• Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00738 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Sun, Dodick, and Sharma; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the problems” slip op. at 6

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

    “1. “A subject having refractory migraine” The phrase “a subject having refractory migraine” appears in the preamble to claim 1. Ex. 1001, 173:2–3. The parties agree that the preamble is limiting because it provides context and antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. Pet. 12 (“Claim 1’s preamble . . . should be construed as limiting at least because it provides context and antecedent [basis] for the claimed ‘therapeutically effective amount.’”); PO Resp. 9 (“There is no dispute that the preamble ‘[a] method of treating or preventing migraine in a subject having refractory migraine, the method comprising’ is limits the claim for the reasons expressed by the parties. Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding that the phrase “treatment of sleep apneas” in the preamble of an interference count was limiting because it provided antecedent basis for the phrase “to a patient in need of such treatment” in the body of the interference count); see also Eli Lilly Co. v. Teva Pharmas Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (discussing construction of claims directed to “methods of using a composition for a specific purpose,” explaining, “while there is no bright-line rule for determining whether a preamble is limiting, we have generally construed statements of intended purpose in such method claims as limiting”). We turn now to the meaning of the phrase “a subject having refractory migraine.” The parties agree that the ’160 patent expressly defines the phrase “a subject having refractory migraine.” Pet. 13; PO Resp. 9. In this regard, the ’160 patent states: As used herein, refractory migraine patients (or “subject having refractory migraine”) are considered refractory if they have a documented inadequate response (in a medical chart or by treating physician’s confirmation) to at least two preventive medications (from a different cluster, defined below). Refractory migraine patients can also be considered refractory if they have a documented inadequate response (in a medical chart or by treating physician’s confirmation) to two to four classes of prior preventive medications (from different cluster[s], as defined below), e.g., inadequate response to two classes of prior preventive medications, inadequate response to three classes of prior preventative medications, or an inadequate response to four classes of prior preventative medications. Ex. 1001, 18:59–19:5. Thus, a “subject having refractory migraine” should be construed as: a migraine patient having a documented inadequate least two preventive medications from a different cluster. Id.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “understand the term “adverse event” to be limited to “serious” events. Ex. 2004, 1; Ex. 1208, 1; Ex. 1209, 6; Ex. 1210, 8. The only evidence to the contrary is the testimony of Dr. Grosberg. Ex. 2037 ¶ 45. Because Dr. Grosberg’s testimony is inconsistent with the evidence he relies upon, we decline to give it substantial weight. We recognize that the Specification of the ’160 patent includes language imposing some degree of severity on the “adverse event.” Specifically, the adverse event must be significant enough to cause treatment to be “interrupted” because the event made the treatment become “intolerable by the patient.” But, we find no support in the record for imposing an additional severity requirement by effectively limiting the term “adverse event” to “serious adverse events.” Accordingly, we decline to construe the term “adverse event” to mean “a serious undesirable experience associated with the use of a treatment” as proposed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 12. We do not find it necessary to further construe the term “adverse event” to resolve this dispute.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “d) Conclusion regarding Sun’s disclosure of the claimed patients For the reasons discussed supra §§ II.F.1.a–c, we find that Petitioner” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 11,028,160 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,028,160
• Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00040 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable, principally as obvious over the grounds decided.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.13 PO Resp. 18. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “any weight. Reply 29–30. First, Petitioner contends that the Patent Owner Response does not provide a single citation to Dr. Madisetti’s declaration, Exhibit 2005. Id. at 29. However, Patent Owner explains that the Patent Owner Response mistakenly cites to Exhibit 2001 instead of Exhibit 2005 due to a filing error and confirms that Dr. Madisetti’s declaration is persuasive. Petitioner also argues that Dr. Madisetti’s testimony in Exhibit 2005 is not based on underlying facts because, in the 60-paragraph declaration, only paragraphs 32–35 and 59 have any citations. Reply 29. Petitioner also asserts that Dr. Madisetti refused to answer questions and provide clarification during his deposition. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1040, 30:3–20, 52:2–14, 78:16–84:4). Patent Owner states that it served a supplemental declaration in response to Petitioner’s Objection to Evidence months before the deposition of Dr. Madisetti.14 Sur-reply 20. On this record, we decline to discount Dr. Madisetti’s testimony in its entirety as suggested by Petitioner. Instead, we consider Dr. Madisetti’s testimony, as we do all expert testimony, in accordance with governing law and Board rules. E. Ground 1: Asserted Obviousness Based on Allum, Raymond, and Conlan” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Allum’s and Conlan’s design schemes, although different, are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in addition to the pushbuttons, Conlan’s monitor includes a movement senor for detecting a full range of a subject’s movement and a memory in which data obtained by the monitor can be stored and later retrieved for evaluation. Ex. 1010, 2:60–63, 3:56–58, 4:47–49. As such, Conlan combines the pushbuttons for a user to tell the device about the user’s condition with a movement senor and a memory that enables the device to tell the user (or another person) about the user’s conditions (i.e., the user’s movements). Furthermore, even if Conlan did not disclose using two design schemes together, the differences in the design schemes identified by Patent Owner would not prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from considering combining the references. Rather, as Petitioner asserts, adding Conlan’s pushbuttons would allow the resulting device to gather additional data relating to a particular event, such as a feeling of dizziness, that pertains to the subject’s balance or movement. See Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1010, 6:38–46; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79); see also id. at 34 (arguing that “switches 22, ‘dizziness,’ and, when depressed, the switches 22, 23 ‘cause that occurrence to be recorded in the internal memory of the monitor’”). We are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such additional data to be beneficial to Allum’s diagnostic and rehabilitative tool for people prone to abnormal falling and wishing to improve movement control.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,059,576
• Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00037 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.12 PO Resp. 16. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are materially similar. 12 Petitioner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Reply. definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Also, the Petition merely states that “Ono supports instances where the user stops the step-counting mode operation using switch S2 after the processor detects that” the target distance or the target number of steps has been reached and notifies the user by generating an alarm sound. Pet. 53 (emphasis added). In this case, supporting the notion of the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm is not the same as teaching or suggesting the notion to one of ordinary skill in the art. The possibility that a user could stop the step-counting operation in response the alarm is insufficient to render claims 1 and 20 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a 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.”). Petitioner’s reliance on the Hewlett-Packard and Unwired Planet cases (Pet. 56) is unavailing, as the facts in those cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present proceeding. Namely, both of those cases involved prior art references that disclosed operations that satisfied a claimed feature some, but not all, of the time. Hewlett-Packard, 340 F.3d at 1326; Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1002. Here, Ono does not disclose the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm even some of the time. In view of the above, we determine, based on the full record, that the combination of Ono and Hutchings does not disclose limitations [1f] or [20f]. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono and Hutchings.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We have determined incorporated Grounds 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4, as well as Ground 5A, deficient for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner contends that any of these combinations somehow adds something to supplement or strengthen the patentability analysis of the incorporated grounds, we note that neither the Petition nor Dr. Kenny provides sufficient particularity to support such a position. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the complete record before us that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 5B); (2) claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 31, 36, 39–42, 45–47, 49, and 61–65 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Conlan (Ground 6A); (3) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, and Hickman (Ground 6B); (4) claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39–42, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Kaufman (Ground 7); (5) claims 1–5, 8, 10, 20, 25, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 45–47, 49, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, and Kaufman (Ground 8A); and (6) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 8B).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,059,576
• Nextremity Solutions, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Extremity Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00802 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 59 is unpatentable as anticipated by Brumfield, Marcus, and Chandran; the motion to amend proposing substitute claim 62 is denied because claim 62 is unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find this argument unpersuasive. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner’s expert provides a definition of POSITA that is very similar to that recited by Patent Owner in its Motion to Amend, substantively differing only in the number of years of experience of the engineer at issue. This congruity supports the conclusion that the level of ordinary skill in the art may be recognized in the prior art itself. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the “portion of the preamble reciting ‘for compressing bone’ is not limiting to the claim” and found that other terms did not require construction. Dec. 8–9. We agreed with Petitioner that “[t]he phrase ‘for compressing bone’ merely identifies an intended use.” Pet. 20; Dec. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation. See generally PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner that “the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, having considered the entire record developed during trial, we adhere to the preliminary construction that the limitation “for compressing bone” does not impose a structural limitation on claim 59 and that the other terms do not require construction.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner disputes the Petition generally but Patent Owner does not identify any error in Petitioner’s foregoing arguments. Accordingly, we adopt the factual statements regarding the specific teachings of the references as findings of fact. See generally In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the Board need not make specific findings as to claim limitations that Patent Owner does not dispute are disclosed in the prior art). We have reviewed Petitioner’s analysis and the underlying evidence cited in support and conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations of claim 59 are disclosed by Brumfield.” slip op. at 26

