- Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2026 · PGR2025-00030 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 6–30 are unpatentable under §112(a) for lack of written description and lack of enablement; the §103 ground was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner filed a Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 42), Petitioner opposed the motion (Paper 44), and the Board denied the motion (Paper 47).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“of the ’758 patent supports an understanding that some activity is required for a polypeptide to be a “modified PH20 polypeptide,” and it is the enzymatic activity of hyaluronidase specifically that is the most frequently identified activity recited in the Definitions section of the ’758 patent. Indeed, both the definitions of “PH20” and “modified PH20 polypeptide” require hyaluronidase activity. See Ex. 1001, 45:54–55, 50:39–41 (“PH20 refers to a type of hyaluronidase that . . . is neutral-active” and “neutral active refers to the ability . . . to enzymatically catalyze the cleavage of hyaluronic acid at neutral pH”); 48:43–46 (“A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.”). Similar language is used later in the definition of a “conjugate” to explain that even when the modified PH20 polypeptide is linked to another polypeptide or chemical moiety it “retains hyaluronidase activity.” Id. at 63:39–46. In contrast, the discussion regarding the potential use of “modified PH20 polypeptides that are inactive” as antigens in contraception vaccines appears only in non-definitional sections of the ’758 patent. Id. at 72:63–65, 75:60–62. Accordingly, we find that this disclosure does not modify the definition’s explicit requirement that the claimed “modified PH20 polypeptide” exhibit hyaluronidase activity. Id. at 48:38–46.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“this testimony to at most describe a research plan (i.e., a “tool to engage in further modification”16) for finding the recited polypeptides rather than demonstrating the inventors were in possession of the full scope claimed. This is particularly so given the limits of the then-available analytical tools noted above and the fact that the structural connections and three dimensional modeling Patent Owner’s experts attempt to make (see, e.g., Ex. 2070 ¶¶ 129–213; Ex. 2068 ¶¶ 123–125) do not appear in the written description itself. To the extent the experts disagree on this point, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts over that of Patent Owner’s. See Ex. 1133 ¶¶ 111–251 (identifying problems with the approaches proposed by Patent Owner’s experts). For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence of record better supports a finding that in the 2011–2012 timeframe, it would have been unpredictable to identify which multiple mutants retained hyaluronidase activity, even with the single substitution data provided by the ’758 patent.” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 12,054,758 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,054,758 - CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Lepu Biopharma Co. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00685 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Wei and Liu, and over Leanna, Wei, and Liu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“appears to be generally consistent with the level of skill presented in the cited prior art. See generally, e.g., Exs. 1005–1008; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, as at institution, we reject the portion of Petitioner’s proposed definition that includes having “access to other individuals with that knowledge and experience,” as not reflecting the individual level of skill of a given skilled artisan. See, e.g., Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that “[t]he person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all the pertinent prior art.”) (emphasis added, footnotes omitted); but see Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labys., S.A., 930 F.3d 1325, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (no clear error in determination that “a person of ordinary skill . . . ‘would be on a team with an engineer or scientist . . . .’”). Consequently, we find the person of ordinary skill in the art was a person who had a Ph.D. in immunology, molecular biology, cellular biology, or a similar field, or an M.D. with similar experience, and had at least five years of experience with antibodies and antibody engineering.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that no term of the Challenged Claims requires construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 32. We did not construe any terms in our Institution Decision. See DI 6–7. Patent Owner presents no express positions on claim construction. See generally Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, no terms of the challenged claims require construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. D. slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“2 G. Wei et al., US 2015/0071923 Al, pub. March 12, 2015. Ex. 1005 (“Wei”). 3 J. Liu, CN 103772504 A, pub. May 7, 2014. Ex. 1007. The Liu reference is published in Simplified Chinese and Petitioner filed a certified English translation, to which we refer herein. See Ex. 1008 (“Liu”). Patent Owner does not contest the accuracy of the translation. See generally Resp. 4 M.R. Leanna & C.L. Becker, WO 2014/152199 A1, pub. Sept. 25, 2014. Ex. 1006 (“Leanna”). 