• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,054,758
• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 12,264,345
• Merck Sharp And Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,104,185
• Merck Sharp And Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,049,652
• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · PGR2025-00023 · APJ Per Curiam · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’629 publication; the claims are not entitled to the 2013 priority date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSITA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining that “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSITA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSITA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 22; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find a POSITA with respect to the claims of the ’109 patent would have had a two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSITA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither party proposes an express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 22–23 (not proposing any constructions); PO Resp. 23 (“Patent Owner agrees that the terms can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.”). However, Patent Owner states that some of Petitioner’s arguments implicitly construe claim 1 in an erroneous manner. PO Resp. 23–28. “For example, Petitioner argues that ‘an adequate written description would have to either disclose representative examples of the possible working cascades of various proteins or some accurate structural feature of the claimed proteins that allow them to function in the claimed assay as a whole.’” Id. at 23 (quoting Pet. 35). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to what Petitioner’s argument allegedly implies, “Claim 1 is directed to a method for producing an endotoxin assay agent” and does not require the use – Owner that claim 1 does not require the use of endotoxin assay agent. However, the claimed endotoxin assay agent must be capable of performing the assay, as counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged. Tr. 83:5–9.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, to show that the claims of the ’109 patent are unpatentable for lack of written description, Petitioner would have needed to show that the specification as filed (i.e., the ’420 application) fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the July 3, 2023, filing date. Petitioner did not. Pet. 23–24. Nor does Petitioner’s declarant offer testimony that could support such a showing. See Ex. 1003 ¶50 (“I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art in this field for purposes of determining what the inventors disclosed as their invention as of December 10, 2013.”), ¶51 (“Whenever I offer an opinion in this declaration about the knowledge of a POSA, the manner in which a POSA would have understood the claims of the ’109 patent or its description, the manner in have been led to do based on the prior art, I am referencing the December 10, 2013 timeframe.”). In our Institution Decision, we stated: Although the ’420 application is essentially identical to the ’767 application, the person of ordinary skill in 2013 is not the same as in 2023. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he [written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the information presented in the Petition, which is limited to the perspective of a 2013 POSITA, does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable for lack of written description. Inst. Dec. 12 (alterations in original). During trial, Petitioner did not present any further arguments in support of Ground 1. See generally Pet. Reply. Petitioner has failed to prove that claims 1–9 are unpatentable for failing to meet the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Although the evidence before us shows that, in 2013, a POSITA knew how to recombinantly express genes in expression systems such as CHO or HEK-293 cell lines, the evidence shows that this was true only for genes whose genetic sequences were known or readily available. See, e.g., Ex. 1069, 34:11–22 (“Q. Okay. So you would agree that the creation of the recombinant protein requires the underlying sequence of, as you said, the original animal? A. Of course.”) Because it is undisputed that, in 2013, the genetic sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C was unknown, or least not publicly available, Falko-Gunter does not support a finding of adequate written description here. See, e.g., Tr. 48:18–19 (“Patent Owner agrees that there had not been, as of 2013, the full length cDNA sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C published.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,959,109 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,959,109
• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–8 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 4–6 as obvious over Huang2 and Kuo, and claims 7–8 as anticipated by Huang2; claims 2–3 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) “would be a Ph.D. student with a minimum of two years of experience in their faculty advisor’s laboratory” and would have an understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C7). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–29. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”). Importantly, the Specification does not treat the existence of minor peaks as prerequisites for the existence of major peaks. Indeed, the Specification does not discuss “minor peaks” at all. See generally Ex. 1001. Likewise, none of the claims of the ’227 patent, whether challenged or unchallenged, recites “minor peaks” or any additional peaks beyond the disputed “major peaks.” Id. at 23:30–24:42. Nor does the Specification include an example of FFT analysis results in which the average of the peaks therein is calculated and those higher than the average are identified as major peaks.8” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner has the better position. Huang2 teaches crosslinking and provides a reason for doing so (stability). In particular, Huang2 states: “To better mimic skin ECM, electrospun collagen fibers have been fabricated, however, the rapid degradation and poor mechanical properties determine that either crosslinking or combination with other materials is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold.” Ex. 1005, 1791 (emphasis added). It is true that, in describing work actually carried out, Huang2 states that blending with PCL was performed and does not mention crosslinking. See id. at 1792 (“Nanofibrous matrices of PCL and Collagen at a weight ratio of 3:1 were fabricated using electrospinning as previously described.”). However, the prior art – here, Huang2 – is not limited to that which it describes having created. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (“a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples”); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Huang2 teaches two stabilization methods when using collagen in scaffolds. Huang2 states that one or the other “is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold” (when using collagen), but it does not preclude or teach away from using Patent Owner-cited testimony of Dr. Mikos is not as definitive as Patent Owner suggests; Dr. Mikos’s testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would not have done both.” Ex. 2015 ¶64 (emphasis added). The bottom line is that Huang2 teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art two ways to stabilize scaffolds/matrices comprised of collagen, provides a reason for doing so (stability), and does not teach away from using both. We are persuaded that a “scaffold comprising crosslinked fibers comprising collagen” would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Huang2.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Appellant’s citations to either reference. As discussed above, Petitioner’s Ground 1 is premised on a person of ordinary skill in the art altering the native flat sheet structure of Huang2 by rolling it into a jelly-roll structure as taught by Kuo. See Pet. 41 (Beginning its claim 2 arguments with the following: “Claim 1 is obvious for the reasons expressed above in § X.A., supra, which are incorporated herein.”); see also Pet. Reply 17 (“[B]ased on the explicit teaching of Kuo, a POSA would have been motivated to take the electrospun flat scaffold made by the techniques of Huang2, seed it with the desired cells, and roll it to treat a tendon and ligament.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the paragraphs of Kuo that Petitioner cites for disclosing “scaffold sheets,” explicitly describe rolling them into jelly-roll like structures. See Ex. 1018 ¶7 (stating that “the sheet is spirally contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct”), ¶22 (describing a method comprising “forming a tissue construct by contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct” and implanting it in a patient). Petitioner fails to argue that that “one or more elongated sheets” recited in claim 2 would encompass the rolled structure of its proposed modification. Nor does Petitioner articulate a claim construction argument that could support such an argument. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 would have been obvious over Huang2 and Kuo.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 11,318,227 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,318,227
• Preomics GmbH / Biognosys AG. v. The Brigham And Women’S Hospital, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01473 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Cai; claims 2, 3, 7, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner and again find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art sufficient for the reasons explained in the Decision on institution. See Dec. 8–10. As explained before, the formal training required by Petitioner’s description of a POSA includes understanding of both proteins and analytical techniques for studying them. See Dec. 9. Neither Patent Owner, nor its declarant, Dr. Cimas, clearly articulates a competing POSA description at trial, but both suggest more formal training, e.g., a graduate degree, is required. See Resp. 65–66; Ex. 2023 ¶ 8 (agreeing with our observation that the educational backgrounds of the inventors and authors of Cai, Zaccaria, and Hu “suggests that a graduate degree is more typical for a POSA”) (quoting Dec. 9, n. 5). Even if we were to accept that modification, it would not change our findings herein. Nor does it suggest that Dr. Vargas, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Stanford University and has substantial experience with mass spectrometry and other analytical techniques, is unqualified to testify from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1004 (Vargas CV). Accordingly, our findings and conclusions would be the same, even assuming the perspective of a POSA possessing the higher level of formal training and specific proteomics experience that Patent Owner suggests is appropriate here.5” slip op. at 9

