• Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2018 · IPR2018-00376 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and upheld denial of institution on the Slemmer and Vu obviousness ground because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co.,, 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Notably, we must base our determination of a “reasonable likelihood” that Petitioner would “prevail” on “the information presented in the petition,” specifically. In the present case, Petitioner has not provided a basis, legal or otherwise, in support of its position that we must determine a “reasonable likelihood” based on information presented in some other petition, much less based on some other evidence of record in another proceeding. For example, in IPR2016-00077, the panel based its decision on a “Declaration by Mr. Keith Olsen.” That evidence is not of record in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “supporting Petitioner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the cited references. Req. Reh’g. 8–10. In particular, Petitioner reiterates previous arguments presented in the Petition such as “Vu is one of the first prior art references to teach the handshake” but that “other prior art references also teach it.” Req. Reh’g 9. These arguments were previously addressed. Decision 7–8. Although Petitioner may disagree with our resolution of the arguments that Petitioner presented in its Petition, such arguments were considered fully in our Decision.” slip op. at 4

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “construction for the term ‘TCP connection hand shake completion data,’ which resulted in an incorrect determination.” Req. Reh’g. 5. In particular, Petitioner now proposes a broadest reasonable construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data” to mean “two devices initiating a communication session by the first device sending information to a second device, and the second device then responding to the first device.” Req. Reh’g. 7. Based on this newly proposed construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data,” Petitioner argues that Vu discloses this feature. Req. Reh’g. 6–8. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner must “identify all matters [Petitioner] believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Petitioner did not present this proposed construction in the Petition. See generally Req. Reh’g.; see generally Pet. We could not have “misapprehended or overlooked” what was not presented.” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,266
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00627 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10–16, 21–23, 25, and 38–46 are unpatentable; claims 6–9, 17–20, 24, and 47 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although the dictionary defines “periodically” as “from time to time” or “at regular intervals of time,” based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction is how one skilled in the art would have understood that term in the context of the ’345 patent Specification. Turning first to the intrinsic evidence, the Specification explains that “[t]he future and current minimum values are calculated continuously and initiated periodically, for example, every 5 seconds.” Ex. 1001, 8:37–39. Although the Specification later notes that “[i]t will be appreciated that, while specific values are used as in the several equations and calculations employed in the present invention, these values may be different than those shown” (id. at 8:64–67), this passage does not mean that the Specification contemplates arrangements where “periodically” is simply “from time to time.” Rather, we determine that statement from the Specification indicates that the specific amount of time (i.e., every 5 seconds) may vary. Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, the testimony of Dr. Douglas supports our conclusion, explaining that “at regular intervals of time” is the “only . . . definition . . . consistent with the understanding of a person skilled in the art in light of the specification of the ’345 Patent and its use in the particular field of audio signal processing” because [l]ike the “period” of an audio signal itself, which is the amount of time it takes for a signal to repeat itself, “periodically” as recited in claims 6 and 9 and throughout the remainder of the specification of the ’345 Patent refers to actions that occur at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds rather than merely “from time to time”). Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hochwald testifies that outside of the context of the ’345 patent Specification, “periodically” means “at regular time intervals” (Ex. 2005, 99:13–15), and when asked about that term’s meaning in the context of the ’345 patent Specification, Dr. Hochwald simply noted that “all I can do is read what it says,” which is that “[i]t’s doing something periodically, for example, every five seconds” (id. at 100:4–6). Accordingly, the testimony from Dr. Douglas, as well as that from Dr. Hochwald, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In summary, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “periodically,” requiring “at regular intervals of time,” because (1) this is consistent with how this term is used in the context of the ’345 Patent Specification; and (2) this is supported by the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner responds that, because Helf uses average values (i.e., the average of eight consecutive values), it does not disclose using a minimum value. PO Resp. 17–23. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’345 patent, itself, uses a “smoothing process [that] produces frequency bins with multiple smoothed magnitude values, ultimately finding the minimum of all of the values,” but contends that “Helf’s averaging process produces a single output representing one average of the original samples.” Id. at 20–21 (underlining omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14–28; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the differences between Helf and the ’345 patent. While Helf may ultimately produce a single minimum value, as discussed above, that value is based on a minimum value of the averages calculated over the given time period. At oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that Helf determines many averages values (i.e., the averages of the eight consecutive frames) and determines a minimum of those values. See, e.g., Tr. 22:2–6. The claim simply requires a “future minimum value,” and does not preclude that value from being a minimum value taken from a set of average values. Indeed, such an interpretation of the claim would be inconsistent with the ’345 patent’s use of smoothed values noted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 8:14–28. The testimony of Dr. Douglas cited by Patent Owner does not convince us otherwise. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72 (effectively repeating Patent Owner’s contentions, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Helf’s minimum value (Mk) corresponds to the “future minimum value” recited in claims 4 and 39.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “With respect to its “running minimum estimator,” Helf explains that the “running minimum estimator” is used “when either the speech signal is never absent for more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral shape.” Ex. 1010, 8:11–15. Helf acknowledges that its “running minimum estimator” is “much less accura[te]” than its “stationary estimator,” which is typically used for background noise estimates. Id. at 8:15–17. As a result, Helf only uses its “running minimum estimator” if “[i]t has been more than 10 seconds since the last update of the background noise spectral estimate due to the Stationary Estimator,” and “[t]he difference, D, between the past background noise estimate, which may have resulted from the Stationary Estimator or the Running Minimum Estimator, and the current Running Minimum Estimator is great.” Id. at 8:32–42. We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00692 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–14 as anticipated by Best and obvious over Best, and claim 15 as obvious over Best, Mills, and Bonella.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “construction “requires two layers of IC packages, in which a first IC package (the Board’s ‘carrier’) contains one or more second IC packages (the Board’s memory chips).” PO Resp. 39. Petitioner counters that “[t]he Board’s construction does no such thing.” Pet. Reply 18–19. We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument is predicated upon the erroneous assertion that “[e]ach memory chip in the Board’s ‘carrier’ requires a different IC package (i.e., a second IC package) that encloses at least one memory die.” PO Resp. 39. Each memory chip does not require its own integrated circuit package. On the contrary, it may be, as Best discloses, a die enclosed with another die in a single IC package. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain our construction of “memory module” to mean “a carrier that contains one or more memory chips,” where “carrier” encompasses an integrated circuit package.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Otherwise, we determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We have reviewed the arguments provided by Patent Owner and determine such arguments are insufficient to have Mr. Maltiel’s declaration excluded in its entirety. Rather, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); and Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within [its] discretion.”). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that we should give the entirety of Mr. Maltiel’s declaration no weight.” slip op. at 16

