• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01239 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 12–14, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Laracey and Jogu, with Tang or Dorsey added for claims 17 and 18, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payments,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior” slip op. at 11

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

    “agreed to construe the claim term “payment gateway” as a “server or collection of servers for settling a payment.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1016, 2). Petitioner further contends that the parties are disputing the constructions of the claim terms “e-purse,” e-purse applet,” and “application” in the District Court Case, but the differences between the proposed constructions need not be resolved for this proceeding because its asserted grounds of unpatentability satisfy both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s proposed constructions.9 Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1016, 4–5). Petitioner, however, applies its proposed construction in its arguments. See Pet. 29. 9 In the District Court Case, Petitioner proposed that “e-purse” should be construed as “software that stores electronic financial information, including electronic value, in a local portable device,” while Patent Owner proposed was adopted in the District Court Case, as well as in another proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas. PO Resp. 11 (citing RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20-cv-274-JRG, 2021 WL 5357465, at *6-*9 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2021); RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00916-ADA, Dkt. 100 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2022)). Patent Owner argues that because the parties agree that an e-purse must be “software” that “stores financial information in a local device,” “[t]he Board need not resolve the distinction between the parties’ proposals for this proceeding because Petitioner fails to show that Laracey discloses ‘an electronic purse (e-purse) maintained locally in the mobile device’ under the agreed portions of the construction.” Id. at 11–12. We agree that the differences between the two proposed constructions are minimal. On the full record before us, however, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why the proper construction of “e-purse” requires that the stored financial information include electronic value and that the software is in a local portable device. Therefore, we adopt the district court’s construction of “e-purse” as “software that stores electronic financial information in a local device” for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “does rely on Laracey’s stored value account alone as the claimed e-purse, we disagree that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Laracey’s stored value account is software. As noted above, Mr. Smith testifies that “a stored value account was well known prior to the ’046 patent and was commonly stored in a form of secured memory and contained data representing an transaction” and “Laracey’s stored value account would have been understood to be software located in memory within a mobile device that contained financial information including data representing an amount of money (e.g., a balance) useable for purchases.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 100. In contrast, Dr. Weaver testifies that “an ‘account’ like the PetPlace Gift account is not software. Instead, it is simply a visualization of a collection of information. Laracey simply displays the gift card account balance 884n on the mobile phone 102 after that account balance has been received from the Transaction Management System (TMS) 130.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 56. Weighing the competing testimony of Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver, we credit Mr. Smith’s testimony as more persuasive evidence. Dr. Weaver does not explain adequately why “a visualization of a collection of information” is not software, or, more importantly, why displaying an account balance on the mobile phone does not involve software.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on the full record before us, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden of establishing that the combination of Laracey and Jogu discloses the “verifying” limitations of claims 1 and 12. c) The Remaining Aspects of Petitioner’s Contentions Patent Owner does not offer any arguments specifically addressing the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 12. PO Resp. 13–32. We need not set forth formal findings as to the undisputed assertions by Petitioner that the combination of Laracey and Jogu discloses or suggests these limitations. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., 759 F. App’x 917, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is ‘not required to address undisputed matters’ or arguments about limitations with which it was never presented.” (quoting In re Nuvasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Also, we cautioned Patent Owner “that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 9; cf. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”). Nevertheless, we have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 12 and find that the combination of Laracey and Jogu discloses these limitations as set forth by Petitioner. See Pet. 14–29, 32–33, 42–47, 52–54. d) Conclusion For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable over the combination of Laracey and Jogu.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,600,046 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,600,046
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “‘It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.’” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. We agree with Petitioner there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. We find that the disclosure of the ’653 application—limited to general teachings of a smart card, an operating system, and a smart card manager—is insufficient to show possession of limitation [1(j)]. See Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. As we explained above, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571−72. The ’653 Application contains no disclosure of replacing applications, even if the disclosure might render such replacing obvious, it is not sufficient to show the possession required to establish entitlement to a priority date. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’724 patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than March 4, 2012.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that “[t]he parties agree on the level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for all terms not expressly construed below,” and indicates that in parallel District Court litigation, the parties agreed to claim construction for the term “emulator device” to mean “hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that the term “application” should be construed to mean “‘software program suitable for being executed on a portable device,’” but that the “distinction between the parties’ respective proposals need not be resolved for this proceeding.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner finally contends that the phrase “a portion of or in entirety” in each independent claim means “in its entirety or partially,” but not both. Id. at 9. Patent Owner submits that “[t]he parties agree that the Board should construe ‘emulator device’ as ‘hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.’” