- Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01565 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–10, 12–22, and 24 as anticipated by Kaiser, and claims 1–24 as obvious under the listed grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Considering argument and evidence of record, we define a person of ordinary skill in the art as a member of a multidisciplinary team consisting of at least (1) a person (“Engineer POSA”) with either (a) a bachelor’s or master’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or a similar field, as well as two or more years of work experience with catheters or similar medical devices, or (b) a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field; working with (2) a person with an M.D. or analogous degree and five or more years of work experience in interventional cardiology, hemodynamics or a similar discipline (“Clinician POSA”); or an Engineer POSA receiving assistance from a Clinician POSA; or a Clinician POSA receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA; or a single person with the qualifications of both an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA. With respect to the parties’ proffered declarants, the record before us demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 32
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at pages 11–12 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 31–32 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 44
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Although Kaiser exemplifies in detail a method involving IVC occlusion, its disclosure makes clear that the method is also applicable to the SVC. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 6:60–64 (“the adjustable component may create a pressure gradient by . . . adjusting blood flow impedance through the superior vena cava”), 5:64–6:2 (disclosing “systems and methods may be provided to create a pressure differential” using “balloons . . . to increase a pressure drop through the . . . superior vena cava”), Claim 5 (reciting a “flow impedance device implantable within a patient’s inferior vena cava”), Claim 17 (“The method of claim 10, wherein the body lumen within which the adjustable component is positioned is . . . a superior vena cava.”), 6:31–36 (positioning pressure sensor in the superior vena cava); see also Ex. 1010, 19–22 (claims of provisional application directed to reducing blood flow through the superior vena cava); see also Pet. 29–34, 36–39; Reply 14–16; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 152–153, 156–159, 165, 167–176 (Dr. Day’s testimony regarding the SVC positioning elements). Considering the arguments and evidence of record, including our own reading of Kaiser (see supra Section I.I.1), we find that Kaiser expressly discloses the contested element of Ground 1 relating to use of the restrictor in the SVC.” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 10,639,460 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,639,460 - Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01564 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–13, and 15–24 are anticipated by Gelfand, and claims 1–24 are also obvious under Grounds 2–8.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Considering argument and evidence of record, we define a person of ordinary skill in the art as a member of a multidisciplinary team consisting of at least (1) a person (“Engineer POSA”) with either (a) a bachelor’s or master’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or a similar field, as well as two or more years of work experience with catheters or similar medical devices, or (b) a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field; working with (2) a person with an M.D. or analogous degree and five or more years of work experience in interventional cardiology, hemodynamics or a similar discipline (“Clinician POSA”); or an Engineer POSA receiving assistance from a Clinician POSA; or a Clinician POSA receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA; or a single person with the qualifications of both an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA. With respect to the parties’ proffered declarants, the record before us demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at a minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”).” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“normal intravascular pressure at or near the region of intervention. To the contrary, the Specification repeatedly discloses the creation and maintenance of low-pressure zones at or near the catheter apparatus restrictors during the course of treatment. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:33–36 (“control module 200 can include multiple feedback loops to adjust performance of the system 10 to create and maintain a low pressure zone while the lymphatic fluid is cleared”) (emphasis added), 13:2–7 (“A pressure sensing lumen, which is positioned proximately to the catheter suction port within the isolated area, can be used to control the rate of suction by maintaining the pressure of the isolated area between about 2–5 mmHg and thus prevent collapse of the thoracic duct due to excessive suction and ensure optimized lymph drainage.”) (emphasis added), 17:52–63 (“[T]he pressure gradient across the proximal restriction is achieved by the pressure reduction within the area between the two restrictions. Actuation of the pump helps to create a low pressure zone in the vicinity of the junction of the jugular vein and the subclavian vein by withdrawing fluid in this region, recirculating it through the pump, and discharging the fluid downstream of this region. Because the outflow of the thoracic and lymphatic ducts is located in this region, the lower pressure will facilitate drainage of lymphatic fluid.”) (emphases added). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’460 Patent “teaches activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at pages 11–12 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 31–32 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 43