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

    “Ex. 1001, 20:33–39. As Petitioner points out, the first sentence in this passage does not define the term “biological sample,” but rather the term “sample.” Id. According to that sentence, the term “sample” refers to either “a biological sample or a complex biological sample obtained from a subject.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument assumes, without explanation, that the phrase “obtained from a subject” modifies both instances of “biological sample” in the first sentence. Id. But it need not be read that way. Indeed, that sentence is more naturally read to define “sample” as one of two things––either a “biological sample” or a “complex biological sample” with only the latter being “obtained from a subject.” Id. In addition, the second sentence in the passage above supports Petitioner’s view that the term “biological sample” is not limited to a sample obtained directly from a subject. It provides a broad, non-exhaustive list of “[s]uitable biological samples” that specifically includes the types of biological samples, i.e., “cell lysates,” “systemic blood,” “plasma,” assayed in Petitioner’s cited references. Ex. 1001, 20:36–39. It also lists as an example “processed tissue samples,” which would include samples that have been modified (i.e., “processed”) from the form in which they were originally obtained. Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 20:52–57 (describing tissue processing). Given this broad description, we agree with Petitioner that there is no basis in the cited intrinsic evidence for reading in the “negative limitations” Patent Owner seeks to try to distinguish the particular biological samples assayed in Cai, Hu, and Zaccaria. See Reply 3–4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Step 1(a) recites forming coronas around a plurality of particles of “different particle types.” Ex. 1001, 86:53–60. Step 1(b) recites separating a “subset of the plurality of the particles comprising the coronas.” Id. at 86:61–65. As Petitioner correctly observes, as a matter of ordinary English parlance, “there is no requirement whatsoever that the ‘subset’ have all of the same characteristics as the set from which it is separated.” Reply 10. By way of analogy, consider a jar containing a plurality of coins of different coin types, e.g., nickels and dimes. One can separate out a “subset” of that plurality of coins (plural) by removing any two coins from the jar—this is true even if the two coins are both nickels or both dimes. In the same way, nothing in the ordinary meaning of the claim language requires the subset in step 1(b) to include particles with coronas representative of each of the different particle types in step 1(a). Nor has Patent Owner identified any other evidence that supports its attempt to read such a requirement into the claims. See Resp. 16, 18 (citing expert testimony that is not inconsistent with the broader, ordinary meaning of the claim language and, even if it was, would not be a proper basis for limiting the same). For these reasons, we reject Patent Owner’s interpretation of “a subset of the plurality of particles comprising the coronas” in step 1(b) as limited to a subset of each type of particle comprising the coronas formed in step 1(a).” slip op. at 15

