• Human Power Of N Company v. Heartbeet LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · PGR2022-00004 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for post-grant review.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Determining whether a patent is subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA, and therefore eligible for post-grant review, is straightforward when the patentee filed the application from which the patent issued before March 16, 2013, or when the patentee filed the application on or after March 16, 2013, without any priority claim. The determination is more complex, however, for a patent that issues from a “transition application,” that is, an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date. See MPEP § 2159.04 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). Entitlement to the benefit of an earlier date under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 121, or 365 is premised on disclosure of the claimed invention “in the manner provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode)” in the earlier application. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e), 120. Thus, a patent that issues from a transition application is not available for post-grant review if the claimed subject matter complies with the written description and enablement requirements of § 112(a) for an ancestor application filed prior to March 16, 2013.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “B. Legal Standard The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” based on an “objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). If this test fails, the application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledDecided for patent owner

    “[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Undue experimentation is analyzed by applying the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988).5 Nothing more than objective enablement is required, and therefore it is irrelevant whether this teaching is provided through broad terminology or illustrative examples. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971); see also In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 105 (CCPA 1981) (“An inventor need not, however, explain every detail since he is speaking to those skilled in the art.”). slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an M.D. degree or a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry, pharmacology, nutrition chemistry, exercise physiology, or kinesiology, and at least two years of 2 This chart repeats the grounds as presented in Petitioner’s chart at Pet. 4. 3 Brunton, An Address on Blood Pressure in Man: Its estimation and indications for treatment, The British Medical Journal, pp. 64-67 (July 10, 1909) (Ex. 1032 “Brunton”). 4 Brunton et al., An Address on Longevity and the Means of Attaining It, The Lancet, Vol. 168, Issue 4342, pp. 1330–1355 (Nov. 17, 1906) (Ex. 1033 “Brunton 2”). post-doctoral research or clinical experience with physiology, biochemistry, or dietary supplements and formulation.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not challenge this definition at this time. Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition as it is consistent with the level of skill presented in the ’747 patent and applied art. We also note that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention may be reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,083,747
• Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00006 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–7 and 9–21 not shown unpatentable over either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish motivation to select Compound (I) from Silverman’s genus.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “It is not necessary for an expert’s experience or expertise to precisely match the art at issue. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, one offering expert testimony must at least have ordinary skill in the art to provide relevant and reliable testimony that is helpful to the factfinder. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf?MURL=). Dr. Patterson has a Ph.D. in Chemistry and over 30 years of experience in drug design, drug administration, evaluation of drug effectiveness, and participated in drug design for over 20 years. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 4–10; Ex. 1008, 1–2. He is author or co-author on over eight peer-reviewed journal articles involving medicinal chemistry. Ex. 1007 ¶ 5. We find this level of skill to meet the qualifications for the level of skill in the art under the training and experience portion of the definition we have adopted for purposes of this opinion (see § II.B.), reproduced below: a Ph.D. in chemistry, pharmaceutical sciences, molecular biology, or a similar field, or an M.D. with similar background. A POSA would also have had at least several years of experience with drug design, drug development, clinical trials, or access to other individuals with that knowledge and experience. Likewise, a POSA would have had knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. We note that Dr. Patterson himself also proposes this definition. Id. ¶ 102. However, Dr. Patterson does not have “knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders” and did not opine that, in regards to his testimony, he had access to a person with that knowledge and experience, as is proposed in the definition. See generally, Ex. 1007. Accordingly, we find Dr. Patterson qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of drug design, evaluation of effectiveness, and drug administration, but we find he is not adequately qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of treating hair loss disorders.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes the same definition as Petitioner, but adds that the skilled artisan “would also have had experience in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA [alopecia areata] formulations, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶ 14). Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Ko critiques Petitioner’s proposed definition as “incomplete, because it lacks any requirement for experience, or access to individuals with experience, in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA formulations.” Ex. 2059 ¶ 16. However, neither Dr. Ko nor Patent Owner explains what difference this additional direct experience would have provided to an artisan with the skill level proposed by Petitioner, particularly when Petitioner’s definition includes “experience in treating hair loss disorders,” and for which the record contains evidence that existing JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib had been identified as causing reversal of hair loss caused by AA. Ex. 1003, 1043. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as consistent with the level of skill apparent in the cited prior art. In any event, as Patent Owner does not explain why its alternative definition would have any bearing on the outcome of the present case, and as we discern no appreciable difference in the parties’ definitions, we note our findings and conclusions would be the same regardless of which definition were adopted. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (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