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Considering the posture of this case, it is Patent Owner’s burden to overcome the presumption that Gelfand is enabled. See, e.g., Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1354–55. This requirement is not excused in IPR proceedings. See Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 F. App’x 443, 450 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]egardless of the forum, prior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Considering all the argument and evidence of record, we find that Patent Owner has not overcome the presumption with respect to Gelfand for at least the reasons set forth on pages 13–25 of Petitioner’s Reply, which we adopt in full and briefly summarize below.” slip op. at 48
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we find persuasive Dr. Day’s testimony that, “there is no functional difference between the SVC and the IVC that would preclude a catheter from functioning once in the SVC.” Ex. 2006, 73:21–74:5; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 134 (the “methods of balloon activation and operation are the same regardless of whether the occlusion balloon is placed in the SVC or the IVC”). We likewise find persuasive Dr. Day’s testimony that, “Gelfand’s methods, systems and devices . . . could be used in the SVC without any substantial modification other than the catheter potentially being inserted into a vein upstream of the SVC.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122–126; see also id. ¶¶ 130– 134 (similar testimony specific to element [1e]); Ex. 2006, 93:11–99:16, 71:7–78:15, 86:13–87:19, 88:14–90:9, 97:10–13. But to the extent Gelfand’s device needed to be modified, we find persuasive Dr. Day’s testimony that an Engineer POSA would have found such modifications “routine.” Ex. 2006, 205:8–212:21 (“they’re just different variants or dimensions of the invention”). We, likewise, find persuasive Dr. Garcia’s testimony that “Gelfand discloses occluding the SVC or IVC with a balloon catheter device to reduce blood flow to the heart. Gelfand’s catheter is a type of Swan-Ganz catheter, a commonly used catheter with which I and other clinicians are very familiar, and Gelfand discloses that its catheter can be inserted and placed using conventional techniques.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 60; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 27–31 (Dr. Day’s overview of therapeutic balloon catheters). Referencing Dr. Day’s testimony, Dr. Garcia further states that [f]rom a clinician’s perspective, there would have been no difference in using Gelfand’s device to partially occlude the SVC and in using it to fully occlude the SVC. The device would simply have been inserted percutaneously, advanced so that the balloon is in the SVC, and then operated to inflate the balloon to the inner diameter of the SVC. Id. ¶ 127; see also id. ¶¶ 81–83, 127 (detailed explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would know how “to place the occlusion balloon in the SVC as taught by Gelfand”). As further noted by Petitioner, “Garcia explained that Gelfand discloses, and a POSA would know, that a modified Swan-Ganz catheter like Gelfand’s could be inserted via the right internal jugular vein so as to place the occlusion balloon in the SVC.” Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 73–83 (showing modified version of Gelfand’s Figure 1), 136, 145–159; Ex. 2006, 101:8–103:10); see also id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1032, 51:19–53:23, 204:4–205:22, 206:10–208:24) (Dr. Brecker’s admissions that diameters of Gelfand’s catheter would allow SVC placement via jugular vein and that placement of Swan-Ganz catheters through the SVC via the right internal jugular vein was known).” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 10,639,460 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,639,460 - Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01478 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1–14 and 16 as anticipated by Kaiser, and claims 1–16 as obvious under the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Considering argument and evidence of record, we define a person of ordinary skill in the art as a member of a multidisciplinary team consisting of at least (1) a person (“Engineer POSA”) with either (a) a bachelor’s or master’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or a similar field, as well as two or more years of work experience with catheters or similar medical devices, or (b) a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field; working with (2) a person with an M.D. or analogous degree and five or more years of work experience in interventional cardiology, hemodynamics or a similar discipline (“Clinician POSA”); or an Engineer POSA receiving assistance from a Clinician POSA; or a Clinician POSA receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA; or a single person with the qualifications of both an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA. With respect to the parties’ proffered declarants, the record before us demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualifies him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is also an Engineering POSA, or is receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily” slip op. at 33
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“work experience with catheters or similar medical devices, or (b) a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field; working with (2) a person with an M.D. or analogous degree and five or more years of work experience in interventional cardiology, hemodynamics or a similar discipline (“Clinician POSA”); or an Engineer POSA receiving assistance from a Clinician POSA; or a Clinician POSA receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA; or a single person with the qualifications of both an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA. With respect to the parties’ proffered declarants, the record before us demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualifies him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is also an Engineering POSA, or is receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily” slip op. at 34
