• Streck, Inc. / Streck LLC v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01577 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 55–61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89–92, 94, 126–130, 132, and 133 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “III. MOTIONS Motion to Strike (Paper 50) Petitioner filed a motion to strike portions of Patent Owner’s Sur- Reply. Paper 50. Patent Owner opposes the motion. Paper 53. Petitioner contends Patent Owner raised new argument about Exhibit 1014 (a paper authored by Dr. Patterson), which was submitted with the filing of the Petition but only cited by Patent Owner for the first time in its Sur-Reply. Paper 50, 1–3; PO Sur-Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1014). According to Petitioner, Patent Owner presents new argument about the reversibility of certain crosslinks caused by formaldehyde, cites new experimental data (in Ex. 1014, Fig. 2.1), and argues such matters would have been known before any possible priority date of the ’277 patent. Paper 50, 1–3. Moreover, Petitioner argues, the untimeliness of Patent Owner’s arguments about Exhibit 1014 prevented the exhibit’s author, Dr. Patterson, from addressing them to provide explanation or context. Id. at 2–3. For the reasons given below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to strike. First, we find that Patent Owner’s arguments on Exhibit 1014 are, on balance, responsive to issues raised by Petitioner in its Reply. It is true that Petitioner submitted Exhibit 1014 with its Petition and that Patent Owner did not cite it until its Sur-Reply. However, the points raised by Patent Owner about Exhibit 1014 respond to certain of Petitioner’s arguments raised for the first time in its Reply. For example, Petitioner argued a POSA would not have been concerned about formaldehyde’s use (such as cross-linking disclosed in Heinmoller that Patent Owner cited in its Response) and that those concerns arose only after the supposed priority date of the ’277 patent. 88 Pet. Reply 8–9. Patent Owner’s citation of Exhibit 1014 is responsive on such points (e.g., it discusses cross-linking with formaldehyde’s use), it published in 2000 and is thus earlier than some references Petitioner argued were too late to evidence a POSA’s knowledge, and, lastly, it was authored by Dr. Patterson and arguably called into question the credibility of rebuttal opinions he offered about the state of a POSA’s knowledge on such issues. Second, Exhibit 1014 does not, ultimately, help Patent Owner as we do not rely on the portions of Exhibit 1014 cited by Patent Owner or Patent Owner’s argument about them. As discussed in our analysis, if cross-linking (as reported in Heinmoller or, for that matter, Exhibit 1014) was a perceived problem, Dr. Patterson provides a credible explanation how it could be and likely was addressed by Pertl.54 Supra Section II(G)(3) (citing Ex. 1047).” slip op. at 88

  • ExcludeDenied

    “by the non-designating party. See generally Paper 60. We nevertheless reviewed the designated testimony. The objections are overruled, but were also considered during review.” slip op. at 90

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

    “evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on grounds advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 93