    “C. Claim Construction We construe claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. Therefore, we construe the challenged claims under the framework set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this framework, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We have considered Petitioner’s claim construction proposals (see Pet. 21–23), which are uncontested (see generally Resp., not addressing construction), and find that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim term for purposes of rendering this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Section 102(b)(1) provides two exceptions to § 102(a)(1) for disclosures made within one year of the effective filing date. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) provides that a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with respect to the claimed invention if: (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,659 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,659
• Restem, LLC. v. Jadi Cell, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01535 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to the Challenged Claims of the ’176 patent on the grounds raised in the Petition. Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far (prior to Patent Owner’s Response). This is not a final decision as to patentability of claims for which inter partes review is instituted. Any final decision will be based on the record, as fully developed during trial.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 19–24). Patent Owner does not comment on the characterization offered by Petitioner or offer one of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization as it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’176 patent and the cited prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (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)Term construed patent owner constructionOther

    “Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner cites Ex. 1001 6:32–34, noting that the patent specification “expressly defines ‘isolated cell’ as ‘[referring] to a cell that has been isolated from the subepithelial layer of a mammalian umbilical cord.’” Id. As neither party references any prosecution history related to interpretation of this claim term, we look only to the claim itself and the specification as intrinsic evidence. DePuy Spine, 469 F.3d at 1014. Claim 1 recites “an isolated cell prepared by a process comprising . . . ” Ex. 1001 at 19:6. As Patent Owner notes, the patent specification states “the term ‘isolated cell’ refers to a cell that has been isolated from the subepithelial layer of a mammalian umbilical cord.” Id. at 6:32–34. The remainder of the citations Petitioner cites relate to additional steps for isolating the cell, or characteristics of the cell, such as the markers expressed or not expressed, but do not further elucidate the meaning of “an isolated cell” itself. Dr. Olsen’s testimony reiterates the content of these citations but does not add any additional information or explanation. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 67–68. Given the definition provided in the specification, we interpret “an isolated cell,” consistent with Patent Owner’s definition, to mean “one or more cells isolated from the subepithelial layer of a mammalian umbilical cord.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “the Wharton’s Jelly, epithelium, etc.” and that, without evidence that the recited markers are expressed/not expressed as recited, there is no inherent disclosure. Prelim. Resp. 22, 25, 28–29 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶ 162). Patent Owner is correct that an ultimate finding of anticipation requires such confirmation, but, for purposes of institution, our standard is a reasonable likelihood. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Due to the breadth of claim 1, Majore’s method must produce only one cell having the recited limitations to anticipate. Petitioner’s expert testifies that production of such cells would be inherent by Majore. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 97 (“Majore’s protocol would produce a population of adherent cells that necessarily and inevitably comprise the cells of the subepithelial layer.”). And, although we recognize that the burden of persuasion does not rest on Patent Owner, Dr. Burger’s testimony, which focuses heavily on the differences in methodology between Majore and the ’176 patent disclosure and Petitioner’s alleged failure of proof, is not persuasive at this stage to overcome the evidence presented by Petitioner. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 137–163. Indeed, both Majore and the ’176 patent disclose umbilical cord tissue cut into sections and placed into environments fostering cell culture and replication. Ex. 1011 at 18, Ex. 1001 at 13:57–14:5. Both methods encourage and result in adherent cells growing on a plastic growth surface awash in culture media. Id. On this record, Petitioner has provided sufficient factual basis to establish a reasonable likelihood that Majore’s explant method of dissecting umbilical cord, culturing cells, and growing adherent cells would have produced (or did produce) at least one cell with the recited limitations. In this regard, we credit the testimony of Dr. Olsen that the isolated cells disclosed in Majore are MSCs cultured from umbilical cord tissues including the subepithelial layer, which have migrated to the periphery of the cut tissue and adhered to the tissue culture vessel. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 95–97. That Majore discloses genetic markers with similar expression/non-expression to the markers recited in claim 1 is further evidence that at least some cells were cultured from the subepithelial layer. Id. ¶ 99. Moreover, even if we gave weight to the process limitations construed as requested by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 13–20), the limitations are sufficiently broad as to read on Majore with the exception of the express/non-expressed markers. With regard to markers not examined by Majore, we credit Dr. Olson’s statement that “the cells obtained by Majore’s protocol necessarily and inevitably comprise the same cells produced by the process steps of claim 1[A] and 1[B]” and that the skilled artisan would have understood that the marker expression pattern would be identical for those cells. Id. ¶ 101.16 The evidence on this issue is subject to final determination on a more complete record developed through trial.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,803,176
• New World Medical, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00066 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 are anticipated by Quintana and obvious over Quintana; the Board did not reach the Jacobi ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner filed a motion to exclude evidence (Paper 38); Petitioner opposed (Paper 41); and Patent Owner filed a reply in support of its motion (Paper 43). Petitioner also filed a motion to exclude evidence (Paper 39); Patent Owner opposed (Paper 40); and Petitioner filed a reply in support of its motion (Paper 42). We addressed (and denied) the parties’ motions to exclude in Paper 49.” slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “We “conclude[d] that the better course is to have a complete record of the evidence,” and, therefore, denied Petitioner’s Motion, but also explained that “to the extent that Dr. Condon’s testimony and Patent Owner’s reliance thereon ventures into areas the witness has conceded he either does not understand or has inadequately analyzed,” we would accord it little weight, as distinguished “from that relating to Dr. Condon’s technical expertise in, for example, anatomy, eye surgery, and his own reading of evidence.” Order 13. Therefore, it is through this lens that we consider and analyze Dr. Condon’s testimony here.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). On page 18 of our Institution Decision, we provisionally accepted Petitioner’s proposed definition, which was not opposed by Patent Owner, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’544 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)). As Patent Owner expressly agrees with our analysis, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition here. See PO Resp. 11, n.4. C.” slip op. at 25