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

    “We credit Petitioner’s showing above and agree that Cai discloses a method comprising all of the steps in claim 1. Beginning with step 1(a), Cai discloses contacting two different particle types, i.e., MWCNT and CB, with HeLa cell lysate (i.e., a biological sample) to form protein coronas around those particles. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 199–206; Ex. 1005, Abstr. (describing MWCNT and CB as distinct “forms of carbon nanoparticles” that bind “vastly different sets of proteins”). Cai’s results show the coronas formed around the MWCNT and CB particles comprise overlapping and distinct proteins as recited in step 1(a). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 216–222; Ex. 1005, 587 (“a small number of CB-binding proteins also bind to MWCNTs”). A subset of the proteins from the coronas on these particles is then prepared by eluting the bound proteins and analyzing them with SDS-PAGE in a MWCNT and CB “pull-down,” which reads on step 1(b). Ex. 1005, 586 (Fig. 1A–B depicting scheme for “pull-down experiment” and describing other “pull-down experiments” used with SILAC media in Fig. 3), 588 (Fig. 3). Regarding step 1(c), Cai discloses assaying the proteins in those subsets using LC-MS/MS with SILAC encoding to characterize and quantify the relative abundance of the proteins that bind to each type of particle.11 Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229; Ex. 1005, 586–587 (describing “systemic characterization of carbon nanoparticle-protein corona”), 588 (Fig. 3). Cai’s results show “the relative abundance of the MWCNT-binding proteins spread over 8 orders of magnitude” and that “some of the proteins with the highest binding efficiencies” are actually “low abundance proteins” in the lysate, meaning that that Cai’s method selectively enriches such proteins for detection. Ex. 1005, 587. We credit Dr. Vargas’s testimony that these results demonstrate that Cai’s method achieves the “dynamic range” recited in step 1(c). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,435,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,435,360
• Avanos Medical, Inc. v. Stratus Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2026 · IPR2024-01209 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations, principally Racz, Fitz, and Lee; both parties’ motions to exclude are dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 58). Patent Owner’s proposal is too narrow in two respects. First, it mandates certain education and experience in RF neurotomy specifically. This is too narrow as the description of the scope of the invention set forth in the ’782 patent as described above is not limited to RF neurotomy. Second, it requires the POSA to be both a physician who performs thermal ablation (RF neurotomy specifically) and an engineer with training and experience “in the design and development of devices and methods” for performing the same. Id. This is too narrow because it excludes physicians and other advanced degree holders who research and design devices and methods for performing thermal ablation but do not actually operate on patients. We adopt the Petitioner’s definition of a POSA, quoted above, as it is reflective of the level of skill in the art when viewed in light of the disclosure of the ’782 patent. Supra (quoting Pet. 11).” slip op. at 16

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

    “With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶106 (Dr. Robert D. Tucker’s11 testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). In instituting the IPR, we found no need to provide an express construction of any claim term. Inst. Dec. 12. We likewise find no need to do so now, as neither party has proposed a construction for any claim term and none of the parties’ arguments turns on a disputed meaning of any claim language.” slip op. at 11