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’871 Patent “teaches activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at page 11 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 30–31 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 46
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“It is Patent Owner’s burden in this proceeding to overcome the presumption that Kaiser is enabled. See, e.g., Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1354–55. This requirement is not excused in IPR proceedings. See Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 F. App’x 443, 450 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]egardless of the forum, prior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Considering all the argument and evidence of record, we find that Patent Owner has not overcome the presumption with respect to Kaiser for the reasons set forth on pages 16–19 of Petitioner’s Reply, which we adopt in full and briefly address below. With respect to enablement of Kaiser’s device, we find persuasive Dr. Day’s testimony that no substantial modification of Kaiser’s IVC embodiment would be necessary to deploy it in the SVC. See Ex. 2006, 218:6–220:13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 109 (annotated version of Kaiser’s Fig. 2 showing that the lead/catheter passes through the SVC to reach the IVC). With respect to enablement of Kaiser’s method in the SVC, Dr. Brecker’s analysis also falls short of overcoming the presumption that Kaiser is enabling. Dr. Brecker asserts, for example, that Kaiser also does not describe what pressure differential would need to be created through the use of a flow impedance device in the SVC in order to successfully perform its method using such a device in the SVC, and does not provide any exemplary pressure recordings demonstrating that its method can be successfully performed using a device in the SVC. Ex. 2005 ¶ 110. We find persuasive, however, Petitioner’s argument that Kaiser discloses representative pressure differentials, including an effective pressure differential for occluding the IVC (3 mmHg), which Dr. Brecker could not say would be ineffective for the SVC— but which a Clinician POSA could test, along with other pressure differentials to see what results they produced if the SVC were occluded. Reply 16–17 (citing Ex. 1007, 14:22, Fig. 4 (table showing exemplary hemodynamic data obtained by creating a pressure differential in the inferior vena cava); Ex. 1032, 190:23– 192:3 (Dr. Brecker’s testimony that a Clinician POSA would know how to measure the pressures such as those disclosed in Figure 4), 193:14–194:17 (at least some information could be derived from animal testing)). At least because Patent Owner has not argued (let alone demonstrated) that such testing would be undue, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden to show non-enablement.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 10,653,871 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,653,871 - Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01477 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 3–16 are anticipated by Gelfand, and claims 1–16 are also obvious over the listed combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contention that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art may not comprise a multidisciplinary team, but may be “a member” of that same multidisciplinary team, strikes us as a distinction without a difference. See id. Thus, although we disagree with Patent Owner’s analysis, we rephrase part one of our provisionally adopted definition to reference “a member of a multidisciplinary team.”” slip op. at 31
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 34
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’871 Patent “teaches activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at pages 11–12 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 30–31 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 46
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“F.3d at 1354–55. This requirement is not excused in IPR proceedings. See Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 F. App’x 443, 450 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]egardless of the forum, prior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Considering all the argument and evidence of record, we find that Patent Owner has not overcome the presumption with respect to Gelfand for at least the reasons set forth on pages 12–24 of Petitioner’s Reply, which we adopt in full and briefly summarize below.” slip op. at 51
Patent outcomesUS 10,653,871 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,653,871 - Apotex Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 10, 2023 · IPR2022-01524 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
Institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 and 26–30 were unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). An inter partes review may be instituted if the information presented by Petitioner in the Petition, in view of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and the preliminary record, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 19