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

    “1. “A device useable to create an opening in the trabecular meshwork of the eye” Independent claim 1 is directed to “[a] device useable to create an opening in the trabecular meshwork of the eye” and having a “foot member . . . advanceable, tip first, through Schlemm’s Canal to facilitate performance of a surgical procedure using the surgical instrument.” Ex. 1001, 23:4–5, 23:18–20. As an initial matter, we consider the preamble of claim 1 limiting here because a device that “create[s] an opening in the trabecular meshwork” recites or, at a minimum, implies, “essential structure or steps” required for the insertion and advancement of the instrument through Schlemm’s Canal as set forth in [1.d]. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).8” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,999,544 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,999,544
• Human Power Of N Company v. Heartbeet LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 25, 2022 · PGR2021-00110 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show the ’555 patent was eligible for post-grant review; the challenged claims were entitled to pre-AIA effective filing dates.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” based on an “objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). If this test fails, the application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date. The written description requirement is satisfied when the specification “set[s] forth enough detail to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is claimed and to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 928 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The specification does not have to provide exact or verbatim textual support for the claimed subject matter at issue. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Federal Circuit has clarified that [a]lthough [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, . . . the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed . . . . The test for sufficiency of support . . . is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon “reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). Moreover, “the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction to practice.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “An applicant is not required to describe in the” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an M.D. degree or a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry, pharmacology, nutrition chemistry, exercise physiology, or kinesiology, and at least two years of post-doctoral research or clinical experience with physiology, biochemistry, exercise science, or dietary supplements and formulation.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not challenge this definition at this time. Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition as it is consistent with the level of skill presented in the ’555 patent and applied art. We also note that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention may be reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are unpersuaded that Dr. Volek’s reliance on Exhibit 1066 as the sole source of his conclusion that certain doses of inorganic nitrate would have been lethal in the context of the claimed methods is sufficient to establish undue experimentation under the Wands factors. As Patent Owner argues, the working example disclosed in PCT1 discloses administration of a dose Dr. Volek states would have been lethal, but was not. Rather, the result of that experiment was a demonstrated decrease in glucose consumption by the participants, a benefit of increased endurance. Ex. 1008 ¶ 106. We agree with Patent Owner that this case is distinguishable from those cited by Petitioner for the reasons explained by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 31–33), and also from the recent case by our reviewing court, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In Amgen, the court found the claims lacked enablement because the claims recited dual functional limitations, and potentially millions of antibody candidates could be found to fall within those limitations. Id. at 1088. The court found the examples provided in the specification insufficient to enable the full scope of the claims given the high effort required to screen and identify all such antibodies. Id. Here, as Patent Owner has observed, the only effort required to practice claims within the range in light of the working example is to “simply administer a different dosage to the human for which increased exercise endurance is desired,” which would have been within the scope of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Prelim. Resp. 31. Moreover, Patent Owner correctly notes that methaemoglobinaemia15, the source of the lethality cited in Exhibit 1066, does not result via the claimed method. Prelim. Resp. 30, citing Ex. 1066 at 14–15. As Patent Owner explains, Petitioner’s sole cited Exhibit, 1066, discloses a risk of development of methaemoglobinaemia, a condition where more than 10% of the haemoglobin is transformed into methaemoglobin.” Id. When the conversion to haemoglobin exceeds 70% the condition can be fatal.” Ex. 1066 at 14–15. Patent Owner explains that the inventors discussed the risk of development of methaemoglobinaemia, and explained in PCT1 that their methods do not cause a significant rise in the methemoglobin level in the test subjects. Prelim. Resp. 30. Moreover, PCT1 discloses a working example where three test subjects were given a dose in the range Petitioner alleges would be lethal, with no ill result. Id., citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 106. Dr. Volek’s failure to address this discrepancy, or to provide alternate sources to explain why his conclusion is nonetheless correct, merits his brief testimony on this issue be assigned little probative” slip op. at 20