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

    “(Fed. Cir. 1985)). “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.” Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658–59. Patent Owner argues that Lee is not analogous art under the first criterion because “Lee does not relate to neurotomy at all.” PO Resp. 34. However, as discussed above, the field of the invention is not limited to neurotomy. The field of the invention is thermal ablation generally, which encompasses RF neurotomy, but which is not limited to RF neurotomy. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. To the contrary, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Lee is analogous art, under at least the first Clay criterion, because it “discloses various techniques for deploying electrodes from the tip of an RF ablation device.” Pet. 18.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Tucker’s testimony is not a bald conclusion. His conclusion as to a reasonable expectation of success is set forth in paragraph 148 of his declaration. Ex. 1031 ¶148. It is supported extensively with testimony regarding what the prior art teaches (see id. ¶¶110–117 (Racz), ¶¶118–123 (Fitz), ¶¶124–131 (Lee)) and why and how a POSA would have combined the prior art teachings (see id. ¶¶132–147). Dr. Tucker’s testimony clearly is entitled to weight. Since 1983, he has “been a Professor at the University of Iowa where [he] direct[s] an active research program in radiofrequency electrosurgical procedures and instrumentation.” Ex. 1031 ¶3. He has a Ph.D. in biophysics, and he is also a medical doctor (albeit he is not Board certified as pointed out by Patent Owner19). Id. ¶2. He also has additional training and experience that is relevant, but which is not necessary, but further establishes that he is well qualified to offer the opinions set forth in his declaration. Id. ¶¶2–11. Patent Owner argues that Dr. Tucker is not qualified to testify here because “he is not Board certified” and he is “not a pain-specialist physician and has never performed a neurotomy.” PO Resp. 30. Dr. Tucker explained, however, that he is not Board certified nor does he operate on 19 See PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2020, 10:19–12:20). patients because his work focuses on the development of instrumentation, not the use of it, explaining on cross-examination:” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 10,966,782 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,966,782
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00928 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 11–13, and 16–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Schröder and Yuen, LeBoeuf, or LeBoeuf and Wissmar; Schröder alone did not render its challenged claims unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. 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 ’034 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner has the better position, as we agree with Petitioner that the ’034 patent discloses an embodiment that uses transparent potting as a window, rather than to form the overall form factor and encapsulate components: [Figure] 16C is a perspective view of the WCD with potting material 1630. As described above, the PCB, battery, and components can be disposed within the space. Once disposed therein, a potting 1630 can be provided atop the components and within the cutaway portion 1616. The potting 1630 can be transparent to allow for transmission of light through the cutaway portions 1616. Ex. 1001, 20:51–57. This configuration is shown below in Figure 16C. “[Figure] 16C is a perspective view of the WCD with potting material.” Ex. 1001, 6:1–2. As Figure 16C shows, potting material 1616 forms a window in only a portion of the WCD’s exterior. can be used to encapsulate components and form the overall form factor in some embodiments. E.g., Ex. 1001, 17:4–8, 18:61–62. But Patent Owner does not persuade us that claim 12 is limited to those embodiments. PO Resp. 29; SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.”). Accordingly, we do not construe claim 12’s “external transparent potting” as requiring material that “forms the ‘overall form factor of the WCD 120, in addition to providing a housing for one or more electronic components,’” as suggested by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 29. Nor do we construe the claim language as requiring material that “also fills the space and encapsulates the components,” as suggested by Patent Owner. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and find that Patent Owner has the better position. Although Schröder describes some aspects that are similar to those of a printed circuit board, Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Schröder’s inlay 12 or carrier foil to be a “printed circuit board,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 16. As an initial matter, while Schröder refers to a “circuit board” in another context, it never refers to the carrier foil or inlay in its finger-ring embodiment as such. See Ex. 1007, 22:48–49; see also Ex. 1079 ¶ 21 (Dr. Anthony acknowledging that Schröder’s only reference to a “circuit board” is “unrelated to Schröder’s finger-ring teachings”). Instead, Schröder describes features of that inlay, explaining that “[t]he carrier foil itself consists of a flexible plastic material, e.g.[,] PET or Kapton” and “antenna coil 8 can for example be printed on the carrier foil by means of a conductive paste” and “a depression is manufactured in the carrier foil, e.g.[,] by milling, lasering, etching, before the chip module 10, the antenna coil 8 and optional further electronic devices are inserted into the depression.” Ex. 1007, 13:26–31, 13:35–37. Schröder further describes that “[a]t least one further foil can be applied to the carrier foil or the ring blank on at least one side” to produce a “multilayer foil composite” that can be “interconnected” by means of “glue” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “show that Schröder’s inlay 12 is a PCB. Relying on testimony from Dr. Anthony, Petitioner asserts that Schröder’s inlay 12 serves as a flexible carrier made of materials “commonly understood to be printed circuit board materials” such as PET and Kapton. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 172; Ex. 1006, 12:28–29). Dr. Anthony did not provide a clear explanation of a person of ordinary skill in the art’s understanding of a PCB in his direct testimony. article describing a PCB as a “laminated sandwich structure of conductive and insulating layers” was an accurate description of a PCB: Q. So is the first sentence of this Wiki page, in your mind, an accurate description of a printed circuit board? A. So, the first sentence, “A printed circuit board (PCB)[] also called [a] printed wiring board, []is a laminated sandwich structure of conductive and insulating layers, each with a pattern of traces, planes, and other features (similar to wires on a flat surface) etched from one or more sheets of copper laminated onto or between sheet layers of nonconductive substrate.” And so your question again was? Q. Is that a fair definition of printed circuit board in your mind? A. It’s a fair description of the general process for circuit boards, layers of conductive traces.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,582,034 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,582,034
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25

  • 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 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, 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. 26. 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 ’178 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

    “Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. 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 ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. 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), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. 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 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,868,178

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.