• Shanghai Hongene Biotech Corp. v. Chemgenes Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00862 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable because Aerschot anticipates them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Baran is principally experienced in P(V) chemistry presupposes that experience indicates an ignorance of P(III) chemistry. We do not find this position consistent with the breadth of Dr. Baran’s experience as indicated by his Curriculum Vitae. See Ex. 1003, 47–102. We weigh the testimonies of both Dr. Baran and Dr. Hrdlicka, against the cumulative weight of the evidence of record in assessing their credibility and probative value.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties’ proposed definitions of the level of ordinary skill, although different facially, are similar substantively. For example, both parties argue that a POSA would have high levels of skill, with advanced degrees and/or extensive work experience in organic chemistry.3 See Pet. 12; PO Resp. 20–21. In addition, Petitioner contends that a POSA would have had experience in the development of oligonucleotide building blocks. Pet. 16. Similarly, Patent Owner asserts that a POSA would have had education and/or experience in “the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids.” PO Resp. 20–21. After considering the parties’ arguments and the prior art, we determine that a POSA would have had a Ph.D. (or equivalent degree) in organic chemistry or medicinal chemistry, with at least two to three years of post-graduate work experience in the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids, including, but not limited to, the syntheses of oligonucleotides through solid phase oligonucleotide synthesis. In addition, an individual with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree and at least five years of work experience in these fields also would qualify as a POSA.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to address the construction of any claim term.” slip op. at 6

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

    “To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be disclosed in a single piece of prior art. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For a claim directed to a genus, if a prior art reference discloses a species falling within the claimed genus, the species anticipates the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960); see also Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that when a claim element is written in Markush form, “the entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the Markush group is in the prior art”).” slip op. at 5

  Patent outcomesUS 8,541,569 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,541,569
• Shanghai Hongene Biotech Corp. v. Chemgenes Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00490 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable: claim 1 is anticipated by Reddy; claims 2–4 are obvious over the stated combinations; claim 5 is anticipated by Gaur.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “However, we prefer Patent Owner’s definition of the required 2–3 years of experience in “the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids, including, but not limited to, the syntheses of oligonucleotides through solid phase oligonucleotide synthesis (‘SPOS’)” to Petitioner’s more generalized requirement of having experience in “medicinal chemistry, synthetic organic chemistry, and nucleic acid chemistry, including the development of oligonucleotide therapeutics, diagnostics, or building blocks.” Both parties acknowledge that the level of skill in the art is very high. See, e.g., Resp. 17; Reply 2. We find that, to achieve a level of ordinary skill in the art, a person with the requisite educational background would require 2–3 years of experience for one possessing a doctorate in the relevant field, or 3–5 years for one with a lesser degree (to compensate for the additional educational experience gained by achieving a doctorate) in the specific techniques recited by Patent Owner. We reject the terminal clause “pursuant to P(III) chemistry” proposed by Patent Owner as redundant in that a person engaged for a number of years in “the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids” including SPOS, would likely have an operant knowledge of P(III) chemistry. Consequently we adopt the following definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art: “A person of ordinary skill in the art having a Ph.D. (or equivalent degree) in organic or medicinal chemistry, and 2 to 3 years of post-graduate work experience in the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids, including, but not limited to, the syntheses of oligonucleotides through solid phase oligonucleotide synthesis (‘SPOS’)” and, alternatively, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in organic or medicinal chemistry who had at least 5 years of extensive work experience in these fields.”” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “As for Dr. Baran, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Baran is not sufficiently experienced or qualified to opine with respect to the claimed subject matter. A review of Dr. Baran’s extensive curriculum vitae (Ex. 1003, 79–137), indicates that he is deeply experienced and extensively published in the field of oligonucleotide synthesis. Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Baran is principally experienced in P(V) techniques presupposes that experience in that technique indicates an ignorance of P(III) methodologies. We do not find this position consistent with the breadth of Dr. Baran’s C.V. We will weigh Dr. Baran’s testimony, and that of Dr. Hrdlicka, against the cumulative weight of the evidence of record in this inter partes review in assessing the credibility and probative value of their respective testimonies.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Both parties agree that the terms of the challenged claims should be given the ordinary and customary meaning of such terms as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. Pet. 17; PO Resp. 15 (both citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100). Accordingly we see no need for explicitly construing any of the terms of the challenged claims beyond that standard.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Furthermore, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that clear errors exist in the wording of challenged claims 3–5. Both parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the limitation reciting “where M is selected from the group consisting of succinyl, oxalyl, and hydroquinolynyl” should properly read “where M is selected from the group consisting of ethyl, oxalyl, and hydroquinolynyl.” Pet. 18–20; PO Resp. 15. Both parties further agree that the language of claim 5 mistakenly omits the italicized portions of the limitation reciting “NH is capable of being attached to a solid support with a spacer selected from the group consisting of C1–C20 alkyl, ethyloxyglycol, and a combination of alkyl and ethyleneglycoxy,” as is expressly recited in claims 3 and 4. Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158); PO Resp. 15. We agree with both parties’ reasoning with respect to these errors, and we construe the claims as reciting the corrected language, such that claims 3–5 read, in relevant part “where M is selected from the group consisting of ethyl, oxalyl, and hydroquinolynyl” and claim 5 additionally reads “NH is capable of being attached to a solid support with a spacer selected from the group consisting of C1–C20 alkyl, ethyloxyglycol, and a combination of alkyl and ethyleneglycoxy.” See Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112, 1119–20 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the Board erred in not correcting a “conspicuous” and undisputed error in claim).” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 9,884,885 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,884,885
• Synthego Corporation v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00403 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–33 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–21, and 24–33 are anticipated by Pioneer Hi-Bred; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner agrees that a POSA would have this educational level. Resp. 23. Patent Owner “also agrees that a POSA would have knowledge of prior art RNA based gene regulating technologies, but disagrees that the teachings of those technologies are relevant in the manner that Dr. Furneaux [and Petitioner] attempt[] to apply them” in the Petition’s grounds. Id. at 23– 24. We find the parties’ agreed understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be supported by the record and apply that description in our analysis herein. To the extent the parties disagree regarding the application of a POSA’s general knowledge of nucleic acids and related prior art techniques to the Petition’s grounds, such disputes are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Independent claims 1 and 19 recite a guide RNA or crRNA molecule having “gRNA functionality comprising associating with a Cas protein and targeting the gRNA:Cas protein complex to the target sequence.” Ex. 1001, 257:42–44, 259:5–7. This claim language makes clear that the recited “gRNA functionality” requires a molecule that can: (1) associate with a Cas protein, and (2) target that complex to a target sequence in a polynucleotide. To the extent Petitioner suggests that a gRNA “need only bind to the Cas protein” to have “gRNA functionality,” we disagree because the claims additionally recite the above-quoted targeting functionality. See Reply 16 (emphasis added). At the same time, we agree with Petitioner that “a gRNA need not cleave the target DNA” to have the claimed “gRNA functionality.” Reply 16. The Specification defines “gRNA functionality” as “one or more functions of naturally occurring guide RNA, such as associating with a Cas protein, or a function performed by the guide RNA in association with a Cas protein” and lists various gRNA functions, e.g., “associating,” “targeting,” “binding,” “nicking,” and “cleaving,” that may be present “in certain embodiments” of the invention. Ex. 1001, 6:56–7:1. However, as noted above, the claims recite “gRNA functionality comprising” only the associating and targeting functions. Thus, while a molecule may have additional functions such as cleaving a target polynucleotide, it need only exhibit the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions to have the “gRNA functionality” in claims 1 and 19. Our determination that “gRNA functionality” requires the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions, but not additional, unrecited functions such as cleaving, is also consistent with the parties’ position that the claim language has its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 17; Resp. 24. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other terms, nor do we discern that any further claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad OceanMotor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that it is only necessary to “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))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “established that “anticipation does not require actual performance of suggestions in a disclosure.