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“As an initial matter, we find Petitioner has insufficiently addressed the issue of inherent anticipation by Dixon (or any other prior art) and has done so in a merely conclusory manner. There is no dispute that Dixon (as well as the other asserted prior art) discloses angiogenic eye disorder treatment using the same drug (aflibercept), at the same dose (2 mg), administered in the same way (intravitreal injection), and administered at the same dosing regimen (an initial, a secondary, and a tertiary dose), as required by all challenged claims. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. Petitioner relies on these facts, and the results of a phase 2 clinical trial that followed a different dosing protocol (one not claimed) to establish that the results limitations of claims 1, 26, and 29 are inherent to the phase 3 clinical trials (VIEW 1 and 2) with a dosing regimen that is claimed. See Pet. 38–39. Petitioner calls the claimed results limitations mere newly discovered results of a known process. Id. (citing Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1381). As Patent Owner identifies, it is not so simple. The evidence of the results of the VIEW 1 and 2 trials itself (found in the ’572 patent) shows that some, but not all, patients treated with the claimed dosing regimen achieved “a gain in visual acuity” as recited by claim 1, “a gain in visual acuity” that is “as effective” “as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab” as recited by claim 26, or “maintaining visual acuity” “as effective[ly]” “as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab” as recited by claim 29. See Ex. 1001, 13:5–38 (Table 1). As Patent Owner points out, the ’572 patent’s described studies 1 and 2, when following the claimed dosing regimen (2Q8), were not always effective treatments––achieving mere maintenance (as opposed to improvement or “gains”) of vision 95.1% and 95.6% (respectively) of the time. Id.; see Prelim. Resp. 34–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:8–27; Ex. 1014, 4, 6; Ex. 1030, 9; Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 109–111; Ex. 2022). Thus, the evidence shows that, although most would, about 4–5% of patients (or, possibly, an even higher number based on Patent Owner’s cited evidence––Ex. 1030, 9) would not see the gains in visual acuity required by claims 1 and 26 or the maintenance in visual acuity required by claim 29. It is well established that “[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities” and “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re. Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)). Here, the evidence shows that the claimed results limitations may typically flow from the claimed method, but not necessarily.” slip op. at 33
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Relating to the claim construction, the Federal Circuit found that patent at issue was “clear” that the tissue fibrosis, recited by the claim as arrested or regressed by the otherwise recited treatment, was not the same as and did not necessarily accompany the symptom of erectile disfunction (taught in and the focus of the relied-upon prior art), although the former (fibrosis) may frequently result in the latter (disfunction). Id. at 1059. The Federal Circuit held that the “arresting or regressing” clause was more than a mere statement of intended result, but was a limitation carrying patentable weight because the phrase was drafted as a part of a separate step of the method rather than of the preamble, the “arresting or regressing” language demanded efficacy, and the efficacy was linked to specific treatment minimum duration and dosage. Id. at 1060–61. The patients exhibiting these two issues were not necessarily the same. In part because the Board did not consider the arresting/regressing result limitation in its unpatentability analysis, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patent owner that the Board’s findings were insufficient. Id. at 1064, 1067. The Federal Circuit found that that prior art reference relied upon in the Board’s decision for teaching the claimed treatment, and also relied upon to link the condition of fibrosis with the symptom of erectile dysfunction, did not teach treating a population of patients suffering from erectile dysfunction only because of a fibrosis condition and, even though such patients may have had fibrosis, it was not certain; and further found that other cited prior art did not make certain a link between fibrosis and such dysfunction. Id. at 1065–66. This, the Federal Circuit found, was error. We find in agreement with Patent Owner that the results limitations of the challenged claims are limitations and must be given patentable weight for the same reasons arresting or regressing a tissue fibrosis was a limitation in Los Angeles Biomed. Similarly, here the claims are directed to expressly required results of the administration of aflibercept to patients at 2 mg at an initial dose, in at least one secondary dose 4 weeks later, and in at least one tertiary dose 8 weeks later. Therefore, we find that in claim 1, “wherein the patient achieves a gain in visual acuity within 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation. Further, in claim 26, “wherein the method is as effective in achieving a gain in visual acuity as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab by intravitreal injection in human subjects with age-related macular degeneration at 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation. And, in claim 29, “wherein the method is as effective in maintaining visual acuity as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab by intravitreal injection in human subjects with age-related macular degeneration at 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“A prior art reference without express reference to a claim limitation may anticipate by inherency. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” Id. (quoting MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,253,572 - Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · PGR2021-00114 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: they lack written description support and are anticipated by Hinga; the Board also found the challenged dependent claims obvious over the listed combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“As explained in our Institution Decision (Dec. Inst. 5–6), we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner states a POSITA must have one to two years of postdoctoral research experience and Patent Owner’s definition requires at least five years of “research experience,” Patent Owner’s definition does not indicate a specific time for that research (i.e., it could include research during or after a doctoral program). Neither party addresses or contests the other party’s definition in their post-institution papers. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. 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))). Moreover, we find that Dr. Shaner and Dr. Somers are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 5–11, App’x A; see also Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F. 4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“amount.” Pet. Reply 14. Patent Owner, however, argues that we erred in our construction because the Specification explicitly defines “effective amount” to mean “the amount of herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional [i.e., wild, non-mutant] rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” PO Resp. 10 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:34–37). Because the inventors served as their own lexicographers, Patent Owner asserts the Specification’s express definition controls. Id. at 10–11 (citing Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“When a patentee explicitly defines a claim term in the patent specification, the patentee’s definition controls.”)). Nevertheless, Patent Owner acknowledges that the “less than 10% injury” language “is indeed a limitation of the ’346 Patent claims.” Id. at 11. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the inventors acted as their own lexicographer to define “effective amount” and that that definition governs its meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1316 (“[O]ur cases recognize that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”). We, therefore, construe the term “effective amount” to mean “the amount of an herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” As explained further below, however, whether incorporated into the construction of “effective amount” or not, the claim language itself further requires that the “effective amount” encompass a specific range of amounts of herbicide (i.e., 14 g AI/Ha to 40 g AI/Ha of quizalofop) and cause “less than 10% injury” to the mutant rice. See Ex. 1001, claim 1.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable
“Mankin would derive the herbicide range suggested by Patent Owner and Dr. Somers from the “rules of thumb,” that range is much broader than the claimed range. Claim 1 recites that the effective amount is 14 g AI/Ha–40 g AI/Ha of quizalofop, but, according to Dr. Somers’s calculations from the Assure II herbicide label, a POSITA would understand the effective amount to be 19.25–154 (or 19.25–184.8) g AI/Ha. Ex. 2036 ¶ 54; PO Resp. 38. Patent Owner does not identify anything in the specification that would allow a POSITA to “immediately discern” the specific range limitations of the claims. See General Hospital, 888 F.3d at 1372. As the Federal Circuit has stated, “one cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention.” Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326. Thus, we are not persuaded that the disclosure of a broad range of effective amounts via the Assure II herbicide label coupled with Dr. Somers’s undisclosed “rules of thumb” provide written description support for the narrower range limitations of the claims. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is impermissibly working backward from the claimed ranges to determine whether Dr. Somers’s “rules of thumb” can be used to re-create the claimed range from the herbicide label. Pet. Reply 15. That is not the test for written description. Written description “requires a statement of an invention, not an invitation to go on a hunting expedition to patch together after the fact a synthetic definition of an invention.” Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., 18 F. 4th 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Dr. Somers’s “rules of thumb” applied to the extrinsic herbicide label would be understood by a POSITA as a description in Mankin of the range limitation of the claims. Rather, as Dr. Somers concedes, his “rules of thumb” in conjunction with the herbicide label represent a starting point for a POSITA to test plants to determine what the effective amount range should be. See Ex. 2036 ¶ 53 (referring to a “dose response analysis” between 0.5x and 4x). But “a ‘mere wish or plan’ for obtaining the claimed invention is not sufficient.” See Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” slip op. at 30
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded. Given the state of the art in 2017, and the known availability of the G2096S seeds at that time, we find the ’346 patent specification enables the claims. The ’346 patent specification clearly describes the G2096S mutant ACCase rice and its use in the claimed method for treating rice. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:37–45, 57:51–61. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the ’346 patent specification has not omitted the G2096S herbicide tolerant rice. Rather, the ’346 patent specification expressly identifies the G2096S mutant rice that possesses the phenotype of tolerance to the effective amounts of herbicides, and describes the method for treating that mutant rice with those effective amounts. See, e.g., id. at 8:8–12; 57:51–61. Thus, we are not persuaded that we erred in relying on Hinga’s seed deposits to determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to prove that the ’346 patent specification fails to enable the challenged claims. Cf. Wands, 858 F.2d at 736 (stating “[n]o deposit is necessary if the biological organisms can be obtained from readily available sources.”).” