• Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “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.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 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)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12

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

    “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,298,166
• 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
• Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aegis Therapeutics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01324 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 7–17 are unpatentable under §102 or §103; claims 3–6 and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “in Table 1 and the formulations of Potta claim 21 (i.e., ‘from about 0.1% w/w to about 15% w/w epinephrine or a salt thereof’), because such formulations would elicit the desired biological or medicinal response.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 272. Dr. Weinstein provides an essentially identical opinion. Ex. 1003 ¶ 286. Neither declarant supports their opinion with any explanation as to why the Potta formulations would provide the claimed plasma epinephrine concentration or elicit a biological or medicinal response. Accordingly, we do not credit these opinions, and determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that Potta inherently anticipates claim 3. See n re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”).” slip op. at 29

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof. We agree with Patent Owner that “[n]o bright line rule prohibits the consideration of post-priority date evidence,” and that such evidence is permissible in certain contexts. Opp. 2–3. On this record we do not find that there is sufficient cause to exclude the challenged exhibits, because any consideration by the Board of these exhibits has taken into account their alleged post-priority date status. Thus, we do not find that maintaining the exhibits in this proceeding results in any unfair prejudice to Petitioner, or that the exhibits have confused the issues before us. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude.” slip op. at 73

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “For the above reasons, on the full trial record we determine that” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,682,414 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,682,414
• Cooler Masters Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00337 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 10, and 13 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The existence of a published abstract that would have allowed one skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence to locate the foreign patent application and the fact that the application was classified and indexed in the patent office, were central to the Wyer court’s conclusion that the application was “publicly accessible.”” slip op. at 35

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

    “inherency, then the assertions of obviousness are mere conclusory statements. We are unable to recognize any proffered reasoning underlying the assertions of obviousness. “[Challenges] on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As yet another possible alternative, Petitioner may be basing its case on improper hindsight by relying on and quoting the Specification of the ’240 patent in its obviousness analysis. See Pet. 27. That, too, is unpersuasive. Regardless as to its theory of the case, we determine that Petitioner has failed to explain sufficiently why the claimed heat pipe having a configuration of two plates having bonded together circumferential edge lips would have been obvious. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 12 is unpatentable over Morikawa alone.” slip op. at 55

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “as not relevant under FRE 104 on the grounds that Petitioner failed “to introduce sufficient proof that Exhibit 1004 was publicly accessible such that it qualifies as a prior art printed publication under United States law.” Paper 46, 3; see also id. at 4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104, 401). As set forth in section II.D, above, the evidence of record leads us to an entirely different conclusion regarding Nakamura’s prior art status. Because Petitioner persuades us that Nakamura qualifies as a prior art printed publication as of the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent, we deny Patent Owner’s request on its merits.” slip op. at 82

  Patent outcomesUS 7,066,240 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,066,240
• Cooler Masters Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00144 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–12 were not shown unpatentable; claim 13 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Nakamura and Takahashi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The existence of a published abstract that would have allowed one skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence to locate the foreign patent application and the fact that the application was classified and indexed in the patent office, were central to the Wyer court’s conclusion that the application was “publicly accessible.”” slip op. at 36

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

    “made using related processes, however, says nothing about why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine them in a manner that renders the claimed subject matter obvious. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”)). Petitioner’s argument that the references are “similar and analogous” is not adequate reasoning, by itself, to support a conclusion of obviousness.” slip op. at 54

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “as not relevant under FRE 104 on the grounds that Petitioner failed “to introduce sufficient proof that Exhibit 1004 was publicly accessible such that it qualifies as a prior art printed publication under United States law.” Paper 46, 3; see also id. at 4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104, 401). As set forth in section II.D, above, the evidence of record leads us to an entirely different conclusion regarding Nakamura’s prior art status. Because Petitioner persuades us that Nakamura qualifies as a prior art printed publication as of the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent, we deny Patent Owner’s request on its merits.” slip op. at 73