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

    “G. Claim Construction In a post-grant review, we apply the same claim construction standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2020). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Pet. 23–24. Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “inorganic nitrate.” Prelim Resp. 8–9. For purposes of determining whether to institute trial of the challenged claims, we determine it is not necessary to construe “inorganic nitrate.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an AIA proceeding).” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,835,555
• Revance Therapeutics, Inc. v. Medy-Tox, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · IPR2021-01204 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 3, 4, 11, or 12 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “In this case, Petitioner argues that “longer” lasting means “the longer duration of efficacy of an animal-protein-free botulinum toxin composition when compared to an animal-protein-containing botulinum toxin composition that is dosed at the same or comparable amount and administered in the same manner (e.g., by injection) to the same or comparable location(s).” Pet. 20 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:53–59). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction because it is consistent with the express definition in the ’731 patent Specification. See Ex. 1001, 4:53–59.” slip op. at 9

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

    “been obvious over the combination of Ruegg, BOTOX Label, and Jung I. Pet. 21–58. Petitioner provides claim charts, mapping each limitation of claims 1–3 and 9–11 to the teachings of Ruegg, BOTOX Label, and Jung I. Id. at 23–30, 48–52. Petitioner further explains its arguments, including its contention that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Ruegg and BOTOX Label, and Jung I would have 12 had a reasonable expectation of success when doing so. Id. at 30–48, 52–58. Despite its detailed presentation, Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in this challenge.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term “longer.” See supra, Section II.A (“[L]onger” lasting means “the longer duration of efficacy of an animal-protein-free botulinum toxin composition when compared to an animal-protein-containing botulinum toxin composition that is dosed at the same or comparable amount and administered in the same manner (e.g., by injection) to the same or comparable location(s).” (emphasis added)). Although Petitioner is correct in pointing out that Ruegg compared the effect of “5.0 U/kg of either RT003 or BOTOX®” (Pet. 35; Ex. 1004, Figure 1), 13 Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that 5.0 U/kg of RT003 is the same or comparable amount as 5.0 U/kg of BOTOX. Indeed, BOTOX Label explains that one unit (U) of BOTOX “corresponds to the calculated median intraperitoneal lethal dose (LD50) in mice.” Ex. 1007, 548. BOTOX Label emphasizes that the method for performing the assay is specific to BOTOX. Id. “Due to specific details of this assay such as the vehicle, dilution scheme and laboratory protocols for the various mouse LD50 assays,” it warns, units of biological activity of BOTOX “cannot be compared to nor converted into Units of any other botulinum toxin or any toxin assessed with any other specific assay method.” Id.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,731
• Revance Therapeutics, Inc. v. Medy-Tox, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · IPR2021-01203 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5–10, 13, and 14 because Petitioner did not show that Ruegg’s RT003 and BOTOX doses were the same or comparable amount.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, only the term “longer” needs express construction.” slip op. at 6

