• Gettattle, Inc. v. Afterwords, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 5, 2026 · IPR2025-00677 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Douglas and Ganesh; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “record before us, we conclude that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that each challenged claim of the ’811 patent is anticipated by Douglas and by Ganesh. Accordingly, we find that claims 1–7, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19 of the ’811 patent are unpatentable. Moreover, we find that Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend adds new matter in every proposed substitute claim, and, therefore, the motion is denied.” slip op. at 80

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Because the RMTA does not meet the foundational statutory and regulatory requirements, we decline to reach Petitioner’s arguments as to the asserted unpatentability of the proposed substitute claims. C. CONCLUSION ON REVISED MOTION TO AMEND Because the RMTA does not meet foundational statutory and regulatory requirements for a motion to amend, it is denied.” slip op. at 80

  Patent outcomesUS 10,430,811 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,430,811
• Avation Medical, Inc. v. Emkinetics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2026 · PGR2024-00043 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–39 are unpatentable under Grounds 1–10; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement under Ground 11, and Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST Petitioner identifies Avation Medical, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Pet. x. Patent Owner identifies EMKinetics, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Paper 5, 1; Paper 6, 1. Neither party contests the other’s assertions on this. C.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A POSA at the time of the claimed invention would have had an undergraduate degree in the field of biomedical engineering or a related discipline, such as electrical engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices. Additional work experience could substitute for a formal degree and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶21. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed definition or offer an alternative. See generally Resp. We accept and use Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, which appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’943 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may]” slip op. at 19

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

    “same claim construction standard that is used to construe patent claims in a civil action in federal district court. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). In construing claims, district courts and the Board here, by default, give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner states that, “no terms require construction for purposes of this Petition.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner presents no express position on claim construction. See generally Resp. We do not expressly construe any claim terms. E.” slip op. at 20

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

    “question, based on factual findings. VidStream, 981 F.3d at 1063–64. Moreover, public accessibility is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a printed publication and such depends on whether the reference was available to interested, ordinarily skilled persons exercising reasonable diligence, which is determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 1065. Particularly pertinent here is that “[w]hen there is an established publisher there is a presumption of public accessibility as of the publication date.” Id. Hulu (which cites VidStream on this issue) concerned, inter alia, whether certain asserted references were shown to be publicly available and could be considered as prior art. Hulu, 2021 WL 487622. Hulu holds that, although testimonial evidence is one way to prove public accessibility, there are also a variety of hallmarks of publication and other evidence that may be considered as a totality of the evidence to determine if an asserted reference was publicly accessible and prior art. Id. at *10–13, 21. Facts to be considered in analyzing the issue, other than testimonial evidence, include, for example, whether there is an established publisher, a copyright date/notice, other publication-related dates (impression, printing, etc.), an ISBN number, citations to the reference before (and to a lesser degree, after) the priority date at issue corroborating its availability and/or that the publisher was established, and whether the reference’s “purpose of publishing . . . was ‘dialogue with an intended audience.’” Id. at *10–21 (citing Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021)).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,844,943 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,844,943
• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21

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

    “The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25

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

    “b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,770,121
• Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00999 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 on all five grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2

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

    “As such, we find it error for the Examiner to have not expressly considered Tacken in the context of the other references Alexion pointed to as allegedly demonstrating the “consistent teachings as of March 15, 2007 that ‘eculizumab was the IgG4 antibody of Thomas.” Ex. 2102, 14840– 14843, 14854. But for this error, the Examiner would have better appreciated the disclosure of Mueller PCT. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178, 180–182 (Dr. Ravetch’s testimony that “most critically, Alexion failed to provide its own 2005 publication, the Tacken article, that teaches that “eculizumab” contains an IgG2/G4 constant domain”).” slip op. at 62

  • Other 314aDenied

    “IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner points to § 314(a)27 as a basis for denying institution but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 2 (citation), 4 (citation), 17 (section heading), 32 (citation in parenthetical). At best, Patent Owner asserts that if we find “that fewer than all five Grounds meet the standard for Section 325(d), institution of Samsung’s petition should still be denied in full, because institution on all five Grounds ‘would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources.’” Prelim. Resp. 32 (citing Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative)). Because we decline to exercise our discretion with respect to any of the Grounds under § 325(d), the Board’s Deeper decision is inapposite.” slip op. at 65

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not presently dispute this definition “except to clarify that the POSA would have at least two years of experience in engineering monoclonal antibodies for human therapeutic use, either in the laboratory or industry.” Prelim. Resp. 51 (further arguing that Petitioner cannot prove unpatentability of the challenged claims under either party’s definition). At this stage in the proceeding, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan, as being both unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s additional qualification. In this respect, it appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” encompasses Patent Owner’s proposed modification, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158,” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,725,504
• Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00998 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3 over all six asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-Reply, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’880 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’880 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. We note that there are disputed issues in this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and § 314(a) concerning discretionary denial; however,” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

