the background section that previously available iron dextran products suffered from a “high incidence of anaphylactoid reactions . . . believed to be caused by the formation of antibodies to the dextran moiety,” while “[o]ther parenteral iron products (e.g., iron sucrose and iron gluconate) do not contain the dextran moiety, and the incidence of anaphylaxis with these products is markedly lower.” Ex. 1001, 1:53–57; see also id. at 11:3‒4 (“non-immunogenic carbohydrate component; no cross reactivity with anti-dextran antibodies”). Moreover, the language of independent claim 1 itself does not require a non-immunogenic complex, but only specifies that the “iron carbohydrate complex has a substantially non-immunogenic carbohydrate component.” Moreover, we decline to limit the term “substantially non- immunogenic carbohydrate complex” to require an incidence level of lower than 0.6%. Rather, what is supported by the claim language and the Specification is a low risk such that the incidence of adverse events of the carbohydrate complex is lower than dextran. See, e.g., Tr. 53‒54 (counsel for Patent Owner acknowledging that Fishbane was not incorporated by reference, and that it was only cited as a “see generally”).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “We do not find a significant different between the requirements for the ordinary artisan proposed by Petitioner and Patent Owner. We agree with Petitioner (Pet. 14) that the best evidence of the level of skill in the art are the references themselves, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and, thus, we need not explicitly adopt either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art. Moreover, we note that the result of the analysis regarding the patentability of the claims would be the same under the requirements for the ordinary artisan proposed by either Petitioner or Patent Owner.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableInherency foundUnpatentable

    “Petition (Pet. 22–27), we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Geisser teaches all the limitations of claim 1, either inherently or explicitly. That is, we agree with Petitioner that Geisser teaches a method of treating a disease characterized by an iron deficiency, specifically iron deficiency anemia (Pet. 23; Ex. 1003, Abstract, 1:4‒7, 2:4‒7, 9:30‒31). We further agree that Geisser teaches a method of administering an iron carbohydrate complex, that is, iron carboxymaltose, in a single dosage form of at least 0.6 grams of elemental iron, as Geisser teaches administering iron carbohydrate complexes as a single dose of 500‒ 1000 mg of iron. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:26‒4:1, 8:7-10, 10:14‒17). In that regard, we credit the testimony of Dr. Linhardt that Geiser discloses iron carboxymaltose, and that Geisser describes a general synthetic method that is nearly identical to the method described in the ʼ702 patent. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8‒10, 13. In addition, as Geisser teaches one of the iron carbohydrate complexes explicitly recited by claim 1, that is, iron carboxymaltose, it would inherently meet the limitation that the carbohydrate component is substantially non-immunogenic and would have substantially no cross-reactivity with anti-dextran antibodies. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.”). The teachings of Geisser support that finding, as Geisser specifically teaches that the complexes have low toxicity and a reduced danger of anaphylactic shock. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:26‒ 2:1, 8:7‒10); see also Ex. 1001, 12:12‒14 (noting that as “[t]he iron carboxymaltose complex (e.g., VIT-45) generally does not contain dextran and [it] does not react with dextran antibodies.”).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,754,702 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,754,702
• Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Shire LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-02009 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Amerigen’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 uninstituted because Mehta did not disclose the claimed release limitation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Amerigen’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2

