• Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., And Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2017 · IPR2016-01027 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over McGinity, Joshi, and Palermo.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “DISCUSSION A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’976 patent would have “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, polymer chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical technology, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacology, and/or a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex.1009 ¶ 17). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 26. We, therefore, apply that skill level in our analysis, with the understanding that the level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

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

    “The Specification teaches the following: The term “sustained release” is defined for purposes of the present invention as the release of the opioid analgesic from the oral dosage form at such a rate that blood (e.g., plasma) concentrations (levels) are maintained within the therapeutic range but below toxic levels over an extended period of time, e.g., from about 12 to about 24 hours as compared to an immediate release product. Preferably the sustained release is sufficient to provide a twice-a-day or a once-a-day formulation. Ex. 1001, 4:56–64. The use of “e.g.” in the above definition for “sustained release” plainly indicates that a 12 to about 24 hour time period is exemplary. Thus, we decline to limit the claim term as Patent Owner would have us do. Rather, we construe “extended release” as “release of the opioid analgesic from the oral dosage form at a rate such that blood (e.g., plasma) concentrations (levels) are maintained within the therapeutic range but below toxic levels over a period of time longer than that of an immediate release of the opioid analgesic.”” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Claim 1 is drawn to a dosage form—a composition. Patent Owner does not point out how the recitation of “abuse deterrent” in the preamble modifies the structurally complete dosage form recited in the body of claim 1. See Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A] preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’”) (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed.Cir.1997)). We conclude, therefore, that the term “abuse deterrent” is a goal of the invention, that is, it is merely a statement of intended use that is not entitled to patentable weight.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner

    “iv. “core matrix” The parties agree that the broadest reasonable construction of “core matrix” is “a blended mixture having: (a) PEO having a molecular weight of from about 300,000 to about 5,000,000 daltons, (b) magnesium stearate, and (c) oxycodone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of oxycodone.” Ex. 3001. We adopt that agreed-upon construction for purposes of this Decision. v.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,060,976 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,060,976
• Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2017 · IPR2017-00731 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted Hospira’s rehearing request and instituted review of claims 1–14 for obviousness over Baselga ’94 and Baselga ’96.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “recites “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative.” In the Petition and the Preliminary Response, neither party proposed a construction for that term. Patent Owner, however, argues that “[e]ven if a person of ordinary skill would have chosen to combine an anti-ErbB2 antibody and a taxoid, there is no reason an ordinarily skilled artisan would have avoided anthracyclines as part of that treatment.” Prelim. Resp. 52 (emphasis added). In our Decision denying institution, we agreed with Patent Owner, stating that evidence of the record is “insufficient to suggest that an ordinary artisan would have avoided anthracyclines while pursuing the combination therapy with anti-ErbB2 antibody and a taxoid in a treatment regimen for humans.” Dec. 10 (emphasis added). In its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner contends that we erred in interpreting the limitation “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative” as requiring “avoidance” of an anthracycline derivative. Reh’g Req. 6. According to Petitioner, this term “is a negative limitation that is satisfied by anti-ErbB2 antibody–paclitaxel combinations that do not include an [anthracycline] derivative.” Id. at 5. After reconsidering the current record, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. In particular, because Baselga ’94 suggests a therapeutic composition consisting of an anti-ErbB2 antibody and paclitaxel, and does not suggest that doxorubicin must necessarily be included as part of the same treatment regimen, we are persuaded that the reference satisfies the limitation “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative.” Cf. Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C., 412 F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (concluding the prior art anticipates a claim requiring a composition “essentially free of antioxidants,” because the prior art teaches “optional inclusion” of antioxidants, “despite no express teaching to exclude the antioxidants”).” slip op. at 17