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

    “For the reasons discussed below, Patent Owner has shown that proposed substitute claim 62 meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. For the reasons discussed below, however, Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 62 is unpatentable over prior art. Therefore, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,303,589 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,303,589
• Painteq, LLC v. Orthocision, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00477 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–23, exercising §314(a) discretion because the parallel petition was unnecessary after the priority-date dispute was resolved.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “that this is one of those “rare” circumstances when the institution of two concurrently filed parallel petitions challenging the same claims is warranted. See Trial Practice Guide, 59. The Trial Practice Guide acknowledges that “when there is a dispute about priority date . . . two petitions by a petitioner may be needed,” but that is not the case here. The only reason Petitioner offers for why we should institute a second proceeding is the possibility that Patent Owner could demonstrate that Lins does not qualify as prior art. See Ranking, 2–4. However, as explained in our decision granting institution of the 451 Petition, we agree with Petitioner’s showing that none of the challenged claims are entitled to claim the benefit of the March 15, 2013 filing date of the Grandparent of the ’511 patent, and thus Lins qualifies as prior art. Moreover, Patent Owner has stipulated that it will not dispute that Lins qualifies as prior art. IPR2023-00451, Paper 9, 1. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the priority date that might affect the status of Lins or any of the other references in IPR2023-00451 as prior art.6” slip op. at 10

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,083,511
• Painteq, LLC v. Orthocision, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00451 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–23 based on all petition 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

    “On the current record, we determine that the Petition demonstrates “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). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had a medical or an engineering degree and would have had experience with surgical instruments and implants used for spinal joint fusion, including [sacroiliac (“SI”)] joint fusion.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 15). At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this Decision. slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner submits that the parties have submitted joint claim construction in the Florida litigation, and asserts that “[t]he grounds set forth in this [P]etition render the challenged claims obvious under either party’s construction.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34; Ex. 1017). Nevertheless, Petitioner urges that “express construction is not necessary.” Id. at 7. At this stage of the proceeding and for purposes of instituting trial, we determine that there are no terms that require express construction. See” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Figures 30, 32A and 32B in the Specification depict a working channel with tangs 180a and 180b. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 30, 32A–B. These figures and all of the related description in the Specification describing a working channel with tangs appear in the Parent (Ex. 1006, Figs. 30, 32A–B, 3:17–21, 6:47–54, 15:25–51), but not in the Grandparent. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining the same). Accordingly, based on the current record, we find that the Grandparent application does not provide sufficient written description for the limitations requiring that the working channel have tangs in the independent claims. See Ex. 1001, 42:7 (limitation 1.b.4 “at least one tang on a distal end”), 43:9–11 (limitation 10.b.2 “two bilateral blunt tangs on a distal end”), 44:31–32 the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the Grandparent’s filing date.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,083,511
• Yita LLC / Jinrong (SH) Automotive Accessory Industrial Development Co. Ltd. v. Macneil IP LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00173 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–6 on the asserted obviousness 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

    “whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “We need not explicitly construe the term “vehicle floor tray” or any other claim term for the purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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)). However, we offer the following reasons for not adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Claim 1 recites the term “vehicle floor tray” but does not recite any specific structural details of the tray. Ex. 1001, 19:42–60. Thus, nothing in the claim language suggests the structural aspects of a vehicle floor tray included in Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field, or equivalent formal training, education, or practical experience in a field relating to product design, CAD, or manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner further contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art “would also have a minimum of three to five years of experience in plastics engineering, CAD, manufacturing, plastic product design, or a related industry,” but that “a higher level of training or practical experience might make up for less education, and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not, at this stage of the proceeding, dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’917 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “In his testimony concerning background prior art, Mr. Perreault relies on two prior art patents that disclose “floor mats” described similarly to Patent Owner’s description of a “vehicle floor tray.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30 (citing Ex. 1013 (“Bailey”); Ex. 1015 (“Tyler”)). Bailey describes a “floor mat” that is “molded or otherwise preformed into a tray-like shape which conforms to the contour of a portion of the carpeted automobile floor. The mat is dimensioned and configured to nest within and abut against the sides of a carpeted floor well of the vehicle.” Ex. 1013, 2:37–42, Fig. 6. Tyler describes “contoured vehicle floor mats” that “mate[] with the vehicle floorboard to hold the mat in place.” Ex. 1013, code (57), 1:52–54. Based on these exhibits, we find that Mr. Perreault’s testimony is not conclusory and not based on an improper definition of floor tray. Based on the present record and after considering Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner sufficiently establishes that Stanesic discloses the subject matter of the preamble. In particular, Stanesic discloses “a tray-like central area” and “the raised wall 22 has two walls that rise about one to about two inches from the base 15” (Ex. 1005, 2:61–62), which sufficiently supports Petitioner’s contention that Stanesic discloses, or at least suggests, a vehicle floor tray.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,138,917
• Yita LLC / Jinrong (SH) Automotive Accessory Industrial Development Co. Ltd. v. Macneil IP LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00172 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “and Cicotte, the dispute for the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework revolves around whether Rothkop is cumulative of Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 cited in an IDS considered by the Examiner. Petitioner does not dispute that Cicotte is cumulative of Exhibit 2005 or 2006. See Prel. Reply. For the purposes of the § 325(d) analysis, we will assume, without deciding, that Rothkop is cumulative of at least one of the references Patent Owner relies on, i.e., Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. We, thus, assume, without deciding, that the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied and move to the second prong. 4. Advanced Bionics Framework, Prong Two: Has Petitioner Demonstrated that the Office Erred in a Manner Material to the Patentability of the Challenged Claims? The ’655 patent issued from an application filed on August 6, 2014.” slip op. at 45