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

    “These arguments are not persuasive. First, Petitioner cites no authority for the proposition that a generic disclosure, such as that discussed above, is an express disclosure of every possible permutation of that generic disclosure. Second, even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that Mehta’s combined disclosures constitute an express disclosure of a composition capable of delayed release of “essentially all [of the drug] . . . within about 60 minutes,” non-instituted claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 further require that the delayed release is enteric (i.e., the composition releases the second dose of the drug in the intestines, not the stomach). As we noted in the Decision, however, Mehta does not use the word “enteric,” nor does Mehta discuss delivery of the delayed dose to the intestines. Dec. 28. Nevertheless, we considered the possibility that Mehta might inherently disclose a composition that releases into the intestine not less than 80% of the second dose of the drug within about 60 minutes of the delayed release. Accordingly, we turned to Mehta’s Examples 1–5, but determined that not one of the exemplified delayed release compositions achieved a release of “essentially all” of the drug from a delayed release coating within about 60 minutes—regardless of whether the delay was long enough to be considered enteric.3 Id. at 24. As we noted in the Decision,” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “This argument is not persuasive. We considered, for example, Dr. Elder’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect “that the number of variables and number of experimental runs to optimize the coating for the amphetamine would present no unusual problems of technology or expense” because one “can use statistical experimental design to optimize a formulation within the 21 trials that Mehta discloses to design one for amphetamine salts” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 471), as well as Dr. Elder’s testimony that one would expect “that routine optimization of the coating using the parameters identified by Mehta would provide enough guidance for controlling the release timing” (id. ¶ 512). Nevertheless, we found the actual results reported by Mehta to be more compelling. As we stated in the Decision: [N]one of Mehta’s delayed release formulations that could be considered to be enteric by virtue of their delay periods (i.e., those with delays of 4 or 5 hours) had release rates of “essentially all” of the drug anywhere near the required time period. Even if Mehta could be read to suggest that a delay of 4 or 5 hours followed by a release of essentially all of the delayed dose within 60 minutes would be desirable, we are not persuaded that Mehta’s disclosure that “the amount of drug released is influenced by: amount of coating, ratio of the two 4 Amerigen supported its challenges with the Declaration of Edmund J. Elder, Jr., Ph.D., R.Ph., executed September 30, 2015 (“Elder Declaration”) (Ex. 1005). polymers, amount of talc, and curing time” is adequate guidance for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a dosage form. In general, Mehta demonstrates that longer delays are accompanied by longer release times, with formulations that could be considered to provide enteric release (i.e., a release after a 4 or 5 hour [delay]) having 85% release times of 8 or more hours. Dec. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003, Table 1).” slip op. at 8

