• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00052 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4, 8–14, and 18–26 not shown unpatentable because they were entitled to priority before the November 2018 Venclexta Label, which therefore was not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner did not expressly recite hematological malignancies, Petitioner did refer to expertise in clinical oncology, which would encompass the blood cancers recited in the claims. Neither party identifies a difference in the analysis or conclusions that would be based on differences in the ordinary skill in the art analysis. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties do not identify any issue relating to the preamble that would impact our analysis. We recognize that Patent Owner is suggesting that Petitioner’s expert, at least, is reading the word “clinical” into the treatment language of claim 1. However, the plain language of the claim 1 preamble states “treating lymphoma or leukemia in a human patient” and is supported by a straightforward definition in the Specification of the ’087 patent, expressly limiting the invention to treatment of human patients. See Ex. 1001, 16:25–38. We therefore find that the preamble terms do not need claim construction because there is no actual dispute suggesting that, for example, claim 1 implicitly recites the term “clinical.” See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 5

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “d. Analysis Considering the Wands factors as a whole, we find that the limited breadth of the claims, presence of several working examples, significant amount of direction and guidance provided by the ’087 patent, predictability in treating blood cancers with Bcl-2 inhibitors like GDC-0199, and high level of skill in the art are balanced against a large quantity of experimentation. Based on our consideration of the entirety of the evidence, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that undue experimentation would not have been required to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims of the ’087 patent. One underlying theme of Petitioner’s contentions and Petitioner’s expert testimony is the repeated contention that clinical trials were not completed by Patent Owner. See, e.g., Pet. 48 (“venetoclax (GDC-0199) was not FDA-approved”); Ex. 1020 ¶ 193. We find these arguments unpersuasive as we agree with Patent Owner that “[i]t is well established that a patent may be secured, and typically is secured, before the conclusion of clinical trials.” In re Montgomery, 67 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Particularly as to the dependent claims, a preponderance of the evidence of record does not support a finding that undue experimentation would have been required to administer three different doses of GDC-0199 starting with 100 mg, to use multiple daily dosing cycles of one day, to continue until disease progression occurs, or to combine with other treatment compounds. We find that a preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner’s position that any of the dependent claims fail to comply with the enablement requirement.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Applying Rai and Wertheim to the instant facts, we agree with Patent Owner that, factually and legally, in the ’087 patent “the claimed dosages of 100 mg, 200 mg, and/or 400 mg of GDC-0199 are adequately supported.” PO Second Suppl. Brief 2 (citing PO Resp. 11, 27–29; PO Sur-reply 19, 21– 22; Ex. 1001, 24:20–29.) In particular, the ’087 patent describes all three specific dosage values 100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg in the context of an escalating drug dosage series and Petitioner points to no persuasive statements in the specification that dispute either the effectiveness or the operability of GDC-0199 at any of these dosages.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 11,110,087 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,110,087
• Restem, LLC. v. Jadi Cell, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01535 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not proven unpatentable: Majore did not anticipate claims 1–13 and 15, and the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 132, 133. Importantly, however, Dr. Olson does not cite anything to support his opinion that the ordinary artisan would have known that MSCs could be cultured to be renewable from subepithelial UC tissue. Nor does Dr. Olson explain why the artisan would have had this understanding aside from simply stating it. Majore uses the word “subepithelial” only once to explain that primitive stem cells are “distributed in subepithelial and intervascular regions,” but this does not teach what Dr. Olson asserts. Accordingly, Dr. Olson’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–16 (finding that an expert’s conclusory assertions that repeat the proposition for which they are offered without “any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning” in support are “conclusory and unsupported, add[] little to the conclusory assertion[s] for which [they are] offered to support, and is” slip op. at 52

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

    “21 The parties do not dispute that the preamble’s recitation of “isolated cell” serves as a limitation to claim 1 as it provides antecedent basis for its recitation later in the body of the claim. Accordingly, we treat the preamble as limiting. “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” slip op. at 31

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “[JUDGE NEWMAN:] So if -- if the comparison is possible, why did you not present evidence of that comparison? MR. FITZPATRICK: We --we’ve had the -- we had this discussion with our -- with our expert, and our conclusion was that it’s just not -- it wasn’t necessary. The conclusion was that the -- the evidence that’s in the -- in the prior art references, including the fact that it clearly practices the exact same steps as the claims, that was sufficient to -- and would anticipate or render obvious the claims. That’s the only reason we didn’t present evidence -- our own evidence.” slip op. at 38

