- Salvacion USA, Inc. v. Trutek CorpAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00711 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Chen, Baker, Wahi ’005, and, for claims 1, 2, and 8, Rolf; the Board also finds them obvious over the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as it was undisputed at the time and consistent with the evidence of record. Inst. Dec. 7–8. Based on our consideration of the full record, we maintain our determination that a POSITA at the time the application for the ’802 patent was filed “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in pharmacy, chemistry, biochemistry, biomedical engineering or a closely related field, such that the POSITA generally understand[s] pharmaceutical formulation.” Pet. 12. Additionally, we agree with Petitioner that “[a] POSITA would be familiar with the chemical ingredients in the [’802] Patent, biocidic agents, and cationic agents, have knowledge of airborne particles including viruses and bacteria, and understand electrostatic fields, electrostatic attraction and repulsion, adhesion and cohesion.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“of independent claims 1, 2, and 8 as limiting. Inst. Dec. 7–8. The parties do not dispute our construction of the preambles of claims 1, 2, and 8 as limiting. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply 2–4. After consideration of the full trial record, we maintain our construction of the preamble of claims 1, 2, and 8 as limiting for the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision. Id. Briefly, the preamble of independent claims 1, 2, and 8 limits the challenged claims as both the preamble and the body are used to define the subject matter claimed. See Allen Engineering Corp., v. Bartell Industries, Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In particular, the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning and vitality” to the claim, see id., because it provides the only description in the claim for the application site of the formulation, i.e., “to skin or tissue of nasal passages,” and how the formulation is applied, i.e., “in a thin film.”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“After consideration of the full trial record, we maintain our construction. From our perspective, the claims themselves support this construction as the claims expand upon the term “electrostatically inhibiting” with specific means for achieving such inhibition. Specifically, claims 1 and 2 recite electrostatically attracting the particulate matter, holding the matter in place, and inactivating the matter. Additionally, the Specification supports our construction as it describes the use of “an electrostatic field such that oppositely charged airborne particulates (including microorganisms) in the vicinity of the surface are electrostatically trapped, held thereto and one or more of the microorganisms so captured is neutralized, killed, inactivated, and rendered harmless.” Ex. 1001, 3:36–40; PO Resp. 10 n.6.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We adopt the parties’ construction of “adequate impermeability” that has been accepted in the related district court litigation: “Adequate impermeability” refers to the “thin film holding harmful particles in place and inhibiting them from penetrating the thin film and contacting the skin or tissue of an individual’s nasal passages. This is done by varying the concentration of ingredients . . .[,] thereby adjusting the adhesion and cohesion of the thin film.” Pet. Reply 3 (quoting Ex. 1010, 17). Furthermore, as stated in our Institution Decision, along with that term, the claim language explains that the thin film is meant to stick to the skin or tissue and to hold the particulate matter in place. Inst. Dec. 9–10. The claim language also explains that the cohesion of the formulation is adjusted to provide adequate impermeability to the thin film. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the recited impermeability is a function of the cohesive properties of the thin film, and that such impermeability refers to a property of the thin film, i.e., inhibiting the penetration or passage of matter through it onto the skin or tissue at the application site.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 8,163,802 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,163,802 - Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01184 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“8. Conclusion Based on the record before us, we determine Petitioner’s proffered arguments, evidence, and supporting testimony fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 17, 18, 20–23, 27, 30, and 31 would have been obvious over Pilgrim, Gibbons, Lairson, and Yoda.” slip op. at 32
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“II. ANALYSIS A. Discretionary Denial – 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution (Prelim. Resp. 49–54). Petitioner argues we should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv (Pet. 66–67). Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“B. Discretionary Denial – 35 U.S.C. §325(d) Patent Owner contends we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because of the Petition’s “reliance upon the secondary references Gibbons, Lairson, and Yoda. Gibbons and Lairson were considered by the Examiner, and Yoda does not contain any meaningful additional disclosure or basis for unpatentability that was not considered by the Examiner” (Prelim. Resp. 21–22). Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged in those grounds would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ269 Patent, we apply a slightly modified version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the qualification of “at least” and clarifies some statements (see Pet. 6). More specifically, we determine a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with five years of experience in optical element design and optical filters although additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to optical element design and optical filters) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical element and optical filter design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ269 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,588,269 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Celltrion, Inc. et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00257 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 8–12 are unpatentable: Dixon anticipates claims 1 and 9–12 and claim 8, and the Board also finds the claims obvious over Dixon.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“On February 9, 2022, we instituted an inter partes review in IPR2022- 00257 and granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00880, adding Celltrion, Inc. as a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 35. On the same date, we also instituted an inter partes in IPR2022-00301 and likewise granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00880, adding Apotex, Inc. as a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 36. We refer to Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celltrion, Inc. and Apotex, Inc., collectively, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 3