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
• Adlens USA, Inc. / Adlens, Ltd. v. Superfocus Holdings LLC, Superfocus, LLC, Insolvency Services Group, Inc., And Dr. Stephen KurtinAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01824 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over Kurtin ’532 and Kurtin ’629 in view of Gordon and/or Cronin.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “manually adjustable” (claim 1) Patent Owner contends that this term should be construed to mean “capable of being manually adjusted by a wearer of the spectacles.” PO Resp. 7. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s proposed construction improperly incorporates an extraneous limitation—by a wearer—into the claims. Pet. Reply 6. We agree with Petitioner. Claim 1 of the ’797 Patent expressly recites “by a wearer” (Ex. 1002, 4:46), but there is no such limitation in either of claims 1 or 4 of the ’487 Patent. Patent Owner identifies various specification passages discussing adjustment by a wearer or user. PO Resp. 7–8. None of these passages amounts to an express definition or disclaimer requiring that “by a wearer” be read into the claims not reciting that phrase. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325 (“[T]his court counsels the PTO to avoid the temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of specification passages.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “Our reviewing court instructs that “merely because an element does not include the word ‘means’ does not automatically prevent that element from being construed as a means-plus-function element.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed.Cir.1996)). “Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.” Id. at 1350. We agree with Patent Owner that the term, “adjustable connector” (claims 1 and 4), should be construed as a means-plus-function term. The word “connector” is “tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it is a generic description that does not connote a definite structure. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Dr. Savidis agrees that the term, “adjustable connector,” is a generic term that does not define a particular structure. Ex. 2003, 82:15–84:8. Accordingly, we construe this term in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art We determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent education and one to two years of experience with optics. Our determination is supported 3 The parties dispute whether the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’487 Patent Specification includes a flexure. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:34–37); Pet. Reply 7 n.2. It is not necessary for us to resolve this dispute because a flexure is not relevant to any ground of unpatentability raised in the Petition. by the testimony of Dr. Plummer (Ex. 2002 ¶ 49), as well as the testimony of Dr. Savidis (Ex. 2003, 66:24–67:7, 67:16–20, 69:14–20). We also rely on Petitioner’s asserted references as establishing the level of skill in the art at the relevant time. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Based upon their stated qualifications, we consider both Dr. Savidis and Dr. Plummer qualified to opine from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art regarding the subject matter of the ’487 Patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–11, Appendix A (Savidis CV); Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 9–22, Attachment A (Plummer CV).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason or motivation to modify the spectacles of Kurtin ’532 to provide independent adjustability of each lens. Our finding is supported by the undisputed testimony of Dr. Savidis that “the desirability of having independently and manually adjustable, liquid filled, variable focus lenses was known in the art well prior to 2010.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 77. Our finding is further supported by Dr. Savidis’ testimony that both Gordon (Ex. 1007) and Cronin (Ex. 1006) describe adjustable, liquid filled, variable focus eyeglasses in which each eye’s lens can be manually adjustable independently of the other eye’s lens. Id. Dr. Savidis’ testimony (and our finding) is further supported by Gordon, which discloses that the focus of each lens can be independently adjusted by turning a screw. Ex. 1007, Figs. I–IV, 1:67–80, 1:87–100, 2:5– 22; see also Ex. 1011, 75:9–13 (Plummer agrees that Gordon’s screws are independently adjustable.). Dr. Savidis’ testimony (and our finding) is also supported by Cronin, which discloses left and right calibration screws for allowing independent adjustment of the focal length of the left and right lenses, respectively. Ex. 1006, 4:27–32, 5:16–22, 5:66–6:2, Figs. 2 and 4. We also rely on Cronin’s disclosure of the purpose and advantage of the independent adjustment feature: According to Cronin, it allows the focal lengths of the left and right lens assemblies to be matched or related to each other in a pre-determined manner to compensate for unusual visual disorders, thereby avoiding visual discomfort by focusing each of the user’s eyes at sensibly the same object distance. Id. at 5:9–16. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that one way suggested by the prior art to provide independent adjustability of each eye’s lens would have been to replace the non-adjustable connector (leaf hinge 23) of Kurtin ’532 with an adjustable connector, such as the nut, screw, and tab arrangement of Kurtin ’629. See PO Resp. 15 (describing Petitioner’s first proposed modification); Tr. 14:16–20 (Petitioner is relying on modifications 1 and 3.). Our finding is supported by Dr. Savidis’ testimony that, in order to have independent adjustability of each lens unit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to seek a suitable adjuster structure to replace the non-adjustable connector of Kurtin ’532. Ex. 1003 ¶ 77. Our finding is also supported by Dr. Savidis’ testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have exercised no more than routine skill in the art to implement this substitution by utilizing existing seal 21 of Kurtin ’532 shown in Figure 3 and by attaching tabs to or creating tabs for Kurtin’s ’532 front and rear rings to accommodate Kurtin’s ’629 screw and nut.” Id. ¶ 81. Our finding is further supported by Kurtin ’532 Figure 5, which shows leaf hinge 23 connecting the front and rear rings, and Kurtin ’532 Figure 3, which shows elastomeric bellows 21 allowing the rear ring to move with respect to the front ring. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 32, 33, Figs. 3, 5. Our finding is further supported by Kurtin ’629, which discloses adjustable spectacles including nut 20, screw 21, and actuating tabs 19, where nut 20 can be turned by the wearer to adjust the optical power of the lenses. Ex. 1009, Abstract, Figs. 1–3, 3:50–4:9.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,708,487 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,708,487
• Adlens USA, Inc. / Adlens, Ltd. v. Superfocus Holdings LLC, Superfocus, LLC, Insolvency Services Group, Inc., And Dr. Stephen KurtinAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01821 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 14–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurtin ’532 and Kurtin ’629 in view of Gordon and/or Cronin; anticipation by Cronin was not shown for claims 3–12 and 14–17.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification . . . when [it] expressly disclaim[s] the broader definition.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We construe claim terms only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “Our reviewing court instructs that “merely because an element does not include the word ‘means’ does not automatically prevent that element from being construed as a means-plus-function element.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed.Cir.1996)). “Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.” Id. at 1350. We agree with Patent Owner that the terms, “adjustable element” (claim 3) and “controllable spacing member” (claim 15), should be construed as means-plus-function terms. The words “element” and “member” are the same as or similar to the words the Federal Circuit indicated are “tantamount to using the word ‘means.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Dr. Savidis agrees that the terms, “adjustable element” and “controllable spacing member,” do not define a particular structure. Ex. 2003, 76:4–21, 77:1–7, 80:8–17. Accordingly, we construe these terms in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. We first identify the claimed function, and then we determine what structure disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351; In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art We determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent education and one to two years of experience with optics. Our determination is supported by the testimony of Dr. Plummer (Ex. 2002 ¶ 49), as well as the testimony of Dr. Savidis (Ex. 2003, 66:24–67:7, 67:16–20, 69:14–20). We also rely on Petitioner’s asserted references as establishing the level of skill in the art at the relevant time. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Plummer testifies that “assembly of Gordon’s spectacles would have to be performed by a skilled technician.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 165 (emphasis added). That testimony does not persuasively support Patent Owner’s argument, PO Resp. 45, that Gordon’s adjustment can only be performed by a skilled technician. To the extent that Dr. Plummer’s testimony could be read to support Patent Owner’s argument, we give greater weight to Dr. Savidis’ testimony, which is consistent with Gordon’s disclosure of an adjustment that can be performed “quickly and readily.” Ex. 1013, 1:14, 1:18.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,967,797 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,967,797
• Dermira, Inc. v. Purepharm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01594 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hays or obvious over the listed combinations; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable for lack of a reason to add another sweating therapy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In interpreting claim terms, the claims themselves provide substantial guidance. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, claim 1, from which claims 2–8 depend, recites the dosed amount of glycopyrrolate in solution as “an amount ranging from 3.0 wt. % to 4 wt. %.” Because claim 1 describes the dosed amount by the strength/concentration, it supports our conclusion that term “dosed amount” is not limited by the volume of the glycopyrrolate solution.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenMixed