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (alteration in original). We agree that an ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the teachings of analogous references for information, but to establish obviousness, a party must show that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale to explain why the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the isolated cell with the specific marker profile or why the artisan would have looked to the cited references themselves out of the wide range of references available in the art.” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 9,803,176 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,803,176
• Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00006 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes the same definition as Petitioner, but adds that the skilled artisan “would also have had experience in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA [alopecia areata] formulations, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶ 14). Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Ko critiques Petitioner’s proposed definition as “incomplete, because it lacks any requirement for experience, or access to individuals with experience, in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA formulations.” Ex. 2059 ¶ 16. However, neither Dr. Ko nor Patent Owner explains what difference this additional direct experience would have provided to an artisan with the skill level proposed by Petitioner, particularly when Petitioner’s definition includes “experience in treating hair loss disorders,” and for which the record contains evidence that existing JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib had been identified as causing reversal of hair loss caused by AA. Ex. 1003, 1043. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as consistent with the level of skill apparent in the cited prior art. In any event, as Patent Owner does not explain why its alternative definition would have any bearing on the outcome of the present case, and as we discern no appreciable difference in the parties’ definitions, we note our findings and conclusions would be the same regardless of which definition were adopted. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 11

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,659 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,659
• Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 15, 2022 · IPR2020-01438 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4 and 5 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence, including unexpected results, did not establish obviousness over the asserted prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “to the earliest effective filing date of June 6, 2015, the filing date of the ’063 provisional application, Allgenesis PCT thereby does not qualify as prior art against the ’820 patent. See above II.D. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met the burden of establishing that the claims are unpatentable as obvious over Allgenesis PCT. F.” slip op. at 59

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “the reasoning to combine the references, and the evidence of secondary considerations in the form of surprising unexpected results, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that claims 4 and 5 of the ’820 patent are unpatentable. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4 and 5 of the ’820 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 78

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

    “equivalent for another. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 483 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]his court finds no . . . error in [the] conclusion that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one ARC [alkaline reactive compound] for another.”). “Conclusive proof of efficacy is not necessary to show obviousness. All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 748 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 69

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia with nexusObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1001, 11. Table 2 shows three observation days comparing 0.05% sunitinib TID with 0.05% nintedanib. On all three days, 0.05% nintedanib TID shows significant improvements over 0.05% sunitinib TID. For example, on day 12, the 0.05% nintedanib TID group had a negative value (indicating a reduction in neovascular area), while the 0.05% sunitinib TID group had a positive number (indicating a growth in neovascular area) and the difference between the two is also statistically significant with a P value of 0.016. The comparative data of measuring the reduction in neovascularization in an established animal model as shown the ’820 patent provides a sufficient nexus to the claimed method of reducing hyperemia. The data presented in Table 2 (shown above) shows that nintedanib functions unexpectedly better than sunitinib. The ’820 patent further explains that nintedanib inhibits three kinase targets, FGFR4, Lyn and Src, that are not inhibited by sunitinib, pazopanib, or other common kinases inhibitors. Ex. 1001, 12:14–17; see also id. at 11 (Table 1). In addition, “nintedanib’s potencies on FGFRl-3 are substantially higher than that of sunitinib that may also contribute to the superior efficacy of nintedanib in the cornea suture rabbit model.” Id. 12:17–20. Given these surprising and unexpected results that nintedanib has improved efficacy and a better safety profile compared to sunitinib as reported in the ’820 patent specification convinces us that on balance the weight of the evidence supports a finding that claims 4 and 5 have not been shown to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 10,149,820 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,149,820
• Cooler Masters Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00146 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 were not shown unpatentable because Nakamura did not disclose the claimed spacer, and Petitioner did not establish a basis to modify it.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill in the art than that proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 11‒12. In particular, Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s requirement for an advanced degree in mechanical engineering or a closely related field as it would, for example, exclude both the named inventors of the ’679 patent as well as “a large majority of active workers in the field at the time of the invention.” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 80). Rather, Patent Owner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering and at least 3 years of experience working or studying in the field of heat pipes; or an equivalent level of education, training, and work experience. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 77‒79). Dr. Pokharna comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’679 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Moreover, Petitioner concedes that this dispute as to the appropriate level of skill in the art “is immaterial because the challenged claims are invalid under both sides’ definitions.” Reply 1 n.2. We agree with Petitioner that the outcome of this proceeding is not dependent on our application of one party’s definition as compared to the other. Nonetheless, because Petitioner’s and Dr. Pokharna’s definition better reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art, we adopt and apply it here. C.” slip op. at 10

