- Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01353 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Staniford’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of industry experience,” and “would have had a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23, 25). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“We largely agree with Patent Owner that there is no explicit claim- construction dispute. We address Patent Owner’s issues of what ordinarily skilled artisans would have considered in creating and implementing packetfiltering rules in the discussion below. The preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption is one aspect that those with a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks would have considered. Nonetheless, overall, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to prevent an exfiltration operation,” does not require preventing all exfiltrations from occurring, nor allowing all non-exfiltration traffic, and that we need not consider the preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption in the context of that claim construction. We determine that no claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner
“Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Upl Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · PGR2023-00017 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, and 10 are anticipated by Godoy; claims 1–10 are anticipated by Tobler; other grounds were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“record (Ex. 1022, Attachments 5, 6) and the ResearchGate page (id., Attachments 7–10), to further support her opinion that the Godoy report was publicly available before November 4, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 31–38, 42–48. She testifies that “ResearchGate contains many search features which would allow an interested POSA to find the Godoy report, e.g., key word searching.” Id. ¶ 48. Dr. Jacobsen, who has personally used the service, agrees that in ResearchGate, “you can start to search for publications using keywords and things like that, authors.” Ex. 1043, 66:1–67:10. For these reasons, we again find Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony credible.” slip op. at 32
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“record (Ex. 1022, Attachments 5, 6) and the ResearchGate page (id., Attachments 7–10), to further support her opinion that the Godoy report was publicly available before November 4, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 31–38, 42–48. She testifies that “ResearchGate contains many search features which would allow an interested POSA to find the Godoy report, e.g., key word searching.” Id. ¶ 48. Dr. Jacobsen, who has personally used the service, agrees that in ResearchGate, “you can start to search for publications using keywords and things like that, authors.” Ex. 1043, 66:1–67:10. For these reasons, we again find Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony credible.” slip op. at 32
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“several lists, Petitioner has met its burden in showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would at once envisage the fungicidal combination of claim 1 from its disclosure. Accordingly, Tobler anticipates claim 1. We address Patent Owner’s arguments below.” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“28 Because Petitioner has shown that asserted prior art references anticipate claims 1 and 3–10, we do not address whether these claims would have been obvious over De Oliveira, either alone or in view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy. 29 Having determined that Petitioner has shown all challenged claims are unpatentable under other grounds, we do not address this obvious ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding a petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and, thus, agreeing that the Board has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”).” slip op. at 81
Patent outcomesUS 11,445,727 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,445,727 - PTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00669 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 11, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim under the Saadat grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. For reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’077 patent’s challenged claims. Also, we decline to deny the Petition on a discretionary basis. Therefore, we institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“As discussed below (Section IV.D), we determine at this stage that Saadat is prior art. There is no argument from Patent Owner that Saadat was presented previously to the Office. Pet. 96 (Petitioner’s unrebutted argument that Saadat was not previously considered by the Examiner). And, beyond the unsuccessful attempt to antedate and, thus, disqualify Saadat as prior art, at this stage of the proceeding Patent Owner offers no argument or evidence to rebut Petitioner’s contention that Saadat anticipates and renders obvious the ’077 patent’s claims under Grounds 1–3. See generally Prelim. Resp. 8–26 (Patent Owner’s priority date arguments). For the above reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not shown that substantially the same prior art or arguments (i.e., Saadat and arguments based thereon) were previously presented to the Office and, thus, Patent Owner has not satisfied step one of Advanced Bionics’ two-step framework. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. On this record, even if we accept Patent Owner’s contentions about the Office’s prior consideration of Makower or Fang (art asserted under Grounds 5 and 6), we do not find that § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated based on our determination on the priority issue and Petitioner’s otherwise uncontested argument that the challenged claims are unpatentable over Saadat—issues we discuss in more detail below.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not propose an alternate definition of the POSA’s qualifications or contest Petitioner’s definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. We apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR, the Board need not construe any terms.