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

    “In sum, Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence, for purposes of instituting trial, to show that in considering prior therapy received, an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to treat patients with ErbB2- overexpressing breast cancer by administering a combination of an anti- ErbB2 antibody and a taxoid, and “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative.”” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner, however, points to other evidence to show that prior art teaches an ordinary artisan to combine an anti-ErbB2 antibody with a taxoid. Specifically, Petitioner refers to Baselga ʼ94 for teaching that, in mouse xenografts, “individual treatment with either anti-HER2 4D5 or paclitaxel alone resulted in 35% growth inhibition whereas the combination ‘resulted in a major antitumor activity with 93% inhibition of growth’ without increasing toxicity.” Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1005 at 4). Similarly, Baselga ’96, citing Baselga ’94, teaches that “[i]n preclinical studies, both in vitro and in xenografts, rhuMAb HER2 markedly potentiated the antitumor effects of several chemotherapeutic agents, including … paclitaxel without increasing their toxicity.” Id. at 44 (quoting Ex. 1004, 15). Based on these teachings, we are persuaded that an ordinary artisan would have had a reason to treat HER2-positive breast cancer patients with a combination of rhuMAb HER2 and a taxoid.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner argues that Exhibit 2029, which states that “breast cancers that overexpress p185 [i.e., HER2] will not respond well to Taxol,” teaches away from the claimed combination therapy. Prelim. Resp. 51 (citing Ex. 2029,5 1362). We are not persuaded on this record. In an obviousness inquiry, we must analyze the prior art as a whole, and not individually. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that the question is “whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination”). Other evidence of record shows paclitaxel had been approved for treating breast cancer (see, e.g., Ex. 1025, 10), demonstrates synergy of paclitaxel and an anti-ErbB2 antibody in human breast cancer xenografts (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1004, 15), and suggests clinical trials of the combination therapy (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1004, 15). Weighing all evidence of record, we are not persuaded that prior art as a whole teaches away from combining paclitaxel and an anti-ErbB2 antibody in treating HER2-positive cancers.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,846,441
• Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC / Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2017 · IPR2016-01242 · APJ Francisco C Prats · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable: Petitioner failed to establish obviousness of claims 1–9 over Kohn 1991 and Silverman, or claims 10–13 over those references and the ’729 patent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Based on the record developed in this proceeding, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 of the ’551 patent are unpatentable for obviousness over Kohn 1991 and Silverman, nor has Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 10–13 of the ’551 patent are unpatentable for obviousness over Kohn 1991, Silverman, and the ’729 patent. slip op. at 4

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “As provided in 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” Thus, “a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). One indication that a new issue has been raised in a reply is where a petitioner submits “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case” of unpatentability of an original claim. Id.; see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Board did not err or abuse its discretion in declining to consider new contentions and evidence in reply advanced to supplement unpatentability rationale presented in petition).” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Petitioner relies on the uncorroborated testimony of its expert, Dr. Wang, as support for its contention that compound 3l’s methoxyamino group is an uncommon moiety among commercial pharmaceuticals that presents potential synthetic and stability issues, and also for its contention that the posited substitute, a methoxymethyl group, is a more common and acceptable moiety for pharmaceutically active compounds. See Pet. 44–45; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 106, 107 (Wang Decl.) (citing no documentary support). As stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” We, nonetheless, acknowledge Dr. Wang’s education and experience (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 6–10, Appendix A), and note that Patent Owner does not dispute specifically the accuracy of Dr. Wang’s assertions in this regard. We thus acknowledge that, as a general principle in the art of medicinal chemistry, an ordinary artisan seeking to develop a commercial pharmaceutical compound ordinarily would have considered the substitution of a methoxyamino group with another more common and acceptable moiety, particularly because of any potential synthetic and stability issues associated with the methoxyamino group in the compound. Petitioner, however, does not identify a specific reason as to why that substitution would have been considered desirable for any of the prior art anticonvulsant compounds taught by Kohn 1991, let alone compound 3l identified as the lead compound.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that the relevant art is medicinal chemistry. Pet 12. As to the level of ordinary skill in that art as of March 15, 1996 (the earliest possible priority date of the ’551 patent), Petitioner contends as follows: [A] POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have a Ph.D. in organic or medicinal chemistry and at least a few years of experience in medicinal chemistry, including in the development of potential drug candidates. Ex. 1002, ¶ 13 [Wang Decl.]. The POSA would also include a person having a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree (organic chemistry or medicinal chemistry) if such a person had more years of experience in medicinal chemistry and the development of potential drug candidates. Id. With experience in drug development, the POSA would have an appreciation of the diseases and ailments a particular drug candidate is intended to treat, but would not necessarily be a medical doctor or clinician. The POSA would know how to evaluate the physical and biological properties of chemical compounds and would be able to conduct, or otherwise have access to resources that could conduct, in vitro and in vivo evaluations of biological and toxicity properties of chemical compounds. Id. Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not controvert Petitioner’s characterization of the relevant art, or the level of ordinary skill in that art, nor does Patent Owner advance a specific assertion of its own as to the level of ordinary skill. See, generally, PO Resp. Accordingly, when evaluating the parties’ contentions regarding the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the challenged claims, we take into consideration Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill. We also consider that the cited references provide evidence as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS RE38,551 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18