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

    “3. Conclusion For the reasons above, we find Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Chiu/Lee discloses “an agent that inhibits cell lysis, if cells are present” as recited in independent claims 55 and 81, and the claims depending therefrom. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that claims 55–59, 61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89, 94, and 126–130 would have been obvious over Chiu and Lee.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,277 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,277
• Illumina, Inc. v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2023 · IPR2021-01271 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 21, 22, and 24–30 were not shown unpatentable because Illumina did not prove that glucose in the cited ACD samples necessarily impeded cell lysis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not expressly contest this definition during trial, noting only that “Dr. Van Ness meets [this] definition” and “confirms [that] his opinions are the same under either party’s definition.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 20–25). To the extent there are minor differences in the above 14 definition and the alternative definition offered by Dr. Van Ness (Ex. 2239 ¶ 23), Dr. Van Ness’s proposal is too broad for at least the reason that it does not require the POSA have experience collecting and analyzing cell-free DNA from blood samples—subject matter relevant to the claims and applied art. Accordingly, we continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition here.13 In any event, the parties’ technical declarants meet or exceed either definition and there is no indication that their opinions would change depending on which definition was applied, and no argument from the parties to the contrary. Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 5–10 (overview of qualifications and experience); Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 4–7 (same).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “presents is whether a claimed agent that inhibits cell lysis may be a chelator used as an anticoagulant. The Specification and prosecution history make clear that at least one anticoagulant chelator—EDTA—is excluded from satisfying the claimed agent as recited in claim 1. As discussed above, the Specification describes an example where a sample processed in a tube with only EDTA is described as processing a sample in the “absence” of an agent that inhibits cell lysis. Ex. 1001, 89:35–57 (describing, in contrast, the EDTA + formalin sample as showing an example in the “presence of inhibitors of cell lysis”). If EDTA alone could be read as meeting the “agent” limitation, that example would make no sense. Petitioner provides no persuasive argument otherwise. The prosecution history buttresses the exclusion of the anticoagulant chelator EDTA from being the claimed “agent.” For example, during prosecution of the related ’277 patent, the Examiner at one point expressly 20 identified the EDTA in the tubes of a prior art reference as satisfying the agent term, prompting applicant’s argument that the Office was “incorrect” in doing so, and further distinguishing EDTA as merely “a well-known chelator of calcium and magnesium” that is added to blood “as an anticoagulant due to its ability to chelate calcium.” Ex. 2064, 1196 (arguing “EDTA is clearly referred to as a chelator in Applicant’s specification, not as a cell lysis inhibitor”); supra Section I(E); Ex. 1001, 32:61–64 (listing EDTA and EGTA as chelators). This, in turn, convinced the Examiner to withdraw the finding that EDTA was an “agent” as claimed and move on to art that disclosed formaldehyde as meeting that claim term. Ex. 2064, 1024 (Examiner interview summary noting that “applicant pointed out [that] EDTA could not be defined as a cell lysis inhibitor but rather was simply an anticoagulant”). This colloquy during prosecution evidences a clear and unmistakable disavowal of EDTA as being the claimed “agent.” Having determined that Patent Owner disavowed EDTA as the claimed “agent,” we next consider whether the disavowal extends more broadly to other anticoagulant chelators and, specifically, to ACD. On this record, we find that it does as explained below. In distinguishing EDTA from being the “agent,” Patent Owner relied not on properties that are unique to EDTA, but on the fact that it was a “well-known chelator” used as an anticoagulant in this technical field. Ex. 2064, 1196. Given Patent Owner’s clear intent to exclude EDTA from the scope of the claimed “agent” on the basis that it was simply an anticoagulant chelator, we find that a POSA would also have understood other anticoagulant chelators as subject to Patent Owner’s disavowal.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “20 Before institution, Patent Owner contested the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on whether Landes was entitled to the priority benefit of the filing date of the Landes provisional application. We disagreed that Petitioner’s showing was insufficient. Inst. Dec. 43–47. Patent Owner did not raise any issue during trial about Landes’s prior art status and, thus, has forfeited any argument that Landes is not prior art. On this record, we determine that Landes is § 102(a) prior art based on its July 31, 2003, publication date. On this record, we do not presume the claims of the ’720 patent are entitled to any earlier priority date of other applications listed in its ancestral chain. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that “there is simply no reason to presume that claims in a [CIP] application are entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application”). That is especially true with the patent’s complex priority chain, involving several CIPs leading back to a provisional application filed 26” slip op. at 26

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Altogether, considering the argument and evidence of record, Petitioner has shown, at best, that it is possible for glucose to help impede cell lysis by reason of isotonicity and providing a nutrient source. But such possibilities are not enough for Petitioner to prevail on its challenge to the claims as anticipated by Landes. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or 41 possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech, 936 F.3d at 1364 (same). Petitioner has not, on this record, met its burden to show that the glucose component of ACD in Landes’s specific method is an “agent that impedes cell lysis” in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,727,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,727,720
• Illumina, Inc. v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2023 · IPR2021-01272 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Illumina did not prove claims 55–63, 66–69, 80–91, 94–96, 126–130, 132, and 133 unpatentable because the asserted grounds failed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not expressly contest this definition during trial, noting only that “Dr. Van Ness meets [this] definition” and “confirms his opinions are the same under either party’s definition.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 20–25). To the extent there are minor differences in the above definition and the alternative definition offered by Dr. Van Ness (Ex. 2239 ¶ 23), we find that Dr. Van Ness’s proposal is too broad for at least the reason that it does not require the POSA have experience collecting and analyzing cell-free DNA from blood samples—subject matter relevant to the claims and asserted art. Accordingly, we continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition here.14 In any event, the parties’ technical declarants meet or exceed either definition and there is no indication that their opinions would change depending on which definition was applied. Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 5–10 (overview of qualifications and experience); Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 4–7 (same).” slip op. at 17

