• Coalition For Affordable Drugs (Adroca) LLC v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2017 · IPR2015-01858 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–40 of the ’437 patent were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because S-1 was not prior art under § 102(a) or (b).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “1. Level of Skill Petitioner’s declarants, Drs. Pleasure and Polli, testify that a person of ordinary skill in connection with the ’703 patent would have had an M.D. or Ph.D. in neuroscience or a related field with an understanding of pharmacokinetics and at least some experience in providing drug therapy to MS patients. Ex. 1023 ¶ 16, Ex. 1044 ¶ 13. Additionally, Drs. Pleasure and Polli testify that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had access to a person having an advanced degree in pharmaceutics or pharmaceutical formulation, specifically oral sustained release formulations, or at least five years of experience in formulating sustained oral release drug products and may work as part of a multi-disciplinary team. Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 13–14. Patent Owner does not dispute this recitation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2042 ¶ 68 n.5. We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art identified by Drs. Pleasure and Polli as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of record); In re GPAC Inc.,” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner asserts constructions for the following claim terms, “less than 15 milligrams,” “release profile,” “matrix,” “improving walking,” and “initiating treatment.” Pet. 18–19. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to provide an explanation as to why the identified claim terms require construction and why the Board should depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. Prelim. Resp. 17, n.4. In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Patent Owner and determined that it was unnecessary to construe explicitly the claim terms for purposes of the Institution Decision. See Dec. Instit. 6 (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We also determine here that we need not construe expressly any claim term in order to issue a Final Written Decision regarding the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Provisional provides adequate written description support for the challenged claims of the ’703 patent. We agree with Drs. Lublin and Peck and credit their testimony that one of skill in art reading the Study Design schematic for Example 11 would have understood that a patient in the 10 mg b.i.d. arm of the study would have received 10 mg b.i.d. throughout the two-week upward titration period. As 10 mg b.i.d. is the lowest dose except for placebo, we find that it necessarily 30 follows that those patients in the 10 mg b.i.d. arm of the study do not need upward titration to the treatment dose because they start and finish at the lower 10 mg dose.” slip op. at 30

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Although the burden of persuasion for unpatentability never shifts from Petitioner during the trial, the burden of production may shift. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.2d at 1379. Petitioner adequately met its burden of production by presenting S-1 as prior art that on its face lists authors that differ from the inventors of the patents at issue. See Ex. 1003, 92. Patent Owner has responded with ample and persuasive evidence, however, that Drs. Blight and Cohen are the sole source of the disclosure of S-1. Thus, Patent Owner satisfies any burden of production to refute Petitioner’s case that S-1 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). See supra. Petitioner’s response to Patent Owner’s evidence does not persuade us that the portions of S-1 upon which they rely are not solely attributable to Drs. Blight and Cohen. Specifically, Petitioner offers evidence from the S-1 of a statement that the MS-F202 clinical trial was designed “after extensive consultation with a panel of expert MS neurologists and with the FDA,” arguing that statement indicates that Drs. Blight and Cohen may not be the sole authors 41 of the protocol for this clinical trial. Reply 2. Petitioner further argues that Drs. Blight and Cohen’s deposition testimony supports its contention that Drs. Blight and Cohen may not be the sole authors of the protocol for this clinical trial because they could not recall the details of that consultation. Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1064, 64:18–65:14; Ex. 1063, 76:20–77:20, 80:9–81:14, 110:13–111:2). Petitioner also takes issue with another statement in S-1 indicating that in early 2002, Drs. Blight and Cohen drafted descriptions of the MS-F201 and MS-F202, although version 1.0 of the MS-F202 protocol is dated October 2002. Id. at 2 (citing Paper 28, 16; Ex. 2050, 6). Finally, Petitioner points to publications discussing MS-F201 and MS-F202 where Drs. Blight and Cohen are not consistently named as authors and other authors, such as Drs. Goodman and Katz, are listed. Id. at 3–4. We find that Petitioner’s evidence that allegedly casts doubt on the authorship of the relevant portions of S-1 is not sufficient to overcome the ample, unequivocal evidence presented by Patent Owner that supports our finding that the relevant portions of S-1 are the original work of Drs. Blight and Cohen alone. See In re Katz, 687 F.2d at 455. Both Drs. Cohen and Blight state that they alone are the inventors and sole originators of the work in S-1 upon which Petitioner relies. See Exs. 2044, 2045. Five other declarants, intimately involved in the development of S-1, two of which now work for entities other than Acorda, substantiate this testimony. See Exs. 2046–2048, 2052, 2056. Relying on statements that may, on their face,” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 8,354,437 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,354,437
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs Viii, LLC v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01836 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the prior art did not establish a reasonable expectation of success using lomitapide in the claimed dosing regimen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to reasonable expectation of success, we agree with Patent Owner that the ordinary artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success of combining Pink Sheet with Chang to arrive at the claimed invention. To the extent that Petitioner relies on our Institution Decision, we note that decision was based on the evidence of record at that time. The evidence advanced by Patent Owner during trial, discussed herein, however, tips the scale in favor of a finding different from that set forth in our Institution Decision. slip op. at 36