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner “does not believe that any other terms require construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding.” Id. We apply the agreed upon constructions above, but otherwise find that no express constructions are necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that, even if the applications were stored in “generic memory” as Patent Owner contends, Zhu provides adequate security and would not undermine Petitioner’s motivation to combine. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380 (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”). Indeed, Zhu addresses the problem Patent Owner contends it would cause in the combination.3 As Zhu 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should be precluded from discussing Zhu’s encryption embodiment because it was not raised in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. The claims do not recite anything about how the data should be stored. Thus, it is not surprising that the Petition did not address it. Patent Owner raised the teaching away argument regarding the security of the data. See PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner relies on the exact same mapping, same motivation, and same arguments why Zhu accounted for certain limitations. See Reply 4–11. Petitioner’s Reply merely explained that Zhu did address the problem Patent Owner contended would “teach away” from the combination. Indeed, Patent Owner was aware of Zhu’s teachings and addressed them in their Patent Owner Response. The Federal recognizes, “[l]oading one of the smart card applications already resident on the smart card to another memory location on the mobile device can provide sufficient memory for the selected smart card application, but can also create a security problem.” Ex. 1006 (Zhu), 3:25–34. To address this problem, Zhu proposes encrypting these applications in generic memory which “reduces the possibility of unauthorized access to the information.” Id. at 3:59–61, 8:30–55, 9:28–33; Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6. Although acknowledging this disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, testifies that Zhu’s encryption is inadequate and that encryption would have certain drawbacks. See Ex. 2002 (Weaver Decl.) ¶ 69. We find this testimony, which directly contradicts the teachings of Zhu that encryption is an adequate solution, lacks sufficient support to be entitled to much weight. Dr. Weaver provides no citations to support his contention that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would find encryption so inadequate or problematic as he now contends. Moreover, we find that Dr. Weaver’s testimony on cross examination provides an additional, independent basis to give this testimony little weight. On cross examination, Dr. Weaver contended that there was nothing uniquely inadequate about the particular encryption scheme disclosed in Zhu, but rather that his “opinion was more general, that encryption schemes known in the 2012 time frame were all breakable with computing power and time,” and thus, inadequate Circuit has explained that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding Zhu’s encryption are proper. for storing payment applications in a mobile device’s general memory. Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 26:11–23; see also id. at 23:3–8 (“[D]oes encryption ever provide a sufficiently high security to permit storing payment application on a mobile device’s general memory? A. No”); 24:15–25:23 (testifying all publicly known encryption schemes in 2012 were breakable). However, when confronted with the fact that the ’724 patent discloses storing payment application on general baseband memory using an encryption method that was breakable, id. at 26:24–29:7, Dr. Weaver testified that this encryption method was sufficient to allow storing payment applications in general baseband memory even though it was “not perfectly secure,” id. at 29:8–14. Dr. Weaver provides no explanation or rationale why the encryption method in the ’724 patent, which he admits suffers from the same drawbacks he identified with respect to Zhu, is sufficient, but other encryption methods would not be sufficient. In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner attempts to rehabilitate Dr. Weaver’s testimony with justifications and qualifications not found in his original testimony. Sur-Reply 7–8. Yet, Dr. Weaver’s testimony discussed above was clear and unequivocal. See Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 24:15–29:14. Patent Owner made no effort to redirect his testimony at his deposition, so it cannot now do so through mere attorney argument. We find the inconsistency between Dr. Weaver’s treatment of Zhu and his treatment of similar disclosure in the ’724 patent exposes the insufficient reasoning supporting his opinions regarding the adequacy of Zhu’s use of encryption in the combination. Accordingly, we give no weight to his testimony that a skilled artisan would not have combined Zhu with a Buhot/GPC system due to security concerns. In contrast, we find the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the use of encryption and the tradeoffs with the benefits of adopting Zhu’s memory management technique, which he offers in his Supplemental Declaration, to be well-reasoned, consistent with the disclosure of Zhu and the ’724 patent4, and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. As Petitioner recognizes, “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver testified, decryption without access to the security keys is an extremely computationally intensive and time-consuming process. Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 23:17–25:2; see also Ex. 10175, 132. Mr. Smith testifies that the benefits of using encryption would be sufficient to resolve the security concerns Patent Owner raises, and that any burden of generating a certificate would be outweighed by the benefits of using encryption and the memory advantages Zhu’s technique would offer. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s security concerns would be” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,018,724 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,018,724
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00566 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 34–39, 41–43, and 45 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Owner and its experts proposed claim construction of “effectively treating” as meaning “noninferior,” “statistically noninferior,” or “comparable.” Pet. Reply 4. Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner, and its expert, Dr. Do, advance the proposed construction of “effectively treating, ” with no explanation for what that means, or how it comports with the challenged dependent claims that recite visual acuity limitations ranging from losing less than 15 letters to gaining more than 15 letters. Id. at 4–5.” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,888,601 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,888,601
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00533 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 34–39, 41–43, and 45 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Id. at 18. The similar language of the challenged claims of the ’601 patent, and our reasoning in the related -00881 Decision, compel the same conclusion here, i.e., that the preamble is limiting upon the claims.” slip op. at 43

