- PTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · PGR2025-00033 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, and 6–29 based on the written-description and enablement grounds; it found the obviousness ground did not meet the institution threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard in view of the current record, we determine that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1, 2 and 6–29 of the ’652 patent are unpatentable and therefore institute post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’652 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not have expertise specifically in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id. Moreover, Patent Owner fails to persuasively explain why Petitioner’s definition that includes a person with expertise in other enzymes is insufficient. Even if we were to apply Patent Owner’s POSA definition, it is not clear on the record before us that Petitioner’s experts lack relevant expertise or qualifications of at least a POSA.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:41–54 (emphasis added). Based on this express definition, the current record does not support the interpretation proffered by Patent Owner and Dr. Triggs-Raine that the “term ‘modified PH20 polypeptide,’. . . has a purely structural meaning in the context of the specification.” Prelim Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2055 ¶ 68). Patent Owner and its declarant rely on a truncated version of the definition above that omits the text after the first period because, in their view, that text “is not part of the express definition of ‘modified PH20 polypeptide’” and “merely describes an upper limit for the number of modifications possibly allowing a modified PH20 polypeptide to exhibit enzymatic activity.” Ex. 2055 ¶¶ 67, 77–78 (emphasis in original). On this record, we disagree. We find that this text is part of the definition of “modified PH20 polypeptide” because it continues to detail specific elements required of that term, i.e., a requirement that modifications in the PH20 polypeptide are permitted “so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Ex. 1001, 48:47–49 (emphasis added); see Ex. 2055 ¶ 67 (acknowledging that a “patent’s definition controls,” but referring, without adequate explanation, to the second sentence of the definition paragraph as “a non-limiting example”). Indeed, while some of the language in the definitional paragraph is permissive in nature, i.e.., describing the number of amino acid replacements a modified PH20 polypeptide “can have” or “[t]ypically . . . contains” or the other modifications the polypeptide “can include,” the phrase “so long as” is not. See Ex. 1001, 48:41–56. This distinction demonstrates that hyaluronidase activity is not an optional feature of a non-limiting example as Patent Owner posits, but a requirement of the “modified PH20 polypeptide” defined and claimed in the ’652 patent. See Alynylam Pharms., Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., 138 F.4th 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (explaining that the “contrast” between “non-limiting terms” and more definitive statements may indicate that the latter is definitional).” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“On the current record, the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the claims of the ’652 patent fail to satisfy the written description requirement because they “recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it and . . . cover any compound later actually invented and determined to fall within the claim’s functional boundaries— leaving it to the pharmaceutical industry to complete an unfinished invention.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that there is insufficient written description for the challenged claims. Similarly, the current record does not appear to provide evidence of possession of the full scope of the claims of the ’652 patent in the ’731 application or any of the subsequent divisional or continuation applications leading to the ’652 patent that claim priority to the ’731 application (which appear to all have similar specifications) for the reasons given above.11 Therefore, the challenged claims of the ’652 patent do not receive the benefit of priority from the earlier filed applications, and based on this preliminary determination, the ’652 patent is eligible for post-grant review because the 11 We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner only evaluates description and enablement as of 2011, rather than as of the 2012 filing date of the ’731 application. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1, 11–12, 32. Instead, we agree with Petitioner that it “did not restrict the § 112(a) analysis to December 2011;” rather Petitioner stated that “the claims are not entitled to the ‘December 28, 2012’ benefit date of the ’731 Application, while ‘the obviousness grounds use’ the December 2011 priority date being claimed.” Prelim. Reply 5–6 (citing Pet. 5–6, 15–16). effective filing date is no earlier than the ’652 patent’s actual filing date of December 12, 2022. See Ex. 1001, code (22).” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,049,652 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00207 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Director review
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7, 11–14, and 16–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Petitioner filed a request for Director Review of the Decision granting Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denying institution (“Decision,” Paper 10) and Patent Owner filed an authorized response. See Paper 121 (“DR Request”); Paper 13 (“Patent Owner Response”). The Director granted the DR Request and referred the Petition to the Board “to handle the case in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other non-discretionary considerations, as appropriate.” Paper 14 (“Order Granting Director Review”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”) We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’228 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See SAS Inst. Inc. v Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 364–65 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (a)” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“As noted above, Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response and thus does not respond at this time. Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“a “single caching agent,” which is recited in claim 1 here. ’1344 IPR, Paper 31 (“Final Written Decision”), 16–18. We concluded that a “‘single caching agent’ means ‘one caching agent for the processor, which may be formed from distributed portions.’” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 14