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “As to Exhibit 1052, which is the Deposition Transcript of S. David Kimball, and which Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner cites in its Reply, Patent Owner argues that it timely objected to the exhibit as an improper duplicate of Exhibit 2304. Mot. Exclude 7. Petitioner responds that Exhibits 2304 and 1052 are the transcripts of Petitioner’s expert. Opp. Mot. Exclude 4. Although acknowledging that the party taking the deposition normally files the transcript, Petitioner asserts that its Reply cites to Ex. 1056, and Patent Owner does not cite to either exhibit. Id. Patent Owner replies that Exhibit 2304 also contains Dr. Kimball’s signed errata sheet and is, thus, the more complete of the two documents. Reply Mot. Exclude. 3. Patent Owner asserts that the citations in Petitioner’s Reply can be updated to reflect the correct exhibit number, if necessary. Id. Given the posture of this proceeding, that is, it is at final written decision, and as Patent Owner notes, the two documents are not exact duplicates, we decline to exclude Ex. 1056, but will allow both Exhibit 1056 and 2034 to remain in the record.” slip op. at 44

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “the unrebutted evidence of commercial success further supports the patentability of the challenged claims. Looking at the entire record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of challenged claims 1‒8 by a preponderance of the evidence over the combination of Pink Sheet and Chang. E. Motion to Amend As discussed above, because we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated the obviousness of the claims by a preponderance of the evidence, we need not reach the merits of Patent Owner’s contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 24). We, thus, dismiss the motion a moot.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “biotechnology and medical device companies.” Id. The press release does not even mention Dr. Stein. Thus, there is nothing in the press release suggesting that the ordinary artisan in the cardiovascular/cardiac field, or interested in MTP inhibitors, should attend the presentation. We, therefore, decline to credit Dr. Mayersohn’s testimony that “[a]person of ordinary skill in the art interested in the development of MTP inhibitors could apparently have attended the meeting or accessed the presentation itself via webcast or on the PPD website shortly thereafter” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 25 (citing the PPD Press Release)), as there was nothing in the press release discussing MTP inhibitors. That finding informs our analysis of the factors set forth in Klopfenstein. Thus, although the ordinary artisan may have been able to copy the presentation, and although there may have been an expectation that the materials could be copied, Petitioner does not provide any evidence establishing that the target audience would have been an ordinary artisan in the relevant field.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,932,268 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,932,268
• Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C. / Douglas Dynamics, Inc. v. Meyer Products LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01839 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 28–31, 36, 38, 39, 43, and 44 are unpatentable under § 103(a); claims 8, 32, 33, and 48–54 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The disclosure of the ’829 patent is expressly addressed to the problem of, and a solution for, unreliable and vulnerable electrical connections caused by splicing auxiliary lights into OEM headlight wiring. The Background of the Invention explains that “[t]raditionally, the auxiliary lights were spliced into the existing wiring for the headlights of the vehicle.” slip op. at 11

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

    “As an initial matter, we observe that whether or not the preamble term “light circuit” is limiting has little bearing on the ultimate disposition of this inter partes review, as it is undisputed that Douglas has identified, for each asserted ground of unpatentability, disclosure of a light circuit. See PO Resp. 11–12. Furthermore, we agree with Douglas that “light circuit” does not connote any structure beyond that explicitly recited in the body of the claims. Indeed, it is unclear that either Meyer or Mr. Ricca disputes such conclusion. For example, Meyer states in its Patent Owner Response that” slip op. at 18

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

    “As a general rule, the words “a” or “an” in a patent claim carry the meaning of “one or more.” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008). That rule is particularly applicable 15 where, as here, those words are used in combination with the open-ended antecedent “comprising.” See, e.g., Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “An exception to the general rule that ‘a’ or ‘an’ means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.” Baldwin Graphic, 512 F.3d at 1342–43. We discern no such exception here. First, Meyer has not identified, and we do not discern, any requirement in the language of the claims to support the conclusion that the recited “an auxiliary light connector to connect an auxiliary light” must be a single auxiliary light connector.” slip op. at 15