    “Petitioner may well be correct that preferring a non-anticholinergic does not necessarily exclude administering “another oral and/or topical therapy for reduction of sweating,” as required by challenged claim 4. Petitioner, however, does not point to any credible evidence or otherwise explain why an ordinary artisan would have chosen another therapy to reduce sweating to be administered in combination with glycopyrrolate. Without some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as to why an ordinary artisan would have added a second therapeutic for reducing sweating to the transdermal patch of Bodor, which uses the anticholinergic to eliminate the formation of an aqueous layer between the delivery system and the skin to enhance the penetration of the transdermal drug being delivered, Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating that claim 4 20 would have been obvious over the combination of Bobrove and Bodor. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 20

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

    “(citing Ex. 1009, 1821). Hays instructs that glycopyrrolate solutions should be carefully applied while avoiding the mouth, nose, and eyes. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 1798, 1809). For example, it discloses applying a cotton applicator dipped in the glycopyrrolate solution to the skin while holding the hair up out the way to treat patients with gustatory sweating in the hairline. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Dr. Guy testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood the cotton applicator in Hays “as being any of a cotton ball, a cotton pad, a cotton swab, or having a cotton component as a part of a larger applicator.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 72. According to Hays, glycopyrrolate in concentrations of 0.5%, 1.0%, and up to 4% provided effective control of gustatory sweating with no significant side effects. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hays discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Bobrove specifically teaches applying a “roll on” glycopyrrolate solution. Ex. 1008, 6:26–27, 6:36–37. It, however, also generally teaches that glycopyrrolate is administered topically. Id. at 4:1. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to look for other means to apply glycopyrrolate. As Dr. Guy testifies, “[t]here are a limited number of ways to topically deliver a drug to a patient’s skin.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 16. In addition, Bobrove suggests to avoid the eyes, nose, and mouth during the topical administration. Ex. 1008, 5:37–39. Given these considerations, Bodor provides an effective alternative: a cotton cloth to absorb the drug and rub it on the skin. Ex. 1030, 15:39–54; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 17 (explaining that, at the time of the invention, an ordinary artisan would have known that use of medicated pads “allowed for topical application of a solution, for example to a subject’s face, while excluding application to sensitive areas such as the eyes or mucous membranes”). Thus, we conclude Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ordinary artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Bobrove and Bodor. In sum, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ordinary artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Bobrove and Bodor, and that the combination teaches each and every limitation of claims 1 and 2. Claims 4, 5, and 8” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,252,316 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,252,316
• Dermira, Inc. v. Purepharm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01593 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–10 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hays or obvious over the stated combinations; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable for lack of a reason to add another sweating therapy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In interpreting claim terms, the claims themselves provide substantial guidance. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, the challenged claims recite the dosed amount of glycopyrrolate in solution as “an amount ranging from 1.0 wt. % to 6 wt. %” (claim 1); “an amount ranging from 2.0 wt. % to 6.0 wt. %” (claim 9); and “an amount ranging from 2.0 wt. % to 4.0 wt. %” (claim 10). Because the claims describe the dosed amount by the strength/concentration, they support our conclusion that term “dosed amount” is not limited by the volume of the glycopyrrolate solution.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties disagree over the level of ordinary skill.8 See Pet. 17–18; PO Resp. 3; Reply 9. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to resolve this dispute because the prior art itself reflects an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “not qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art because he is not a clinician, physician, or pharmacist. PO Resp. 3–4. We disagree with Patent Owner on this issue. All asserted references relate to topical administration of pharmaceutical compositions. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 4:1; Ex. 1010, 2:35–38; Ex. 1030, 3:60–61. In addition, the challenged ’524 patent relates to the topical delivery of glycopyrrolate to reduce excessive sweating and minimize side effects. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:13–21. Dr. Guy has over 30 years of experience in fields including topical drug delivery, transdermal” slip op. at 16