  Patent outcomesUS 7,066,240 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,066,240
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 24, 2020 · IPR2018-01282 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–10, 12–22, 25–30, 46, 47, and 49–53 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 4, 5, 23, 24, and 48 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no significant distinction between Dr. Allen’s definition of the level of ordinary skill and that of Patent Owner. In view of Patent Owner’s admission that any differences are not material to the issues we decide here, we discern no reason to depart from our definition of the level 5 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of such secondary considerations in its briefs. Therefore, secondary considerations do not enter into our analysis. Inst. 10. Accordingly, we adopt Dr. Allen’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’865 patent would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in either computer science or electrical engineering, together with at least two years of study in an advanced degree program in artificial intelligence, machine learning, or pattern recognition, or comparable work experience.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Second, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proffered interpretation, requiring a “pattern” to include relationships between two or more such pairs, incorrectly excludes embodiments where a “pattern” may be identified by the value of only a single parameter. We find nothing in the intrinsic evidence that supports Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation. By contrast, Petitioner identifies support in the ’865 patent Specification referring to a “pattern” being represented by “one or more” values of parameters in support of its interpretation that encompasses a single parameter value representing a “pattern.” See Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:49–55, 9:63–67). Furthermore, Petitioner points to deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s expert (Dr. Villasenor) as extrinsic evidence to support the contention that a “pattern” encompasses the value of even a single parameter.” slip op. at 15

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

    “monitoring and detecting steps in the teachings of Louch. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence in the complete trial record, we are persuaded Louch teaches the monitoring and detecting steps of claim 1 (as well as related recitations of claims 21 and 46). See Ex. 1011, 8:24–26 (“In some implementations, the process 400 can begin when input from one or more sensors on the mobile device are used to determine a current state of the mobile device ( 410).”), 8:33–35 (“the determining can include detecting and determining two or more different states based on inputs from two or more different sensors”), 8:55–57 (“[t]he states can be determined based on sensor inputs, as described in reference to FIGS. 1-4”); see also Ex. 1021 ¶ 119.” slip op. at 31

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

    “Petitioner argues Louch and Nadkarni are in the same field of endeavor, argues both Louch and Nadkarni are pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’865 patent, and articulates reasons for the proposed combination of Louch and Nadkarni. Pet. 41–45. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s reasons for combining the references. Having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments (Pet. 41–45), we are persuaded Petitioner has articulated a reason for combining Louch and Nadkarni based on rational underpinnings.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,768,865 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,768,865
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 24, 2020 · IPR2018-01281 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–22, 24, 25, 27–30, 46–49, and 51–53 are unpatentable; claims 4 and 23 are not shown unpatentable because Wang does not teach the claimed response between fixing and reduced parameters.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Second, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proffered interpretation, requiring a “pattern” to include relationships between two or more such pairs, incorrectly excludes embodiments where a “pattern” may be identified by the value of only a single parameter. We find nothing in the intrinsic evidence that supports Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation. By contrast, Petitioner identifies support in the ’865 patent Specification referring to a “pattern” being represented by “one or more” values of parameter value representing a “pattern.” See Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:49–55, 9:63–67). Furthermore, Petitioner points to deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s expert (Dr. Villasenor) as extrinsic evidence to support the contention that a “pattern” encompasses the value of even a single parameter.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no significant distinction between Dr. Allen’s definition of the level of ordinary skill and that of Patent Owner. In view of Patent Owner’s admission that any differences are not material to the issues we decide here, we discern no reason to depart from our definition of the level 5 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of such secondary considerations in its briefs. Therefore, secondary considerations do not enter into our analysis. Inst. 10. Accordingly, we adopt Dr. Allen’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’865 patent would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in either computer science or electrical engineering, together with at least two years of study in an advanced degree program in artificial intelligence, machine learning, or pattern recognition, or comparable work experience.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “illustrated in Wang’s Table 1. In view of these numerous references to the exemplary user states and associated features illustrated in Wang’s Table 1, Patent Owner’s assertion, supported by Dr. Villasenor, that Wang does not use Table 1 to identify states is not credible. Based on Wang’s frequent by Petitioner (Pet. 17, 22–24), we determine that Wang’s implementation uses the states and features illustrated in Table 1 to recognize/identify a pattern as claimed (a particular set of feature values illustrated in Table 1), based on a condition (the corresponding present user state represented in Table 1).” slip op. at 39