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

    “As set forth above, Möller explicitly teaches the incorporation of microprocessors and microcontrollers to improve relay-circuitry-based vehicle electronics systems. Ex. 1006, 4:41–48. Contemporaneous prior art 33 references, including Gould and COP8, disclose advantages obtained through the incorporation of microprocessors and microcontrollers into relay circuitry for controlling end devices, further underscoring that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to modify the relay circuitry of Knepel with the microprocessors and microcontrollers of Möller. See Ex. 1010, 9, 11; Ex. 1011, 14. Moreover, Dr. Neuhalfen testifies, without challenge, that it was well-known at the time of invention of the ’829 patent to use microprocessors to control original vehicle lights, as well as auxiliary lights, and identifies numerous advantages that the proposed combination would afford. Ex. 1014 ¶ 59. Indeed, Meyer’s expert, Mr. Ricca, agrees that it would not have been difficult for an ordinarily skilled artisan to supplement the circuit of Knepel to provide microprocessor control of the relays in that circuit. Ex. 1033, 182:6–11. In view of the teachings of Möller itself, and the contemporaneous prior art, as well as the testimony of Dr. Neuhalfen and Mr. Ricca, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the value of using known elements, i.e., microprocessors and microcontrollers, as taught by Möller, to improve the relay circuitry for controlling original vehicle lights and auxiliary lights of Knepel. We likewise find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the microprocessors of Möller could be incorporated into, i.e., used to supplement, the relay circuitry of Knepel. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,265,829 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,265,829
• Fustibal LLC v. Bayer Healthcare LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2017 · IPR2016-01490 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Riedl was repeatedly considered during prosecution and the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “§ 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Our discretion on whether to institute is guided, in part, by 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which states that “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Patent Owner requests that the Board exercise its discretion to deny institution with respect to Ground 1 because Riedl was expressly considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’553 Patent. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. As noted in section I(E), above, in allowing claims 1–16 of the ’533 Patent, the Examiner expressly referred to Riedl as the closest prior art, yet found that it “fails to teach . . . the instant claimed compounds.” Ex. 2006, 913; see also Ex. 2005, 397, 569; Ex. 2006, 855 (same, with respect to similar claims).” slip op. at 11

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

    “As an initial matter, the above argument fails because, as discussed in section I(C)(iii), above, Riedl does not “expressly disclose[] the rografenib compound,” as Petitioner contends. We further agree with Patent Owner’s observation “that the Petition nowhere engages in a ‘lead compound’ analysis” and, at least with respect to Ground 2, “merely assumes—without explanation—that the POSA would select sorafenib for modification.” Prelim. Resp. 22–23. A lead compound comprises “a natural choice for further development efforts” (Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1008 10 Petitioner provides similar arguments with respect to claims 1–12, 14, and 16. Id. at 22–25. (Fed. Cir. 2009)), i.e., a prior art compound “that would be most promising to modify in order to improve upon its . . . activity and obtain a compound with better activity” (Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “In determining whether a chemist would have selected a prior art compound as a lead, the analysis is guided by evidence of the compound’s pertinent properties.” Otsuka Pharm., 678 F.3d at 1292. “Absent a reason or motivation based on such prior art evidence, mere structural similarity between a prior art compound and the claimed compound does not inform the lead compound selection.” Id. In setting forth Ground 2, Petitioner invokes a person of ordinary skill in the art “who was looking to modify sorafenib.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s expert address why a skilled artisan reading Riedl would select that compound for further development. Given that Riedl does not highlight any of the vast number of disclosed compounds as having particularly beneficial properties or present any enzymatic or biological data, we also do not discern from this reference why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected sorafenib as “a natural choice for further development efforts.”” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would have a PhD, MD, MS, or another degree relating to pharmaceutical chemistry (e.g. biology, chemistry, medicinal chemistry, medicine, pharmacology, or a closely related discipline), and . . . would have substantial familiarity, training, or experience with pharmaceutical compositions.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner has not challenged Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of a skilled artisan. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation for purposes of this opinion. See Prelim. Resp. 6 & n.1; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evident from the prior art). B.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner (correctly) contends that the ’553 Patent expressly defines the claim term “pharmaceutically acceptable salt” as “‘a relatively non-toxic, inorganic or organic acid addition salt of a compound of the present invention.’” Pet. 7 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:56–62). Patent Owner does not presently object to this definition. Based on the specification’s express disclosure, we agree that the cited definition applies. See Prelim. Resp. 6 & n.2. The parties agree that all other terms should be accorded their ordinary and customary meaning. Id.; Pet. 6–7. Our reviewing court counsels that only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we determine that no further construction is necessary. C.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,637,553
• 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
• 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
• 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.