    “Neither party requests the construction of any claim term. See, e.g., Pet. 18. We need only construe the claims to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). At this stage in the proceeding, we find it unnecessary to construe the language of any challenged claim because the claim language is readily understandable to the person of ordinary skill in the art on its face, within the context of the claims.” slip op. at 25

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

    “TPO mimetic peptide graft in Fab clone X4b has been transplanted into the heavy chain CDR3 region of another antibody framework, 5G1.1. . . . Construction of 5G1.1 is described in U.S. Application Ser. No. 08/487,283, incorporated herein by reference.” Prelim. Resp. 50 (emphasis added); Ex. 1004 ¶ 191. It is not disputed here that U.S. Patent Application 08/487,283 issued as Evans. See Ex. 1005, code (21); see generally Prelim. Resp. The portion of Evans relating to “Construction of 5G1.1” (Ex. 1004 28 ¶ 191, emphasis added) appears to be (or at least includes) Example 11, which is titled “Construction and Expression of Recombinant mAbs.” Ex. 1005, 42:55–58 (emphasis added). According to Dr. Ravetch, “Evans’[s] Example 11 teaches construction of . . . humanized 5G1.1 scFv constructs.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. And, none of the other Evans Examples addressing an anti- C5 antibody or a 5G1.1 antibody designate their respective disclosure as relating to “construction,” as per the title of Example 11 and the sentence of Bowdish expressly incorporating Evans. See Ex. 1005, 33:1–42:54 (Examples 1–10); Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. Thus, on this record, we find that Petitioner’s pointing to the antibodies (or fragments) of Evans’s Example 11 for use as a starting point for Bowdish’s invention to be more reasonable than Patent Owner’s arguments that antibodies would have been selected from some other Example. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not dispute that, if Bowdish and Evans are read as asserted by Petitioner and Dr. Ravetch, the antibody sequences of claim 2, i.e., SEQ ID NO: 2 and SEQ ID NO: 4, are disclosed. Petitioner’s reading is also consistent with the Specification of the ’880 patent, which cites Evans (among others) for the proposition that “[s]uitable anti-C5 antibodies are known to those of skill in the art” and, in particular, that Evans discloses “antibodies which are specific to human complement . . . . includ[ing] a preferred whole antibody (now named eculizumab),” and “methods of engineering such antibodies.” Ex. 1001, 10:57–65, 12:13–21, 12:43–47. Therefore, we do not find any error in Petitioner’s assertion that Bowdish/Evans discloses the antibody of claim 2.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,718,880
• Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00933 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claim 1 under all four asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claim is anticipated or obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The two proposed definitions of the ordinarily skilled artisan are very similar, except that Patent Owner’s description more-specifically defines the field of experience of the artisan. At this stage in the proceedings, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, as being both generally unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s supplemental definition. It appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” includes Patent Owner’s proposed level of experience. Pet. 12–13. We also take into account the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Our decision whether to institute does not turn on which party’s definition of the skilled artisan is used, and our determinations would be unchanged if we applied Patent Owner’s supplemented definition. Further, we note that evidence may be presented as the case progresses to support some other proposed definition of the skilled artisan, which may influence our determination of this issue. C.” slip op. at 15

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

    “CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner states, “Petitioner does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not mention claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage in the proceedings, and for the purposes of this decision, we find it unnecessary to construe the language of claim 1 because the claim language is readily understandable on its face and there is no dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As the case continues, we may determine that certain claim language should be interpreted. D.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “In view of the unique record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that all of the references relied on by Petitioner here, “were previously presented to the Office” as required by § 325(d) and Advanced Bionics. Prelim. Resp. 19. Accordingly, we proceed to part two of the analysis.” slip op. at 55

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) AND FINTIV Patent Owner points to § 314(a) as a basis for denying institution, but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 17–32; see generally Prelim. Sur-Reply 6. Under certain circumstances, the Board may apply our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution in light of a parallel district court proceeding involving the same patent. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). But, as noted by Petitioner, the patent at issue here “has never been asserted in any litigation.” Pet. 49. Accordingly, we also decline to exercise our discretion under Section 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 61