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

    “illustrated in Wang’s Table 1. In view of these numerous references to the exemplary user states and associated features illustrated in Wang’s Table 1, Patent Owner’s assertion, supported by Dr. Villasenor, that Wang does not use Table 1 to identify states is not credible. Based on Wang’s frequent by Petitioner (Pet. 17, 22–24), we determine that Wang’s implementation uses the states and features illustrated in Table 1 to recognize/identify a pattern as claimed (a particular set of feature values illustrated in Table 1), based on a condition (the corresponding present user state represented in Table 1). It is true that there is no particular algorithm, program code, or data structure that discloses precisely how Table 1 is used. However, the claims do not require any particular data structure, algorithm, or programmed instructions. Claim 1 merely requires that the first pattern be identified “based, at least in part, on said at least one detected condition.” Wang’s frequent reference to the information illustrated in Table 1 and use of that information (feature values) to determine a user state sufficiently teaches the ordinarily skilled artisan the claimed identifying step, as discussed by Dr. Allen. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105–107. Accordingly, we find that Wang teaches the identifying step because Table 1 illustrates the exemplary states recognized (identified) by EEMSS along with the patterns (State Features) used to identify the states.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,768,865 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,768,865
• Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2020 · IPR2018-01154 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 16 is unpatentable as obvious over Kwak; claims 15, 17–18, and 20 were not shown anticipated by Kwak, and claim 19 was not shown obvious over Kwak and Choi 2010.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Dec. on Inst. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute this issue. PO Resp. 11. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and we find the work experience is commensurate with the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, the ’558 patent requires a degree of knowledge that is specific to mobile device architecture as well as transmission and power circuitry for radio frequency devices. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1201, Abstract, 1:7–9, 30–31.” slip op. at 7

  • Prior constructionTerm construed petitioner constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. “current sense amplifier” (claim 15) Petitioner offers a claim construction for “current sense amplifier” (claim 15) to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current,” which is based on the ALJ’s construction in the parallel ITC proceeding. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1223, 11–12). Petitioner argues that the ITC construction is consistent with the ’558 patent specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 35–36 (Ex. 1201, 4:64–66, 5:7–10, 5:18–20). Patent Owner argues that this term does not require construction, but does not contest Petitioner’s contention or our adoption of this construction in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 10. Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ in the ITC proceeding (Ex. 1223, 11–12), we adopt the construction of “current sense amplifier” to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “As we discussed in IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153, and incorporate herein (1152 Final Dec. 12–21), the broadest reasonable interpretation is what would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257. The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related language of claim 19 support that the amplifier must be able to receive both the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost) as recited in the claims. PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55– 62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. In light of these findings, we do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments that the plain language of the claim 19 identifies two alternatives that need not both be present. Pet. Reply 3–4. We credit and find persuasive Patent Owner’s evidence that the ’558 specification, which provides context for the interpretation of an ordinarily skilled artisan, refers to the capability of receiving or operating on both voltages at the source (envelope amplifier). See PO Resp. 35–38.” slip op. at 10