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

    “water base and a vanishing cream base in 0.5 to 1% concentration. It completely controls gustatory sweating for several days or more.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1009, 1821). Hays instructs that glycopyrrolate solutions should be carefully applied while avoiding the mouth, nose, and eyes. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 1798, 1809). For example, it discloses applying a cotton applicator dipped in the glycopyrrolate solution to the skin while holding the hair up out the way to treat patients with gustatory sweating in the hairline. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Dr. Guy testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood the cotton applicator in Hays “as being any of a cotton ball, a cotton pad, a cotton swab, or having a cotton component as a part of a larger applicator.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 90. According to Hays, glycopyrrolate in concentrations of 0.5%, 1.0%, and up to 4% provided effective control of gustatory sweating with no significant side effects. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hays discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,679,524 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,679,524
• Luye Pharma Group Ltd. / Luye Pharma(Usa) Ltd. et al. v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd. And Alkermes Controlled Therapeutics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2016-01095 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 and 17–23 were unpatentable over Goldenheim alone or in the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4, 42.108. Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1‒13 and 17‒23. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of those claims.” slip op. at 2

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

    “[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. . . . [I]t is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, as noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner is using disparate teachings of the Goldenheim reference to attempt to establish that the claims of the challenged patent are anticipated by that reference. The disclosure of Goldenheim of a viscosity of 35 cp in certain instances is a single sentence from that document, and Goldenheim provides no guidance as to what those circumstances may be. Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the ordinary artisan would have read that viscosity limitation into the formulation used by Example 16, which Petitioner relies upon to meet the concentration of microparticles required by challenged claim 1. In that regard, we note that Example 16 does not mention viscosity, and specifically teaches the use of an injection vehicle of 0.5% CMC and 0.1% Tween 80 in water. Ex. 1004, 52:27‒28” slip op. at 10

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

    “references remedy the deficiencies discussed above with respect to the anticipation rejection. As the Supreme Court pointed out in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” Id. at 418. Rather, the Court stated: [I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does . . . because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. Id. at 418-419 (emphasis added); see also id. at 418 (requiring a determination of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”) (emphasis added). In the instant proceeding, Petitioner has not provided a reason, however, as to why the ordinary artisan would have taken Goldenheim’s one mention of a viscosity of 35 cp and applied it to the formulation in Example 16 relied upon by Petitioner to meet the concentration limitation of independent challenged claim 1. Specifically, as noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 20), Goldenheim teaches that “[i]n certain instances, the final reconstituted product viscosity may be, e.g., about 35 cps” (Ex. 1004, 35:11) but does not explain what those instances may be, much less tying that disclosure to the concentration of microparticles used in Example 16, which makes no mention of viscosity.” slip op. at 14