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,732,149
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Bayer Pharma AktiengesellschaftAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2022-01515 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1–2 as anticipated by Foley, claims 1–2, 5, and 8 as obvious over Foley, and claims 3–4, 6–7 as obvious over Foley and Plosker.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find Petitioner has the better position. We agree with Petitioner and Dr. Zusman that an M.D. with experience treating patients who worked in consultation with a team of specialists would include the qualifications recited by Patent Owner. Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 7–11. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSA, which indicates a high level of skill in the relevant art and is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “construction and determine that the term “clinically proven effective” is nonlimiting, as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 11; Pet. Reply 8–9, 16. We begin our analysis with the language of the claims, which recite administering rivaroxaban and aspirin in amounts that are “clinically proven effective,” “wherein rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin is administered in an amount of 75–100 mg daily.” Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 5. We are persuaded that a POSA would have understood from a plain reading of the claims that the specific recited “amounts” of 8 We also noted in our Institution Decision that in the Delaware MDL, the parties stipulated that claim 1 “does not require FDA approval.” Dec. Inst. 15 n.6 (quoting Ex. 2019, 2). That is, the independent claims expressly recite that the rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily, and that aspirin is administered in an amount of 75–100 mg daily. Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 5. Because the claims expressly recite the amounts of rivaroxaban and aspirin, further identifying these amounts as “clinically proven effective” is redundant and unnecessary, and does nothing to alter the method steps of administering the pharmaceutical, as otherwise recited by these claims. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding claim term “antineoplastically effective” not limiting where express dosage amounts are material claim limitations that do not change based on the intended result).” slip op. at 13

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

    “2. Analysis “A claim is anticipated if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.” Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. ModernaTX, Inc., 65 F. 4th 656, 662 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Federal Circuit explains that “[a]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation.” Monsanto Tech. LLC v. Inherent anticipation requires “merely that the disclosure of the prior art is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught in the prior art would result in the claimed product.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotes omitted).” slip op. at 23

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

    “In analyzing the obviousness of a combination of prior art elements, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of skill in the art “to combine . . . known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of a challenged claim is not necessary to establish obviousness. Id. Rather, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. Accordingly, Petitioner must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotations and citations omitted).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,828,310 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,828,310
• Pelican Biothermal, LLC v. Va-Q-Tec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · PGR2021-00085 · APJ Barry L Grossman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the motion to amend but held amended claim 64 unpatentable as anticipated by NanoCool 98596-type products and obvious over the cited combinations; all other amended claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that amended claim 64 is unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Non-Contingent Motion to Amend is granted for claims 64 and denied for all other amended claims; and” slip op. at 77