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

    “On the full record, Petitioner has not provided sufficient or persuasive argument and evidence that Figure 6 is merely a more detailed implementation of Figure 5 such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would envision them as a single disclosure. Figure 6 specifically discusses a summing circuit operating on input current and offset current that differs from the voltage circuit signals shown in Figure 5. PO Sur-reply 13–14. We also note that feedforward node in Figure 6 differs from that shown in Figure 5. Indeed, Kwak expressly notes the differences and advantages between Figures 4 and 5 (showing summation of voltage signals) and Figure 6, which shows voltage signals converted into current signals before summation, stating that: In CMOS design, although three voltage signals can be added and then integrated as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the simultaneous summation and integration of the signals at the node Vc, after the conversion of the three voltage signals into current ones, is advantageous, that is, the sensed output current of the linear amplifier, the feedforward current, and the high-frequency current through the ripple filter are added together and integrated at the node with the inverted polarity of the last one Ex. 1211, 2669. Kwak’s disclosure notes differences between the voltage signals of Figures 4 and 5 and the current conversion feedforward teachings shown in Figure 6. See id. On the full record, Petitioner has failed to persuasively establish that “a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination of elements” of claim 15 based on Kwak’s disclosures. See Microsoft Corp., 878 F.3d at 1068. Petitioner’s parallel citations to Figures 5 and 6 and joint discussion of the current summing and integration of Figure 6 and the voltage summing of Figures 5 (see Pet. 42–49), do not establish that Kwak shows the elements of the claim in an embodiment as arranged in the claims. Microsoft Corp., 878 F.3d at 1068–1069. Petitioner’s arguments and testimony evidence (Ex. 1203 ¶ 96; Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 94–96)) fail to address sufficiently the differences between Kwak’s Figures 5 and 6. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Kwak anticipates independent claim 15 or dependent claims 17, 18, and 20.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,698,558 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,698,558
• Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2020 · IPR2018-01240 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable over Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related language of claim 10 support that the “source” must be able to receive both the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost). PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55–62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner that the use of a conditional “or” in claim 10 indicates that only one voltage is necessary to meet the claims. Pet. Reply 3–9. We credit Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments that the language of claims 10 and 11 and the ’558 patent specification support that claim 10, like dependent claim 11, require a selective boost. See PO Resp. 26–29. Petitioner’s arguments assert both that Patent Owner improperly limits the construction to one disclosed embodiment and that the Patent Owner’s construction improperly excludes a disclosed embodiment. Pet Reply 6–8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected because it excludes an embodiment. Pet. Reply 6 (citing EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The cases Petitioner cites refer to constructions that read out preferred embodiments. See EPOS Techs., 766 F.3d at 1347; Dow Chem. Co., 257 F.3d, at 1378; Anchor Wall Sys., 340 F.3d at 1308. Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that the embodiment they identify as being excluded is the preferred embodiment of the ’558 patent. Further, Petitioner cites no support that claims 10 or 11 must be construed to cover all embodiments. See Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Federal Circuit has stated that the broadest reasonable construction is not required to cover the most embodiments in a patent specification, but “must be reasonable in light of the claims and specification. The fact that one construction may cover more embodiments than another does not categorically render that construction reasonable.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that exclusion of a single embodiment renders Patent Owner’s claim construction improper.” slip op. at 12