5 Based on our review of each deposition transcript in view of the record as a whole, although each witness appears competent, we are left with the impression that Dr. Bournazos’s testimony is somewhat more credible than Dr. Atanackovic’s. This conclusion is based, inter alia, on each witness’s ability to recall the relevant record and respond to questions on evidentiary and technical issues.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We find that combining Liu’s BA03 antibody with Wei’s ADC platform would have been desirable, predictable, and routine for the ordinarily skilled artisan based on the facts that: (1) cetuximab was a wellknown and well-studied, U.S. regulatory approved, anti-EGFR antibody that would have served as a starting point for new cancer therapies; (2) humanization of therapeutic antibodies is generally desired (and “[e]very antibody can be humanized” and it is advantageous according to Patent Owner’s counsel); (3) BA03 was a well-known humanized version of cetuximab that had several known advantages over cetuximab in addition to lower immunogenicity from humanization; and (4) Wei taught a similar cetuximab-derived antibody, and a humanized cetuximab-derived antibody, each provided in an ADC with a well-known and validated off-the-shelf linker-drug platform, i.e., vc-MMAE, that exhibited a strong anti-tumor response. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:57–2:32, 2:50–3:1, 5:6–53, 18:3–33, 19:26– 29; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14, 38, 42–43, 45–53, 56–73, 84–92, 109–117, 178–189, 202–271; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9–10, 229–232, 434, 437, 476, 491–506, 664–675, 685, 688, 715, 732, 1103, 1092–1141; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 3–6, 60, 74, 141–160; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 7–8, 38, 50, 57 (confirming our understandings regarding the claimed antibody and linker-drug payload); Ex. 2023, 173, 300; see also Resp. 1, 5–6, 23 (Patent Owner made the “choice” to use the prior-art-known BA03 antibody, and known-candidate cytotoxic payload MMAE); Hr’g Tr. 34:20–23, 36:6–38:20, 47:16–50:16 (Patent Owner’s counsel’s argument). When Liu’s BA03 antibody is provided in an ADC with a vc- MMAE or a Mc-vcPAB-MMAE platform (and used as cancer therapy as the references instruct) the invention of the challenged claims is achieved.” slip op. at 52
Patent outcomesUS 10,792,370 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,792,370 - Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00728 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 15–18, and 20–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Schaffer with Hartley or Eller; claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 15–18, and 21–24 are also obvious over Hartley and Eller.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks specificity. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person may qualify as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2033 ¶ 61. We find that a POSA would also have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:16–54 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had first-hand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1037 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing” hemostasis valves or aspiration catheters is not necessary, but “general experience with vascular devices and procedures” is required). Further, as Dr. Zalesky testified, the POSA’s experience related to developing such devices “could be as simple as bench testing and looking at clinical data.” Id. at 74:5–75:1. Lastly, a POSA would have understood such devices’ design requirements as determined by the needs of the physician, patient, and procedure, which understanding may be informed by work experience or study. Ex. 2030, 24:5–21.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“above (supra Section III.C), a filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes that feature in its valves. Instead, Patent Owner persuades us that Schaffer describes “rigid U-shaped actuating members—not a ‘filament.’” PO Resp. 23–24.13 We find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more credible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being substantially rigid structures. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 91–100 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton testifies that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have simply purchased pre-made [and flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Such testimony invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner cites intrinsic evidence in support of its interpretation, which include claim 1’s recitation of an “active tensioning mechanism” comprising the filament and the Specification’s description of a filament that can be both “loosened” and “tightened.” PO Resp. 14–17 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:36–37, 9:53–56 (teaching “the filament 150 is tightened” when the actuator buttons are released and “the filament 150 is loosened” when the buttons are pressed to open the valve)); see also Ex. 2025, 1288 (defining “tension” as to “tighten to a desired or appropriate degree”). These descriptions from the patent are more consistent with the view that the filament is characteristically flexible, not rigid. 