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

    “8–14. Pet. 30–37, 44–49. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Best.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,874,831 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,874,831
• Teoxane S.A. v. Allergan, PLC Et Al.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2017-02002 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may be instituted only upon a showing that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Taking account of the information presented, we determine that the Petition fails to make out that threshold showing for review. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute a trial.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a B.S. or M.S. in biochemistry, polymer chemistry, medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry, or a related field with “several years” of practical experience. Alternatively, according to Petitioner, the ordinary artisan would have had less practical experience but a Ph.D. in one of those fields, or an M.D. in dermatology, plastic surgery, or a specialty related to the clinical use of dermal fillers. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 12–13). Patent Owner does not contest that argument in the Preliminary Response. For purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s definition, which, on this record, is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reveal the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Second, a term in a patent preamble is limiting when it “breathes life and meaning into the patent claims.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 269 (CCPA 1976). “Whether to treat a preamble as a limitation is a determination ‘resolved only on review of the entire” patent disclosure “to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.’” Catalina Mktg. Int’l. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Our review of the ’475 patent persuades us that the inventors “actually invented and intended to encompass by” claim 1 a stable composition as defined in the specification. Catalina Mktg. Int’l., 289 F.2d at 808. The inventors disclosed and claimed a “stable” composition containing both HA and lidocaine that overcame the “relative inferior stability properties” of prior art compositions. Ex. 1001, 2:6–32. In that regard, the specification repeatedly refers to the ability of the claimed compositions to remain stable after high-temperature sterilization procedures (such as autoclaving) or shelf-storage storage for prolonged lengths of time. See, e.g., id. at 2:42–49 (contrasting the “enhanced stability” of the claimed compositions “relative to conventional HA-based compositions including” “lidocaine” “when subjected to sterilization techniques such as autoclaving” or “when stored for long periods of time at ambient temperature”);” slip op. at 10