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner similarly does not propose any express claim construction for any of the challenged claims at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp. and based on our review of the record, we determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,679,077 - PTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00280 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5, 8–10, 12, and 14 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“On the record before us, however, we do not discern how the specification of the ’011 patent provides written description support for the challenged claims. The challenged claims are purportedly directed to an apparatus for treatment of a nasal condition by altering nasopharyngeal cells in the target tissue such that nasal congestion is reduced. Ex. 1001, claim 1. As noted by Petitioner, the ’011 patent specification does not describe the use to energy to treat a nasal condition in the manner recited in the claims. Pet. 26–27. Rather, the ’011 patent specification discloses the use of neurotoxins to treat nasal conditions, and, more specifically, that neurotoxins are used to disrupt neural signals in the targeted tissue and, therein, disable mucus secretion by such tissues. Ex. 1001, 3:9–18, 8:6–13, 8:40–62, 21:43– 53.4 In the ’011 patent specification, energy is applied only to achieve cell membrane permeabilization or poration and effectuate the delivery of 4 The Specification describes, for instance, using botulinum toxin to block acetylcholine release from cells in the nasal membranes that are responsible for mucus hypersecretion even without energy-mediated delivery, but describing that use of energy to permeabilize the cells allows for more targeted delivery of the toxin. Ex. 1001, 21:43–53; 2:9–18 (explaining, as background, that acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter, the release of which is blocked by botulinum toxin); see also id. at 8:20–37 (disclosing that the “nasopharynx comprises a cluster of goblet cells which are responsible for mucus secretion and which are susceptible to the disabling mechanism of the botulinum toxin and other neurotoxins” and, further, by controlling the delivery area of the energy and toxin, “only those cells in the nasal membrane that are exposed to both the toxin and the applied energy will preferentially be permeabilized or porated to receive the toxin within the cytoplasm of the cell”). note that the challenged claims do not recite administering neurotoxins, but instead only require supplying energy “to alter nasopharyngeal cells in the target tissue such that nasal congestion is reduced.” Id. at claim 1.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“anticipated by Saadat. Pet. 32. In support of its assertion that Saadat anticipates the challenged claims, Petitioner provides a detailed discussion explaining how each claim limitation of claims 1, 2, 5, 8–10, 12, and 14 is disclosed by Saadat “arranged as in the claims.” Id. at 32–50 (citing Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the declaration of Dr. Bu-Saba. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 88–139. In particular, Petitioner contends that Saadat discloses an RF ablation probe in a nasopharyngeal passage of a patient for the ablation of a posterior nasal nerve. Id. at 33–46 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 88–124). Petitioner also contends that “Saadat explains its RF ablation alters nasopharyngeal cells to reduce or eliminate rhinitis symptoms, including congestion.” Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:6–14 (“Ablating [posterior nasal] nerves leads to a decrease in or interruption of parasympathetic nerve signals that contribute to congestion and rhinorrhea in patients with chronic rhinitis (allergic or vasomotor).”), 16:44–51; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–118). Patent Owner at this stage does not offer any arguments addressing Petitioner’s substantive showing, which we find sufficient for institution purposes. See generally Prelim. Resp. Rather, Patent Owner contends Saadat is not prior art because the ’011 patent is entitled to rely upon the July 21, 2006, filing date of the ’090 application. Id. at 24. For the reasons effective filing date no earlier than October 22, 2019. Saadat is a U.S. patent that issued June 4, 2019, from a nonprovisional application filed May 17, 2018. Thus, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), Saadat qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of showing that Saadat anticipates at least one of the challenged claims of the ’011 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 8–10, 12, and 14 of the ’011 patent.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the art’s teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed subject matter is a fact-intensive inquiry. Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact”); Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharma., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is also a question of fact.”). Petitioner supports its challenge with evidence-backed reasoning, including the testimony of Dr. Bu-Saba, and Patent Owner’s responsive attorney argument is unavailing at this stage. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–170 (testifying, inter alia, that Makower and Fang both teach applying RF energy to the nasopharyngeal passage to disrupt nerves and treat rhinitis, with Makower detailing an electrosurgical device and uses thereof and Fang elaborating on a therapeutic result that would be expected from use of such a device, thus suggesting the skilled artisan’s consideration of the art’s combined teachings). We will revisit Petitioner’s asserted reasons for combining Makower and Fang as appropriate on a fully-developed record. At this stage, however, Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence and reasoning to meet its institution burden and proceed to trial, especially as we have already” slip op. at 40