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

    “that anticoagulant chelators are not the claimed “agent” and, accordingly, that “Landes’s disclosure of ACD (and its dextrose component) fails to meet the ‘agent’ limitation.” Id. at 17–19 (citing the aforementioned prosecution history). Second, even if the dextrose of ACD is not excluded from the scope of the “agent” term as a matter of claim interpretation, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to provide evidence sufficient to show that dextrose in Landes’s ACD tubes and method necessarily “inhibits lysis of cells” as claimed. Id. at 19–20; 26–34 (arguing, inter alia, that a “mere possibility” of ACD’s dextrose component inhibiting lysis in Landes’s method is not enough); PO Sur-Reply 10–12 (arguing that Petitioner’s contentions about dextrose regulating “isotonicity” or providing a “nutrient source” for cells are belated and otherwise substantively flawed).23” slip op. at 32

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

    “warning against formaldehyde’s use and recommending other fixatives altogether. Id.; Ex. 2150 (Srinivasan), 6 (“A method to overcome the problems of formaldehyde is to use an alternative fixative that is better suited for the preservation of nucleic acids and proteins.”).33 Accordingly, Patent Owner contends that “significant evidence of negative perceptions of formaldehyde” would have dissuaded the modification of Lo proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 46–47; PO Sur-Reply 18–20.34 3. Analysis On the complete record developed through trial, we agree with Patent” slip op. at 56

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

    “warning against formaldehyde’s use and recommending other fixatives altogether. Id.; Ex. 2150 (Srinivasan), 6 (“A method to overcome the problems of formaldehyde is to use an alternative fixative that is better suited for the preservation of nucleic acids and proteins.”).33 Accordingly, Patent Owner contends that “significant evidence of negative perceptions of formaldehyde” would have dissuaded the modification of Lo proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 46–47; PO Sur-Reply 18–20.34 3. Analysis On the complete record developed through trial, we agree with Patent” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,277 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,277
• Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2021-01026 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 21–30 were not shown unpatentable: Lee did not establish that ACD dextrose impeded cell lysis, and Sorenson/Rao lacked motivation to combine because formaldehyde was known to damage nucleic acids.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Van Ness’s proposed POSA level is too broad. Under that proposal, an individual with, for example, an undergraduate degree in microbiology and three years’ work experience studying the habitats of bacteria might qualify as a POSA. It is not clear that such a person would have sufficient, relevant experience in the detection of chromosomal abnormalities, especially through non-invasive methods for detecting fetal 10 genetic abnormalities in maternal samples, as described in the ’720 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:22–5:44 (Field of Invention and Background Art). Petitioner’s proposal of the POSA level is more precise because it requires familiarity with techniques for detecting cell-free DNA in biological samples, which is relevant to the prior art and the claimed technology. Petitioner’s proposal also appears to be more consistent with the cited prior art. 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). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s POSA level here, but note that our other determinations on this record would not change under Patent Owner’s POSA level.12” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “Owner relied not on properties unique to EDTA, but on the fact that it was a “well-known chelator” and anticoagulant: [T]he assertion by the Office that EDTA is a cell lysis inhibitor is simply incorrect. . . EDTA is not an “agent that inhibits cell lysis.” Rather, EDTA is a well-known chelator of calcium and magnesium. EDTA is routinely added to blood during the blood collection process as an anticoagulant due to its ability to chelate calcium. Ex. 2064, 1196. Given Patent Owner’s clear intent to exclude EDTA from the scope of the claimed “agent” on the basis that it was a chelator and an anticoagulant, we find that a POSA would have understood other chelators and anticoagulants to also be excluded from the scope of the claimed agent. Consistent with this understanding, during subsequent prosecution of the application that issued as the ’720 patent, Patent Owner argued that the Holodniy reference, which disclosed a method of detecting free nucleic acid in which blood was collected in tubes containing ACD, “fail[ed] to teach or suggest a method for detecting free nucleic acid comprising, inter alia, isolating free nucleic acid from a non-cellular fraction of a sample, wherein an agent that impedes cell lysis has been added.” Ex. 1003, 1428 (emphasis added). On the salient point here, the Examiner agreed, concluding that “Holodniy et al. teach a method of detecting free nucleic acid which comprises all of the limitations of Claim 1, except these authors do not teach that their samples comprise an agent that impedes cell lysis.” Id. at 1344 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1156 (finding that Adams et al., a reference that also collects blood in tubes containing ACD, taught “all of the limitations recited in Claim 1 except these authors do not teach adding an agent that impedes cell lysis to the sample.”). And Patent Owner argues 15 persuasively, without dispute from Petitioner, that ACD is the “only” addition to the collection tubes besides the blood sample itself. Sur-reply 4 (citing Ex. 1016, 2; Ex. 2023, 20:52–54). This supports that neither the Examiner nor the Patent Owner considered ACD as an anticoagulant chelator to be an “agent,” as that term is used in claim 1. Accordingly, we construe the phrase “agent that impedes cell lysis” to” slip op. at 15