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

    “pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,680
• Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Services AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01786 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ABT Catalog; claims 1–5, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over the Anthogyr Catalog and Update Journal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We also do not find that the plain and ordinary meaning of “having” in this claim limitation would be understood to define the coronal region as only the portion with a frustoconical shape. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the term “having” is generally considered a transitional phrase even when it is not used to separate the preamble from the body of the claim, and it may be treated as open or closed depending on its context in the claim and specification. See, e.g., Lampi Corp., 228 F.3d at 1376 (interpreting the phrase “housing having two half-shells” in the body of the claim as open-ended, thus allowing for additional components in the housing); see also Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that “the term ‘having’ does not convey the open-ended meaning as strongly as ‘comprising,’” and “does not create a presumption that the body of the claim is open”); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03 (“Transitional phrases such as ‘having’ must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed language is intended.”). Notwithstanding, the claim drafter specifically chose not to use the conventional phrase for limiting the openness of a claim—“consisting of”; nor did the drafter use the desired shape as an adjective to the structure, e.g., “a frustoconical coronal region.” In the context of this claim, there is nothing that physically or logically prevents the coronal region from “having” a portion that is frustoconical in shape and a portion that is not. We next consider whether this broader interpretation is consistent with the rest of the specification.” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. Remaining Claim Terms We determine that no explicit construction of any other claim term is necessary for our resolution of the issues in this case. 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.”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner’s Reply does not present improper new arguments and evidence concerning whether the ABT Catalog qualifies as a prior art printed publication. Throughout this proceeding, Petitioner has maintained the position that the ABT Catalog was publicly accessible prior to the May 2003 critical date, and thus anticipates challenged claims 1–5 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Although Petitioner identified certain evidence in its Petition (e.g., the testimony of Dr. Fromovich) that we recognized had some inconsistencies, Petitioner was not precluded from presenting further corroborating evidence consistent with its overall theory that the ABT catalog was publicly accessible before the critical date. Because Patent Owner contested the sufficiency of the evidence submitted with the Petition in its Patent Owner Response, Petitioner was properly allowed to respond to those arguments in its Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”). Moreover, as recognized by the Federal Circuit, “the introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in inter partes review trial proceedings and, as long as the opposing party is given notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond to it, the introduction of such evidence is perfectly permissible under the APA.” Genzyme Therapeutic Products Ltd. P'ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); cf. In re NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding APA violation where “the Board refused to permit [patent owner] to file a surreply or even to address the matter during oral argument”). Here, Patent Owner was provided an opportunity to substantively respond to Petitioner’s new Reply evidence in its Sur-Reply. Paper 57, 7. Patent Owner took advantage of that opportunity. Paper 77. Patent Owner also filed a Motion for Observations of the cross-examination testimony of Petitioner’s Reply Declarants. Paper 76. Patent Owner also extensively addressed this evidence during oral argument. See, e.g., Tr. 75:14–83:6. Accordingly, we determine that the evidence submitted with Petitioner’s Reply to support its assertions regarding public accessibility of the ABT Catalog is not improper and may be considered.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “When the totality of the evidence is assessed, 13 we find that the ABT Catalog was made available, without restriction, to members of the interested public at least during the March 2003 IDS Conference. This is similar to the circumstances considered in Klopfenstein and MIT, where the court found that materials distributed or presented during an industry conference constituted a printed publication. Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d at 1348–52; MIT, 774 F.2d at 1109. Here, although there is no evidence that an actual presentation was made, the evidence tends to show that any interested conference attendee could have obtained a copy of the ABT Catalog from the ABT booth during the March 2003 IDS Conference. Moreover, while only one individual (Mr. Chakir) was shown to have actually obtained a copy of the ABT Catalog, we note that “actual retrieval of a publication is not a requirement for public accessibility.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Constant v. Advanced Micro–Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Accessibility goes to the issue of whether interested members of the relevant public could obtain the information if they wanted to. If” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,714,977 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,714,977
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01707 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious over Payne, and claims 13 and 15 as obvious over Payne and Ackley.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “guidance in resolving this disagreement. To that end, the relevant portion of independent claim 11 recites “at least one server operative to store one or more of: a) content, b) links to content.” As an initial matter, controlling precedent from our reviewing court instructs us that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings.”); CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of . . . evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Accordingly, on a high level, each of the following express claim terms are presumed to have different meanings: “content”; and, “links to content.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner because Patent Owner’s assertions are misplaced. Most prominently, were O’Neil the only factual support for Patent Owner’s position, it may be persuasive. Petitioner’s proposed modification, however, relies not only on O’Neil, but also on Payne and the Declaration of Dr. Greenspun. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 240, 241; Ex. 1006, 6:9–42, 8:38–53, 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, and Fig. 5); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 272. In short, we are persuaded that the following findings in Payne asserted by Petitioner are accurate, and that it supports adequately Petitioner’s proposed modification. The system of Payne already includes functionality requiring a user to log on to an account, Ex. 1006 at 6:9–42, 8:38–53, so it would have been trivial to place the log in functionality directly on the digital advertising documents, which are web pages, see id. at 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, Fig. 5. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 240. When a patent simply arranges old elements, each performing the same function it had been known to perform and together yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Pet. 48; see also Reply 11–16. As counter-evidence, Patent Owner cites to paragraphs 46–48 of the Declaration of Dr. Papakonstantinou. Those paragraphs, however, suffer from the same logical flaw identified above.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Payne and Ackley are non- analogous art, we disagree. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To that end, Payne discloses that it relates to the field of “user-interactive network sales systems for implementing an open marketplace for goods or services over computer networks such as the Internet.” Ex. 1006, 1:14–17. Ackley discloses that it relates to the field “computer-based systems and methods that enable sales transactions between third parties through a communications network, such as internet auctions and classified systems.” Ex. 1008, 1:21–25. We see little daylight between these two fields, especially given that Ackley’s use of the word “such as” with “internet auctions” indicates that such “internet auctions” are a non-limiting example, and, thus, do not materially limit Ackley’s field of endeavor.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01706 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over MyLibrary.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In summary, we construe “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”5” slip op. at 16