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 11,096,346 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,096,346 - Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · PGR2021-00113 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: they lack written-description support, and claims 1–3, 7, and 11–15 are anticipated by Hinga or Hinga2013.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“As explained in our Institution Decision (Dec. Inst. 6–7), we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner states a POSITA must have one to two years of postdoctoral research experience and Patent Owner’s definition requires at least five years of “research experience,” Patent Owner’s definition does not indicate a specific time for that research (i.e., it could include research during or after a doctoral program). Neither party addresses or contests the other party’s definition in their post-institution papers. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. 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))). Moreover, we find that Dr. Shaner and Dr. Somers are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–15; Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 5–11, App’x A; see also Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F. 4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the inventors acted as their own lexicographer to define “effective amount” and that that definition governs its meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1316 (“[O]ur cases recognize that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”). We, therefore, construe the term “effective amount” to mean “the amount of an herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” As explained further below, however, whether incorporated into the construction of “effective amount” or not, the claim language itself further requires that the “effective amount” encompass a specific range of amounts of herbicide and cause “less than 10%” injury to the mutant rice. See Ex. 1001, claim 1. We determine it is unnecessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, 642 F.3d at 1361.” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable
“labels is akin to relying on literature that clearly provides, on its face, the missing disclosure, as in Falkner. Id. On the contrary, Patent Owner’s argument makes clear that the herbicide labels, by themselves, are insufficient to describe the claimed range limitation. Specifically, because the label ranges do not align with the claimed ranges, Dr. Somers had to make additional assumptions and inferences to support Patent Owner’s written description argument. For example, to calculate the potential effective amount range of herbicides, Dr. Somers applied several different “rules of thumb,” none of which are disclosed in the Mankin specification. See Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 34, 54. According to Dr. Somers, to determine the effective amount for a plant with an unknown response to an herbicide, a POSITA “would naturally test the lowest label (1X) rate of the herbicide, along with a few rates below (starting at about half-X) and above the 1X rate (up to 4X) of the herbicide, to determine the effective dose for this ‘uncharacterized’ plant.” Id. ¶ 34. Dr. Somers refers to this as a “dose response analysis.” Id. ¶ 53. In other words, to determine what the actual effective amount of herbicides should be, Dr. Somers explains that a POSITA would have to test the plants at these “rule of thumb” amounts to determine the effective range. Id. ¶ 34. Given the additional assumptions and inferences that must be made to the herbicide labels to arrive at the range limitations, we are not persuaded that relying on the extrinsic herbicide labels for written description support is proper in this case. That said, even if we were to allow Patent Owner to rely on the herbicide labels and the “rules of thumb” for determining the effective herbicide dose, Patent Owner admits that the ranges calculated from the herbicide labels are broader than the range limitations of the claims. See PO Resp. 39. As Petitioner notes, however, the Mankin Application does not provide any guidance as to whether the effective amount range of herbicide would include a 0.5x dose, a 2x dose, or the 4x dose, such that a POSITA could immediately discern the claimed range from the herbicide label.17 Pet. Reply 16.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Somers, however, relies on the label for Fusilade II, which is a different fluazifop-P-butyl herbicide with a different range of 52.98–103.96 g AI/Ha, which—not surprisingly—aligns more closely with the claimed range of at least 56–150 g AI/Ha. Ex. 2036 ¶ 52. We note that Fusilade II does not appear to be one of the listed herbicides in Table 1, whereas Fusilade DX is. Ex. 2034 ¶ 219 (listing “Fusilade, Fusilade 2000, Fusilade DX, ICI-A 00009, ICI-A 00005, SL-236, IH-773B, TF-1169, and Fusion” as examples of synonyms and trade names for fluazifop-P-butyl). Regardless, that the dose range differs for the same herbicide calls into question the credibility of Dr. Somers’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to discern the claimed range limitation by simply looking at the EPA-approved herbicide labels (and applying his “rules of thumb”).18, 19” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 11,096,345 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,096,345 - PTAB · Feb 10, 2023 · IPR2022-01440 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 based on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of the ’133 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had: a Masters or a Ph.D. degree in nutritional science, chemistry, biology, biochemistry, or a related discipline or an M.D. or doctor of optometry (“O.D.”), and a few years of practical experience in the nutritional supplement area, including an understanding of formulations that could be considered for promoting eye health, including preventing or treating eye disorders such as macular degeneration. Alternatively, such a person could have been a person with a Bachelor’s degree with a greater number of years of experience. The POSITA would have, or would have access to, general information regarding eye health and eye disorders, the convenience and needs of patients who suffer from eye disorders[,] such as macular 5 Lang, WO 01/19383 A1, published Mar. 22, 2001 (Ex. 1009, “Lang”). 