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,888,601 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,888,601
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2022-01226 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 34–39, 41–43, and 45 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “challenged claims are thus anticipated, we do not reach the additional Grounds 2–7 proposed in the Petition. Furthermore, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is granted-in-part, denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part.” slip op. at 92

  Patent outcomesUS 10,888,601 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,888,601
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00532 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach Grounds 2–6.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Decision. See Ex. 3001, 12–23. As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s reliance on Sanofi and Eli Lilly. See PO Resp. 9. In Sanofi, a non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that the preamble to the claims at issue, reciting “[a] method of increasing survival comprising administering to a patient in need thereof” was limiting upon the claims, in conformance with the court’s prior decisions in Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Sanofi, 757 F. App’x at 992–93. Furthermore, the court held that, because the preamble was limiting, and recited a “method of increasing survival” the proposed claims would now clearly require “increasing survival.” Id. at 994. The preamble to claim 1 of the ’681 patent, however, recites no such “increase” with respect to efficacy, but merely recites “A method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient,” and the remainder of the claim requires no specific efficacy requirement. Nor does Eli Lilly support Patent Owner’s position. In Eli Lilly, the court upheld the Board’s conclusion that the preamble reciting “a method for treating headache in an individual” was limiting upon the claims. Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. However, it noted, in upholding the Board’s conclusion, the Board also “found that while the claims encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Id. (emphasis added). We also find that the similar language of the preamble to challenged claim 1 of the ’681 patent, although encompassing clinical efficacy, does not require it, let alone a “high degree of efficacy.”” slip op. at 33