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

    “One final point pertaining to the “stable” limitation requires discussion. The specification makes clear that stability, in the context of the ’475 patent, relates to the “shelf life” of the composition “when stored for a lengthy period of time” prior to injection into a patient, for example, “for a period of time of at least 6 months to a year or more.” Id. at 6:51–53, 13:51; see id. at 2:26–27 (objective of invention is to provide “HA-based injectable compositions which incorporate lidocaine” that are not “prone to” degradation “when placed in storage for any significant amount of time”), 4:42–43, 5:33–38 (composition has “enhanced stability” “when stored at ambient temperature for an extended period of time”), 8:4–5 (the composition of the invention will “remain stable when stored for long periods of time at room temperature”). Accordingly, we determine that the preamble term “stable” (Ex. 1001, 16:40) “breathes life and meaning into” claim 1 and, therefore, is limiting. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 269. We adopt for purposes of this decision the following definition of “stable,” which is advanced by Petitioner: soft tissue filler that is free of viable microorganisms as determined by a sterility test recognized by a regulatory authority, the filler can be sterilized by any method known in the art, and is resistant to degradation such that the composition maintains one or more of the following aspects: transparent appearance, pH, extrusion force and/or rheological characteristics, hyaluronic acid (HA) concentration, sterility, osmolarity, and lidocaine concentration, after being effectively sterilized by autoclaving and subsequently stored at a temperature of at least about 25° C for at least about two months. Pet. 11. That construction is not opposed by Patent Owner at this stage of the proceeding (Prelim. Resp. 3–4) and is substantially consistent with an express definition set forth in the specification. Ex. 1001, 5:17–20.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,450,475
• Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., And Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2018 · IPR2016-01412 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 16–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Palermo, Joshi, and Handbook, and over Oshlack, Joshi, Handbook, and Doyon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’976 patent would have “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, polymer chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical technology, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacology, and/or a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex.1007 ¶¶ 31– 34). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 74–75). We, therefore, apply that skill level in our analysis, with the understanding that the level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be more persuasive based on the ’376 patent specification. In particular, the specification defines “unsuitable for injection” “to mean that one would have substantial difficulty injecting the dosage form (e.g., due to pain upon administration or difficulty pushing the dosage form through a syringe) due to the viscosity imparted on the dosage form, thereby reducing the potential for abuse of the opioid analgesic from the dosage form.” Ex. 1001, 3:15–20. Additionally, in an example concerning the formation of a gel at different concentrations, the specification characterizes certain solutions as “THICK (10 cP to 60 cP): Although a syringe can be filled with this solution, it was hard to do.” Id. at 32:8–24, Table 3. Thus, the specification teaches that a viscosity of at least 10 cP is difficult to pull into a syringe or administer parenterally (via injection). Patent Owner does not address these teachings of the specification. We, therefore, determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “unsuitable for parenteral administration” and “unsuitable to pull into an insulin syringe” encompasses a gelling agent that imparts a viscosity of at least 10 cP.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “articulated a four-factor test in determining whether collateral estoppel attaches: “(1) the identity of the issues in a prior proceeding; (2) the issues were actually litigated; (3) the determination of the issues was necessary to the resulting judgment; and (4) the party defending against preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.” Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Collateral estoppel can attach in proceedings before the Office for identical issues that were addressed with respect to a different patent during prior district court litigation. See In re Arunachalam, No. 2016-1607, 2017 WL 4387224, at *2–4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2017) (“In light of Dr. Arunachalam’s previous opportunity to litigate the validity of the asserted claims of the ’500 Patent, which contain the [same] terms . . . , we see no reason to allow her to appeal the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’556 Patent, which also contain the same critical terms.”). All four factors for collateral estoppel are met here. With regard to the first factor, the issue of Joshi’s status as prior art is identical for both proceedings. The ’376 patent is part of the same chain of continuity as the ’888 patent, and both patents share the same specification and claim priority to the same non-provisional application filed August 6, 2002 and provisional application filed August 6, 2001. As such, to the extent Joshi qualifies as prior art to the ’888 patent, it would also qualify as prior art to the ’376 patent.” slip op. at 16