Claim constructioncites KSR · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,984,228 - PTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · PGR2025-00017 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, 6–15, and 17–30 based on written-description and enablement challenges; it found the obviousness challenge insufficient at this stage.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the cited evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6–15, and 17–30 of the ’520 patent, and therefore, we grant post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’520 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id. Moreover, Patent Owner fails to persuasively explain why Petitioner’s definition that includes a person with expertise in other enzymes is insufficient. Even if we were to apply Patent Owner’s POSA definition, it is not clear on the record before us that Petitioner’s experts lack relevant expertise or qualifications of at least a POSA.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–53 (emphasis added). Based on this express definition, the current record does not support the interpretation of Dr. Triggs-Raine that the “term ‘modified PH20 polypeptide,’ therefore, has a purely structural meaning in the context of the specification.” Ex. 2055 ¶ 68. Indeed, when reproducing the definition from this column of the ’520 patent, Dr. Triggs-Raine does not include any text after the first period, stating that “is not part of the express definition of ‘modified PH20 polypeptide’” and “merely describes an upper limit for the number of modifications possibly allowing a modified PH20 polypeptide to exhibit enzymatic activity.” Ex. 2055 ¶¶ 67, 77–78. On this record, however, we find that this text is part of the definition of “modified PH20 polypeptide” because it continues to detail specific elements required including a requirement that replacements in the PH20 polypeptide are permitted “so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Ex. 1001, 48:44–47; see Ex. 2055 ¶ 67 (stating a “patent’s definition controls”). And Dr. Triggs-Raine states “the modified PH20 polypeptides have multiple credible uses, including ‘therapeutic uses of modified PH20 polypeptides that have the ability to degrade hyaluronan.’” Ex. 2055 ¶ 115.7 That is, Dr. Triggs-Raine recognizes hyaluronidase as the primary utility for the modified PH20 polypeptides recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted
“Thus, the ’520 patent evidences that even when only a single mutation is made in the PH20 polypeptide, that single mutation is more likely than not to alter the structure in such a way as to inactivate the hyaluronidase activity found in the native PH20 polypeptide. On this record, Dr. Hecht persuasively demonstrates that when the full scope of claim 1 is addressed, which includes not just single mutations in the PH20 polypeptide, but also multiple mutations, there is no expectation of structural homogeneity, stating that “[i]ntroducing multiple amino acid changes simultaneously . . . could prevent the folding of sequences into secondary structures and structural motifs and can destabilize those structures if they do form.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Dr. Hecht notes that claim 1 allows “21-42 changes, with each additional change (except at position 324) being to 1 of 19 other amino acids. But the up to 21-42 changes also can be at any of between 430 and 465 (or, in the case of the broadest claims, 474) different positions depending on which unmodified PH20 sequence is used.” Id. ¶ 120. Dr. Park calculates that “95% sequence identity to PH201-465 means that the protein can have 23 total changes,” and that where one of those changes is one of five choices at position 324 as required by claim 1, the number of possible PH20 polypeptides with twenty-two additional changes is “extremely large by all accounts, ranging from 1059 to 10112.” See” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,110,520 - Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00580 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claim 8 not shown unpatentable under each of three §103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish motivation to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had at least a Ph.D. in biochemistry, molecular biology, or a related field and between one and four years of post-doctoral experience in the field of gene therapy. Alternatively, a POSA would have had at least a Master’s or Bachelor’s Degree in biochemistry, molecular biology, or a related field, with a corresponding number of additional years of experience in the field of gene therapy. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–115). Patent Owner states that it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 10. On this complete record, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’274 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that the ’274 patent “does not specify a particular program or set of program parameters that should be used to align sequences and calculate percent identity for purposes of determining whether a particular test sequence falls within the scope of the claims.” Pet. 21. Petitioner asserts that it analyzed the percent identity claim elements, as Patent Owner did in the parallel District Court litigation, Penn-II, “using the Clustal program at default settings to generate amino acid sequence alignments and calculate percent identity values.” Id. at 21–22. Petitioner, however, does not ask for any particular construction of any claim term. See id. Patent Owner states that it “does not challenge Petitioner’s articulation of the lack of a need for claim construction.” PO Resp. 10. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. v. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“According to the import of the complete recitation of paragraph 250 of the ’772 Publication set forth above that Petitioner relies upon for the motivation to improve efficient gene transfer in liver, AAV8 already fulfills this need. See Tr. 28:15–18. We do not read the ’772 Publication as calling for a search for a more efficient variant to improve efficient gene transfer in liver. We credit Dr. Samulski’s testimony that supports this view of the teachings of the ’772 Publication. Dr. Samulski testifies: Additionally, when the inventors compared AAV8’s expression in the liver against new serotypes AAVrh2, AAVrh10, AAVrh13, and AAVrh21, they found that AAV8 remained superior: EX1007, ¶ 253. Notably, AAV8 was shown to have over fifty percent (50%) greater expression in liver than AAVrh10. As I discuss more below, a skilled artisan in 2005 would not have expected a single amino acid substitution to significantly alter tropism in order to target to a different tissue. Thus, in my opinion, in 2005, a skilled artisan with the goal of targeting the liver would have selected the best known vector for delivery to liver at that time—AAV8. Ex. 2027 ¶ 42. We also agree with Dr. Samulski’s opinion that a POSA would have selected the best vector for liver, AAV8, instead of modifying another vector to increase tropism to liver. Dr. Samulski testifies: In my opinion, a skilled artisan in 2005 would not have looked solely to modify a vector to try to improve tropism to a particular tissue. As discussed throughout this declaration, changing tropism is difficult to predict, and a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation that changes could be made to improve or alter tropism. A skilled artisan would also have been concerned that changes, even small ones, could negatively impact other properties of the capsid protein. Therefore, rather than seek to modify a vector, a skilled artisan” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The ’772 Publication, however, does not indicate as Petitioner asserts that a new variant is necessary to improve the efficiency of gene transfer to liver; the ’772 Publication indicates that AAV8 fulfills that need. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 250. In the paragraph that Petitioner relies upon for the alleged need to improve the efficiency of gene transfer to the liver, the ’772 Publication states in full: The tropism of each new vector is favorable for in vivo applications. AAV2/7 vectors appear to transduce skeletal muscle as efficiently as AAV2/1, which is the serotype that confers the highest level of transduction in skeletal muscle of the primate AAVs tested to date. Importantly, AAV2/8 provides a substantial advantage over the other serotypes in terms of efficiency of gene transfer to liver that until now has been relatively disappointing in terms of the numbers of hapatocytes stably transduced. AAV2/8 consistently achieved a 10 to 100-fold improvement in gene transfer efficiency as compared to the other vectors. The basis for the improved efficiency of AAV2/8 is unclear, although it presumably is due to uptake via a different receptor that is more active on the basolateral surface of hepatocytes. This improved efficiency will be quite useful in the development of liver-directed gene transfer where the number of transduced cells is critical, such as in urea cycle disorders and familial hypercholesterolemia. Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). According to the import of the complete recitation of paragraph 250 of the ’772 Publication set forth above that Petitioner relies upon for the motivation to improve efficient gene transfer in liver, AAV8 already fulfills this need. See Tr. 28:15–18. We do not read the ’772 Publication as calling for a search for a more efficient variant to improve efficient gene transfer in liver. We credit Dr. Samulski’s testimony that supports this view of the teachings of the ’772 Publication. Dr. Samulski testifies: Additionally, when the inventors compared AAV8’s expression in the liver against new serotypes AAVrh2, AAVrh10, AAVrh13, and AAVrh21, they found that AAV8 remained superior:” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 11,680,274 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,680,274 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. The Foundry, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00669 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over Makower, Fang, and Edwards, with claim 4 also obvious over those references and Stern; the Board did not reach Grounds 1–4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the record before us, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’077 patent and the cited prior art, we find a POSA would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in biomedical engineering or a related discipline, (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices that deliver energy to tissue, and 3) knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, and vice versa. 11 Patent Owner suggests a POSA’s ability to “learn about” the nasal anatomy invokes the wrong standard because a POSA “must have the necessary background at the time of the invention.” PO Sur-reply 27. We agree in part with Patent Owner; the hypothetical POSA is presumed to possess the requisite skill at the time of the invention. Nevertheless, as it concerns an engineer with extensive experience designing and developing RF ablation devices (like Dr. Martin), we see no basis to conclude that such person may not become familiar with the features of the nose through review of the literature and/or consultation with clinicians. Ex. 1098 ¶ 44 (testifying a person with device design experience could learn about the relevant nasal anatomy and apply their skill to problems or solutions for that area by reviewing the relevant literature). Moreover, that Dr. Martin may not have had personal experience designing devices for the nose prior to 2006 does not mean that he cannot testify from a POSA’s perspective. Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA, Inc., 116 F.4th 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“An expert need not have acquired the skill level prior to the time of the invention to be able to testify from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art” because “an expert can acquire the necessary skill level later and develop an understanding of what a [POSA] knew at the time of the invention”) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner that the ’077 patent discloses delivering neurotoxins to any target, and not just the nose, the claims of the ’077 patent are directed to methods of treating a nasal condition by delivering energy to the nasal cavity. Pet. Reply 32. Thus, to fill a gap between Petitioner’s POSA definition and the scope of the challenged claims, we add to Petitioner’s definition the requirement for knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. We additionally add that a POSA’s educational background may include a bachelor of science degree in biomedical engineering or related discipline to reflect the nature of the field of invention. Nonetheless, we also note that our analysis and conclusions herein would not change even under Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a POSA. We do not agree with Patent Owner that prior experience designing or developing nasal medical devices is required for a POSA. PO Resp. 19–20. A definition inclusive of the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of nasal medical devices that deliver energy to tissue is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’077 patent and prior art. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Bu-Saba fails to qualify as a POSA because he lacks experience specific to designing medical devices. PO Resp. 19 n.4. We also disagree that Dr. Martin’s testimony should be discounted for a lack of first-hand experience designing RF ablation devices specific for the nose (which experience Patent Owner’s engineer expert also lacks). Id. As Dr. Martin’s testimony concerns certain issues in dispute (i.e., use of bipolar electrodes), we find Dr. Martin is qualified and his testimony helpful in resolving those disputes. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining And, even if there may be gaps in Dr. Martin’s experience or knowledge about the nasal anatomy, such gaps are filled by Dr. Bu-Saba’s extensive clinical expertise and testimony of record. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that we should discount the testimony of Dr. Bu-Saba or Dr. Martin; we give their testimony appropriate weight in reaching our conclusions here.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that prior experience designing or developing nasal medical devices is required for a POSA. PO Resp. 19–20. A definition inclusive of the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of nasal medical devices that deliver energy to tissue is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’077 patent and prior art. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Bu-Saba fails to qualify as a POSA because he lacks experience specific to designing medical devices. PO Resp. 19 n.4. We also disagree that Dr. Martin’s testimony should be discounted for a lack of first-hand experience designing RF ablation devices specific for the nose (which experience Patent Owner’s engineer expert also lacks). Id. As Dr. Martin’s testimony concerns certain issues in dispute (i.e., use of bipolar electrodes), we find Dr. Martin is qualified and his testimony helpful in resolving those disputes. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining And, even if there may be gaps in Dr. Martin’s experience or knowledge about the nasal anatomy, such gaps are filled by Dr. Bu-Saba’s extensive clinical expertise and testimony of record. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that we should discount the testimony of Dr. Bu-Saba or Dr. Martin; we give their testimony appropriate weight in reaching our conclusions here.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims’ language in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA, in view of the patent’s specification and considering the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only to the extent needed to resolve the dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim construction is for “resolution of disputed meanings”). Petitioner contends that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR, the Board need not construe any terms.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner responds that “the Board need not construe any terms to determine Petitioners have failed to carry their burden in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 20. On the record before us, we conclude that the claims need not be expressly construed to resolve the dispute before us. Insofar as the parties dispute the mapping of the prior art to dependent claims 4 and 7, we address that dispute below including, to the extent necessary, any implicit disagreement about the subject matter encompassed by those claims.” slip op. at 17
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“For all the reasons above, we determine that the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that a POSA would have reasonably expected success in combining the prior art to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 11,679,077 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,679,077 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. The Foundry, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00280 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8–10, 12, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Makower, Fang, and Edwards; the Board did not reach Grounds 1–3.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the record before us, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’011 patent and the cited prior art, we find a POSA would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in biomedical engineering or a related discipline, (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices that deliver energy to tissue, and 3) knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that prior experience designing or developing nasal medical devices is required for a POSA. PO Resp. 19–20. A definition inclusive of the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of nasal medical devices that deliver energy to tissue is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’011 patent and prior art. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Bu-Saba fails to qualify as a POSA because he lacks experience specific to designing medical devices. PO Resp. 19 n.4. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that we should discount the testimony of Dr. Bu-Saba and we give Dr. Bu-Saba’s testimony appropriate weight in reaching our conclusions here.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the record before us, we conclude that the claims need not be expressly construed to resolve the dispute before us. Insofar as the parties dispute the mapping of the prior art to dependent claim 9, we address that dispute below including, to the extent necessary, any implicit disagreement about the subject matter encompassed by claim 9.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that Makower and Fang7 are analogous art to the challenged claims. Pet. 77 (arguing Makower and Fang “are in the same field” and are “reasonably pertinent” to solving problems addressed by the claimed invention); Ex. 1002 ¶ 178. According to Petitioner, Makower and 7 Petitioner argues a POSA had reasons for combining Edwards with Makower and Fang with a reasonable expectation of success (see, e.g., Pet. 74–76, 81–85). We find persuasive Petitioner’s reasoning and evidence on the addition of Edwards, and Patent Owner provides no rebuttal about Edwards. energy to tissue and “each uses RF energy to treat tissue.” Pet. 77 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 43, 132, 164, 187; Ex. 1006, 876–877).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,894,011 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,894,011 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. The Foundry, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00279 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, and 17–25 are unpatentable as obvious over Makower and Fang; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the record before us, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’675 patent and the cited prior art, we find a POSA would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices that deliver energy to tissue, and 3) knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, and vice versa. In reaching our finding, we note that, although we agree with Petitioner that the ’675 patent discloses delivering neurotoxins to any target, and not just the nose, the claims of the ’675 patent are directed to methods of treating a nasal condition by delivering energy to the nasal cavity. Pet. Reply 30. Thus, to fill a gap between Petitioner’s POSA definition and the scope of the challenged claims, we add to Petitioner’s definition the requirement for knowledge and experience in treating nasal conditions, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. We additionally add that a POSA’s educational background may include a bachelor of science degree in biomedical engineering or related discipline to reflect the nature of the field of invention. Nonetheless, we also note that our analysis and conclusions herein would not change even under Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a POSA. We do not agree with Patent Owner that prior experience designing or developing nasal medical devices is required for a POSA. PO Resp. 19. A definition inclusive of the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of nasal medical devices that deliver energy to tissue is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’675 patent and prior art. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Bu-Saba fails to qualify as a POSA because he lacks experience specific to designing medical devices. PO Resp. 19 n.4. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Second, we credit the testimony of the experts that, on balance, further confirms that skilled clinicians knew how to manage and remove fluids to the extent necessary. Dr. Bu-Saba testifies that typical steps for RF ablation procedures (even before 2006) included positioning the patient in a seated or slightly reclined position to facilitate the flow of any mucus or fluids away from the nasal cavity, application of topical decongestants, and “[i]n some circumstances,” if mucus or blood was still in the treatment area, “a 11 Nor does Patent Owner identify any disclosure in any other technical literature (either before or after 2006) expressing concerns that electrolytic fluids at the operative site could not be managed and/or would prevent targeted application of RF ablation energy to tissues at that site. See, e.g., Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 91–97 (testifying about the hypothetical “fluid” problem, but identifying no independent recognition of such a problem in any corroborating reference); Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 66–76 (same). visualization of the surgical site.” Ex. 1098 ¶¶ 81–89; Pet. Reply 14–15. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Levine, concurs that skilled clinicians knew how to remove mucus and other fluids, testifying that “[i]f [mucus] was obstructing my view” and “[i]f it was this thick . . . I might have to mechanically remove it with forceps, I might have to suction it, I might have to irrigate the nose with a saline solution to wash out the nose.” Ex. 1089 (Levine Tr.), 83:3–84:6 (admitting residual saline could either be swallowed or suctioned out); see also id. at 86:1–16 (testifying a patient may be positioned such that by “[v]irtue of gravity . . . fluid would fall to the bottom”).” slip op. at 33
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR, the Board need not construe any terms.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner responds that “the Board need not construe any terms to determine Petitioners have failed to carry their burden in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 20. On the record before us, we conclude that the claims need not be expressly construed to resolve the dispute before us. Insofar as the parties dispute the mapping of the prior art to dependent claim 22, we address that dispute below including, to the extent necessary, any implicit disagreement about the subject matter encompassed by claim 22.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 10,610,675 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,610,675 - PTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · PGR2025-00009 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, 6–14, and 16–29, finding the written-description and enablement challenges met the institution threshold; the obviousness challenge did not.