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, the Petition need not assert that “gRNA functionality” is inherently disclosed because Petitioner has shown that Pioneer Hi-Bred’s expressly discloses this limitation. Pet. 25–26 (citing evidence). There is no additional requirement that this express disclosure be backed by test data in order for the reference to be anticipatory. See, e.g., Novo, 424 F.3d at 1355; Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[P]roof of efficacy is not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation.”).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Second, even if those sequences were truncated, the record does not support Patent Owner’s argument that a POSA would doubt that they have gRNA functionality. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Dr. Marshall’s testimony that these sequences “are truncated to a point that would render them nonfunctional.” Ex. 2025 ¶ 200. But the references he cites do not support that position. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Ex. 1033 (“Fu”); Ex. 2044 (“Cencic”); and Ex. 2045 (“Mali”)). To the contrary, Fu evidences that “truncated gRNAs, with shorter regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” are functional and that truncation to 17 nt is beneficial. Ex. 1033, Abstr.; see also id. at 283 (“[W]e found that [truncated] gRNAs with 17 or 18 nucleotides of complementarity generally function efficiently at the intended target site and have improved specificities.”). Cencic and Mali likewise do not suggest that a 17 nt VT domain would lack gRNA functionality. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Cencic as showing “truncated gRNA tests showed that a guide sequence of only 16 nucleotides” abolished cleavage activity); Ex. 2045, Supp. Fig. 10 (“1-3 bp 5’ [gRNA] 11 Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Furneaux “adopted the definition of ‘truncated gRNAs’ as those with ‘regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” in paragraph 79 of his opening declaration. Sur-reply 8 n. 1. We disagree. The testimony in paragraph 79 refers to the particular results in Fu. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (citing Ex. 1033). We see nothing there that suggests Dr. Furneaux agrees with Patent Owner’s position that any gRNA with a VT region of less than 20 nt is truncated. truncations are indeed well tolerated, but larger deletions lead to loss of activity”). Accordingly, we credit Dr. Furneaux’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 78, Ex. 1059 ¶¶ 73–75) over the competing testimony offered by Dr. Marshall on these points.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,900,034 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,900,034
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cardiovalve Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01051 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–10 and replacing them with claims 11–20, which Petitioner failed to prove unpatentable over Goldfarb ’267.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “We conclude that Petitioner’s arguments are insufficient to meet its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Goldfarb ’267 anticipates, or renders obvious, the limitation of proposed substitute claim 11 reciting “advancing the end of the first-clip arm and the end of the second-clip arm out of the delivery tube before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube” merely requires advancing the ends of the clip arms out of the delivery tube “before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube.” Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to proposed substitute dependent claims 12–20 due to their dependence from, and incorporation of, the limitations of proposed substitute claim 11. See Supp. Mot. Amend. 1, Reply Supp. Mot. Amend. 1. We therefore conclude that these proposed substitute claims are similarly neither anticipated by, nor obvious over, Goldfarb ’267. III. CONCLUSION We GRANT Patent Owner’s non-contingent Motion to Amend and Supplemental Motion to Amend, canceling original claims 1–10 and replacing them with substitute claims 11–20. Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, and after having analyzed the entirety of the record and assigning appropriate weight to the cited supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claims 11–20 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 57

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having weighed the evidence and Petitioner’s argument, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as: (1) a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least three years of experience in designing or developing medical devices who would, where necessary or desired, work or consult with others including a physician to develop such a medical device; or (2) an interventional cardiologist or cardiac surgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in the heart, and who would, where necessary, work or consult with others including an engineer to develop such a medical device. See Pet. 15–16.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Vesely. Ex. 1003. We have reviewed the credentials of Dr. Vesely and consider him qualified to provide the opinions for which his testimony has 4 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,563,267 B2, July 21, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’267”) (Ex. 1005). 