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateWritten description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Although the statements above encompass “mixtures” of HPMC and PEO among a myriad of other possibilities for the gelling agent, we find no basis to conclude that the inventors of the ’376 patent were in possession of the specifically claimed formulation from such a broad disclosure.11 The 10 The April 25th draft application is heavily redacted and we thus cannot discern what other materials were specifically contemplated as “thickening agents” by that time. See Ex. 2091, 5. However, given the nature and amount of the redactions and Patent Owner’s assertion that the draft application ultimately led to the filing of the ’534 provisional with the broad disclosure set forth above, we find it reasonable to conclude that additional materials were included in the draft application. Moreover, the draft application was forwarded as part of an email from Patent Owner’s attorney, which “[e]nclosed the latest draft of the tamper resistant application.” Ex. 2091. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the list of thickening agents included as part of the draft application originated from the inventors as opposed to patent counsel. 11 We recognize that the same broad disclosure with a “laundry list” of possible gelling agents is found in the specification of the ’376 patent. See Federal Circuit has held that such “laundry list” disclosures are insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement when there is no further guidance (“blazemarks”) provided about which species or combination of species included as part of the list may be selected to arrive at the claimed invention. See Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Not having specifically named or mentioned the combination in any manner, “one is left to select[] from the myriads of possibilities encompassed by the broad disclosure, with no guide indicating or directing that this particular selection should be made rather than any of the many others which could also be made.” In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967); see also Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure in each application must ‘reasonably convey[ ]’ to those skilled in the art that as of the claimed priority date the inventor was in possession of the later claimed subject matter.”) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Other evidence of record further supports our conclusion that the inventors of the ’376 patent had not conceived of or reduced to practice the claimed formulation prior to Joshi’s August 30, 2001 filing date. In his Declaration, inventor Benjamin Oshlack attests that Patent Owner’s laboratory scientists focused on “testing the syringeability of various concentration solutions of pectin, sodium alginate, and sodium acrylate, as well as combinations of pectin and sodium alginate” between January 4 and Ex. 1001, 6:46–62. We, however, do not address the issue of written description support for any of the subsequently filed applications. 17, 2001. Ex. 2081 ¶ 22. Additionally, Mr. Oshlack attests that the scientists had evaluated “xanthan gum, carrageenan, and locust bean gum (and combinations thereof) as gelling agents, between April 5 and 12, 2001.” Id. ¶ 23. None of the laboratory notebook excerpts proffered by Patent Owner mention a combination of HPMC and PEO as gelling agents to be used in an oxycodone formulation. Exs. 2087–2090. Consistent with the testing actually done, the working examples set forth in the ’534 provisional (as well as in the ’376 patent) focus on xantham gum, pectin, microcrystalline cellulose, and hydroxyethlcellulose as the gelling agents. See Ex. 1026, 44– 49 (Examples 1–5). We find, therefore, that the inventors did not particularly consider either PEO or HPMC, let alone both PEO and HPMC in combination, when evaluating possible gelling agents for an abuse-deterrent formulation of oxycodone. Accordingly, because we find that the ’376 patent is not entitled to a filing date earlier than August 6, 2002, we further determine that Joshi qualifies as § 102(e) prior art as of that date. Having determined that Joshi qualifies as prior art, we turn to the merits of Petitioner’s patentability challenges.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,034,376 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,034,376
• Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., And Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01413 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 16–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Royce, McGinity, Hoffmeister, Joshi, and PDR.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “DISCUSSION A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’976 patent would have “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, polymer 1 Royce, U.S. Patent 5,273,758, issued Dec. 28, 1993 (Ex. 1022) (“Royce”). 2 McGinity et al, WO 97/49384, published Dec. 31, 1997 (Ex. 1024) (“McGinity”). 3 Hoffmeister et al., U.S. Patent 4,070,494, issued Jan. 24, 1978 (Ex. 1010) (“Hoffmeister”). 4 Joshi et al., Pub. No. US 2002/0187192 A1, published Dec. 12, 2002 (Ex. 1014) (“Joshi”). 5 OxyContin entry in Physicians’ Desk Reference, 2569–74 (53d ed., 1999) (Ex. 1016)(“PDR”). chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical technology, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacology, and/or a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 31– 34). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 27. We, therefore, apply that skill level in our analysis, with the understanding that the level of skill of art in this proceeding is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be more persuasive based on the ’376 patent specification. In particular, the specification defines “unsuitable for injection” “to mean that one would have substantial difficulty injecting the dosage form (e.g., due to pain upon administration or difficulty pushing the dosage form through a syringe) due to the viscosity imparted on the dosage form, thereby reducing the potential for abuse of the opioid analgesic from the dosage form.” Id. at 3:15–20. Additionally, in an example concerning the formation of a gel at different concentrations, the specification characterizes certain solutions as “THICK (10 cP to 60 cP): Although a syringe can be filled with this solution, it was hard to do.” Id. at 32:8–24, Table 3. Thus, the specification teaches that a viscosity of at least 10cp is difficult to pull into a syringe or administer parenterally (via injection). Patent Owner does not address these teachings of the specification. We, therefore, determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “unsuitable for parenteral administration” and “unsuitable to pull into an insulin syringe” encompasses a gelling agent that imparts a viscosity of at least 10 cp.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, also called collateral estoppel, a judgment on the merits in a first suit precludes relitigation in a second [proceeding] of issues actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Lawlor v. National Screen Serv. Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 326 (1955)). The Federal Circuit has articulated a four-factor test in determining whether collateral estoppel attaches: “(1) the identity of the issues in a prior proceeding; (2) the issues were actually litigated; (3) the determination of the issues was necessary to the resulting judgment; and (4) the party defending against preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.” Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Collateral estoppel can attach in proceedings before the Office for identical issues that were addressed with respect to a different patent during prior slip op. at 16