10 We reached the same conclusion, based on substantially the same records, in the Institution Decision and the Final Written Decisions in the 1157, 156, and 289 IPRs. Inst. Dec. 14–18; Ex. 1042, 14–24; Ex. 1048, 16–23; Ex. 1049, 14–17 (noting the parties’ agreement at oral hearing that there was no additional argument or evidence about whether a filament requires flexibility that was not already addressed in related matters). After we construed the “filament” term to require flexibility at institution, Petitioner provided no further argument or evidence on this issue in its authorized trial briefing or at oral hearing. See generally Pet. Reply. embodiments (where the filament forms one or more loops like depicted and described in Figures 6–7) require a flexible structure. See, e.g., Ex. 2032, 15–16 (explaining that the device would not work to constrict the tubular sidewall and lumen (analogous to the elongate member defining a lumen of the claims here) if the filament forming the loop(s) was inflexible); Ex. 1001, Figs. 6–7 (filament 150, with sub-filaments 150-A and 150-B). Although flexibility of the filament in the patent’s “bight” embodiments (e.g., as shown in Figures 8 and 9) is less clear, there is a dearth of evidence from Petitioner—either intrinsic or extrinsic to the patent—showing why a POSA would have understood the bights as embracing rigid structures. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 8–9. Moreover, as admitted by Petitioner’s expert, that a filament may be made from various materials described in the patent (e.g., synthetics or metals) does not, absent more information, lead to a conclusion that a filament is “rigid.” Ex. 2030, 125:2–126:4 (testifying “the relative stiffness or rigidity is not clear from those . . . materials without knowing much more information”).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Schaffer anticipates claim 1 or any of the other challenged claims, each of which requires at least one “filament.” We are unpersuaded above (supra Section III.C), a filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes that feature in its valves. Instead, Patent Owner persuades us that Schaffer describes “rigid U-shaped actuating members—not a ‘filament.’” PO Resp. 23–24.13 We find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more credible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being substantially rigid structures. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 91–100 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton testifies that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have simply purchased pre-made [and flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Such testimony invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,844,921 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,844,921 - Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · PGR2025-00052 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable for lack of written description, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness; the Board did not find them unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Specification of the ’345 patent supports an understanding that some activity is required for a polypeptide to be a “modified PH20 polypeptide,” and it is the enzymatic activity of hyaluronidase specifically that is the most frequently identified activity recited in the Definitions section of the ’345 patent. Indeed, the definitions of “PH20” and “modified PH20 polypeptide” both require hyaluronidase activity. See Ex. 1001, 44:20–21, 49:4–7 (“PH20 refers to a type of hyaluronidase that . . . is neutral-active” and “neutral active refers to the ability . . . to enzymatically catalyze the cleavage of hyaluronic acid at neutral pH”); 47:8–11 (“A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.”). Similar language is used later in the definition of a “conjugate” to explain that even when the modified PH20 polypeptide is linked to another polypeptide or chemical moiety it “retains hyaluronidase activity.” Id. at 61:60–67. In contrast, the discussion regarding the potential use of “modified PH20 polypeptides that are inactive” as antigens in contraception vaccines appears only in non-definitional sections of the ’345 patent. Id. at 71:16-18, 74:11–13. Accordingly, we find that this disclosure does not modify the definition’s explicit requirement that the claimed “modified PH20 polypeptide” exhibit hyaluronidase activity. Id. at 47:3–11.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“description (see Capon, 418 F.3d at 1357–58), Patent Owner is trying to extend that to include that which is at most obvious from the prior art, as opposed to what is actually described. That is, it may have been obvious to a POSA to align PH20 sequences with other known hyaluronidase enzymes and to use the crystal structure of a different hyaluronidase (Hyal-1) in SWISS-MODEL to generate a three-dimensional structure, but none of that is described in the common disclosure itself. “[A] description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352. While a POSA might be able to embark on their own research program to try to find suitable multiply-modified PH20 polypeptides, the four corners of the written description do not demonstrate possession of such. See id. at 1356‒57 (recognizing that “[p]erhaps one of ordinary skill could discover this information, but this does not alter our conclusion that the description . . . just represent[s] a wish or arguably a plan for future research”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 66
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“instances of epistasis are “rare” and an inactive PH20 polypeptide “will stay inactive . . . absent intentional ‘rescue’ mutations.” See Sur-reply 12–14. But the claims encompass far more than combinations of just two substitutions, and even Dr. Petsko concedes there are “billions” of sequences within the recited sequence space that will not properly fold. See Ex. 2070 ¶ 347; see also Ex. 1133 ¶ 237 (“While some [residues critical to protein structure] can be predicted (e.g., highly conserved positions), many others cannot without experimentation.”). Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s position more persuasive than Patent Owner’s competing position and evidence.” slip op. at 108