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

    “extending between and contacting said first and second plates,” claim 1 separately recites “a depression formed in said first plate,” which projects into said vapor chamber and is bonded to said second plate. PO Resp. 25–26 (emphasis added) (citing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.”)); see Ex. 2002 ¶ 114. Whereas claim 1 requires that a spacer contact both the first and second plates, it makes clear (as do claims 4 and 6) that a depression formed in a first plate is bonded to only the opposing plate. See Ex. 1001, claim 7 (reciting that a “depression formed in said second plate . . . is in contact with an inner surface of said first plate”). We, thus, infer from the structure of the recited in claim 1 are distinct components with distinct properties. In particular, the claimed “spacer . . . extending between and contacting said first and second plates” is a distinct element between and in contact with two plates, whereas the claimed “depression” is a part of one plate that contacts, or is bonded to, an opposing plate.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “whether a reference is a printed publication. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The determination of whether a given reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding its disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Bruckelmyer and Wyer specifically addressed the public accessibility of laid open patent applications.” slip op. at 24

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

    “The relevant language of independent claim 1 is not merely “spacer” but “spacer. . . extending between and contacting said first and second plates,” which we construe as referring to a “structure separate from and in 16 Petitioner also addresses obviousness under the construction of “spacer” that Patent Owner proposed before the district court but that we do not adopt here. See id. at 36–41; section II(C)(2), n.7, above. 17 Petitioner and its expert also reference Nakamura’s Figures 5 and 6, which show embossed depressions in only one plate. Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶ 64. Nonetheless, we agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s grounds are based on the concavities 9 described and illustrated with respect to Figure 4 of Nakamura,” and Petitioner’s passing reference to the alternative embodiment of Nakamura’s Figures 5 and 6 does not substantially affect our analysis, which focuses on the embodiment of Figure 4. See PO Resp. 46 (citing Inst. Dec. 15–18). clearance between the plates.” See section II(C)(2), above. Applying this panel’s construction, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has neither shown how Nakamura discloses this limitation, nor identified any rationale or motivation to modify Nakamura to provide a “spacer. . . extending between and contacting said first and second plates,” as recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 46–47. As discussed above, Petitioner seeks to satisfy this limitation by pointing to the “H-shaped structure” defined by concavities pressed into opposing plates of the heat pipe illustrated in Nakamura’s Figure 4. But as Patent Owner points out, “these concavities are integral with the portions of the container in which they are formed, and a concavity cannot be said to contact the same plate in which it is formed without rendering the term ‘contacting’ in claim 1 meaningless.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 116, 145).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,100,679 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,100,679
• Becton, Dickinson And Company v. Baxter Corporation EnglewoodNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2020 · IPR2019-00119 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 22 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations failed to establish required claim elements.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the relevant date would have several years of experience with remote pharmacy work supervision and verification systems and a familiarity with basic pharmacy processes and have been aware of relevant regulations. Pet. 10– 11; PO Resp. 6 (referencing Inst. Dec. 9). As noted by Petitioner, the Board 10 previously applied this definition in an inter partes review of the Alexander reference asserted here. Pet. 10–11 (referencing IPR2015-00883, Paper 29 at 43). As the parties’ undisputed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art, we adopt it consistent with our Institution Decision. 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, 163–164 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We address below the two claim terms provisionally construed in our Institution Decision, as well as element [8j], subsequently raised by the parties. No other terms require express construction. See 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.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Whereas the plain language of element [8j] mandates that each step “must be verified before the operator can continue,” the parties initially appear to disagree about who––or what––is responsible for the verification. Patent Owner contends that element [8j] embodies the concept of a “hard stop,” wherein “the system will not allow the operator to proceed to the next step until the prior step has been verified.” PO Resp. 24; Sur-reply 1. To 14 the extent Patent Owner uses the term “hard stop” as a short hand for the words of element [8j], we agree with this portion of its construction.8 As we further understand Patent Owner’s position, however, verification that a step is properly completed requires input from a remote pharmacist overseeing the operator. See PO Resp. 27 (distinguishing Alexander as not requiring “the remote pharmacist must verify each and every step before the operator is allowed to proceed”). But reading claim 8 (directed to a system) to require a method step performed by a pharmacist would appear to “combine . . . two separate statutory classes of invention.” See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Moreover, claim 8 makes no mention of a pharmacist and Patent Owner fails to explain adequately why we should import such a limitation from the Specification into the claim. Accordingly, we decline to apply Patent Owner’s construction of element [8j] to the extent it requires input from a remote pharmacist. We, nevertheless, note that in the Sur-reply, Patent Owner indicates that element [8j] may be satisfied where “the workstation . . . captur[es] the image and scan[s] the barcode in order to verify the step has been performed.” Sur-reply 6 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artReference is prior artMixed