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

    “For the following reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Claim 1 recites a “vehicle floor tray” but does not recite any specific structural details of the tray. Ex. 1001, 19:46–2:2. Thus, nothing in the claim language suggests the aspects of a vehicle floor tray included in Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Patent Owner does not direct us to an explicit lexicographic definition of the term “vehicle floor tray” in the Specification of the ’655 patent. Rather, Patent Owner relies on descriptions of aspects of the embodiment disclosed in Figure 1 of the ’655 patent. For example, the ’655 patent generally describes that “[f]loor trays have sidewalls.” Ex. 1001, 1:58. The ’655 patent states that in an “aspect” of the invention, “a vehicle floor tray has a central panel for the placement on the floor of a vehicle foot well, and at least first and second upstanding panels.” Id. at 5:28–30. In column 7, the ’655 patent describes that “[d]isposed around the central or floor panel 102 are a series of upstanding side panels, which will vary in number and configuration from one vehicle model to the next.” Id. at 7:47–49 (emphasis added). These portions of the Specification suggest that the term “vehicle floor tray” should not be limited to any particular number of side panels or any particular configuration such as the side panels are joined to the floor panel and each other. In the Summary of the Invention, the ’655 patent discloses “a vehicle” slip op. at 12

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

    “For the following reasons, Patent Owner’s contentions are unavailing based on the present record. First, as discussed above, Patent Owner’s attempt to draw a distinction between floor trays and floor mats is unavailing based on the present record and undercut by its own exhibits describing Patent Owner’s vehicle floor trays as “mats.” See Ex. 2010; Ex. 2012; Ex. 2013; Ex. 2014. Second, as discussed above, the fact that Petitioner has not shown that someone previously scanned a vehicle footwell is unavailing because this challenge is based on obviousness, not anticipation. Third, the sentence in Rothkop that Patent Owner contends discloses a kind of scanner, not what is to be scanned, is “[t]he data input device may comprise a scanner 12 for scanning a physical part such as an existing seat, frame, or vehicle.” Ex. 1006, 4:61– 63. Based on the present record, we do not agree that this sentence discloses a type of scanner. Fourth, Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the claimed invention creating a new product versus reverse engineering an existing product in Rothkop raises potential fact questions that are best resolved at trial based on a fully developed record. Petitioner provides numerous reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Stanesic, Rothkop, and Cicotte in such a manner that teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1. Pet. 29–34. Petitioner sufficiently supports this reasoning with the testimony of Mr. Perreault that he supports with reference to Stanesic, Rothkop, Cicotte, and other references showing the background art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147–157. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s conclusion that the combination of Stanesic, Rothkop, and Cicotte “would be nothing more than applying known techniques . . . to a known method of producing a custom-fit vehicle floor tray . . . that is ready for improvement, yielding the predictable result of generating a custom-fit floor tray.” Compare Pet. 33, with Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record and after considering all of Patent” slip op. at 32

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,899,655
• Painteq, LLC v. Orthocision, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00335 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 26–28 and 31 are unpatentable; proposed substitute claims 32–35 are also unpatentable, so the revised motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Accordingly, even in the absence of any argument from Patent Owner,” slip op. at 16

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

    “2. Claim 26 Claim 26 recites “[a] method for repairing a sacroiliac joint.” Ex.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Combination of Stark and Stoffman In presenting this alternative challenge and combining Stark with” slip op. at 38