Patent outcomesUS 12,264,345 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 12,264,345 - Evenflo Company, Inc. v. Baby Jogger II, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 29, 2026 · IPR2025-01122 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Liao or Liao and Cheng; Rolicki is not prior art, and the challenge over Offord ’341 and Offord ’797 fails.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Baby Jogger does not dispute Evenflo’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is that a person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter, “one skilled in the art”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., mechanical engineering or industrial design) and at least two years of product design experience and/or industry experience with juvenile products” and that “[m]ore education can replace product design experience, and vice versa.” Pet 8 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 31–33); PO Resp. generally. We apply that definition here, as it accords with the problems addressed in the prior art and the specification of the ’682 patent.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“At the outset, we note that the claim language requires only that “the first seat and the second seat” be arranged in an inline descending configuration, not that the seat’s mounting points or other physical connections be so arranged. Ex. 1010, 17:31–33. Baby Jogger improperly reads “seats” out of the claim and substitutes the seat’s “mounting points” on the frame. A proper reading of the claim language focuses on what happens when both seats are connected to the frame, not where they are so connected. In other words, “when connected to the frame” simply emphasizes that both seats must be connected to the frame to form the inline descending configuration, as opposed to the single stroller embodiment of Figure 1, where there cannot be an inline descending configuration because only one seat is connected to the frame and the other seat is removed, i.e., not connected to the frame. That reading is supported by the specification of the ’682 patent,” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“We find that testimony persuasive, for it shows what one skilled in the art would have recognized the 2008 Provisional as necessarily disclosing. The relevant inquiry is whether the disclosure of the prior application “convey[s] with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention.” PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306 (emphasis in original; citation omitted). “While a prior application need not contain precisely the same words as are found in the asserted claims, . . . the prior application must indicate to a person skilled in the art that the inventor was ‘in possession’ of the invention as later claimed.” Id. In other words, “to satisfy the written description requirement, ‘the missing descriptive matter must necessarily be present in the [original] application’s specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a disclosure.’”7 Id. (quoting Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). “This requires that the written description actually or inherently disclose the claim element.” Id. at 1306–07. Moreover, a drawing may supply written description for the arrangement it depicts even though the text describes that arrangement in different terms. See Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Prods., Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 1319–23 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Instead, Evenflo’s argument rests on isolating the statement—“A similar sub-frame arrangement is disclosed in [Offord ’797]”—from the remainder of the passage in which that statement appears in order to arrive at a reason to incorporate the reversibility teaching of Offord ’797. However, when that statement is read in the context of the full passage in which it appears, nowhere does that passage suggest reversibility as the reason for referencing Offord ’797. More accurately, it suggests a different reason that relates to a curved lug 108 by which sub-frame 100 rests on the stroller’s main frame 4 to carry the weight of the stroller’s two occupants— When the interface components 100 are attached to the frame assembly 4 they form a sub-frame of the frame assembly 4, and when the child-carrying units are mounted thereon, one behind the other, they are in a compact echelon formation, one of the connector sockets 106 of each component 100 being at a higher level in relation to the ground than the other connector sockets 106. The higher connector socket 106 and further connecting leg 102 are both connected to the respective opposite ends of an upper mounting piece 107. In addition, on the inner side of the lower connector sockets 106 there is a downwardly curved lug 108 which serves to rest upon a part of the basket frame 44, such that the weight of two infants is fully supported by the frame assembly 4. A similar sub-frame arrangement is disclosed in [Offord ’797]. Ex. 1051, 9:23–36 (emphasis added). That passage shows that, rather than reversibility of the sub-frame, the reference to Offord ’797 is more aptly directing the reader to the arrangement and details of a similarly curved lug structure in the stroller sub-frame of Offord ’797. Indeed, Figures 5 and 6 of Offord ’797, reproduced below, disclose just such a curved lug in the context of “corner pieces 20” having “channel 21.” Ex. 1054, 4:10–23.” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 11,731,682 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,731,682 - Merck Sharp And Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 25, 2026 · PGR2025-00039 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 7–11 are unpatentable because the challenged claims lack written-description support and are not enabled.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“1 Although the Petition was directed to claims 1–11 of the ’185 patent, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 5 and 6 prior to institution, leaving just claims 1–4 and 7–11 at issue. See Ex. 2003.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“B. Claim Construction In a post-grant review, we interpret a claim “using the same claim” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence” slip op. at 59
Patent outcomesUS 12,104,185 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,104,185 - Merck Sharp And Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 25, 2026 · PGR2025-00033 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 6–29 are unpatentable for lack of written description and enablement; the Board did not find them obvious over the ’429 patent and Chao.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“structural connections and three-dimensional modeling Patent Owner’s experts attempt to make (see, e.g., Ex. 2070 ¶¶ 126–212, 297–342; Ex. 2068 ¶¶ 123–125, 245, 294–313, 318) do not appear in the written description itself. To the extent the experts disagree on this point, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts over that of Patent Owner’s. See Ex. 1133 ¶¶ 111–230 (identifying problems with the approaches proposed by Patent Owner’s experts). For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence of record better supports a finding that in the 2011–2012 timeframe, it would have been unpredictable to identify which multiple mutants retained hyaluronidase activity, even with the single substitution data provided by the ’652 patent.” slip op. at 58
- Skill levelOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Decided for petitioner
“exclude the use of modified PH20 polypeptides as contraceptives—the only other possible utility described in the ’652 patent—is unavailing. Resp. 39. First, “[t]he fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327 (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Second, unlike the definitions of “PH20” and “modified PH20 polypeptide” in the “Definitions” section of the Specification, the passages describing possible contraceptive use do not contain any characteristics suggesting they are definitional in nature. See Alnylam, 138 F.4th at 133 (enumerating “characteristics” such as the fact that the text appears in the “Definitions” section, sets the term off in quotation marks, and uses phrases like “refer to” that indicate that specification language is definitional in nature). Accordingly, the statement that “[a]lso provided are modified PH20 polypeptides that are inactive, and that can be used, for example, as antigens in contraception vaccines” (Ex. 1001, 75:56–58), does not redefine the term, nor otherwise void the definitional language in the Specification stating that a “modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Id. at 48:47–49 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 26
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“1352. While a POSA might be able to embark on their own research program to try to find the genus of multiply-modified PH20 polypeptides recited in the challenged claims, the four corners of the written description here do not demonstrate the inventors were in possession of such. See id. at 1356–57 (recognizing that “[p]erhaps one of ordinary skill could discover this information, but this does not alter our conclusion that the description . . . just represent a wish or arguably a plan for future research”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 68
Patent outcomesUS 12,049,652 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,049,652 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00147 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1–6 and 8–20 not shown unpatentable under three obviousness grounds, principally because the proposed combinations did not establish a feasible curved battery or transparent potting encapsulating the components.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, e.g., sensor system design, including inertial and other motion sensor system design, and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 25. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’124 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need not reach the issue of whether the preamble is limiting for purposes of determining patentability of the challenged claims. Even were we to agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting and the claims are limited to a finger-worn ring wearable computer device, Petitioner has relied on Schröder in each ground to disclose a “wearable computing device configured to be worn around a finger of a wearer.” Pet. 22 (Ground 1), 45 (Ground 2, relying on Yuen for adding the functionality of light sources with a photodetector, temperature sensors, and varying the sampling frequency of sensor data acquisition), 56 (Ground 3). We agree with Petitioner that Schröder discloses such a device. Thus, no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and find that Patent Owner has the better position for several reasons. First, the record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “would have to be reduced in size on the 6 