    “issuance of Alexander would evidence prior invention under § 102(g)(2), our governing statute provides that “[a] petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C § 311(b). Although Alexander is a printed publication, Petitioner does not seek to use it as such under § 102(g)(2) but, instead, as evidence of prior invention, which is not a legitimate basis for challenge in inter partes review.10 For the above reasons, and as set forth at pages 15–17 of our Institution Decision, Alexander is not available as prior art in this proceeding under 35 U.S.C § 102(g)(2).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,554,579 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,554,579
• Neptune Generics, LLC v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01494 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish the claimed serum-level testing and dose adjustment would have been obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “In an inter partes review . . . , the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner has not met this burden here because the Petition does not clearly articulate why an optimization rationale would have led the skilled artisan to “adjust[] the daily dose of the patient to achieve mifepristone blood levels greater than 1300 ng/mL.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have: either a Pharm. D. or a Ph.D. in organic chemistry, pharmacy, pharmacology, or a related discipline; or a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in organic chemistry or a related field with at least four years of experience relating to the study of pharmacokinetics or dosing of drugs, their detection and quantification, or their metabolism. Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. Accordingly, we accept Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although the parties propose constructions for several claim terms (Pet. 12–15; PO Resp. 17–18), we determine that no explicit construction of any claim term is necessary to resolve this case. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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))); Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Finally, Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious that “the daily dosing of the patient could be adjusted to optimize mifepristone blood level, whatever level that might be.” Pet. 30. This argument is not persuasive for several reasons. First, Petitioner must do more than show that the ordinary artisan could have done what was claimed. Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,921,348 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,921,348
• Trans Ova Genetics, LC v. Xy, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2019 · IPR2018-00250 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were not proven unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that Lu, relied on in every asserted obviousness ground, was prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1982). “The question of whether a reference is a work of others for the purposes of § 102(a) is, like that of inventorship, a question of law based on underlying facts.” Allergan, 754 F.3d at 969 (citing Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). In determining whether a reference is the work of the named inventor(s), the inquiry focuses on whether the relevant content of the reference – which includes “the design, trial, and analysis of results” – was solely the work of the inventor(s). See Allergan, 754 F.3d at 969; Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“What is significant is not merely the differences in the listed inventors, but whether the portions of the reference relied on as prior art, and the subject matter of the claims in question, represent the work of a common inventive entity.”).” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “9 We acknowledge that Mr. Miles, as a former board member of XY, as well as XY’s long-time patent counsel and the filer of the ’769 priority provisional applications, may have some interest in the outcome of this IPR and that Mr. Miles is being compensated by XY for time spent relating to his testimony. Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 4–7; Ex. 1033, 21:7–14, 158:8–22. However, we note that Mr. Miles’ testimony was under oath and subject to cross-examination. We find Mr. Miles’ testimony to be credible as to the facts for which it is cited herein.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Exclude. Paragraph 12 of the Miles Declaration reads as follows: “Also[,] in the late 1990s, XY had a collaborative research agreement with a bull stud called Cogent in the United Kingdom.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 12.11 This statement is not itself hearsay because it was asserted by Mr. Miles while testifying in this proceeding, i.e., “at the current trial.” See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Petitioner contends that paragraph 12 is inadmissible because it is based, at least in part, on statements contained in Exhibits 2001 and 2002. We are not persuaded by this argument because paragraph 12 does not rely on Exhibits 2001 and 2002. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 12; Ex. 1033, 59:22–62:18 (Mr. Miles’ testimony on basis and meaning of paragraph 12 of his declaration). Petitioner also argues that paragraph 12 should be excluded as improper opinion testimony because it is based on Exhibits 2001 and 2002, to which, according to Petitioner, Mr. Miles is not competent to testify. Mot. 13–14. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument because, as discussed, paragraph 12 does not rely on Exhibits 2001 and 2002.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,652,769 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,652,769
• Green Cross Corporation v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00258 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–3, 16, and 17 not shown unpatentable under § 103 because Jin was not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “are unpatentable, which includes the burden of establishing that any reference upon which it relies constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); see Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that the challenger “bore the burden of persuasion . . . on all issues relating to the status of [the asserted reference] as prior art”). However, because Petitioner offered Jin into evidence, which qualifies on its face as prior art under §102(e), Patent Owner bears the burden of producing evidence supporting a date of invention prior to the critical date of Jin. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As discussed below, Patent Owner elected to antedate, and thereby remove, Jin as prior art by showing that the inventor actually reduced the claimed invention to practice prior to Jin’s 102(e) priority date(s). As a result, the burden of production returned to Petitioner to demonstrate that the invention set forth in the challenged claims was not actually reduced to practice as of the date alleged. Id. at 1380. In order to establish an inventor’s actual reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show: (1) construction of an embodiment meeting all limitations of the challenged claims; (2) that the invention would work for its intended purpose, and (3) sufficient evidence to corroborate the inventor’s testimony. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Sufficiency of corroboration is determined by using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, under which all pertinent evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor's testimony.” Id. at 1170 (citation omitted). “[I]t is not[, however,] necessary to produce an actual over-the-shoulder observer. Rather, sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature can satisfy the corroboration requirement. Furthermore, an actual reduction to practice does not require corroboration for every factual issue contested by the parties.” Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). “[E]ach corroboration case must be decided on its own facts with a view to deciding whether the evidence as a whole is persuasive.” Id. at 1331 (citation omitted),” slip op. at 11