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “function to prevent cell lysis, “by: (1) interacting with and stabilizing the cell membrane; (2) maintaining osmolarity so that the cells do not rupture; and (3) providing a nutrient source.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23; 2001 ¶ 169; Ex. 1059 ¶ 5; Ex. 1054, 125:3–127:12; 1057, 3–4, and Ex. 1056, 7– 13, 15–19, 24). Patent Owner argues that the evidence as to how dextrose functions to prevent cell lysis should have been presented in the Petition. Sur-reply 16. On this record, we do not agree. While this evidence could have been included in the Petition, it is responsive to arguments raised in Patent Owner’s response. See PO Resp. 18–22. In any event, consideration of this evidence simply explains how and why dextrose has the capacity to impede cell lysis, and we have already found that the ’720 patent provides 25 evidence that dextrose has this capacity. Under the circumstances, it was therefore reasonable for Petitioner, in the Petition, to rely on such disclosures of the patent itself. Further, consideration of how and why dextrose impedes cell lysis largely benefits Patent Owner, by providing reasons why dextrose might not inhibit cell lysis under the specific circumstance present in Lee.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “interact with and stabilize the cell membrane. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23). In the cited testimony, Dr. Edwards states, “it was known that carbohydrates have a role in membrane stabilization” and that dextrose “is a membrane stabilizer.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23. This is consistent with the teaching in the ’720 patent that glucose is “[a]n agent that stabilizes cell membranes.” See e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:49–56. The evidence thus supports that dextrose can help to stabilize cell membranes. However, this evidence is tempered by evidence supporting that the “impact of carbohydrates on biological membranes is extremely complex” and that it is “extremely difficult to predict how solutes such as carbohydrates will affect biological membranes.” Ex. 2231, 60:18–61:2, 83:14–18 (Dr. Edwards testimony). This is because “there’s a finite but long – long list of variables that will impact the – the mechanism by which carbohydrate interacts with the cell membrane.” Id. at 66:20–67:7; see also id. at 66:1–15 (identifying temperature, concentration and pressure as variables that play a role in how carbohydrates interact with biological membranes); id. at 68:1–17 (identifying prior and simultaneous exposure to other substances as variables that play a role in how carbohydrates interact with biological membranes). 26 Petitioner also provides evidence that dextrose helps prevent cell lysis by “maintaining osmolarity so that cells do not rupture.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 169; Ex. 1056, 7–13, 24; Ex. 1059 ¶ 5). We agree that the cited evidence supports that dextrose has the ability to prevent cell rupture by maintaining isotonicity. In particular, Rapoport found that erythrocytes in an acid-citrate glucose solution underwent osmotic hemolysis at a slower rate than erythrocytes in a simple citrate solution. Ex. 1056, 613. However, Patent Owner introduces evidence, which we credit, that the failure to maintain isotonicity does not necessarily cause cell lysis. Ex. 2299, 237:4– 16 (Dr. Edward’s testimony). For example, cells placed in a hypertonic solution may “shrink or kind of shrivel” rather than burst, and cells placed in a hypotonic solution may swell, but will not necessarily lyse. Id. at 245:3– 16, 246:17–247:8.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,727,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,727,720
• Neptune Generics, LLC v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01494 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

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

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

    “Although the parties propose constructions for several claim terms (Pet. 12–15; PO Resp. 17–18), we determine that no explicit construction of any claim term is necessary to resolve this case. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).” slip op. at 10

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther

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

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,652,769 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,652,769
• Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2017 · IPR2016-00593 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held that claims 12–15, 21–23, 25–27, 33–38, 44, and 45 were not shown unpatentable because Pictometry was not established as a publicly accessible printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “Version 2.7 (“EFS 2.7 User Guide,” “Pictometry,” or “User Guide”) and, as the name suggests, is a user guide for the Pictometry software product. See Ex. 1004, xiii. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not demonstrate that Pictometry is prior art. PO Resp. 5–10. In our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00594, we considered substantively the same arguments and evidence Patent Owner and Petitioner raise in this case. See IPR2016-00594 FWD 17–29; compare IPR2016-00594 Paper 31, 13–20 with PO Resp. 6– 13; and compare IPR2016-00594 Paper 33, 3–9 with Reply 4–11. In IPR2016-00594, we found Pictometry’s limited dissemination to some governmental entities subject to licensing restrictions was not sufficient to show public dissemination or public accessibility. IPR2016-00594 FWD 17–29. We adopt that same finding here. For the reasons explained in IPR2016-00594, we find that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Pictometry was publicly accessible so as to render it a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 311(b).” slip op. at 6

