- Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCInstitutedPTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Julia Heaney · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–17 and 22–28 and all asserted grounds, finding a sufficient likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one claim challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Further, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion not to institute review. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther
“On this record, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed experience level of at least five years in measurement and analysis of coefficient of friction to be supported. As to the necessity of experience in textile engineering and fiber science, Patent Owner’s position, although not supported by declarant analysis of the factors listed above, is consistent with the disclosure of the ’854 patent, which describes features of a mesh layer in textile and fiber terms. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:17–11:14, 12:65–13:8, 14:20–24. On the whole, however, we do not discern on this record how specific experience in textile engineering and fiber science of a person of ordinary skill would materially alter the outcome at this stage of the proceeding. For purposes of this decision only, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, except for the requirement of five years of experience in measurement and analysis of coefficient of friction. The level of skill in the art remains an open issue in this proceeding. Further submissions by the parties may include argument and evidence that would assist in the resolution of this issue at the close of trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 10; Reply 1, 4. Patent Owner contends the terms “mesh layer” and “coefficient of friction” require construction. Prelim. Resp. 14–16; Sur-reply 2–5. We have considered the parties’ arguments and discuss them below with regard to each of the terms Patent Owner contends should be construed. Because our determination that Petitioner demonstrates at least one challenged claim meets the threshold for institution (see SAS Inst., 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60) is not based on construing the term “mesh layer” or “coefficient of friction,” we determine we need not construe either claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). As further discussed below, we invite the parties to address claim construction at trial.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the ’854 patent specification does not include clear and explicit lexicography or a disclaimer that would support requiring “coefficient of friction” to be determined by a specific ASTM test method. The portion of the specification Patent Owner asserts as a definition of “coefficient of friction” (see Ex. 1001, 11:31–42) is a description of an embodiment; we find it does not express patentee intent to redefine the term. Further, the statement that “the coefficient of friction … may be determined using the … ASTM D1894 standard test method” (id. at 11:32–35) indicates that use of that specific test method is optional. Accordingly, in the absence of patentee lexicography or disavowal, we do not limit the scope of the term “coefficient of friction” to require that it be measured by a specific ASTM standard. Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims.”); In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). We note that the ’854 patent specification sets forth a definition for the coefficient of friction between the surfaces of the mesh material and the slide surface. Ex. 1001, 4:38–46. As stated above, however, we do not expressly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. Should the parties address the construction of “coefficient of friction” at trial, we will make a determination after the close of evidence and any hearing.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · PGR2024-00049 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for PGR; the challenged claims were supported by the 2006 priority application.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006. 2. Conclusion: PGR Eligibility For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’202 patent has, or had, at least one claim having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, we determine that the ’202 patent is entitled to the filing date of the ’634 application (October 18, 2006), and, thus, the ’202 patent is not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, the ’202 patent consistently and repeatedly characterizes the invention as incorporating tobacco in some form and ties the stated benefits of the invention to the inclusion of tobacco. Moreover, the Specification is directed to smoking articles containing tobacco, all of the embodiments include tobacco, and “the present invention” is described as a smoking article, where the smoking article includes tobacco. Consequently, we determine that “smoking article” as it is used in the challenged claims is limited to devices that include tobacco. See Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding claimed “lip” is limited to “extrudable plastic materials” where specification states that “the device of the present invention is constructed of extrudable plastic materials” and “emphasizes the benefits of using extrudable plastics and describes them as benefits of the invention as a whole”); Poly-Am., L.P. v. described in the specification has inwardly extended short seals and every section of the specification indicates the importance of inwardly extended short seals. These two facts provide together a proper reason to limit the claims in this way.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.”).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s argument is dependent on accepting Petitioner’s assertion that the claims include a smoking article that does not contain tobacco, which we have not done. Instead, as set forth above, we construe “smoking article” as being limited to devices that include tobacco. See § II.B.2, supra. Based on our construction of “smoking article” and the evidence of record in this proceeding, we determine that the challenged claims are supported by the specification of the ’202 patent, which is identical to the specification of all of the continuations in the chain leading back to the October 18, 2006 that the specification of the ’202 patent and every patent in its priority chain “have identical specifications”); Prelim. Resp. 13 (noting that Petitioner does not identify other limitations in the challenged claims “allegedly lacking support in the ’202 patent family’s applications dating back to U.S. App. No. 11/550,634, filed on October 18, 2006”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,925,202 - Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH / Dynaenergetics US, Inc. v. Qinetiq LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00003 · APJ William A Capp · PGR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–5 not unpatentable; Petitioner failed to prove its asserted §101, §102, §103, and §112 grounds, including indefiniteness and written-description challenges.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“prevail, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Serra testifies that he is familiar with the” slip op. at 45