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the cited evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6–14, and 16–29 of the ’035 patent, and therefore, we grant post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’035 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–53 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“On the current record, the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the claims of the ’035 patent fail to satisfy the written description requirement because they “recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it and . . . cover any compound later actually invented and determined to fall within the claim’s functional boundaries— leaving it to the pharmaceutical industry to complete an unfinished invention.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353. Accordingly, on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’035 patent does not comply with the written description requirement. Similarly, the current record does not appear to provide evidence of possession of the full scope of the claims of the ’035 patent in the ’731 application or any of the subsequent divisional or continuation applications leading to the ’035 patent that claim priority to the ’731 application (which appear to all have similar specifications) for the reasons given above.10 Therefore, the ’035 patent might not receive the benefit of priority to the earlier filed applications, and based on this preliminary determination, is eligible for post-grant review” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,123,035 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00287 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–12, 14–16, and 22–24 are unpatentable under § 103 over Riepling and Meisels, or Riepling, Manzano, and Meisels; claim 13 was disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. We apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction of “representation of the at least one file.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a file is not the file itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ʼ906 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6B reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6B depicts representations of two files: “FamilyHistory.docx” and “XmasLetter-2012.pdf.” The ’906 application specifically states: [A] located data resources dialog UI element 630b . . . includes a presentation space 632b for presenting a user detectable representation of some or all of the data objects identified in the received data object identification response from . . . second node 504. Ex. 2004 ¶ 147 (emphasis added). The entries in the above figure are representations of the files, not the files themselves. The actual files are stored in the file system storage associated with the user’s node, and only retrieved if the user selects the “Access” or “Access All” elements. Id. ¶ 148. Patent Owner misconstrues the claim 22 language, “a first representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the at least one server” and “a second representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the first node.” Patent Owner infers from this language that the representation is itself a file that is “in a location among one or more folders” and is stored on a server or at a node. PO Resp. 17. Not so — the representation of a file, such as “FamilyHistory.docx” in the above figure, is not stored at a server or node, but rather is simply displayed on a screen. As the ’906 application states: A representation of a program entity may be stored and/or otherwise maintained in a presentation space. As used in this document, the term “presentation space” refers to a storage region allocated and/or otherwise provided for storing presentation information . . . . A screen of a display, for example, is a presentation space.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“because (i) Riepling and Meisels are from the same field of endeavor, directed to sharing files over a network; (ii) the combination would have yielded expected, predictable results, using known and routine computer programming principles, to modify Riepling’s system to generate an electronic message that includes a link pointing to an uploaded file; (iii) the combination would have been readily implemented given Meisels’ teachings of inserting, in an electronic message, a link to a shared location where a file is uploaded; and (iv) the combination was suggested because Meisels expressly disclosed a benefit of sending an email message with a link, to avoid multiple copies of a file from existing at multiple locations, and sending links to one file to multiple recipients and managing permissions on an individual recipient basis. Pet. 67–70 (citing Ex. 1107, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 2, 4, 19; Ex. 1108, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 1, 3, 41–45, 56; Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 194–198). In addition, for reasons similar to the motivation basis, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Id. at 70–71 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 199–200). Other than its arguments directed to ’520 claim requirement 9[l], discussed below in Section III.D.4.d), Patent Owner does not further address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the combination of Riepling and Meisels. As discussed in that section, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have applied the document link teachings of Meisels to modify Riepling. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Riepling and Meisels in the manner argued by Petitioner.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that set content field 325 of Riepling teaches or suggests claim requirement 9[b]. As Petitioner’s expert explains, the fact that field 325 has an appearance identical to that of fields 321–324 in Figure 3, which fields are specifically stated to be “text field[s],” strongly suggests that field 325 is also a text field. Mowry Decl. ¶ 70; see also Reply 10–11. Patent Owner’s suggestion that field 325 could be a dropdown list or other type of field is contradicted by the fact that it does not show the typical dropdown arrow associated with a dropdown box, or other typical non-textbox appearance such as the checkbox appearance of field 320. Moreover, in the example of Figure 3, the “Set Content” entry is “audio,” which is a file description. Reply 10. The fact that “JPEG” is checked in field 320 is not inconsistent with the “audio” entry in field 325, given that, as Riepling explains, “it may be possible for audio files such as MP3 files to contain non-MP3 data, such as JPEG data embedded within the MP3 files.