6 Brown et al., Nutrition Supplements and the Eye, 12 EYE 127–33 (1998) (Ex. 1014, “Brown”). degeneration, and background information. To the extent needed, the POSITA would have collaborated with others having ordinary skill in the areas pertinent to the subject matter of the ’133 Patent. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 15–16) (citations omitted). This definition by Petitioner is uncontested on the current record. See Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Because we find Petitioner’s definition to be reasonable and consistent with the ’133 patent and the cited art, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. “substantially free of meso-zeaxanthin stereoisomers” Independent claims 1, 14, and 19 recite that the zeaxanthin is “present in the 3R-3R' stereoisomer form and is substantially free of meso-zeaxanthin stereoisomers.” Claims 1, 14, 19 (emphasis added). Petitioner contend that the term “substantially free of meso-zeaxanthin stereoisomers” should have its plain and ordinary meaning, and a POSA would have understood the term to mean that the zeaxanthin that is present in the 3R-3R' stereoisomer form is “largely but not wholly free of meso-zeaxanthin stereoisomers.” Pet. 25– 26 (emphasis removed) (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 70; Ex. 1031, 3). The Board adopted, preliminarily, this construction by Petitioner in the Institution Decisions in the -0089 IPR and -1029 IPR. -0089 IPR, Paper 7 at 9–10; -1029 IPR, Paper 6 at 8–9. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction as consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and the prior decisions in the -0089 IPR and -1029 IPR.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We begin by noting that the challenged claims do not recite that the nutritional supplements are “free of Vitamin A” or “free of all sources of Vitamin A.” Rather, independent claim 1 expressly recites that the supplement is “free of beta-carotene.” See Claim 1. Patent Owner urges us to expand the exclusion of beta-carotene to all forms of Vitamin A. That argument, however, lacks support on the current record. In particular, the support asserted by Patent Owner and its expert, Dr. Dorey, that “nutritional supplements include beta-carotene as Vitamin A equivalent,” see Prelim. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 19), establishes little, on its own. Barker does not require the use of beta-carotene as its source of Vitamin A, nor does it limit the source or form of Vitamin A used. Rather, Barker discloses that several “[e]xamples of compounds having vitamin Aactivity or precursors thereof are retinol and esters thereof, such as retinyl palmitate; α- and β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, and lycopene.” Ex. 1011, 2:11–13. Thus, Barker discloses a number of exemplary compounds to supply Vitamin A to its nutritional supplement that are not beta-carotene. Accordingly, based on the current record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the challenged claims exclude all forms of Vitamin A and that Barker, therefore fails to anticipate those claims. Having considered the arguments and evidence at this stage in the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for institution that Barker discloses a nutritional supplement that is “free of beta-carotene.” Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1, 2, 5, and 9–12 are anticipated by Barker.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,173,133 - Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aegis Therapeutics, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01324 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 7–17 are unpatentable under §102 or §103; claims 3–6 and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“in Table 1 and the formulations of Potta claim 21 (i.e., ‘from about 0.1% w/w to about 15% w/w epinephrine or a salt thereof’), because such formulations would elicit the desired biological or medicinal response.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 272. Dr. Weinstein provides an essentially identical opinion. Ex. 1003 ¶ 286. Neither declarant supports their opinion with any explanation as to why the Potta formulations would provide the claimed plasma epinephrine concentration or elicit a biological or medicinal response. Accordingly, we do not credit these opinions, and determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that Potta inherently anticipates claim 3. See n re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”).” slip op. at 29
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof. We agree with Patent Owner that “[n]o bright line rule prohibits the consideration of post-priority date evidence,” and that such evidence is permissible in certain contexts. Opp. 2–3. On this record we do not find that there is sufficient cause to exclude the challenged exhibits, because any consideration by the Board of these exhibits has taken into account their alleged post-priority date status. Thus, we do not find that maintaining the exhibits in this proceeding results in any unfair prejudice to Petitioner, or that the exhibits have confused the issues before us. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude.” slip op. at 73