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 87

  Patent outcomesUS 10,426,539 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,426,539
• Bluebird Bio, Inc. v. Sloan Kettering Institute For Cancer ResearchInstituted
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2023-00074 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 11 are obvious over the May Article.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the record, we find that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Examiner did not consider the same or substantially the same art that Petitioner relies upon for its obviousness challenges. Petitioner’s grounds primarily rely on three different “May” references, only one of which the Examiner considered during prosecution, i.e., the May Article. The additional primary references relied upon by Petitioner are the May Thesis, which provides a more detailed disclosure than the May Article, and the May Abstract, which provides less detail than the May Article, in terms of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments used to generate the disclosed TNS9 vector. Those differences are only material with respect to whether each reference discloses the fragments as recited in independent claim 1, or renders those fragments obvious. As discussed in Section II.D.2., however, we determine that the May Thesis is not prior art. 11 The ’221 application claims priority to provisional application no. 60/301,861 (Ex. 1034) (“the ’861 provisional application”), filed June 29, 2001, and provisional application no. 60/302,852 (Ex. 1035) (“the ’852 provisional application”), filed on July 2, 2001, referred to, collectively, as “the provisional applications,” “the provisionals” and “the Provisionals.” Article, but in less detail, the May Abstract may be considered cumulative to the May Article. Because the May Thesis provides more explicit details regarding the fragments disclosed in the May Article, it may not be considered to be cumulative to the May Article. However, as discussed in Section II.D.2., we determine that the May Thesis is not prior art. When considering the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the May Article or Patent Owner distinguishes the May Article, we note that Patent Owner alleged during prosecution and here that the May Article is not prior art for a number of reasons, including that it is the work of the inventors and that it was published one year or less before the priority date asserted by Patent Owner for the challenged claims. We note also that Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are not entitled to the priority date asserted by Patent Owner, and recognized by the Examiner. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that substantially the same prior art that Petitioner relies upon was previously presented to the Examiner during prosecution. The first part of the § 325(d) framework is, therefore, met. Accordingly, we turn to the second part of the § 325(d) and determine whether error by the Office has been shown. See Advanced Bionics at 8.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “at the time of the alleged invention would have had: (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, biotechnology, protein chemistry, genetics, molecular and structural biology, bioengineering, or similar disciplines.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14– 15). Petitioner further asserts that a POSA would have had “(2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience in one or more of these areas” and “(3) an understanding of vector design and the effect of LCR fragments on gene expression, including experience with how the LCR regulates gene expression.” Id. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’061 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner states that “that no term of the ’061 patent requires construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51) (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not argue for any express claim constructions. See Prelim. Resp. Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 16

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Based on our consideration of the arguments and evidence presented at this stage of the proceeding, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, that claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 11 of the ’061 patent are not entitled to receive benefit of the filing date for either the ’861 provisional application or the ’852 provisional application. In particular, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments that the provisional applications do not satisfy the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for those claims. Independent claim 1 recites, in part, “a recombinant lentiviral vector which comprises a nucleic acid encoding a functional globin operably linked to a 3.2-kb nucleotide fragment . . . said vector providing expression of the globin in a mammal in vivo.” Ex. 1001, 11:57–67. Independent claim 11 recites, in part, “a recombinant lentiviral vector comprising a nucleic acid encoding a functional globin operably linked to a 3.2-kb nucleotide fragment . . . said vector providing expression of the globin in a mammal in vivo.” Ex. 1001, 12:64–13:7. Based upon our review, we agree with Petitioner that these limitations are not adequately described in the provisional applications. The ’061 patent Specification (and the ’221 Application) describe the term “functional globin gene” as: that does not produce a hemoglobinopathy phenotype, and which is effective to provide therapeutic benefits to an individual with a defective globin gene. The functional globin gene may encode a wild-type globin appropriate for a mammalian individual to be treated, or it may be a mutant form of globin, preferably one which provides for superior properties, for example superior oxygen transport properties. . . . Suitably, the globin may encode α-globin, β-globin, or γ-globin. Ex. 1001, 2:44–55 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1032, 3:24–4:3 (same). Based on this description, we agree with Petitioner that the ’061 patent claims cover a recombinant vector comprising a nucleic acid encoding a “functional globin” genus that includes wild-type globin and mutant forms of globin, wherein the globin may encode different globin types, i.e., α-, β-, or γ-globin. Patent Owner does not identify, nor do we see, any portion of the provisional applications describing the genus of functional globin. Rather, as Petitioner demonstrates, the provisional applications describe one species of that genus, i.e., the wild-type human β-globin. Pet. 14–18. The provisionals do not describe the “functional globin” genus. Indeed, as Petitioner correctly asserts, during the ’061 patent prosecution, Applicants/Patent Owner, relied on a description of “functional globin,” quoted above, that does not appear and has not counterpart in the provisional applications. Compare Ex. 1001, 2:44–55 and Ex. 1032, 3:24–4:3 with Ex. 1034 and Ex. 1035.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,058,061

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.