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1107 ¶ 32; Mowry 2nd Decl. ¶ ¶ 101–104). Also, there is no reason why the Figure 5 response that gives the uploader the ability to provide additional description of the file being uploaded is inconsistent with the ability of the requester first describing what type of file is being requested via field 325 in Figure 3. Id. at 11–12. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirement 9[b].” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 17–21 are unpatentable under § 103 over Houston and Garcia; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We conclude that there is no basis for Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “representation of the at least one folder.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a folder is not the folder itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ’635 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6D reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6D depicts representations of several folders, including the highlighted “Music” folder. The ’635 application specifically states: A folder content pane UI element 648d in navigation window UI element 646d is presented including representations of one or more data objects[11] at a location, identified in a path UI element 650d. A pointer UI element 652d illustrates a drag and drop operation of a “Music” folder represented in contents pane UI element 648d, dropped on edit window UI element 602d. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123 (emphasis added). The word “Music” in the above figure is a representation of a folder, not the folder itself. The actual folder is an entity in a file system that stores files (in the case of a “Music” folder, presumably MP3 or WAV files, or the like).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not need to rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — 14 For this argument and others, Patent Owner cites for additional support portions of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/233,787. PO Resp. 18, 42, 46; Sur-Reply 9–12. This application is designated in Houston as a related application, and incorporated by reference therein. Ex. 1003, code (60), 1:6–10. We denied as untimely Patent Owner’s request to belatedly add this application to the record. Ex. 3002; Paper 39. Even accepting Patent Owner’s representations of the relied-on disclosures in that application, those disclosures are cumulative to Houston’s criticisms of systems that store documents remotely, and are irrelevant for the same reasons as discussed herein with respect to those Houston disclosures. that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Id. at 40–41; Ex. 2045.15 Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21, in light of our conclusion set forth above in Section III.C rejecting Patent Owner’s proposed construction of claim 17. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user’s local system and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, there is nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia that would support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To give substantial weight to objective indicia of nonobviousness such as commercial success, a proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). A patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “[T]he patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378. The Federal Circuit has held that “if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; rather, “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Fox Factory, 994 F.3d at 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 125, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “Ultimately, the fact finder must weigh the [objective indicia] evidence presented in the context of whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential) (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“However, as Petitioner argues above, Houston discloses that a client can provide an email to the server to invite others to share a folder, and Houston explains that “attaching files [to emails is] cumbersome for many computer users.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 4, 1:41–42, 3:40–43, 7:50–51). From this, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious for the email invitation to notify how to access the folder, rather than sending the folder contents itself. Id. Petitioner further argues that the claim 17[d] requirement would have been obvious over the combination of Houston and Garcia given the disclosure in Garcia of sharing a folder by sending an email with a link to the folder, instead of an attachment. Id. at 27, 57 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 11–12, 10:32–34, 10:38–40, 11:39–43, cl. 3). We are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding this claim requirement. Both Houston alone, and the combination of Houston and Garcia, teach or suggest sending an email with a link to a folder to be shared, rather than the folder contents. Only if the recipient clicks on the link are the contents of the folder shared. Ex. 1004, 11:29–31. The act of clicking on the link in the email after the email is received is the required “initiation of the communication” that must occur separately from the email itself, as required by claim 17[d]: “causing generation of at least one email [that] does not include a file attachment, for permitting avoidance of at least one file from being communicated to and stored at the second node until an initiation of the communication of the at least one file by a user of the second node is detected and the communication commences via at least one server that stores the at least one file” (emphasis added). It does not matter if Houston or Garcia automatically downloads local copies of files when a recipient clicks on the email link, because that is a separate step following the step of claim 17[d].” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520
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.