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “substantively the same as the arguments made in IPR2016-00594. In IPR2016-00594, we denied Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1004 (Pictometry), Exhibit 1011 (a Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition “database” copied from a web page), Exhibit 2010 (Cohasset Town Report 2008), 2011 (LARIAC1 Pictometry Training), Exhibit 2012 (LAR-IAC2 Product Guide), Exhibit 2020 (“GIS: Pictometry: Oblique Imagery training), Exhibit 2021 (“Pictometry License Guidelines”), and Exhibit 2022 (“Pictometry – April 19, 2007”). IPR2016-00594 FWD 5–17. We granted Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 2013 (article titled “Los Angeles County Extends its License Agreement with Pictometry for New Oblique Aerial Photos”), Exhibit 2014 (“Pictometry Administrative Training”), Exhibit 2015 (“Information about TXWILM Administrative Training”), Exhibit 2016 (“Pictometry Administrative Training”), Exhibit 2019 (“GIS Working Group Meeting Minutes”), Exhibit 2023 (“Welcome to Your End User Training”), Exhibit 2024 (“Electronic Field Study Getting Started Guide”), Exhibit 2025 (“Pictometry Announces Technical Advancements for GIS Professionals1”), and Exhibit 2026 (“Pictometry Announces Technical Advancements for GIS Professionals2”). Id. We adopt the same findings and conclusions here. For the reasons explained in IPR2016-00594, we deny the motion to exclude Exhibits 1004, 1011, 2010, 2011, 2020, 2021, and 2022, but grant the motion to exclude Exhibits 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026. See id.” slip op. at 5

  Patent outcomesUS 8,823,732 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,823,732
• Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2017 · IPR2016-00594 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1–10 and 13–20 unpatentable because it failed to establish that Pictometry was a publicly accessible printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMixed

    “Mot. Reply 3. Given the sequence of events, there is no prejudice to Petitioner, who introduced these documents and was served objections at an early stage. Patent Owner apparently cited to the documents in its Patent Owner Response to preserve the right to substantively respond to these documents rather than wait to see if they were presented in Petitioner’s Reply. Pursuant to our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3), we do not dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude due to allegedly untimely filed objections.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “are also prohibited. Id. The MAPC Agreement states under “Confidentiality of Licensed Products” that the Licensed Products are commercially valuable, proprietary products owned by Pictometry and are treated by Pictometry as confidential and contain substantial trade secrets of Pictometry. Ex. 2009, 16, Article 8.4. The licensee agrees that it will not disclose, provide a copy of, or disseminate the Licensed Products and that its personnel will protect the Licensed Products from unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, and dissemination, and that access to the Licensed Products and each part thereof will be strictly limited. Id. We acknowledge that these represent significant limitations on the dissemination of the User Guide.” slip op. at 21

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “involving the EFS software and provides no evidence that the EFS software and the EFS 2.7 User Guide were actually maintained confidential by the parties of the MAPC Agreement, or that the EFS software and the EFS 2.7 User Guide were inaccessible to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Reply 9. However, this improperly puts the burden to disprove public accessibility on Patent Owner. Although Patent Owner challenges whether Pictometry is a printed publication, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in an inter partes review). Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable, and one aspect of such a showing is that the references relied upon are patents or printed publications. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(b) 316(e).” slip op. at 22

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that Pictometry was publicly accessible so as to render it a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). C. Anticipation of Claims by Pictometry Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 and 13–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pictometry. Pet. 16. As noted above, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that Pictometry is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Thus, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that that claims 1–10 and 13–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pictometry.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,542,880 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,542,880
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00306 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 63 was not shown unpatentable because Spinney does not disclose performing the selecting and determining steps in parallel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “First, we give no credit to Dr. Chao’s opinion in this regard because it is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