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

    “same or comparable amount and administered in the same manner (e.g., by injection) to the same or comparable location(s).” (emphasis added)). Although Petitioner is correct in pointing out that Ruegg compared the effect of “5.0 U/kg of either RT003 or BOTOX®” (Pet. 27; Ex. 1004, Figure 1), Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that 5.0 U/kg of RT003 is the same or comparable amount as 5.0 U/kg of BOTOX. Indeed, BOTOX Label explains that one unit (U) of BOTOX “corresponds to the calculated median intraperitoneal lethal dose (LD50) in mice.” Ex. 1007, 548. BOTOX Label emphasizes that the method for performing the assay is specific to BOTOX. Id. “Due to specific details of this assay such as the vehicle, dilution scheme and laboratory protocols for the various mouse LD50 assays,” it warns, units of biological activity of BOTOX “cannot be compared to nor converted into Units of any other botulinum toxin or any toxin assessed with any other specific assay method.” Id.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,731
• Human Power Of N Company v. Heartbeet Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00094 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim had an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, as required for PGR eligibility.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To institute a post-grant review, we must determine whether the information presented in the Petition, “if such information is not rebutted, 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). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that the ’813 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’813 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2021). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Petitioner proposes construction of two terms, “inorganic nitrate” and “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure.” Pet. 26–27. Of these terms, Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “inorganic nitrate” (Prelim Resp. 7). For purposes of determining whether to institute trial of the challenged claims, we determine it is not necessary to construe “inorganic nitrate.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an AIA proceeding).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed definition is unduly restrictive. The claims do not clarify the meaning of “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure”; hence, we rely on relevant disclosures in the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–19. The prosecution history adds no clarity to the meaning of this term. As noted by Patent Owner, the specification states that the claimed method seeks to lower the systolic blood pressure in a subject needing such a reduction “preferably to normal levels (about 140/80 mmHg”) and provides an example of a 43-year-old with hypertension whose “blood pressure was 142/99 on the day when the experiment started.” Prelim. Resp. 8–9. We agree with Patent Owner that these disclosures provide general guidance to the person of ordinary skill in the art that the upper bounds of normal systolic blood pressure is about 140 mmHg, and that a person “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure” is someone whose systolic blood pressure exceeds that general measurement. Moreover, as discussed above, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a medical degree or equivalent study in fields such as “biochemistry, pharmacology, nutrition chemistry, or kinesiology” (Pet. 13) such that the term would have been interpreted by persons with a sophisticated understanding of human physiology according to the facts and circumstances presented and with the guidance of “about 140 mmHg” providing a general measurement guideline. We conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of a person “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure” is a person having higher than about 140 mmHg systolic blood pressure.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” based on an “objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). If this test fails, the application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,842,813
• Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., And The P.F. Laboratories Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2021 · PGR2018-00048 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable for lack of written description and anticipation by the ’943 Publication; indefiniteness and lack of enablement were not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded that exclusion of the cited portions of Dr. Chambliss’ testimony or Exhibits 1073, 1074, 1075, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1088, and 1090 is warranted. While the parties disagree on the merits of Dr. Chambliss’ testimony as to whether PGGs were known to be gelling agents by persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Priority Applications, Patent Owner does not persuade us that Dr. Chambliss fails to support his testimony with any reasonable logical or scientific basis. The exhibits that Patent Owner seeks to exclude, which include a patent, technical references, and a journal article, are relevant to the inquiry Dr. Chambliss performed in forming his opinion. We therefore do not see a basis for exclusion under FRE 702/703 or 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Moreover, we find this evidence both admissible and relevant as it concerns a fundamental issue for our patentability analysis. Thus, we decline to exclude the evidence under FRE 401 or 402.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have possessed “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, and/or pharmacology and a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 82). Petitioner further proposes that “[i]f the degree is a Ph.D[.], then the required industry experience need not be significant, e.g., two years or more, but if the technical degree is a B.S. or M.S., then the industry experience would be more significant, e.g., five years or more.” Id. We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s definition of a POSA’s skill level in our Institution Decision as it was undisputed at the time and consistent with the evidence of record. Inst. Dec. 7–8. Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner addresses the level of ordinary skill in the art in the post-institution briefing. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a POSA herein and have also taken into account the level of skill reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Applying this level of skill, we find that Dr. Chambliss and Dr. Constantinides are qualified to provide opinions as to the perspective and knowledge of a POSA. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 58–63.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims recite methods of making formulations using recited features and ingredients. In addition, as we stated in our Decision on Institution, “[t]he claims define abuse deterrence in terms of when the dosage form is ‘subjected to t[a]mpering comprising heating at a temperature greater than about 45° C.’” Inst. Dec. 19 (quoting Ex. 1001, 41:50–52). Additionally, the claims and specification identify specific ingredients that can purportedly help achieve this abuse deterrence functionality. Id. Given these conclusions, further construction of “abuse deterrent,” which both parties generally agree relates to methods of making the drug dosage form less likely to be abused, is not necessary to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “Notwithstanding these individual teachings, we find that the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventors of the ’961 patent possessed a dosage form comprising a combination of the recited components that also satisfied the recited functionality. We are persuaded that the specification fails to provide sufficient guidance that would have led the POSA to create the recited dosage form. See Fujikawan 93 F.3d at 1571; In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967). Rather, “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.” Ruschig, 379 F.2d at 995.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,693,961 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,693,961
• Triplet Therapeutics, Inc. v. Board Of Supervisors Of Louisiana State University And Agricultural And Mechanical CollegeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2021 · PGR2021-00059 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–15: grounds 2–5 lacked a supported reason to combine, and ground 1 repeated arguments considered by the Office.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have the authority and discretion to determine whether to institute a post grant review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, 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). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that the challenged claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art in asserted grounds 2–5. With regard to ground 1, Petitioner’s written description ground, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments are substantially the same as those previously presented to and considered by the Office, and we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and decline to institute post-grant review of the ’542 patent on that ground alone.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments regarding whether the ’542 patent provides § 112 written description support for the challenged claims are substantially the same as those considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’542 patent. As set forth above, the Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending claims because (1) the claims were overly broad in light of the guidance provided in the specification that was limited to the working examples specific to exon 7 of a gene encoding a MLH3 subunit (Ex. 1006, 623–24); (2) the claims did not enable the oligonucleotides to “hybridize[] to a complementary target nucleic acid sequence of a gene or gene product to modulate the expression of a component of a mismatch repair (MMR) complex” based on the disclosure of the specification, which was limited to the working examples (id.); and (3) the claims did not enable a pharmaceutical composition of the recited nucleotide base length range for the entire scope of the claims based on the disclosure of the specification, which was limited to the working examples (id. at 1183–84). The rejections were based on a broad reading of the claims as interpreted by the ordinarily skilled artisan, and required analysis of whether there is sufficient support in the specification for the entire scope of the claims. Applicant overcame these issues by narrowing the claims until the Examiner agreed that the support present was sufficient.” slip op. at 36