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

    “the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating” requires a high level of efficacy. In the -00881 Decision, the Board rejected Patent Owner’s similar argument because it required improperly importing limitations into the claims. See Ex. 3001, 22. Specifically, the Board found that: [W]hen the Specification explains that “[t]he amount of VEGF antagonist administered to the patient in each dose is, in most cases, a therapeutically effective amount,” and discloses that “a therapeutically effective amount can be from about 0.05 mg to about 5 mg,” we find that a POSA would have understood that any dosage amount within that range administered according to the invention may, in some cases, result in a detectable improvement in “one or more symptoms or indicia of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or be one that “inhibits, prevents, lessens or delays the progression of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or it may not. In either event, the VEGF antagonist would have been administered for the purpose of treating the eye disorder. In other words, the method of treating the patient with the eye disorder is performed upon administration of the VEGF antagonist to the patient for the purpose of achieving an improvement or beneficial effect in the eye disorder, regardless whether the dosage amount administered actually achieves that intended result. Id. at 21–22 (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Board found that: Patent Owner proposes that the claims require not only achieving a therapeutically effective result, but more specifically, achieving a “high level of efficacy that was noninferior to the standard of care by the time the patent was filed in 2011.” In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner describes a “highly effective treatment for angiogenic eye disorders” as “one that is on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin and can produce visual acuity gains, not just slow vision losses.” The Specification refers to “a high level of efficacy” in one instance, i.e., in the “Background” section. The Specification does not describe there, or elsewhere that “treating,” in the context of the claims or in the art, requires achieving a “high level of efficacy” or providing results “on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin.” Id. at 22 (citations omitted). We adopt the same reasoning here, and find that, for the purposes of this Decision, the evidence of record and the Specification support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to such patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. We consequently reject” slip op. at 35

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

    “The terms “initial dose,” “secondary doses,” and “tertiary doses,” refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist Thus, the “initial dose” is the dose which is administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen (also referred to as the “baseline dose”) ; the “secondary doses” are the doses which are administered after the initial dose; and the “tertiary doses” are the doses which are administered after the secondary doses. The initial, secondary, and tertiary doses may all contain the same amount of dosing regimens, but will generally differ from one another in terms of frequency of administration. Ex. 1001, col. 3 ll. 34–44. Petitioner also notes that the Specification further explains that “the immediately preceding dose” means “in a sequence of multiple administrations, the dose of VEGF antagonist which is administered to a patient prior to the administration of the very next dose in the sequence with no intervening doses.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 54–59; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–45). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “As Petitioner states, Patent Owner relies upon these Exhibits as objective secondary evidence of non-obviousness. See, e.g., PO Resp. 65– 69. However, and as we explain below, because we find that the challenged claims are anticipated by Dixon, we do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments that the claims are non-obvious (Grounds 4–6) or its contentions regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness. See Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that “secondary considerations are not an element of a claim of anticipation”). Consequently, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the Financial Documents as moot.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2022-01225 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Here, the claims are directed to methods of administering, i.e., using, a VEGF antagonist for an intended purpose of “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” The Specification repeatedly characterizes the method as one for treating angiogenic eye disorders in patients. Apart from the preamble, the independent claims do not elsewhere recite or indicate any other use for the method steps comprising the administration of a VEGF antagonist. Thus, we determine that the preamble sets forth the essence of the invention—treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. Additionally, we find that the preamble provides antecedent basis for claim terms “the patient” recited in the body of each independent claim, and “angiogenic eye disorders” recited in dependent claims 6, 7, 18, and 20. Indeed, without the preamble, it would be unclear to whom the doses of VEGF are administered. Thus, …in view of the evidence of record, namely, the claim language and the written description of the ’338 patent, we find that the preambles of method claims 1 and 14 are limiting insofar as they require “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” Id. at 17–18 (citations omitted). We adopt this same reasoning here and find that the preamble of claim 1 reciting “[a] method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” is limiting.” slip op. at 34

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

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44.” slip op. at 37

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

    “If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, the next step in the Praxair analysis is to determine whether the printed matter is functionally related to its “substrate.” Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032. Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight. Id. (citing DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850). However, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id. (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). More specifically, printed matter is functionally related to its substrate when the language changes not mere thoughts or outcomes, but provides action steps that the method requires. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the test for printed matter is whether it “merely informs people of the claimed information, or whether it instead interacts with the other elements of the claim to … cause a specific action in a claimed process.”); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that language “is only a statement of purpose and intended result” where its “expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 46