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

    “persuasive. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence regarding the Chu and Choi 2010 concerns with power degradation and efficiency, which Patent Owner’s declarant testified were common concerns known before the ’558 patent. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1330, 13:12–20, 13:21–14:2, 259:7–18); Ex. 1027 ¶ 18. We find that Petitioner presents persuasive evidence and argument that the issues of power degradation and efficiency were known in the art and within the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also PO Resp. 32–33 (noting that “Patent Owner does not contest that efficiency and output distortion/robustness problems were generally known in the art.”). We also find that Petitioner identifies persuasive motivations to combine from the references themselves, identifying specific teachings in Choi 2010 in reference to boost converter systems like those in Chu. Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1306, 1074, 1077). Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, agreed that Choi 2010 teaches the use of boost converters to address battery degradation. Ex. 1030, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6. Finally, Petitioner provides evidence that degrading battery performance affecting operation further motivates the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. Ex. 1030, 165:17–22; Pet. 57–61. We are also persuaded by Petitioner’s citation to secondary references of examples that use a boost converter to prevent distortion provides further support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu with Choi 2010 and Hanington. See Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the secondary references attempts to bodily incorporate the teachings from these references into Chu and Choi 2010. Patent Owner also fails to address persuasively the support for the teachings these secondary references provide for modifying Chu’s supply modulator to incorporate a boost converter as disclosed in Choi 2010 and Hanington. Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant agrees extending battery life, which is discussed in Exhibit 1315 and cited by Petitioner as a motivation to combine Chu and Choi 2010 (Pet. 58–60), would be achieved by the combination of Chu and Choi 2010 and was within the ordinary skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. We also disagree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to show how to combine the references to solve the conflicting problems that Petitioner alleges as motivation—efficiency and degradation. PO Resp. 33– 35. First, we credit Dr. Kelley’s testimony that the result of the combination was within the knowledge and skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. Second, we find that the evidence and argument in the Petition explain sufficiently how Chu would have been modified to incorporate the boost supply voltage of Choi 2010 and Hanington and that such modifications involve typical and well known components widely used in boost converters. See Pet. 68–70; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 112–113, 126–127; Ex. 1329 ¶ 24.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Owner argues “Choi 2010’s boost is a constant boost applied to the linear amplifier, and thus teaches away from a selective boost.” PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner further argues combining Myers’ selective boost with Choi 2010’s constant boost would destroy the purpose and benefits of Choi 2010’s design. Id. at 43. We do not find that Choi 2010’s use of a constant boost teaches away from selective boost in Myers. Patent Owner’s evidence and argument do not persuade us that Choi 2010’s teachings of boost exclude or discourage the use of selective boost. The portion of Choi 2010 Patent Owner cites does not criticize or discourage the use of selective boost, but applies boost generally to achieve its goals. See Ex. 1306, 1333–1334. We do not find that the teachings in Choi 2010 discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from working with boosted voltage to achieve battery efficiencies. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Choi 2010 does not discredit or criticize selective boost to improve efficiency.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner

    “the ITC investigation (see Ex. 2001, 36–37), Petitioner does not assert the direct incorporation of Myers technology into the combination of Chu and Choi 2010/Hanington. Instead, Petitioner asserts that Myers teaches a method of choosing a power source to improve operation efficiency. Pet. Reply 22–23; Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21, 1:19–23. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, acknowledges this teaching. Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence differ materially from those cited in the ITC investigation. See Ex. 2001, 36–37. In the case before us, Petitioner does not directly incorporate Myers hardware into Chu or Choi 2010 and Hanington, but asserts that Myers— particularly Figure 7 that discloses the technique of switching between two different power sources—teaches a technique that would have been within the level of skill of an artisan at the time of patenting. Pet. Reply 23; see Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1330, 283:16–284:1; see also Ex. 1330, 152:21–153:4 (agreeing that a person of ordinary skill would have known how to select between two power sources). Contrary to the combination of the envelope elimination and restoration (EER) circuits of Myers into the linear amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 argued at the ITC, Petitioner has provided testimony and citations to the record that Myers’s selection functionality is applicable to the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington with the technique from Myers and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 79–81 (providing supporting argument and testimony regarding battery and boosted voltage efficiency as taught by Myers). We find that Petitioner’s argument and evidence provide sufficient rationales with articulated reasoning to support the application of the Myers selection technique with the amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 to achieve battery efficiency during described operating modes. Pet. 57–61 77–82. Indeed, Dr. Kelley’s testimony supports the applicability of the techniques in Myers. See Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21 (discussing Myers’ teaching of choosing power source for operation efficiency). Based on our review of the full record, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence an articulated rationale with articulated reasons to combine Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers. In addition, Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers teach the limitations of dependent claim 11.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,698,558 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,698,558
• 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.