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“process of claim 1. The first principal decision is the selection of a known liner design from a library that is made at the beginning of the design process. The second principal decision is made at the conclusion of the design process where a “final liner design” emerges after hole shapes produced by modified liners converge toward the desired hole shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read claim 1 in context, would understand that the term “optimized” in the claim refers to the hole shape of the known liner design that is selected from among the known liner designs in the library during the selection step of the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly understand that the design that is chosen in the initial selection process is “optimized” with respect to the population of known liner designs in the library as opposed to being “optimized” relative to liner designs produced during the later varying and modelling steps of the design process.” slip op. at 26
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1–5 of the ’039” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,215,039 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Bilski · Phillips · Markman · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,215,039 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · PGR2023-00008 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted post-grant review of claims 1–13 on all petitioned grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute post-grant review, we must determine that 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). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’624 patent is unpatentable. Thus, we institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“evaluated the subject matter of Riis during examination of the ’624 patent, we agree that Riis was before the Office, as discussed in connection with our analysis of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework, above. Examiner T presumably was aware of Riis by virtue of having initialed an IDS containing Riis in the ’624 patent’s application and also by virtue of having initialed an IDS containing Riis in the ’067 Application, but Examiner T did not apply Riis in connection with the examination of the ’624 patent. On this record, Patent Owner also fails to show that the claims of the child application leading to the ’624 patent are substantially similar to those of the parent ’814 patent in which Examiner S considered Riis, and, thus, consideration of Riis during the prosecution of the ’814 patent does not equate to consideration of Riis during the prosecution of the ’624 patent. Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (2) that Petitioner fails to sufficiently show how the Examiner erred in evaluating the prior art, we find Petitioner’s arguments demonstrate that Examiner T, the examiner of the ’624 patent, did not apply Riis (or Wypych or Tatarka) during the examination of the’624 patent. As Petitioner argues, the error lies in that “the Examiner failed to consider the relevance of Riis as it applied to the pending method claims,” because although “Riis was considered during examination of the parent ’999 application, Riis was not similarly considered during examination of the ’018 application which led to the ’624 patent.” Pet. 76–77. We determine that the circumstances here demonstrate that the Examiner erred in evaluating the prior art.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2) to deny institution, arguing that the Petition fails to identify every RPI. Prelim. Resp. 10–11, 56–60. Patent Owner argues that the Petition “should also have identified its parent corporation, Huhtamäki Oyj . . . as well as the related corporation Huhtamaki, Inc. . . . as RPIs to comply with the statutory requirements for a PGR.” Id. at 10. On this record, we determine that we need not address whether Huhtamäki Oyj and Huhtamaki, Inc. are unnamed RPIs because, even if they were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325. See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential); Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential) (Board’s jurisdiction to consider a petition does not require a “correct” identification of all RPIs in a petition); see also Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB July 18, 2017) (“evidence [of failure to identify all RPIs] is, at best, suggestive regarding an issue that is not jurisdictional”); Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f a petition fails to identify all real parties in interest . . . the Director can, and does, allow the petitioner to add a real party in interest.” (quoting Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1374 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc))). Here, notwithstanding the arguments devoted to the RPI issue in the Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, and Preliminary Sur-Reply, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted Huhtamäki Oyj or Huhtamaki, Inc. to gain some advantage. As Petitioner argues, the “RPI analysis is not necessary at institution, because Patent Owner has not alleged Petitioner would be time barred or otherwise estopped based on unnamed RPIs.” Prelim. Reply 5 (quoting SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18). As SharkNinja states, certain Board decisions go through extensive analysis to determine whether parties should have been named as RPIs, whereas other Board decisions determine that “such a lengthy exercise is unnecessary for the purposes of rendering a decision on institution of trial.” SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 19. Here, as in SharkNinja, we find the latter approach better serves the interest of cost and efficiency. Thus, at this time and on this record, we will not consider whether Huhtamäki Oyj or Huhtamaki, Inc. must be named as RPIs.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the invention “would have had a relevant technical degree in Chemical Engineering, Polymer Science, Materials Science, or the like, and 2–3 years of experience in laminate or film manufacture or similar packaging manufacture and that less experience may be necessary with additional education and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–72). In its 4 Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner appear to present any evidence directed to secondary considerations. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp.; Prelim. Reply; Prelim. Sur-Reply. Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the prior art and the ’624 patent. 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 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,260,624 - Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 22, 2018 · PGR2017-00008 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description because the claimed dosing regimen is not supported by the specification.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“with regard to claim 17. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. Rather, we find that the ’239 patent contains a sufficient written description of an oral dosage form containing “at least 10% zoledronic acid.” The specification describes a full panoply of zoledronic acid concentrations. Liquid compositions may contain “about 10% (w/v) to about 15% (w/v), about 15% (w/v) to about 20% (w/v), about 20% (w/v) to about 30% (w/v), about 30% (w/v) to about 40% (w/v), or about 40% (w/v) to about 50% (w/v) of zoledronic acid.” Ex. 1003, 10:25–28. Solid dosage forms may contain “at least about 10% (w/w), at least about 20% (w/w) . . .” up to “at least about 80% [w/w]” zoledronic acid. Id. at 10:30–32. Solid dosage forms also are described as containing zoledronic acid in ranges beginning from “about 10% (w/w) to about 30% (w/w), about 10% (w/w) to about 20% (w/w) . . .” all the way up to a range of “about 80% (w/w) to about 90% (w/w).” Id. at 10:32–39. The breadth of zoledronic acid concentration ranges disclosed is more comprehensive than, and therefore distinguishable from, the more limited concentration ranges disclosed in Wertheim (claimed range of “at least 35%” not supported by disclosure of 25% to 60% range disclosed in priority application). In short, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art – a medical doctor with experience treating CRPS – would have recognized that the “inventor invented what is claimed” and did not overreach in claiming “at least 10% zoledronic acid” in an orally administered dosage form for treating CRPS. See University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 928 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyOther