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

    “provided sufficient evidence to show that it reduced to practice an embodiment encompassing all elements of the challenged claims prior to the critical date of Jin, and Petitioner does not convince us otherwise. Accordingly, we find that Jin is not § 102(e) prior art, as Petitioner contends. Because Petitioner’s ground for challenging the ’556 Patent as obvious depends on Jin, we conclude that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. F.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Motions i. Patent Owners Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 74) Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1400, 1049, and 1051, each of which relates to Petitioner’s obviousness case. As discussed above, Petitioner has failed to satisfy the threshold issue of demonstrating that Jin, the primary reference relied upon in its obviousness ground, is prior art to the ’556 Patent. Accordingly, we do not address the substance of Petitioner’s obviousness arguments and, thus, do not rely on the challenged exhibits in our analysis. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion as moot. ii. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 75) Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibit 2207 (“Webb Exhibit 4”) which is purportedly an unredacted version of the TKT report (Exhibit 2115). See Paper 81, 1. As we have no need to rely on the challenged exhibit or associated testimony in our analysis, Petitioner’s motion is denied as moot.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “iii. Petitioner’s Request for Expungement of Papers 71 and 72 In its Response to Patent Owner’s Motions for Observations Regarding Cross-Examination of Drs. Carbonell and Webb, Petitioner requests that we expunge, or accord no weight to, Patent Owner’s Motions for Observations because Patent Owner “made no effort to faithfully quote any testimony, and its ‘observations,’ which are often crammed with multiple citations, improperly narrate and mischaracterize the testimony cited, are rife with legal argument, and include references to unauthorized exhibits.” Paper 80, 1–3 (footnotes omitted); Paper 82, 1–3 (same). Although we are not convinced that Patent Owner “color[s] so far outside the lines” as Petitioner contends, we do not rely in our analysis on Patent Owner’s Motions for Observations. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request is denied as moot.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,051,556 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,051,556
• Medtronic, Inc. / Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Lifeport Sciences LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00288 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–13, 15, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references did not establish the claimed permanent curve.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Considering the teachings of the Specification, we conclude that the curve element must be permanent, as recited in the claims, rather than “resiliently flexible.” The Specification teaches that in some embodiments, the hook or protrusion “is resiliently flexible so as to form a substantially straight profile when compressed,” (Ex. 1001, Abstract) but “may be permanently-deformed into the curved configuration by heat setting the material” (id. at 6:1–4). As emphasized by Lifeport, the Specification teaches that a permanently deformed hook and frame—and, thus, a permanent curve—can be produced by heating Nitinol hook and frame combinations “at 550° for ten minutes.” Resp. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:3– 4); see Ex. 2001 ¶ 77. When thus “permanently deformed,” “hook 20 may still be compressed into alignment with the frame 22 without losing the preset curve,” and subsequently “deployed in the curved configuration by releasing.” Ex. 1001, 6:7–9 (emphases added). We further note that the Specification makes clear that the disclosed hooks are incorporated into a variety of devices deployed in the veins of living bodies (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:60–4:8), and subject to various physical forces therein. The ’662 patent, thus, discloses an embodiment having “a plurality of hooks 20 from the same incisions 40,” which “could form hooks 20 which project in opposing directions” and “provide superior resistance to radial and axial loads from the corporeal lumen and blood flow.” Ex. 1001, 5:33–37. In light of the foregoing, we refine our construction of “permanent curve” to be “a preset curve that maintains a fixed arc throughout normal use regardless of what configuration the device is in.” Insofar as Petitioners, and/or Petitioners’ expert, argue that the challenged claims are unpatentable under multiple constructions of this term, we address only those arguments relevant to this construction below.