5 Petitioner refers to Goldfarb’s ’267 disclosure of a further alternative at Ex. 1005 col. 27 ll. 57–60 as Embodiment A. See Pet. 19. We understand the asserted Embodiment A to encompass the description that extends to Ex. 1005 col. 28, l. 9. See Pet. 24–48. 6 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,635,329 B2, December 22, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’329”) Ex. 1006. 7 Ex. 1005 cols. 17–23, ll. 66–29, Figs. 9–16; see Pet. 21–22. been submitted. See id. ¶¶ 1–9; see also Ex. 1004 (Dr. Vesely’s curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “is described in Goldfarb ’267 as plainly a single, unitary structure and, as such, each portion argued as separate elements by Petitioner (i.e., male element (yellow), female element (green), coupling member 19 (blue) and flexible arms 19A and 19B (dark blue)) together form a solid, single component. Thus, all of the “elements” described by Petitioner as being “separate” are in fact a single unit that: (1) bears the weight of the fixation device during delivery; (2) absorbs and transfer the axial and rotational forces imposed by the shaft 12; and (3) holds the device in the correct orientation. Petitioner points to no disclosure of Goldfarb ’267 that suggests these elements act independently or separately to perform the functions of the unitary component, nor can we discern any such disclosure. We therefore find that Petitioner’s argument that only the “male element” portion of coupling member 19 constitutes the “support portion” recited in proposed substitute claim 11 is an arbitrary and unduly restrictive interpretation of the reference’s disclosure. This is particularly true given that Petitioner points to no portion of the male element of coupling member 19 performing a supporting function that is not shared by the other elements of coupling member 19. We conclude that the better understanding of the reference is that the entirety of coupling member 19 (including flexible arms 10A and 19B11) constitutes an analogous support portion, as recited by substitute claim 11, because it provides a unitary structure that performs the supporting functions enumerated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 10,702,385 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,702,385
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Celltrion, Inc. et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00257 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 8–12 are unpatentable: Dixon anticipates claims 1 and 9–12 and claim 8, and the Board also finds the claims obvious over Dixon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “On February 9, 2022, we instituted an inter partes review in IPR2022- 00257 and granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00880, adding Celltrion, Inc. as a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 35. On the same date, we also instituted an inter partes in IPR2022-00301 and likewise granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00880, adding Apotex, Inc. as a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 36. We refer to Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celltrion, Inc. and Apotex, Inc., collectively, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 3

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the challenged Exhibits are not authenticated. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 sets a relatively low bar for authentication. See Comcast, 2020 WL 4687062, at *28. Rule 901(a) states: “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). By way of example, Rule 901(b)(1) states that a witness with knowledge can provide authenticating testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be. Fed. R. 901(b)(1).” slip op. at 15

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “We deny the motion to exclude the referenced argument in Petitioners’ Reply, as well as the invitation to consider the motion as one to strike the argument. As Patent Owner notes in the motion, Patent Owner raised this issue previously in this proceeding. PO Mot. Exclude 5. At that time, we denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to strike the referenced argument in the Reply. It is improper for Patent Owner to now seek to strike the argument in a motion to exclude. A motion to exclude is not the proper vehicle to address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of a reply. See USPTO, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (2019) at 79, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf?MURL= (last visited October 27, 2022) (“CTPG”). Moreover, as Petitioners correctly assert, Patent Owner has failed to satisfy the prerequisite for filing a motion to exclude by failing to timely file an objection. See 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1); CTPG 78–79. Patent Owner has not been left without an opportunity to address the Reply argument. When we denied authorization to file a motion to strike, we authorized Patent Owner to file, with its Sur-Reply, a table identifying any portion of the Reply that Patent Owner considers to have exceeded the scope of the Reply. Further, we explained that Patent Owner, alternatively, may address that contention, or the merits of any newly-raised arguments or evidence in its Sur-Reply. Indeed, Patent Owner addressed the issue in its 26 Sur-Reply for our consideration. Thus, Patent Owner had sufficient opportunity to identify in its Sur-Reply its contentions regarding Petitioners’ allegedly inappropriate Reply argument and took advantage of that opportunity. That is sufficient for us to consider the issue and determine whether such argument should be disregarded. See CTPG 80.