“Unocal or Wertheim where the specification clearly allowed persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the claimed invention despite the absence of literal support. In Unocal, the original disclosure explicitly described the effects of altering the variables, explicitly described the claimed endpoints as preferred, or explicitly recited them in an original claim. Moreover, persuasive expert testimony was offered to support the finding that the specification reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor possessed the later claimed invention. Unocal, 208 F.3d at 993, 998–99. In Wertheim, the CCPA held that the specification supported the claimed range of 35–60% where the specification described the range of 25–60% along with specific embodiments of 36% and 50%. 541 F.2d at 264–65. In this case, the ’239 patent specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the “about 80 mg” endpoint as part of invention described in the ’239 patent. There is no disclosure of “about 80 mg” as a preferred endpoint, no disclosure of a specific embodiment including a dose of 80 mg, nor any other description suggesting the importance or criticality of the “about 80 mg” endpoint.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateWritten description adequateMixed
“In this case, the ’239 patent specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the “about 80 mg” endpoint as part of invention described in the ’239 patent. There is no disclosure of “about 80 mg” as a preferred endpoint, no disclosure of a specific embodiment including a dose of 80 mg, nor any other description suggesting the importance or criticality of the “about 80 mg” endpoint.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,283,239 unpatentable§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,283,239 - Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 8, 2018 · PGR2017-00002 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot shown unpatentable
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), enablement is separate and distinct from the written-description requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1344. “The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.” United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[A] patent specification complies with the statute even if a ‘reasonable’ amount of routine experimentation is required in order to practice a claimed invention.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors, referred to as the Wands factors, include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breath of the claims. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. It is Petitioner’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of the ’989 patent lack enablement. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). Petitioner’s evidence and argument does not sufficiently establish that the ’989 patent fails to teach those in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See PO Resp. 58–66. The Petition does not address the Wands factors sufficiently so as to show that undue experimentation is required to make or use the claimed invention. For example, neither the Petition nor Dr. Pearce sufficiently addresses the state of the prior art or the relative skill of those in the art. See Pet. 64–65; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–152; PO Resp. 62. As Patent Owner argues, this is an “omission[] that [is] particularly fatal” to Petitioner’s enablement argument, because Petitioner argues that mechanical expansion and inflation expansion are incompatible and cannot be combined. PO Resp. 62; see Pet. 30–38, 64. Dr. Grundfest, however, testifies that it was well known to combine mechanical and balloon-based expansion in surgical devices. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 132–136; PO Resp. 56. During cross-examination, Dr. Pearce testified that he “thought about the state-of-the-art in minimally invasive surgery during the 1990s.” Ex. 2003 18:1–14. Dr. Pearce’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently address whether he considered whether it was well known to combine mechanical expansion and inflation expansion in surgical devices. For another example, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Pearce, the Petition asserts that a redesign of the expansion design disclosed in the ’989 patent “would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 149). Likewise, Dr. Pearce testifies, “[s]uch a redesign would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. Dr. Pearce, however, does not explain sufficiently why combining mechanical expansion and inflation expansion would require a substantial amount of time and cost. See id. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement.” slip op. at 33
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We are not persuaded that Dr. Pearce’s testimony concerning the level of skill in the art is erroneous to the extent it does not explicitly require experience related to devices used for uterine surgical procedures or surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. Patent Owner’s argument and Dr. Grundfest’s testimony is inconsistent with the ’989 patent, which does not disclose an ablation device or method of using an ablation device that solves problems unique to endometrial ablation or unique to surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. The ’989 patent does not limit the art to be “the field of minimally invasive surgical and uterine devices” (Ex. 2005 ¶ 60). The ’989 patent states: “The present invention relates generally to the field of apparatuses and methods for ablating or coagulating the interior surfaces of body organs. Specifically, it relates to an apparatus and method for ablating the interior linings of body organs such as the uterus and gallbladder.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–24; see also id. at 2:36–38 (“The present invention is an apparatus and method of ablation and/or coagulating tissue, such as that of the uterus or other organ”).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,247,989 unpatentable§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,247,989 - Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., And Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents 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 unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,034,376 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,498,419
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.