- Skill levelOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“For the above reasons, on the full trial record we determine that” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,682,414 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,682,414 - PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01225 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Dixon because the exclusion criteria likely lack patentable weight.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Decision. See Ex. 3001, 12–23. In the -00881 Decision, challenged claim 1 of US 9,254,338 B2 (the “’338 patent”) recited preamble language identical to that recited in claim 1 of the ’681 patent, viz., “a method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” See Ex. 1001 col. 21, ll. 40–41; Ex. 3001, 7. The Board found that this preamble was limiting upon the remainder of the claim. Ex. 3001, 18. Specifically, the Board found that: Here, the claims are directed to methods of administering, i.e., using, a VEGF antagonist for an intended purpose of “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” The Specification repeatedly characterizes the method as one for treating angiogenic eye disorders in patients. Apart from the preamble, the independent claims do not elsewhere recite or indicate any other use for the method steps comprising the administration of a VEGF antagonist. Thus, we determine that the preamble sets forth the essence of the invention—treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. Additionally, we find that the preamble provides antecedent basis for claim terms “the patient” recited in the body of each independent claim, and “angiogenic eye disorders” recited in dependent claims 6, 7, 18, and 20. Indeed, without the preamble, it would be unclear to whom the doses of VEGF are administered. Thus, … in view of the evidence of record, namely, the claim language and the written description of the ’338 patent, we find that the preambles of method claims 1 and 14 are limiting insofar as they require “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” Id. at 17–18 (citations omitted). We adopt this same reasoning here and find, for the purposes of this Decision, that the preamble of claim 1 reciting “[a] method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” is limiting upon the claims.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“[W]hen the Specification explains that “[t]he amount of VEGF antagonist administered to the patient in each dose is, in most cases, a therapeutically effective amount,” and discloses that “a therapeutically effective amount can be from about 0.05 mg to about 5 mg,” we find that a POSA would have understood that any dosage amount within that range administered according to the invention may, in some cases, result in a detectable improvement in “one or more symptoms or indicia of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or be one that “inhibits, prevents, lessens or delays the progression of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or it may not. In either event, the VEGF antagonist would have been administered for the purpose of treating the eye disorder. In other words, the method of treating the patient with the eye disorder is performed upon administration of the VEGF antagonist to the patient for the purpose of achieving an improvement or beneficial effect in the eye disorder, regardless whether the dosage amount administered actually achieves that intended result. Id. at 21–22 (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Board found that: Patent Owner’s proposes that the claims require not only achieving a therapeutically effective result, but more specifically, achieving a “high level of efficacy that was noninferior to the standard of care by the time the patent was filed in 2011.” In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner describes a “highly effective treatment for angiogenic eye disorders” as “one that is on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin and can produce visual acuity gains, not just slow vision losses.” The Specification refers to “a high level of efficacy” in one instance, i.e., in the “Background” section. The Specification does not describe there, or elsewhere that “treating,” in the context of the claims or in the art, requires achieving a “high level of efficacy” or providing results “on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin.” Id. at 22 (citations omitted). We adopt the same reasoning here, and find that, for the purposes of this Decision, the evidence of record and the Specification support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to such patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder, but does not require a “high level of efficacy,” as proposed by Patent Owner. See Ex. 3001, 22.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses “secondary doses” are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001 col. 3, ll. 36–44. We do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the definition of these terms require a high, or otherwise defined, degree of efficacy. As we stated in the -00881 Decision: Based on those express definitions in the Specification, we do not find cause to construe the terms differently. In particular, we do not find that the Specification requires the “tertiary doses” to maintain any efficacy gain achieved after the initial and secondary doses, or that the term suggests any specific level of efficacy. The Specification unequivocally states that “[t]he terms ‘initial dose,’ ‘secondary doses,’ and ‘tertiary doses,’ refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist.” Ex. 3001, 25 (emphasis added). We see no need or reason to upend this construction now and, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary doses,” and “tertiary doses” as the express definition provided by the ’681 Specification.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Challenged 4 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 103 Dixon alone or in view of 16–24, 26 Papadopoulos5 and/or Wiegand6 5 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 103 Dixon in combination 16–24, 26 with Rosenfeld-20067, and if necessary, Papadopoulos patent and/or Wiegand 6 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 103 Dixon in combination 16–24, 26 with Heimann-2007, and if necessary, Papadopoulos and/or Wiegand” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,130,681
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.