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field. Pet. 28. Petitioner asserts that such a person would typically have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D. (or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders, including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1020), we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Metrasens, Inc. / Metrasens, Ltd. v. Keith A. KoppAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2023 · IPR2022-01224 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Votruba, Jaquet, Finn, and Seton because their combination teaches the claimed MRI protection arrangement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not offer an alternate definition and agrees that Petitioner’s definition is reasonable. Patent Owner suggests that “one equivalent to an electrical engineering degree would be a degree in physics.” PO Resp. 2. The level of skill in the art is a reference point for gauging what would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner, however, does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would meaningfully alter the Petition’s assertions of obviousness. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art encompassing an electrical engineering degree or a physics degree with several years of experience in magnetic sensors and MRI. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner, but there would be no difference in the outcome of this Decision if we were to substitute a physicist for an electrical engineer as suggested by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 8

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

    “According to the specification of the ’128 patent, “the residual magnetic field [is the field] that exists in the vicinity of an MRI apparatus.” Ex. 1001, 2:55–57. The residual lines of magnetic force of the magnet in the MRI apparatus pass through the access opening 14 generally normal to the scan of the Hall effect sensors. The passive sensors in the series 11 and 13 are sensitive to the magnetic force lines along one axis and produce a signal related to magnetic field strength. As a ferrous object (not shown) approaches the access doorway 12, the residual magnetic field is disrupted. Id. 3:23–30. “The potential dangers associated with MRI machines include the presence, within the apparatus and surrounding area, of a strong magnetic field.” Id. 1:42–44. According to the ’128 patent, “[u]sually, the MRI device is located within a shielded room for improved results and also to lessen the impact of the device on surrounding operations.” Id. 1:54–56. Based on these disclosures in the ’128 patent, we determine that the term “residual magnetic field” refers to the magnetic field that radiates outwardly from the MRI apparatus. This is substantially similar to Petitioner’s construction which acknowledges a “non-uniform magnetic field of the MRI apparatus passing through the open doorway.” Pet. 11. In order for the residual field to pass through an open doorway it would need to radiate outwardly from the MRI apparatus. The result in this Decision, however, would be the same even if we were to accept Patent Owner’s proposed modifications to the meaning of “residual magnetic field.”” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the parties’ contentions with respect to the “array of passive magnetic field sensors” and agree with Patent Owner that evidence in the prosecution history leading to the ’128 patent does not persuade us that all gradiometers are disavowed. Rather the prosecution history suggests that the gradiometers of Jaquet that are tuned to using the uniform magnetic field of the earth are not able to deal with the non-uniform magnetic field associated with an MRI. Based on the disclosures in the ’128 patent (Ex. 1001) and prosecution history (Ex. 1002) we find that one of ordinary skill would understand the term “array of passive magnetic field sensors” to exclude the gradiometers taught by Jaquet, but would include other gradiometers, including those based on Hall effect sensors.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “record, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Votruba, Jaquet, Finn, and Seton renders the device of claim 1 obvious. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that “a POSA would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success . . . to have used the arrangement of passive magnetic sensors as taught by Jaquet in an opening of an MRI room as taught by Votruba (i.e., the array of sensors per Jaquet for the two sensors in Votruba).” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). Therefore, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’128 patent is unpatentable as obvious over Votruba, Jaquet, Finn, and Seton.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 7,489,128 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,489,128
• Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2023-01069 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–8 on all three §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show the claims unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “We integrate the above considerations into the Advanced Bionics two- part framework in deciding discretionary denial under § 325(d), first considering Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, and if so, evaluating Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, 7–11.” slip op. at 58

  • Other 314aDenied

    “Patent Owner points to § 314(a)27 as a basis for denying institution but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 2 (citation), 4 (citation), 15 (section heading), 31 (citation in parenthetical). At best, Patent Owner asserts that if we find “that fewer than all three Grounds meet the standard for Section 325(d), institution of Samsung’s petition should still be denied in full, because institution on all three Grounds ‘would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and 27 Under certain circumstances, the Board may apply its discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in light of a parallel district court proceeding involving the same patent. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). But as noted by Petitioner, the patent at issue here “has never been asserted in any litigation.” Pet. 63. 66 resources.’” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative)). Because we decline to exercise our discretion with respect to any of the Grounds under § 325(d), the Board’s Deeper decision is inapposite.” slip op. at 66