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Prelim. Resp. 27–35. On this record, even if we agreed with Patent Owner’s contentions about the Office’s prior consideration of Makower, Fang, or Edwards (the Ground 4 art), we do not find that § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated based on our determination on the priority issue as explained above and Petitioner’s otherwise uncontested argument that the challenged claims are unpatentable over Saadat. Discretionary denial of the entire petition is, thus, unjustified.” slip op. at 39
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,894,011 - PTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00279 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, and 17–25 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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) (2018). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the information presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, and 17–25 of the ’675 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Specification of the ’675 patent provides written description support for the challenged claims. The challenged claims are purportedly directed to treating a nasal condition comprising “delivering energy to the target tissue” to reduce mucus secretion or congestion. Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 17. As noted by Petitioner, the ’675 patent Specification does not describe the use to energy to treat a nasal condition in the manner recited in the claims. Pet. 24–25. Rather, the ’675 patent Specification discloses the use of neurotoxins to treat nasal conditions, and, more specifically, that neurotoxins are used to disrupt neural signals in the targeted tissue and, therein, disable mucus secretion by such tissues. Ex. 1001, 3:25–34, 8:18–21, 8:38–60, achieve cell membrane permeabilization or poration and effectuate the delivery of neurotoxin into to target cells. See, e.g., id. at 4:49–51, 8:4–21. Here, we note that the challenged claims do not recite administering neurotoxins, but instead only require the delivery of energy to the target tissue to administer therapy.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Reference is prior artInstituted
“probe in a nasopharyngeal passage of a patient for the ablation of a posterior nasal nerve. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–99). Petitioner also contends that “Saadat explains that RF ablation disrupts neural activity to reduce or eliminate rhinitis symptoms, including mucus secretion and congestion.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:6–14 (“Ablating [posterior nasal] nerves leads to a decrease in or interruption of parasympathetic nerve signals that contribute to congestion and rhinorrhea in patients with chronic rhinitis (allergic or vasomotor).”), 16:44–51; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103). Patent Owner at this stage does not offer any arguments addressing Petitioner’s substantive showing, which we find sufficient for institution purposes. See generally Prelim. Resp. Rather, Patent Owner contends Saadat is not prior art because the ’675 patent is entitled to rely upon the July 21, 2006, filing date of the ’090 application. Id. at 24. For the reasons discussed above, we determine that the Specification of the ’675 patent fails to provide adequate written description support for the challenged claims, and thus, the challenged claims are entitled to an effective filing date no earlier than October 22, 2019. Saadat is a U.S. patent that issued June 4,” slip op. at 33
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,610,675 - Kelonia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Interius Biotherapeutics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 17, 2024 · PGR2024-00008 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable over Perkins or the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we agree with Patent Owner that Perkins is prior art to the ’366 patent only to the extent that the subject matter disclosed in Perkins is likewise described in the Perkins Provisional. Accordingly, we do not consider Petitioner’s arguments that rely on subject matter unsupported by the Perkins Provisional. For example, support for Petitioner’s argument that Perkins discloses “mutant VSV-G envelope protein containing only four mutations at N180, I182, T352, and E353” is not found in the Perkins Provisional and is therefore not considered. Pet. 73 (quoted with Petitioner’s emphasis). Thus, insofar as Petitioner is suggesting that Perkins describes a list of mutations that is narrowed to four positions including a mutation at I182, rather than a listing of thirteen potential positions for mutations (and various combinations thereof with hypothetical mutations at a variety positions), we find no such narrower listing in the Perkins Provisional. Compare Ex. 1005, 22:2–5, with Ex. 1006, 17–18.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“genus even if the species are not themselves recited.” Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also, Atofina, 441 F.3d at 999 (“[A] very small genus can be a disclosure of each species within the genus.” (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d at 682)). In Petering, for example, the prior art disclosed a small genus of only 20 compounds that included the claimed species. In re Petering, 301 F.2d at 682. In its discussion concluding that a small genus may anticipate a species of that genus, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals explained that “it is not the mere number of compounds in this limited class which is significant here, but rather, the total circumstances involved, including such factors as the limited number of variations for R, only two alternatives for Y and Z, no alternatives for the other ring positions, and a large unchanging parent structural nucleus.” Id. at 681–682. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we do not find that Perkins discloses a limited class as exemplified in Petering. To begin, while it is undisputed that Perkins discloses a class of mutant VSV-G envelope proteins that encompasses the recited I182E or I182D mutations, it is also undisputed that Perkins does not disclose the I182E or I182D mutations. Prelim. Resp. 22. Furthermore, and by contrast to the limited class of compounds at issue in Petering, Perkins discloses a class of mutant VSV-G envelope proteins defined as proteins containing one or more of 20 possible mutations or alterations, a class that includes at least 254 proteins. Ex. 1006, 17–18; Prelim. Resp. 26–27. Furthermore, as Patent Owner correctly points out, “[t]he Perkins Provisional does not include any disclosure of the specific mutations to be made at any of these locations. That is, the Perkins Provisional does not indicate the other amino acid(s) to be substituted at the listed locations.” Prelim. Resp. 26. Thus, Perkins fails to provide a POSA with a “‘pattern of preferences’ that serves to narrow the genus.” See, e.g., Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“there is no such clear ‘pattern of preferences’ [as found in Petering] that serves to narrow the genus in claim 2 to a narrow class that includes clopidogrel bisulfate”).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A conclusion of obviousness is appropriate where the prior art “contain[s] detailed enabling methodology for practicing the claimed invention, a suggestion to modify the prior art to practice the claimed invention, and evidence suggesting that it would be successful.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also, In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359 (KSR “actually resurrects [the Federal Circuit]’s own wisdom in In re O’Farrell”). However, to render a claim obvious, prior art cannot be “vague” and must collectively, although not explicitly, guide an artisan of ordinary skill towards a particular solution. Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). That is, when a field is “unreduced by direction of the prior art,” and when prior art gives “no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,” an invention is not obvious. Bayer Schering, 575 F.3d at 1347 (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903). Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we are not persuaded that Perkins discloses a finite set or limited class of 19 mutations. Pet. 66. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Perkins discloses a large genus of mutant VSV-G polypeptides containing at least 254 species—“Perkins Provisional discloses mutations at I182 among a group of 20 other possible locations for modifications[,] . . . [13] of these 20 positions are specific amino acids that . . . can be changed to any of the 19 other natural amino acids” —each species combinable to create a vast number of species. Prelim. Resp. 32. Perkins does not indicate any preference among the 13 disclosed mutations, does not indicate any preference among the 19 other amino acids, and does not indicate any preference as to which mutations should be combined to successful effect. Ex. 1006, 17–18. Thus, while Perkins discloses that one or more mutations “inhibit the envelope protein’s ability to bind its native target, while preserving the envelope protein’s fusogenic properties,” beyond that, a POSA would have no direction for selecting the route to create the I182E or I182D mutations specified by the challenged claims among the various unpredictable alternatives suggested by Perkins. Ex. 1006 at 16; Ex. 1002 ¶ 193. We do not find this to be the easily traversed, small or finite number of alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402. slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,767,366 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00119 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9–15, 17, and 18 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are anticipated by Rosenberger; claims 4, 6, 12, and 14 are obvious over Rosenberger and Basye.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citations omitted)). We determine that a specific construction of the term “low power mode” is not necessary to reach a decision in this inter partes review of the challenged claims. Both parties agree that the ordinary and customary meaning of “low power mode” is “an operating mode or state in which power is conserved,” and thus, this is the construction we will use in reaching our patentability determination. As we discuss below, the dispute between the parties concerns when a networked device in Rosenberger exits the low power mode, not whether Rosenberger discloses a low power mode as claimed. As stated by Patent Owner, the dispositive issue in this proceeding is whether Rosenberger “teach[es] a process by which devices in a low power mode remain in that low power mode while exchanging messages with other devices for the purpose of determining whether to exit the low power mode.” PO Resp. 2.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’330 patent, and Dr. Johnson’s testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we determine a person of ordinary skill in the context of the ’330 patent would have had the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2–4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Thus, the key issue between the parties is when does Rosenberger exit its low power mode? Petitioner asserts Rosenberger exits its low power mode after the devices exchange weighted signal inputs and after the devices determine which device will respond to a user query, and thus anticipates claims 1, 9, and 17. Patent Owner asserts Rosenberger exits it low power mode upon receiving a trigger word, and thus does not anticipate these claims. Because Rosenberger discloses several different embodiments, to some extent both parties are correct. See Reply 5 (asserting that Patent Owner’s arguments “inappropriately limit Rosenberger’s teachings as a whole to one specific example”); id. at 10–11. We agree with Petitioner, however, that at least one of the embodiments in Rosenberger discloses the claimed invention and thus anticipates claims 1, 9, and 17. Moreover, Patent Owner’s argument “relies on the erroneous assumption that the disclosure of multiple examples renders one example less anticipatory.” Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc., 537 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Regarding the weighted signal, Rosenberger discloses the control device of the invention uses one of several different coordination methods to achieve the design goal of avoiding duplicate responses to the same speech command while selecting a single control device best able to successfully interact with the system user. All of the methods involve the calculation and production by the control device of a numeric weighted signal (WS) that quantifies the “quality” of a just-recognized speech command. Ex. 1003, 10:34–41. Rosenberger also discloses that “there are a number of methods for the devices to be coordinated so that only the single device with the highest weighted signal proceeds to interact with the user and/or process the speech command.” Id. at 11:27–31. Rosenberger discloses that its device D starts out in a “low power ‘listening’ mode.” Id. at 8:17–20. Rosenberger then explains that “[u]pon receiving and recognizing a speech trigger phrase and determining that it is in a better position to handle subsequent user interaction than any other device that simultaneously recognized the same speech trigger phrase” (id. at 8:20–24), the winning device “beeps, changes its status light 34 or plays a prerecorded or synthesized audio message” to prompt the user to state its query. Id. at 8:30–32. This indicates that the determination based on the weighted signal is made while the system is still in low power mode and before the winning device “beeps, changes its status light 34 or plays a prerecorded or synthesized audio message” to prompt the user to state its query” (id.).” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner provides three arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rosenberger with Basye. Pet. 61–62. Petitioner first argues that “Rosenberger and Basye are in the same field of endeavor and relate to voice-controllable computing devices.” Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:8–13 (“The present invention relates… to improvements in speech-recognizing control devices that respond to oral commands from a system user to produce a desired effect or result.”); Ex.1013 ¶ 1 (“Computing devices may include speech recognition capabilities…. A computing device may also be capable of processing the recognized speech for specific speech recognition applications.”)); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 182). Second, Petitioner argues that “Rosenberger and Basye both disclose techniques for intelligently ‘waking’ a voice-controllable computing device using a ‘trigger phase’ (or ‘keyword’ or ‘wakeword’ in Basye’s terminology).” Pet. 61–62; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 183. Third, Petitioner argues that “Rosenberger discloses that any ‘control” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 10,593,330 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,593,330 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00118 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 7–11, and 15–18 are anticipated by Rosenberger; claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are obvious over Rosenberger and Basye.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’398 patent, and Dr. Johnson’s testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we determine a person of ordinary skill in the context of the ’398 patent would have had the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2–4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citations omitted)). We determine that a specific construction of the term “low power mode” is not necessary to reach a decision in this inter partes review of the challenged claims. Both parties agree that the ordinary and customary meaning of “low power mode” is “an operating mode or state in which power is conserved,” and thus, this is the construction we will use in reaching our patentability determination. As we discuss below, the dispute between the parties concerns when a networked device in Rosenberger exits the low power mode, not whether Rosenberger discloses a low power mode as claimed. As stated by Patent Owner, the dispositive issue in this proceeding is whether Rosenberger “teach[es] a process by which devices in a low power mode remain in that low power mode while exchanging messages with other devices for the purpose of determining whether to exit the low power mode.” PO Resp. 2.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“some extent both parties are correct. See Reply 5 (asserting that Patent Owner’s arguments “inappropriately limit Rosenberger’s teachings as a whole to one specific example”); id. at 10–11. We agree with Petitioner, however, that at least one of the embodiments in Rosenberger discloses the claimed invention and thus anticipates claims 1, 9, and 16. Moreover, Patent Owner’s argument “relies on the erroneous assumption that the disclosure of multiple examples renders one example less anticipatory.” Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc., 537 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Regarding the weighted signal, Rosenberger discloses the control device of the invention uses one of several different coordination methods to achieve the design goal of avoiding duplicate responses to the same speech command while selecting a single control device best able to successfully interact with the system user. All of the methods involve the calculation and production by the control device of a numeric weighted signal (WS) that quantifies the “quality of a just-recognized speech command.” slip op. at 39