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner

    “Although the statements above encompass “mixtures” of HPMC and PEO among a myriad of other possibilities for the gelling agent, we find no basis to conclude that the inventors of the ’376 patent were in possession of the specifically claimed formulation from such a broad disclosure.10 The Federal Circuit has held that such “laundry list” disclosures are insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement when there is no further guidance (“blazemarks”) provided about which species or combination of species included as part of the list may be selected to arrive at the claimed 9 The April 25th draft application is heavily redacted and we thus cannot discern what other materials were specifically contemplated as “thickening” agents by that time. See Ex. 2091, 5. Given the nature and amount of the redactions and Patent Owner’s assertion that the draft application ultimately led to the filing of the ’534 provisional with the broad disclosure set forth above, we find it reasonable to conclude that additional materials were included in the draft application. Moreover, the draft application was forwarded as part of an email from Patent Owner’s attorney, which “[e]nclosed the latest draft of the tamper resistant application.” Ex. 2091. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the list of thickening agents included as part of the draft application originated from the inventors as opposed to patent counsel. 10 We recognize that the same broad disclosure with a “laundry list” of possible gelling agents is found in the specification of the ’376 patent. See Ex. 1001, 6:46–62. We, however, do not address the issue of written description support for any of the subsequently filed applications. invention. See Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Not having specifically named or mentioned the combination in any manner, “one is left to select[] from the myriads of possibilities encompassed by the broad disclosure, with no guide indicating or directing that this particular selection should be made rather than any of the many others which could also be made.” In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967); see also Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure in each application must ‘reasonably convey[ ]’ to those skilled in the art that as of the claimed priority date the inventor was in possession of the later claimed subject matter.”) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Other evidence of record further supports our conclusion that the inventors of the ’376 patent had not conceived of or reduced to practice the claimed formulation prior to Joshi’s August 30, 2001, filing date. In his declaration, inventor Benjamin Oshlack attests that Patent Owner’s laboratory scientists focused on “testing the syringeability of various concentration solutions of pectin, sodium alginate, and sodium acrylate, as well as combinations of pectin and sodium alginate” between January 4 and 17, 2001. Ex. 2081 ¶ 22. Additionally, Mr. Oshlack attests that the scientists had evaluated “xanthan gum, carrageenan, and locust bean gum (and combinations thereof) as gelling agents, between April 5 and 12, 2001.” Id. ¶ 23. None of the laboratory notebook excerpts proffered by Patent Owner mention a combination of HPMC and PEO as gelling agents to be used in an oxycodone formulation. Exs. 2087–2090. Consistent with the testing actually done, the working examples set forth in the ’534 provisional (as well as in the ’376 patent) focus on xantham gum, pectin, microcrystalline cellulose, and hydroxyethlcellulose as the gelling agents. See Ex. 1026, 44– 49 (Examples 1–5). We find, therefore, that the inventors did not particularly consider either PEO or HPMC, let alone both PEO and HPMC in combination, when evaluating possible gelling agents for an abuse-deterrent formulation of oxycodone. Accordingly, because we find that the ’376 patent is not entitled to a” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,034,376 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,034,376
• Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited / Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Janssen Oncology, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01317 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Gerber and O’Donnell; claims 1–4 and 6–11 are also unpatentable as obvious over Gerber and Barrie.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe 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)).” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be a physician specializing in urology or oncology, or holding a Ph.D. in pharmacology, biochemistry or a related discipline. Additional experience could substitute for the advanced degree. To the extent necessary, one of skill in the art may collaborate with one or more other persons of skill in the art for one or more aspects with which the other person may have expertise, experience and/or knowledge that was obtained through his or her education, industrial or academic experiences. For example, one of skill may consult with an enzymologist and/or molecular biologist and thus may rely on the opinions of such specialists in evaluating the claims. Pet. 7 (citations omitted). Patent Owner does not appear to dispute Petitioner’s definition in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case is further demonstrated by” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Regarding the interpretation of O’Donnell’s Synacthen test, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the results “lack any significance.” See PO Resp. 20. We are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the results of this test to be an indicator that something was amiss with the O’Donnell Study C patients’ cortisol levels following administration of abiraterone acetate. Results of the Synacthen test led O’Donnell to