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s allegations regarding the skilled artisan’s reasons to combine are conclusory and insufficiently supported by evidence. Petitioner cites Dr. Wood’s testimony to explain why the skilled artisan would have understood that Fuselier’s suggestion to “switch[] isoforms of MLH3” could be accomplished by manipulating pre-mRNA splicing to delete exon 7. Petitioner’s discussion on pages 59–60 quotes phrases from Dr. Wood’s referenced testimony, see Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 213–216, but the rationale appearing in the Petition merely comprises repetitive generalized statements akin to “Morcos is a powerful tool that can accomplish what Fuselier suggested.” See Pet. 59–60. Dr. Wood’s underlying testimony lacks key explanation as to the understanding of the ordinary artisan at the time of the invention. What Petitioner has not provided, as Patent Owner argues, are the reasons 1) why Fuselier’s suggestion to “switch[] isoforms” would have led the artisan to pursue deletion of exon 7; and 2) why the artisan would have selected Morcos’ time. See Prelim. Resp. 55–56.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “invention in the field of antisense technology “would have had knowledge of the scientific literature and have skills relating to approaches for utilizing synthetic oligonucleotides to manipulate gene expression” and “have been well-experienced in laboratory techniques and strategies for designing and making SSOs, conducting in vitro and in vivo testing, and application of SSOs in research.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30, 31). Petitioner adds that the artisan “would have had knowledge of laboratory techniques and strategies in creating nuclease-resistant SSOs, and using such SSOs to manipulate gene expression to force expression of selected isoforms of a M.D. or a Ph.D. in physiological science, biochemistry, molecular biology, chemistry, or a related discipline, with at least five years of experience in SSOs design and manipulation” and may have “worked as part of a multidisciplinary team” to permit input by others on the team with specialized skills to assist in solving problems. Id. Patent Owner does not contest the skill level provided by Petitioner for the purpose of deciding institution (Prelim. Resp. 4), and we adopt it as reasonably consistent with the level of skill represented by the ’542 patent and the art of record.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,669,542

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.