There is no Exhibit 2022 in the record of this case. magnitude of 5-10x from its current size to fit in a ring of Schröder.” Resp. 38 (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Second, Petitioner relies on evidence in the Reply that Petitioner failed to specifically identify in the Petition. Compare Reply 3–5 (citing Ex. 1369 ¶¶ 7–14; Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 47, 71; Ex. 2022, 138:7–143:1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96, 337; Ex. 2021, 12–13, 307:7–17; Ex. 2020, 212:6–214:13; Ex. 1081, 130:18–131:14; Ex. 1010 ¶ 168), 9 (referring back to Section § II.B.2) with Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 157, 163, 168, 201, Fig. 6). More specifically, while the portion of Dr. Anthony’s Declaration cited in the Petition (see Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99)) mentions the Technology Background Section V of his Declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–147), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Anthony sufficiently explains what evidence supports his opinion that it was feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices into finger-rings, or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have miniaturized a curved battery for incorporation into Schröder’s ring. Ex. 1002 ¶ 196 (describing that rechargeable batteries powering wearable electronic devices were “well-known by 2013” and “had also undergone significant advances in terms of miniaturization and energy density [that] made it feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices such as supercapacitors into smaller form factors, such as finger rings, without sacrificing functionality” such as “lithium-polymer (Li-Po) batteries and solid-state batteries.”). Moreover, some of Petitioner’s citations in the Reply appear to be incorrect as there is no Exhibit 2022 of record in this case, as noted above. These issues undermine the strength of Petitioner’s showing by making it difficult to follow its reasoning, much less identify where in the record that reasoning finds support. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Third, even considering Petitioner’s new Reply arguments and” slip op. at 27
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony over Dr. Anthony’s and agree that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to account for the constraints of a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 140. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’124 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’124 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 140). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 141. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura patent), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 74–84. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 85. We also agree with Dr. Mercier that Dr. Anthony’s testimony lacks evidence or a technical analysis of the power requirements for the various sensors he suggests including in a wearable device and the capacity of the proposed GMBPow battery. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 210, 214–17; Ex. 2018 ¶ 97. Moreover, Dr. Anthony does not address the issues with the batteries that are identified in the references he discusses. For example, Dr. Anthony does not address Lee’s disclosure that “direct coating of electrode slurry onto plain paper led to the occasional internal-shorting of the device due to the leakage of the electrode material through a large-sized hole in the paper.” Ex. 1019, 2415. In contrast, Dr. Mercier discusses the pitfalls the skilled artisan faced in developing finger-ring devices. See, e.g., Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 77–79 (discussing the issues Rhee’s and Asada’s large rings), 83 (identifying power requirements as a design constraint). For example, Dr. Mercier explains that “flexible or curved batteries include flexible packaging materials such as aluminum laminated films that house the electrodes and electrolyte” such that “once the battery packaging is added to a battery such as GMBPow and then placed within a housing (e.g., external housing shell and internal potting), the resulting device would have dimensions that are not suitable for a finger-worn ring.” Id. ¶ 96 (citing Ex. 2026).” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 11,188,124 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,188,124 - GD Energy Products, LLC v. Kerr Machine CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2026 · PGR2025-00031 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious under each of four asserted grounds: Kerr; Aplex and Stanton; Blume, Stanton, and Wilkinson; and the sale of the Kerr Pump.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The person of ordinary skill in the art would have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or petrochemical engineering, or a comparable engineering discipline, and a minimum of 3-5 years of work experience in the design and/or manufacturing of reciprocating pumps and valves, including fluid ends and/or comparable high pressure fluid components, for industrial applications, including for use in the oil and gas industry. See, e.g., EX1003, ¶32.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We decline to expressly construe any claim language. slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Regarding the combining of Aplex and Stanton, Petitioner asserts that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that providing a packing/stuffing arrangement, as taught by Stanton, within a fluid end housing, as taught by Aplex, would improve pressure and fluid isolation compared with an arrangement where the packing was bolted to the outside of the fluid end as in Aplex unmodified. Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 189, 236). Patent Owner does not dispute this rationale. We find this to be a reason, with rationale underpinning, why the person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 29