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A. Status as Prior Art Is a Substantive Issue, Not an Evidentiary Issue. A motion to exclude is not an appropriate mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of evidence, such as whether a reference qualifies as prior art, or the proper weight that should be afforded an argument. See Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, Paper 113, 4, 8–9 (PTAB September 3, 2015); PTAB Consol. Trial Practice Guide 79 (Nov. 30 Mr. Zumwalt testifies that other NanoCool products, designated by product number 85430 and 98630, also have the same configuration as the 98830 product and are made by the same process. Thus, “the 98830, 85430, and 98630 products can be collectively referred to as ‘98830-type’ products all having the same relevant design.” Ex. 1030 ¶ 17. 2019) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact. A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence—arguments regarding weight should appear only in the merits documents.”); Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2017-02187, Paper 42,17 (PTAB May 21, 2019) (status as prior art “is a substantive issue, not an evidentiary issue.”) Thus, whether the NanoCool 98830 product is prior art is not the proper basis for Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude evidence concerning the NanoCool 98830 product.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Harber provide any analysis of the factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill, identified above, to support their conclusory statements. We give Mr. Harber’s conclusory testimony minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to which we have been directed of the need for specific education or experience in biological or chemical technologies related to the claimed containers and inserts.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and at least two to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [insulated shipping containers] depending on education level.” Pet. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Exhibit 1002 is the Declaration testimony of Mr. Paul Haber. Mr. Harber actually states a slightly different level of ordinary skill. Mr. Harber testifies: The hypothetical POSITA would have: (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and have at least three to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [Insulated Shipping Containers][29]. Such a person may also have (ii) a higher level degree, such as a PhD and/or Master’s degree in engineering, or related sciences, and have at least two to three years of experience in designing and testing ISCs. 29 See Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. Ex. 1002 ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Mr. Harber also testifies that “[t]hese descriptions are approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,766,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,766,685
• Metromont Corporation v. Reigstad & Associates, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2022 · IPR2021-00467 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 10, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious; substitute claims 16–19 are also unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan and takes no position on the definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Resp. We accept Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’196 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). It is from this perspective that we consider the claims and the asserted prior art, as has Petitioner and its witness, Dr. Nanni.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the claim term “concrete” can be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan. Petitioner’s proposed understanding of this term as “cement-based composite material” appears to be consistent with such a plain and ordinary meaning. See generally Ex. 1001 (no express explanation of the composition of concrete); see also, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52– 64; Ex. 1014, 1 (explaining concrete includes various mixtures of cement, water admixtures, fine and course aggregates); Ex. 1015, 4:26–30 (definition of concrete is broad and includes cement, grout, and mortar). We interpret the claim term “concrete,” as have the parties, to encompass a “cement-based composite material.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “102 is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual findings.” M&K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 985 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., Inc., 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). As our reviewing court explains, deciding whether a reference is a “printed publication” requires a case-by-case analysis whether the reference was disclosed to the public, where “the key inquiry is whether or not a reference has been made ‘publicly accessible.’” Id. at 1379 (citing Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Of critical importance is determining whether the reference was “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Id. (quoting Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which itself was quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “20 Patent Owner argues in its Response that Petitioner’s expert witness, Dr. Nanni, lacks credibility, presents merely conclusory opinions, and resorts to hindsight bias in his testimony. See Resp. 10–11. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s positions. The evidence shows that Dr. Nanni is qualified to testify on the issues in this proceeding and we find his opinions are based on his understanding of the perspective of the ordinarily skilled artisan, his experience, and the disclosures of the prior art, and are supported by evidence, and do not rely on the ’196 patent as a roadmap so as to infect his opinions with improper hindsight. See generally Ex. 1002; Ex. 1026.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,337,196 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,337,196
• New World Medical, Inc. v. Microsurgical Technology, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2022 · IPR2021-00017 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as anticipated by Quintana; claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over Quintana.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had either “a medical degree and at least two years’ experience with treating glaucoma and performing glaucoma surgery,” or “an undergraduate or graduate degree in biomedical or mechanical engineering and at least five years of work experience in the area of ophthalmology, including familiarity with ophthalmic anatomy and glaucoma surgery.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 10 n.5. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as we find it is undisputed and consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention, as reflected by the prior art and the ’885 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose any express construction for a claim term. See Pet. 27; Resp. 10. We find that no express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Quintana’s disclosure expressly states that “[o]nly the tip of the instrument is introduced into Schlemm’s canal, and the [trabecular meshwork] is stripped slowly, gently and easily from the canal’s lumen towards the anterior chamber as the needle progresses,” which informs one of ordinary skill in the art that the beveled edges of the needle cut and remove a strip of trabecular meshwork tissue. See Ex. 1004, 4; see also id. at 8 (“[f]urther studies are necessary to disclose the ‘in vivo’ behaviour of the sectioned trabecular meshwork”), caption to Figure 2 (“[t]he tip of the needle stripping the trabecular meshwork”); see also Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 7–10 (Dr. Netland discussing Quintana from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 34

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

    “Reasons Supporting Obviousness Over Quintana We find for the reasons provided below that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence persuasive reasons the subject matter of the Challenged Claims, as a whole, was taught by Quintana, in light of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further find that, to the extent a feature of Quintana relied upon by Petitioner would have required modification to correspond to a feature of a Challenged Claim, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence a person of ordinary skill not only could have made the modification, but would have had reason to do so in light of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner argues a lack of motivation to modify Quintana “to create first and second spaced-apart cutting edges.” Resp. 31–32. As explained above, we find Quintana discloses this feature without modification. See supra Section II.E.1. Patent Owner also broadly argues no motivation for any of the proposed modifications because Quintana “never describes creating and removing a strip of [trabecular meshwork],” and that Petitioner does not show how the asserted modification “would have been advantageous” and are “the product of speculation, conjecture and hindsight.” Resp 33–34. As explained above, we find Quintana discloses cutting a strip of trabecular meshwork and Patent Owner’s argument fails to address the reasons Petitioner identifies for each proposed modification. See supra Section II.E.1. We likewise find no persuasive evidence to support Patent Owner’s undeveloped arguments that any modification proposed by Petitioner of Quintana based on the knowledge in the art would have rendered Quintana’s device “unfit for its intended purpose” or that Quintana “would have taught away . . . for fear of reducing the effectiveness of the device.” Resp. 33–34. We find persuasive Petitioner’s argument in its Reply that Patent Owner “fails to explain how modifying Quintana’s needle as proposed by [Petitioner] would have increased the risk of injury to [Schlemm’s Canal], and no disclosure in Quintana that criticizes, discredits, or discourages “investigation into the modifications proposed by [Petitioner]. Reply 24 (citing Ex. 1004, 4). We further focus our discussion below on any additional determinative issues in dispute.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 9,820,885 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,820,885

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.