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s definition is the better definition for purposes of this proceeding. We acknowledge that the claims of the ’069 patent are directed to a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” 29 and that the actual practice of the method would therefore seem to be limited to those who have the ability to treat patients, i.e., physicians, etc. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be unduly limiting. Individuals who are involved in drug development or sub-clinical level testing of drugs for treating eye disorders may be extremely knowledgeable about the development of the treatment of eye disorders and drug development, and able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Pet. 25. Such individuals might not possess an M.D. degree, but instead possess a Ph.D. in a “biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field,” or a lesser degree with a corresponding increased depth of experience, as suggested by Petitioner. We agree that such individuals should be considered persons of ordinary skill in the art. We also find that Petitioner’s definition is commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the prior art. See, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1010, 1030, 1033; see also 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))). We consequently adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art has having an M.D. or Ph.D. or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field, and having practical academic or medical experience in developing treatments 30 for angiogenic eye disorders or treating angiogenic eye disorders including through the use of VEGF antagonists.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,669,069 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,669,069
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02139 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis”) timely submitted a Petition presenting substantially the same challenges as set forth in Pfizer’s Petition along with a request for joinder to IPR2017-01488. IPR2017- 02139. Paper 1. We granted Bioepis’s Petition and associated request for joinder to this case. IPR2017-02139, Paper 11, 6–7.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner. 11 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest: Tabulation and Analysis of Amino Acid and Nucleic Acid Sequences of Precursors, V- Regions, C-Regions, J-Chain, T-Cell Receptor for Antigen, T-Cell Surface Antigens β2-Microglobulin, Major Histocompatibility Antigens, Thy-1 Complement, C-Reactive Protein, Thymopoietin, Post-Gamma Globulin, and α2-Macroblobulin, 41–175 (4th Ed. 1987). Ex. 1052. See PO Resp. 47. Moreover, in a parallel proceeding involving the same patent, Patent Owner did not dispute that the reference to “all sequences” in the patent, “refer[s] to all known sequences and there’s no dispute . . . that was really synonymous with Kabat 1987.” See IPR2017-01374 Paper 82, Tr. 15:4–16:4; see Ex. 1202 ¶ 157; Ex. 2105 ¶¶ 24–25; Ex. 2107 ¶¶ 18–19; Ex. 1198, 56:20–61:24; Ex. 1199, 27:14–28:13, 29:25–36:2, 57:1–58:6, 115:7–17, 165:17–169:9. Indeed, in a similar parallel proceeding, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term “all human immunoglobulins” refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” IPR2017-01373, Paper 83, 47:21–48:5. Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ proposed construction, with a clarifying modification, specifically, “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure, as set forth in Kabat 1987.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient.” In our institution decision, we determined that this claim language “refer[s] to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” Dec. 10–12. Neither party disputes this interpretation. See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 5–6. Consistent with claim 63’s express comparison between the immunogenicity of the claimed humanized antibody and that of its non-human parent, the Specification states that one object of the invention is to “to provide methods for the preparation of antibodies which are less antigenic in humans than non-human antibodies but have desired antigen binding and other characteristics and activities.” Ex. 1001, 4:24–28. The Specification similarly states that embodiments within the scope of the claims have “low immunogenicity,” or are designed to “minimize the potential immunogenicity of the resulting humanized antibody in the clinic.” Id. at 52:54–58, 61:56–61. Moreover, with reference to claim 63 in particular, Patent Owner points to the ’272 application as “explain[ing] that the purpose of humanizing antibodies using its consensus sequence approach is to reduce immunogenicity versus the non-human parent antibody. (Id., 6:24–30, 84:24–30.).” Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2032 (File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/715,272 (“the ’272 application”)); see also id. at 38 (indicating that the limitation is satisfied where “[o]nly 1 out of 885 patients experienced an immunogenic response . . . which was a substantial improvement over the murine 4D5 antibody”). In light of the above, we do not alter our prior determination that “[a] humanized antibody which lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient,” refers to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213

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.