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

    “written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (Affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’”). For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that most claim terms do not need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.).” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “7. Conclusion We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious in view of MyLibrary. In addition to findings we make above in connection with our analysis of claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious in view MyLibrary, we also adopt as our findings Petitioner’s positions as to how MyLibrary discloses each of the limitations of claims 11, 12, and 16–20. We further adopt as our own Petitioner’s rationales for modifying MyLibrary, as referenced above.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177
• Spectrum Brands, Inc. / Unikey Technologies, Inc. v. Assa Abloy ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2017 · IPR2016-00686 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–16, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable over Nielsen; claims 7 and 21 were not shown unpatentable over Nielsen and Karkas for lack of a sufficient reason to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Id. ¶ 84. Dr. Villasenor, however, does not cite to any underlying technical documents that may have corroborated Mr. Lovelock’s explanation about how the Seos platform operates; nor has Dr. Villasenor mapped Mr. Lovelock’s explanation to specific claim elements. Also, Mr. Lovelock himself has not submitted a declaration in this proceeding. We, thus, give Dr. Villasenor’s opinion that Patent Owner’s Seos platform practices the claims little weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Further, we recognize that Dr. Villasenor’s testimony is the only evidence of record on this issue, as Petitioners have not submitted a rebuttal declaration attesting that Patent Owner’s products do not practice the claims.” slip op. at 37

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “between the commercial success of the Seos product and the claims of the ’374 patent.” Mot. to Exclude 8. Patent Owner argues that “the quoted passage is not relevant because it is removed by 10 years from the commercial success events Dr. Villasenor addressed,” and “bears no relationship to, and does not serve to prove, disprove or rebut the nexus between the commercial success of the Seos product in the hospitality or enterprise industries and the claimed credential updating features embodied in the Seos system.” Id. at 9. We disagree. As discussed above, we find that the quoted passage of the Annual Report statement is evidence of Patent Owner’s pre-existing market share, and, thus, relevant to the issue of whether the alleged commercial success has a nexus to the claimed invention. We have taken into account the fact that the 2004 Annual Report is from over 10 years ago, and do not find that it will cause any confusion. To the contrary, the 2004 Annual Report is more probative to the issue of pre-existing market share than more recent reports insofar as the ’374 patent claims an effective filing date based on a provisional application filed in April 2005. Ex. 1001, Title Page. Accordingly, we determine that Exhibit 1008 is admissible evidence under Rules 402 and 403, and we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to that exhibit. IV.” slip op. at 44