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Lifeport has the more persuasive position. First, we note that endoprostheses such as those disclosed in the ’662 patent are deployed and function in a living body (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:60–4:8). Accordingly, our construction of permanent curve as a preset curve that maintains a fixed arc throughout normal use regardless of the configuration of the device, is not limited to sheathed and unsheathed configurations taken in isolation. Thus, whereas Dr. Loomis’s analysis of Lefebvre focuses on the force applied by a catheter sheath impinging on a single tooth of the Lefebvre device, “throughout normal use” more broadly encompasses the deployed configuration of Lefebvre Figure 3 in which teeth 6, 7 penetrate into the vein wall “one in the direction of flow of the blood and the other in the opposite direction.” See Ex. 1003, 1:64–66. Dr. Loomis addressed the compressive effects during the application of a catheter sheath. We find no evidence that Dr. Loomis addressed compressive, hemodynamic, or other forces on the Lefebvre teeth when the device is deployed and functioning in normal use.9 9 Although an analysis of the forces applied to the Lefebvre device when it is deployed in a vein is among the issues raised in Medtronic’s Motion to Exclude Evidence, we need not resort to Dr. Loomis’s contested testimony as the omission is self-evident. We also are not persuaded by Medtronic’s assertion that Figure 3 and column 3, lines 34–42, of Lefebvre demonstrate The evidence of record is, therefore, insufficient to demonstrate that Lefebvre maintains a permanent curve as properly construed.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Lazarus specifically teaches that by modifying hooks like those of Lefebvre to make them sharper, or to configure them as barbs or arrowheads, more secure anchoring of the device can be achieved. . . . Thus, a person of skill in the art dealing with the problem of intraluminal device migration would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Lazarus with that of Lefebvre to achieve even stronger anchoring of the device to the lumen wall. For the reasons discussed above, we find that Lefebvre fails to disclose or suggest the “permanent curve” set forth in independent claims 1 and 10, from which claims 7, 8, and 15 depend. As there is no assertion of record that the missing element is provided in Lazarus, we conclude that Petitioners have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Lefebvre and Lazarus renders claims 7, 8, and 15 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 22

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

    “We do not discern, nor does Dr. Loomis adequately explain, how the angular relationship of White’s engagement members, whether in an expanded, flat, or inwardly-projection configuration, comports with our construction of permanent curve. At best, Dr. Loomis identifies changes in the shape of White’s engagement members in response to temperature or compressive forces. On their face, such changes are incompatible with a permanent curve that is a preset curve that maintains a fixed arc throughout normal use regardless of what configuration the device is in. Dr. Loomis has not convinced us of a contrary interpretation of the White reference. Accordingly, we credit Ms. Gold’s testimony that “[n]othing in the disclosure of White indicates that the engagement members 21 have a permanent curve.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,147,662 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,147,662

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.