conclude that further studies were needed to determine whether glucocorticoid replacement would be necessary. Ex. 1003, 2323. We understand Patent Owner’s position that the “Synacthen test results in O’Donnell do not give a complete picture of a patient’s glucocorticoid production.” PO Resp. 21. We, however, do not perceive that a complete picture of a patient’s glucocorticoid production is required for one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to explore whether glucocorticoid replacement therapy was necessary. Petitioner’s experts opine that O’Donnell’s results for the Study C patients were “unquestionably abnormal” and implied that abiraterone acetate could result in chronic cortisol deficiency “for which glucocorticoid replacement therapy could be required.” Reply 6– 7 (citing Ex. 1093, 22, 68; Ex. 1023, 1245). We credit this testimony as supporting Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing O’Donnell’s Synacthen test results and statement regarding impact on adrenal reserve, would not conclude that they lack any significance; rather, they would conclude that they are significant enough to merit further investigation of administration of abiraterone acetate with glucocorticoids.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “aware of the differences and the similarities in the mechanisms and, nevertheless, would have compared and analogized between the two. See, e.g., Tr. 14:20–15:5; Ex. 1003, 2318, Figure 1; Ex. 1188, 168:22–169:23. Both O’Donnell and Barrie refer to ketoconazole in their discussions of abiraterone acetate, indicating that teachings regarding ketoconazole administration were a starting point for exploration of abiraterone acetate administration. Ex. 1003, 2318; Ex. 1005, Table 1. For example, O’Donnell, after evaluating ketoconazole as an agent, turns to an evaluation of abiraterone acetate as a more selective CYP17 inhibitor, i.e., as an improvement on ketoconazole. Ex. 1003, 2318. After presenting the results from its studies, O’Donnell discusses that, in the clinical use of ketoconazole, “it is common practice to administer supplementary hydrocortisone” and that, therefore, “further studies with abiraterone acetate will be required to ascertain if concomitant therapy with glucocorticoid is required on a continuous basis, at times of physiological stress, if patients become symptomatic or indeed at all.” Id. at 2323. This statement represents the proposition that one of ordinary skill in the art would use the example of ketoconazole’s clinical use to take the next investigative steps with abiraterone acetate. We have not been presented with evidence that dissuades us from taking this statement at face value. Patent Owner’s expert testified that ketoconazole, as “an inhibitor of steroid biosynthesis that had been used at that point,” was a basis for comparison: “When you write scientific papers, you always like to make comparisons with what is known and explain why your results are different or the same or what the caveats are. And I think that’s setting up . . . to understand what comes next, why they did this experiment.” Ex. 1188, 169:15–23. Thus, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both ketoconazole and abiraterone are CYP17 inhibitors, albeit with different mechanisms. With this knowledge, and given the teachings of the prior art on administration of ketoconazole and administration of abiraterone acetate, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the administration of ketoconazole for guidance on how to administer abiraterone acetate.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,822,438 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,822,438
• Wockhardt Bio AG v. Janssen Oncology, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01582 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Gerber, O’Donnell, and Sartor because the combination would have provided a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “treatment,” and “therapeutically effective amount of prednisone.” Pet. 20– 21. Petitioner notes that these claim terms have already been construed in IPR2016-00286,1 Paper 14, and states that it analyzes the claims under those constructions for the purpose of this proceeding. Id. In our Decision on Institution, we applied our claim constructions of “treat,” “treating,” “treatment,” and “therapeutically effective amount of prednisone,” as set forth in IPR2016-00286, to the present case. Dec. 5–7; IPR2016-00286, Paper 14, 5–7. Thus, we construed those terms as follows: 1 IPR2016-00286 is an earlier-filed case involving the ’438 patent, the same grounds, and the same Patent Owner. Claim term(s) Construction “treat,” “treating,” and include the eradication, removal, “treatment” modification, management or control of a tumor or primary, regional, or metastatic cancer cells or tissue and the minimization or delay of the spread of cancer Ex. 1001, 3:46–50 “therapeutically effective an amount of prednisone effective for amount of prednisone” treating prostate cancer Patent Owner states: “Neither party has disputed the Board’s slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be a treating clinician specializing in oncology, typically holding an M.D. degree, with at least five years of experience specializing in medical oncology. Alternatively, a POSA would have an M.D., with at least five years of experience specializing in urology and at least two years of clinical experience. A POSA would have also typically worked as part of a multi-disciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others in the team, to solve a given problem. Pet. 3–4 (citations omitted). Patent Owner does not appear to dispute Petitioner’s definition in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case is further demonstrated by the prior art asserted in the Petition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). D. Overview of the Prior Art” slip op. at 9