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,667,061
• Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Foods, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2016-01105 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1 and 6–11 anticipated by Neilson or claims 1 and 5–11 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “October 6, 2014—the date the 2014 Complaint alleging infringement of the ’658 patent was served on Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 5, 11. It is undisputed, however, that Patent Owner did not own the ’658 patent at the time the 2014 Complaint was filed and served. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 7; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 5–7. Title to the ’658 patent was transferred to Patent Owner by an assignment executed January 25, 2016. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 9; Ex. 1030 ¶ 7, Ex. C (patent assignment). Accordingly, Patent Owner lacked standing to sue for infringement of the ’658 patent at the time the 2014 Complaint was filed and served. Paradise Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[I]n order to assert standing for patent infringement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that it held enforceable title to the patent at the inception of the lawsuit.”). The patent counts of the 2014 Complaint were jurisdictionally defective, and the defect could not be cured after the filing date of the complaint, e.g., by a subsequent assignment or by joining the patent title holder to the lawsuit. Alps S., LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co., 787 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 897 (2016) (“The party asserting patent infringement is ‘required to have legal title to the patents on the day it filed the complaint and that requirement can not be met retroactively.’”) (quoting Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 625 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). The Delaware district court was required to—and actually did— dismiss the patent infringement counts of the 2014 Complaint for lack of Article III standing. Ex. 1031 n.1 (Delaware district court order granting motion for voluntary dismissal: “the court lacks jurisdiction to make a judgment on the merits”); see also, Abraxis, 625 F.3d at 1367 (“[T]he action must be dismissed because [plaintiff] lacked standing on the day it filed the action.”); Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 402 F.3d 1198, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[I]f the original plaintiff lacked Article III initial standing, the suit must be dismissed, and the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by the addition of a party with standing, . . . nor by the subsequent purchase of an interest in the patent in suit.”) (citing Paradise, 315 F.3d at 1309). Thus, the allegation of infringement of the ’658 patent in the 2014 Complaint was not a proper federal pleading and did not trigger the one-year time period under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner was not served with a complaint properly alleging infringement of the ’658 patent until January 2016. The instant petition was filed in May 2016. Accordingly, the Petition is not time-barred under § 315(b).” slip op. at 9

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

    “unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 1 and 5–11 as unpatentable under § 103. Pet. 9. Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, institution of an inter partes review is denied.” slip op. at 2

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

    “of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner and Patent Owner offer competing constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 18–20; Prelim. Resp. 26–35. We determine that only the following claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “position.” During a mixing operation, the ’658 patent describes how the cup holder is reciprocated to move axially upward so the mixing element is in a position within the liquid-filled cup, i.e. the recited “first position,” then reciprocated downward so the mixing element is moved upward to the recited “second position” closer to the opening at the top of the cup, “to allow the blade to pass through the full contents of the cup more than one time.” Ex. 1001, 3:58–64. When the mixing element is moved upward within the cup to the second position, the weight of the splash shield must be sufficient to keep the liquid-filled cup in the cup holder. Id. at 4:3–10 (“heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the cup to overcome any upward force created by the mixing blade being moved upwardly in the cup”). The force generated by upward movement of the mixing element is not further described in the ’658 patent, although the ’658 patent provides a preferred embodiment where a splash shield weighing 5 pounds (dependent claim 5) provides sufficient downward force to perform the recited function. Id. at 4:20–23. Petitioner argues that “sufficient mass” in claim 1 should be construed in accordance with the interpretation allegedly offered by Patent Owner in the dismissed patent action: “the splash shield applies sufficient weight to the top of the cup to retain the cup in the cupholder during mixing.” Pet. 19 (no citation). Petitioner further argues that “the mass of the splash shield” limitation in claim 6 should be construed in accordance with the construction allegedly offered by Patent Owner in the dismissed patent action: “the splash shield applies sufficient weight to the top of the cup to prevent separation of the cup from the cupholder during mixing.” Id. (no citation). Patent Owner responds with a slightly different interpretation of a splash shield having a “sufficient mass”: “heavy enough to retain the vessel within the holder during relative movement of the mixing element and vessel.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:3–24; Ex. 2025 (definition of “sufficient”)). Both parties appear to agree that the ’658 patent describes the “sufficient mass” of the splash shield in functional terms as enough weight to retain the vessel or cup within the holder during mixing. Ex. 1001, 3:65– 4:23. Based on the description provided in the ’658 patent, the claim language at issue in claim 1 – “the splash shield having sufficient mass to retain the vessel within the holder during relative movement of the mixing element and vessel from the first position to the second position when liquid is present in the vessel” – is entitled to its plain and ordinary meaning: “the splash shield is heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the vessel so as to retain the vessel within the holder when the mixing element moves upwardly in the vessel from the first position to the second position when liquid is present.” See Ex. 1001, 4:3–10 (“heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the cup to overcome any upward force created by the mixing blade being moved upwardly in the cup”). The claim language in claim 6 “the mass of the splash shield preventing separation of the holder and the vessel during translation” is similarly construed to mean “the splash shield is heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the vessel so as to prevent separation of the holder and the vessel during translation of the mixing element or holder.”” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,520,658

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.