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner asserts: it would not have been obvious to modify Rosenberger in accordance with the teachings of Basye to not perform speech recognition on the audio data that corresponds to an utterance of the particular, predefined hotword (Pet. 69-73), as recited, because the entire premise of Rosenberger’s invention is to perform speech recognition. PO Resp. 47 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 111). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill “would not have been motivated to modify Rosenberger such that its computing device no longer performs speech recognition on the audio data corresponding to the trigger phrase (alleged ‘hotword’) because the proposed modification alters the speech recognition principles forming the entire premise of Rosenberger.” PO Resp. 51 (citing 2012 ¶¶ 109–114). As we have noted above, the summary of the invention disclosed in the ’398 patent states “each time the words ‘OK computer’ [the chosen “hotword”] are spoken, it is picked up by a microphone, conveyed to the system, which performs speech recognition techniques to determine whether the hotword was spoken and, if so, awaits an ensuing command or query. Ex. 1001, 1:62–66. Thus, before the “the output of processing the audio data” is transmitted, the system first uses “speech recognition techniques” to determine whether the words spoken are, in fact, the adopted “hotword.” The ’398 patent does not define how “speech recognition techniques” differ from “speech recognition.” To the extent there is a substantive difference, Petitioner relies on Basye. As Petitioner explains, using Basye instead of Rosenberger’s speech recognition, would “help reduce ‘false positive’ detections of a ‘trigger phrase’ (or ‘wakeword’).” Pet. 68 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 210). Petitioner also asserts that “Bayse explains that the use of ‘thresholding’ can help reduce false positives, which is a situation where a computing device incorrectly determines that speech is present or that speech includes a wakeword.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 51, 74–75). This provides a good reason why a person of ordinary skill would want to modify, and improve, Rosenberger’s performance.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 10,134,398 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,134,398 - PTAB · May 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00009 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–8, 12, and 20 on all asserted grounds, finding the petition showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 20. Although defining a person of ordinary skill in the art as a “team” of individuals is not conventional, because Patent Owner does not dispute the definition at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it appears to be consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary 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” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner “agrees that the preamble is limiting as a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method is performed—treating patients with CLL or SLL.” Prelim. Resp. 18. But Patent Owner disagrees with an “attempt to rewrite an express definition in the specification” and adds a safety requirement that is not recited in the definition of “therapeutically effective amount” in the Specification. Id. at 19. Patent Owner contends “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification to mean “a sufficient amount of an agent or a compound being administered which will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms [of a] B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (BCLD) . . . [or] reduction and/or alleviation of the signs, symptoms, or causes of BCLD.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 24:58–63). Notwithstanding its proposed construction, Patent Owner posits that “a precise construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount’ is not necessary to resolve the dispute here” and “[e]ven under Petitioner’s flawed construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount,’ Petitioner fails to meet its burden to warrant institution.” Id. at 20. Having considered the parties’ respective arguments at this stage of the proceeding, we agree that the preamble is limiting as a statement of intentional purpose. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound”). Moreover, we find Patent Owner has the better position that the term “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification and not according to the separate and distinct definition of “effective amount,” as Petitioner suggests. That is, we decline to import a safety limitation to the term “therapeutically effective amount” that only appears in the definition for “effective amount.” Compare Ex. 1001, 24:58–62 with id. at 24:66–25:2” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“an “attempt to rewrite an express definition in the specification” and adds a safety requirement that is not recited in the definition of “therapeutically effective amount” in the Specification. Id. at 19. Patent Owner contends “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification to mean “a sufficient amount of an agent or a compound being administered which will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms [of a] B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (BCLD) . . . [or] reduction and/or alleviation of the signs, symptoms, or causes of BCLD.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 24:58–63). Notwithstanding its proposed construction, Patent Owner posits that “a precise construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount’ is not necessary to resolve the dispute here” and “[e]ven under Petitioner’s flawed construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount,’ Petitioner fails to meet its burden to warrant institution.” Id. at 20. Having considered the parties’ respective arguments at this stage of the proceeding, we agree that the preamble is limiting as a statement of intentional purpose. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound”). Moreover, we find Patent Owner has the better position that the term “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification and not according to the separate and distinct definition of “effective amount,” as Petitioner suggests. That is, we decline to import a safety limitation to the term “therapeutically effective amount” that only appears in the definition for “effective amount.” Compare Ex. 1001, 24:58–62 with id. at 24:66–25:2 amount” but not “therapeutically effective amount”). Thus, we construe the term “therapeutically effective amount” to mean “a sufficient amount of an agent of a compound being administered which will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms [of] B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (BCLD).”” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,672,803
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.