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We agree with Dr. Villasenor insofar as the relevant field for the ’374 patent is more accurately defined as “electronic control access systems” rather than merely “security systems” (id. ¶ 41), but otherwise find no meaningful difference between the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by the parties’ experts. We also recognize that the level of skill in the art is reflected in the prior art references themselves, which focus on mobile-phone based electronic access systems, and take that into consideration in our analysis. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have least an undergraduate degree in computer science or electrical engineering and one year of experience in electronic control access systems.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no terms in the challenged claims require express construction. 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.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,150,374 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,150,374
• Spectrum Brands, Inc. / Unikey Technologies, Inc. v. Assa Abloy ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2017 · IPR2015-01562 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–16, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Nielsen; claims 7 and 21 were not shown unpatentable over Nielsen and Karkas.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “separate Petition for inter partes review, challenging claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9–16, 21–23, 26, 29, and 30 of the ’374 patent based on similar grounds to those presented by Spectrum. See IPR2016-00686, Paper 2. We instituted inter partes review based on UniKey’s Petition to the extent that the grounds set forth therein are consistent with the basis for our institution of this proceeding, and joined UniKey as a Petitioner to this proceeding. See Paper 29 (instituting inter partes review based on UniKey’s Petition and joining UniKey as a Petitioner to IPR2015-01562). As a condition of UniKey’s joinder, the parties submitted a joint stipulation setting forth the parameters of UniKey’s participation in this proceeding, including the requirement that “UniKey will not have any right to separate or additional briefing, discovery, or speaking time for the duration of the contest involving [the ’374 patent], through termination of the joined proceedings and through any related appeal.” Paper 27, 1. UniKey also filed a statement “withdraw[ing] all grounds and arguments presented in IPR2016-00686 to the extent that they differ from the Panel’s ground for institution in IPR2015-01562.” Paper 32.2” slip op. at 2

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

    “the Specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (2016). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one 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 determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no terms in the challenged claims require express construction. 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.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Dr. Villasenor insofar as the relevant field for the ’374 patent is more accurately defined as “electronic control access systems” rather than merely “security systems” (id. ¶ 41), but otherwise find no meaningful difference between the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by the parties’ experts. We also recognize that the level of skill in the art is reflected in the prior art references themselves, which focus on mobile-phone based electronic access systems, and take that into consideration in our analysis. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have least an undergraduate degree in computer science or electrical engineering and one year of experience in electronic control access systems.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “step 1a. As recognized by Petitioners, the Federal Circuit has observed that “[u]nless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Reply 10–11 (quoting Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In this case, however, the plain language of claim 1 requires “storing . . . a first set of credential data,” “receiving . . . a credential update,” and “in response to receiving the credential update, . . . replacing the first set of credential data with a second set of credential data that is different from the first set of credential data.” Ex. 1001, 12:35–45. Thus, we agree that “[l]ogic compels the conclusion that step 1b follows step 1a, because the controller’s receipt of a ‘credential update’ associated with ‘different’ data would follow the first set of credential data previously stored at the controller.” PO Resp. 21. See Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398–99 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). With reference to Figure 3, Nielsen teaches that “[i]n the initial step 381, the access right owner 352 defines the access rights to be granted, possibly including a list of possible access right grantees,” that “[i]n step 382, the access right owner 352 authorizes the administrator 351 to generate and assign access keys,” that “[b]y means of an access code management system, the administrator in step 383 transforms the access right definition into a set of electronic access codes,” and that “[i]n step 384, the access codes and other related data are stored.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 132. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that “the relied upon steps of Nielsen teach a process that differs from the steps recited in claim 1” insofar as Figure 3 shows the “receiving” step(s) performed before the “storing” step 384. PO Resp. 25. Specifically, that Figure 3 of Nielsen does not show that the process is iterative. Nonetheless, we find that Nielsen suggests a process wherein access codes (i.e., “credential data”) that are stored in the access code management system are periodically replaced with new and different access codes (i.e., a “credential update”). See Ex. 1002 ¶ 128 (“[T]he access code may be transmitted periodically, in order to replace the access codes on a lock control unit and the corresponding electronic key . . . .”). The same paragraph of Nielsen also indicates that “[t]he access code management system 211 generates and administers the access codes as described in connection with FIGS. 3 and 9a-b.” Id. Thus, we determine that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to initially store access codes, and thereafter repeat the process described in the flow chart of Figure 3 in order to replace previously stored access codes. As explained by Dr. Green, the purpose of Nielsen periodically replacing previous access codes “is to improve the security of the system,” such as in the situation when codes are invalidated if misused or lost. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 29. Nielsen explicitly references Figure 3 when referencing how the access code management system administers access codes (Ex. 1002 ¶ 128), thereby providing a suggestion and motivation to modify Nielsen’s teachings so as to repeat the process of Figure 3 when replacing previously stored access codes in order to improve security.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,150,374 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,150,374
• 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

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.