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not presently dispute this definition “except to clarify that the POSA would have at least two years of experience in engineering monoclonal antibodies for human therapeutic use, either in the laboratory or industry.” Prelim. Resp. 44–48 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 48–49 (arguing that Petitioner cannot prove unpatentability of the challenged claims under either party’s definition). At this stage in the proceeding, we accept and apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan, as being both unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s additional qualification. In this respect, it appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” encompasses Patent Owner’s proposed modification, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,590,189
• Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01070 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–29 on all twelve asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage in the proceedings, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, as being both generally unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s supplemental definition. It appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” includes Patent Owner’s proposed level of experience. Pet. 17–18. We also take into account the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 16

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

    “For the purposes of this institution decision, we find it unnecessary to construe any claim language because it is readily understandable on its face and there is no dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As the case continues, we may determine that certain claim language should be interpreted.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner, supported by the testimony of Dr. Ravetch, contends that Bowdish is analogous art. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128). In this respect, Dr. Ravetch testifies: A POSA looking for the amino acid sequences encoding eculizumab would have easily found Bowdish, and considered it to be analogous art to Bell and Evans for at least three reasons: (1) it provides express disclosures about the structure of the antibody “5G1.1,” (2) it identifies “Alexion Pharmaceuticals” as the inventors’ addressee that is the same as the assignee for Evans, and (3) it cites to the same Evans patent as does Bell for the structure of 5G1.1. Thus, a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bowdish and Evans in view of Bell to arrive at the claimed sequence. Ex. 1003 ¶ 128. On the present record before us, it appears that Bowdish is both reasonably pertinent and within the same field of endeavor as the ’809 patent for the reasons identified by Dr. Ravetch, because it is directed to the construction of a humanized monoclonal antibody comprising a TPO mimetic peptide graft into the heavy chain CDR3 of antibody framework 5G1, and because it uses “the parental 5G1.1” sequence as a control for FACs analysis of the TPO mimetic antibody. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 191–193. Moreover, it is reasonable that an ordinarily skilled artisan seeking to understand the Alexion anti-C5 antibody disclosed in, for example, Bell or Hillmen or Hill as a treatment for PNH, would look to other Alexion prior art for guidance.” slip op. at 42

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

    “overarching argument that Petitioner’s positions are fatally flawed by hindsight or that “[a] POSA as of March 15, 2007[,] would have understood that Alexion had developed a humanized antibody named ‘eculizumab,’ . . . [b]ut a POSA at that time would not have known that “eculizumab” had the sequence claimed in the ʼ809 patent.” See Prelim. Resp. 4, 7, 9. It appears that Petitioner’s positions here consider only the disclosures of the prior art and how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have read prior art references in view of one another. Regarding Patent Owner’s foundational preliminary argument that all prior art pointed exclusively to Thomas for the structure of eculizumab, rather than to Evans or Tacken or Mueller PCT, for example, we are unconvinced. We find Patent Owner’s position mischaracterizes Bell’s incorporation of Thomas by wholly ignoring that, in the very same sentence, and preceding the cite to Thomas, Bell also incorporates Evans by reference. Ex. 1007 ¶ 52. Bell incorporates Evans as disclosing “[p]articularly useful anti-C5 antibodies . . . h5G1.1-mAb, h5G1.1-scFv and other functional fragments of h5G1.1,” and “[m]ethods for the preparation” of these. Id. It appears that the ordinarily skilled artisan, like Bell’s inventors, would not have looked solely to Thomas for eculizumab’s structure. Moreover, the ’809 patent itself states that Evans, which is a part of Bell, discloses “a preferred whole antibody (now named eculizumab),” and how to produce it. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 12:34–37. Thus, even the ’809 patent, like Bell, acknowledges that Evans is an important reference regarding eculizumab, its structure, and how to make it.” slip op. at 43

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,703,809

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.