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

    “is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,023,853 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,023,853
• Smart Modular Technologies Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2016 · IPR2014-01374 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–11, 14–17, and 20 were not shown unpatentable under § 102(b) over Averbuj because its BIST controller did not generate the claimed address signals.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Sechen believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would have additional experience, education, or a combination of the two, beyond that proposed by Dr. Bagherzadeh. Both experts have been employed as professors since the mid 1980s. Dr. Bagherzadeh also has some experience working with engineers in the industry by virtue of his employment with AT&T Bell Labs from 1980–1984 (Ex. 1009 ¶ 6; id. Appx. A). Both experts were awarded bachelors and masters degrees in electrical engineering. Dr. Bagherzadeh was awarded a doctorate in computer engineering, while Dr. Sechen was awarded a doctorate in electrical engineering. Based on a comparison of Dr. Bagherzadeh’s and Dr. Sechen’s declarations (Exs. 1009, 2019), we find Dr. Bagherzadeh has a broader range of educational and work experience, and, therefore, accord greater weight to his opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Bagherzadeh’s opinion is consistent with our finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in our Final Written Decision in IPR-971. We, therefore, adopt our finding in IPR-971 as to the level of ordinary skill in the art: [A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’501 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “We are not persuaded by Dr. Bagherzadeh’s testimony because it is devoid of specific facts and analysis as to what led him to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim term “generate” in the manner Petitioner proposes. See id. Dr. Bagherzadeh does not explain how the IEEE definition supports an interpretation of generate as “cause or initiate transmission,” terms that do not appear in the IEEE definition. See id. Nor does Dr. Bagherzadeh identify other extrinsic evidence which he believes to be consistent with an interpretation of “generate” as meaning “cause or initiate transmission.” See id. Likewise, Dr. Bagherzadeh has not explained why he believes the ’501 patent “describe[s] generating as initiating or transmitting” (Ex. 1009 ¶ 28), as these terms do not appear in the cited portions of the ’501 patent. See Ex. 1008, 6:8–10, 11:4–11:6, 6:19–22.1 Accordingly, Dr. Bagherzadeh’s testimony does not persuade us to accept Petitioner’s interpretation of “generate” as meaning “cause.”” slip op. at 15

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

    “We are not persuaded by Dr. Bagherzadeh’s testimony because it is devoid of specific facts and analysis as to what led him to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim term “generate” in the manner Petitioner proposes. See id. Dr. Bagherzadeh does not explain how the IEEE definition supports an interpretation of generate as “cause or initiate transmission,” terms that do not appear in the IEEE definition. See id. Nor does Dr. Bagherzadeh identify other extrinsic evidence which he believes to be consistent with an interpretation of “generate” as meaning “cause or initiate transmission.” See id. Likewise, Dr. Bagherzadeh has not explained why he believes the ’501 patent “describe[s] generating as initiating or transmitting” (Ex. 1009 ¶ 28), as these terms do not appear in the cited portions of the ’501 patent. See Ex. 1008, 6:8–10, 11:4–11:6, 6:19–22.1 Accordingly, Dr. Bagherzadeh’s testimony does not persuade us to accept Petitioner’s interpretation of “generate” as meaning “cause.”” slip op. at 15

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

    “arranged” or “prepared.” Reply 9–10. Responsive to this Board panel’s questioning during the oral hearing, however, Petitioner agreed that “designed to, adapted to, or arranged to” was an acceptable definition for the claim term “configured to.” See Tr. 22:7–17. Patent Owner contends the phrase “configured to generate” should be construed as “programmed to generate.” PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner does not propose a separate construction for the term “configured.” See generally id. at 9–17. In support of its proposed construction, Patent Owner relies on language in the ’501 patent and the testimony of its expert, Dr. Sechen. See id. Dr. Sechen testifies as to the meaning of “configured to generate,” but does not provide a separate discussion of the meaning of “configured to” outside the context of “configured to generate.” See Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 42–57. As explained in our Final Decision in IPR-971, the term “configured to” is used in the ’501 patent in conjunction with numerous terms, such as “provide” and “selectively input,” and there is a presumption that the term “configured to” should carry the same meaning in each instance. See IPR- 971 FWD, 18–19. The evidence relied on by Patent Owner in support of its proposed construction of the term “configured to” in the present inter partes review does not differ materially from the evidence relied upon by Patent Owner in IPR-971. Compare PO Resp. 9–17 with IPR-971, Paper 19, 14– 19. Accordingly, we determine the broadest reasonable construction of “configured to” is “designed to, adapted to, or arranged to” for the reasons stated above and in our Final Written Decision in IPR-971. We adopt and incorporate by reference our analysis and construction of the term “configured to” in our Final Written Decision in IPR-971 (IPR-971 FWD, 18–22). slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,359,501 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,359,501

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.