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

    “Based on the information presented during trial, we understand that ketoconazole and abiraterone acetate do not have identical mechanisms. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 2318, Figure 1. As noted by both Petitioner and Patent Owner, however, abiraterone acetate and ketoconazole are both CYP17 inhibitors. Pet. 11–13; PO Resp. 13–15. Although Patent Owner urges us to focus on the differences in the mechanisms of operation of ketoconazole and abiraterone acetate (PO Resp. 13–15), we look not only at the differences, but also at the similarities. The evidence demonstrates that one of ordinary skill would have been aware of the differences and the similarities in the mechanisms, and nevertheless would have compared and analogized between the two. Ex. 1005, 2318, Figure 1; Ex. 1002 ¶ 67. O’Donnell refers to ketoconazole in its discussion of abiraterone acetate, indicating that teachings regarding ketoconazole administration were a starting point for exploration of abiraterone acetate administration. Ex. 1005, 2318. O’Donnell, after evaluating ketoconazole as an agent, turns to an evaluation of abiraterone acetate as a more selective CYP17 inhibitor, i.e., as an improvement on ketoconazole. Ex. 1005, 2318. After presenting the results from its studies, O’Donnell discusses that, in the clinical use of ketoconazole, “it is common practice to administer supplementary hydrocortisone” and that, therefore, “further studies with abiraterone acetate will be required to ascertain if concomitant therapy with glucocorticoid is required on a continuous basis, at times of physiological stress, if patients become symptomatic or indeed at all.” Id. at 2323. This statement represents the proposition that one of ordinary skill in the art would use the example of ketoconazole’s clinical use to take the next investigative steps with abiraterone acetate. We have not been presented with evidence that dissuades us from taking this statement at face value. Thus, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both ketoconazole and abiraterone are CYP17 inhibitors, albeit with different mechanisms. With this knowledge, and given the teachings of the prior art on administration of ketoconazole and administration of abiraterone acetate, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the administration of ketoconazole for guidance on how to administer abiraterone acetate.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Regarding Patent Owner’s comparison of abiraterone acetate monotherapy with abiraterone acetate/dexamethasone therapy, we agree with Petitioner that “to the extent that [Patent Owner] tries to draw any conclusion between studies that involve a combination with dexamethasone, we respectfully submit that there’s no nexus there” in that “[d]examethasone is not what’s claimed and there’s no nexus to the claims.” Tr. 19:17–20, 20:2– 3. Although dexamethasone and prednisone are both glucocorticoids, Patent Owner does not point us to satisfactory evidence as to why the ordinary artisan would consider dexamethasone and prednisone to be interchangeable for the purpose of comparing results. Cf. Ex. 2038 ¶ 240 (stating that a person of ordinary skill would “understand the dexamethasone extension study results to be due to a class effect of glucocorticoids” without further citation). Because the claims cover prednisone, and not any other glucocorticoid, the results of the combination of dexamethasone with abiraterone acetate are of limited use, as we are not informed of the similarities or differences of the mechanism of action of those glucocorticoids or how the mechanism leads to the asserted unexpected results. Moreover, to the extent the table purportedly compares the abiraterone acetate monotherapy to abiraterone acetate administered with prednisone, the table compares the abiraterone acetate monotherapy administered in clinical trial COU-AA-001 with the abiraterone acetate administered with prednisone in clinical trial COU-AA-002, without explaining or accounting for the differences between the two trials. Tr. 20:10–19. We determine that there is insufficient evidence that the alleged unpredictable and unexpected results of abiraterone acetate and prednisone are objective indicia of nonobviousness of the challenged claims. Patent Owner does not sufficiently tie the allegedly unpredictable and unexpected result to the administration of abiraterone acetate and prednisone as claimed. Thus, we determine this consideration does not weigh in favor of the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 8,822,438 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,822,438
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. et al. v. Janssen Oncology, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2017-00853 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Gerber and O’Donnell; claims 1–4 and 6–11 are also unpatentable as obvious over Gerber and Barrie.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be a physician specializing in urology, endocrinology, or oncology, or a person holding a Ph.D. in pharmacology, biochemistry or a related discipline, such as pharmaceutical science. Additional experience could substitute for the advanced degree. To the extent necessary, one of skill in the art may collaborate with one or more other persons of skill in the art for one or more aspects with which the other person may have expertise, experience and/or knowledge that was obtained through his or her education, industrial or academic experiences. For example, one of skill may consult with an endocrinologist, oncologist, or medical biochemist and thus may rely on the opinions of such specialists in evaluating the claims. Pet. 7 (citations omitted). Patent Owner does not appear to dispute Petitioner’s definition in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case is further demonstrated by the prior art asserted in the Petition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “responded (Paper 76) and to which Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 80). The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested, e.g., that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibits 1002 ¶ 30; 1017; 1017 [B-1]; 1028; 1040; 1041; 1046–51; 1053–55; 1057; 1064–66; 1088; 1089; 1091 ¶¶ 17–29, 31; 1092–95; 1097, ¶¶ 11–16, 95; 1100, 1102, 1103; 1104 ¶¶ 5–9, 11–13, 88–90, 92–95, and 119–22; 1117; 1125; and 1139. Paper 69, 10. Patent Owner seeks to exclude these exhibits as (a) expert declarations and exhibits that Patent Owner alleges are outside of the scope of the prior art permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); (b) sections of Petitioner’s declarations that are not cited in the briefs, and therefore irrelevant and prejudicial; and (c) exhibits that lack authenticity or violate the hearsay rule. Id. at 1.” slip op. at 44

  • Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “treatment” and “treating” by the district court in a companion litigation. Ex. 2004. The district court, after a lengthy analysis, construed the disputed terms as follows: “Treatment/treating means the eradication, removal, modification, management or control of a tumor or primary, regional, or metastatic cancer cells or tissue and the minimization or delay of the spread of cancer.” Id. at 30. The district court read out of the definition the term “includes.” Id. Although we are not bound by the district court’s reasoning and claim constructions in related proceedings, we do not disregard the determinations of a court interpreting the same claim term in a related patent in a concurrent proceeding. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The fact that the board is not generally bound by a previous judicial interpretation of a disputed claim term does not mean, however, that it has no obligation to acknowledge that interpretation or to assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the term.”). Thus, although we acknowledge and have considered the district court’s interpretation, we retain our broadest reasonable construction of the terms “treat,” “treatment,” and “treating.” We see no reason to modify our claim construction positions in light of the record developed at trial, and we maintain our claim constructions from the Decision on Institution for the purposes of this Decision. No other claim terms have been presented to us for construction following institution of trial, and we determine that no other claim terms require express construction. B. Principles of Law slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on the information presented during trial, we understand that ketoconazole and abiraterone acetate do not have identical mechanisms. See, e.g., Ex. 2038 ¶¶ 25–39, Figs. 4, 5). As noted by both Petitioner and Patent Owner, however, abiraterone acetate and ketoconazole are both steroid synthesis inhibitors, particularly, CYP17 inhibitors. Pet. 26; PO Resp. 13– 15; Reply 2, 5, 9. Both parties appear to agree that, based on their respective mechanisms of action, administration of ketoconazole would inhibit production of cortisol, and administration of abiraterone acetate inhibits one of the pathways of cortisol production. Pet. 5, 26; Tr. 12:18–19; PO Resp. 14, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1003, 2318; Ex. 1023, 3, Fig. 1. Patent Owner takes the position that abiraterone acetate “allows some cortisol to be made.” Tr. 31:27–29. Although Patent Owner urges us to focus on the differences in the mechanisms of ketoconazole and abiraterone acetate, we look not only at the differences, but also at the similarities. The evidence demonstrates that one of ordinary skill would have been aware of the differences and the similarities in the mechanisms and, nevertheless, would have compared and analogized between the two. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 2318, Figure 1; Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1104 ¶¶ 14–31; Ex. 1097 ¶¶ 44–49). Both O’Donnell and Barrie refer to ketoconazole in their discussions of abiraterone acetate, indicating that teachings regarding ketoconazole administration were a starting point for exploration of abiraterone acetate administration. Ex. 1003, 2318; Ex. 1005, Table 1. O’Donnell, after evaluating ketoconazole as an agent, turns to an evaluation of abiraterone acetate as a more selective CYP17 inhibitor, i.e., as an improvement on ketoconazole. Ex. 1003, 2318. After presenting the results from its studies, O’Donnell discusses that, in the clinical use of ketoconazole, “it is common practice to administer supplementary hydrocortisone” and that, therefore, “further studies with abiraterone acetate will be required to ascertain if concomitant therapy with glucocorticoid is required on a continuous basis, at times of physiological stress, if patients become symptomatic or indeed at all.” Id. at 2323. This statement represents the proposition that one of ordinary skill in the art would use the example of ketoconazole’s clinical use to take the next investigative steps with abiraterone acetate. We have not been presented with evidence that dissuades us from taking this statement at face value. Thus, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both ketoconazole and abiraterone are CYP17 inhibitors, albeit with different mechanisms. With this knowledge, and given the teachings of the prior art on administration of ketoconazole and administration of abiraterone acetate, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the administration of ketoconazole for guidance on how to administer abiraterone acetate.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,822,438 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,822,438
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. et al. v. Janssen Oncology, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01332 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Gerber and O’Donnell; claims 1–4 and 6–11 are also unpatentable as obvious over Gerber and Barrie.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be a physician specializing in urology, endocrinology, or oncology, or a person holding a Ph.D. in pharmacology, biochemistry or a related discipline, such as pharmaceutical science. Additional experience could substitute for the advanced degree. To the extent necessary, one of skill in the art may collaborate with one or more other persons of skill in the art for one or more aspects with which the other person may have expertise, experience and/or knowledge that was obtained through his or her education, industrial or academic experiences. For example, one of skill may consult with an endocrinologist, oncologist, or medical biochemist and thus may rely on the opinions of such specialists in evaluating the claims. Pet. 7 (citations omitted). Patent Owner does not appear to dispute Petitioner’s definition in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case is further demonstrated by the prior art asserted in the Petition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner also submitted a claim construction of the terms “treatment” and “treating” by the district court in a companion litigation. Ex. 2004. The district court, after a lengthy analysis, construed the disputed terms as follows: “Treatment/treating means the eradication, removal, modification, management or control of a tumor or primary, regional, or metastatic cancer cells or tissue and the minimization or delay of the spread of cancer.” Id. at 30. The district court read out of the definition the term “includes.” Id. Although we are not bound by the district court’s reasoning and claim constructions in related proceedings, we do not disregard the determinations of a court interpreting the same claim term in a related patent in a concurrent proceeding. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The fact that the board is not generally bound by a previous judicial interpretation of a disputed claim term does not mean, however, that it has no obligation to acknowledge that interpretation or to assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the term.”). Thus, although we acknowledge and have considered the district court’s interpretation, we retain our broadest reasonable construction of the terms “treat,” “treatment,” and “treating.” We see no reason to modify our claim construction positions in light of the record developed at trial, and we maintain our claim constructions from the Decision on Institution for the purposes of this Decision. No other claim terms have been presented to us for construction following institution of trial, and we determine that no other claim terms require express construction. B. Principles of Law” slip op. at 8

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

    “results from its studies, O’Donnell discusses that, in the clinical use of ketoconazole, “it is common practice to administer supplementary hydrocortisone” and that, therefore, “further studies with abiraterone acetate will be required to ascertain if concomitant therapy with glucocorticoid is required on a continuous basis, at times of physiological stress, if patients become symptomatic or indeed at all.” Id. at 2323. This statement represents the proposition that one of ordinary skill in the art would use the example of ketoconazole’s clinical use to take the next investigative steps with abiraterone acetate. We have not been presented with evidence that dissuades us from taking this statement at face value. Thus, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both ketoconazole and abiraterone are CYP17 inhibitors, albeit with different mechanisms. With this knowledge, and given the teachings of the prior art on administration of ketoconazole and administration of abiraterone acetate, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the administration of ketoconazole for guidance on how to administer abiraterone acetate.” slip op. at 19

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

    “The teachings of the references do not rise to the level of teaching away from Petitioner’s proposed combination—they do not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Rather, as Petitioner argues, the prior art encourages exploration of such a combination. Pet. 38–42. Thus, we find that the prior art does not teach away from administration of prednisone to mCRPC patients.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,822,438 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,822,438

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.