- Adverse judgmentOther
“The record indicates that Patent Owner has statutorily disclaimed claim 15 as of April 28, 2025. Ex. 2206.” slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 12,152,582 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,152,582 - Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00289 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–15 under Grounds 2 and 3, and claim 10 under Ground 4; Ground 1 did not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We have construed the “filament” term in multiple related proceedings and agreed with Patent Owner that the claimed filament requires flexibility. See Ex. 1050 (Final Written Decision in 156 IPR); IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 (Final Written Decision) at 15–24. Specifically, we determined that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s position that “a POSA would have understood the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed ‘filament’ as a flexible length of material (e.g., one or more string(s), wire(s), tape(s)).” See, e.g., Ex. 1050, 23. We maintain that construction in this Decision for the reasons given by Patent Owner (see PO Resp. 24–32; PO Sur-reply 6–8), we disagree with Petitioner’s argument to the contrary (Pet. Reply 27–31), and we incorporate our analysis concerning the meaning of the filament term from the related proceedings identified above, which applies equally here.13 Ex. 1050 (Final Written Decision in 156 IPR); IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 (Final Written Decision) at 15–24. The parties agreed at the oral hearing that there is no additional argument or evidence 13 Although the ’005 patent is not directly related to the patents at issue in the 1157 and 156 IPRs, the ’519 Application that the ’005 patent purports to incorporate for providing all relevant disclosures about the filament term is a parent application to the challenged patents in the 1157 and 156 IPRs (see supra n.3). SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). We also construed the filament term consistently in other ongoing proceedings on related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1045 (Institution Decision in the 728 IPR), 12–18; Ex. 1046 (Institution Decision in the 989 IPR), 13–21. already addressed in those related matters. Tr. 6:13–23, 23:19–26.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in August 2018 “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline and 2–4 years of catheter design experience.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). Although Patent Owner states that it “disagrees” with Petitioner’s POSA definition, Patent Owner nevertheless applies that definition in this case. PO Resp. 32–33; see Tr. 22:23–23:5 (Patent Owner is “not disputing” Petitioner’s definition, asserting the definition “doesn’t make any difference in this case”).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert creditedMixed
“We credit Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer on whether the POSA would have understood Schaffer as describing rigid actuating members. Dr. Zalesky testifies, for example, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosures about the actuating members being “machined” from metal or plastic, that such actuating members would be rigid. Ex. 2026 ¶ 101 (explaining “machining is a manufacturing process in which the desired part . . . is created using the controlled removal of bulk material” to produce a “rigid material”); Ex. 1005 ¶ 82 (“The actuating member 55 and the actuating button 261 is machined from aluminum” and “[i]n another example, the actuating member 55 and the actuating button 261 are machined from plastic”); Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 102–103 (testifying the disclosed valve assembly technique in Schaffer (Ex. 1005 ¶ 83) also indicates that “rigid” actuating members are used). Mr. Thornton opines (without citation to any persuasive supporting disclosure) that a POSA “would have understood that Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members would have preferably been formed from a thin, flexible material.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 113. But, at deposition, Mr. Thornton conceded that machined plastics and aluminum, like disclosed in Schaffer, are rigid. Ex. 2005, 168:2–6 (“Q. And you said that plastic that would be machined would be rigid, correct? A. I think that’s a fair statement.”). Although Mr. Thornton opines that Schaffer’s actuating members would “preferably”” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed
“For the reasons above, Petitioner has not established that the claimed “filament” is disclosed in the combination of Garrison and Schaffer and, thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Garrison and Schaffer. Petitioner’s challenge to independent claim 10 (and the claims that depend from claim 1 and claim 10) fails for similar reasons. Each of the challenged claims requires a “filament” and, given our construction of that term and our findings above that Schaffer does not teach or suggest the claimed filament, Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 11,554,005 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,554,005
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.