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the challenged Exhibits are not authenticated. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 sets a relatively low bar for authentication. See Comcast, 2020 WL 4687062, at *28. Rule 901(a) states: “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). By way of example, Rule 901(b)(1) states that a witness with knowledge can provide authenticating testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be. Fed. R. 901(b)(1).” slip op. at 15
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“We deny the motion to exclude the referenced argument in Petitioners’ Reply, as well as the invitation to consider the motion as one to strike the argument. As Patent Owner notes in the motion, Patent Owner raised this issue previously in this proceeding. PO Mot. Exclude 5. At that time, we denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to strike the referenced argument in the Reply. It is improper for Patent Owner to now seek to strike the argument in a motion to exclude. A motion to exclude is not the proper vehicle to address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of a reply. See USPTO, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (2019) at 79, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf?MURL= (last visited October 27, 2022) (“CTPG”). Moreover, as Petitioners correctly assert, Patent Owner has failed to satisfy the prerequisite for filing a motion to exclude by failing to timely file an objection. See 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1); CTPG 78–79. Patent Owner has not been left without an opportunity to address the Reply argument. When we denied authorization to file a motion to strike, we authorized Patent Owner to file, with its Sur-Reply, a table identifying any portion of the Reply that Patent Owner considers to have exceeded the scope of the Reply. Further, we explained that Patent Owner, alternatively, may address that contention, or the merits of any newly-raised arguments or evidence in its Sur-Reply. Indeed, Patent Owner addressed the issue in its 26 Sur-Reply for our consideration. Thus, Patent Owner had sufficient opportunity to identify in its Sur-Reply its contentions regarding Petitioners’ allegedly inappropriate Reply argument and took advantage of that opportunity. That is sufficient for us to consider the issue and determine whether such argument should be disregarded. See CTPG 80.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner’s definition is the better definition for purposes of this proceeding. We acknowledge that the claims of the ’069 patent are directed to a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” 29 and that the actual practice of the method would therefore seem to be limited to those who have the ability to treat patients, i.e., physicians, etc. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be unduly limiting. Individuals who are involved in drug development or sub-clinical level testing of drugs for treating eye disorders may be extremely knowledgeable about the development of the treatment of eye disorders and drug development, and able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Pet. 25. Such individuals might not possess an M.D. degree, but instead possess a Ph.D. in a “biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field,” or a lesser degree with a corresponding increased depth of experience, as suggested by Petitioner. We agree that such individuals should be considered persons of ordinary skill in the art. We also find that Petitioner’s definition is commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the prior art. See, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1010, 1030, 1033; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We consequently adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art has having an M.D. or Ph.D. or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field, and having practical academic or medical experience in developing treatments 30 for angiogenic eye disorders or treating angiogenic eye disorders including through the use of VEGF antagonists.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,669,069 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,669,069 - Slayback Pharma LLC v. Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 20, 2022 · IPR2020-01053 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–75 are unpatentable as obvious over Saji; the Board did not reach the Latuda Information anticipation or Latuda Information and Loebel obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We do not discern an appreciable difference in the parties’ respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and any perceived distinction does not impact our Decision. Indeed, as Patent Owner acknowledges, the parties’ proposed definitions of the ordinary skill level do “not differ significantly.” Id. at 25. Nevertheless, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the skill level, as it is consistent with the ’827 patent disclosures and the prior art of record, and more inclusively describes the suitable experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that, in this case, the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we find Petitioner’s proposed constructions are supported by intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. See Pet. 18–23. We agree with Petitioner here that “a patient” or “the patient” should have its ordinary and customary meaning of “one or more patients,” as opposed to a “patient population” as Patent Owner has previously argued in a district court litigation involving another party. See id. at 19–20. Indeed, Patent Owner agrees. See Reply 19 (“There is no dispute that ‘a patient,’ as recited in the ’827 claims, refers to ‘one or more patients.’”). We also agree with Petitioner that the dependent claims requiring treating patients with schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis supports the conclusion that “treating a patient with an antipsychotic” in independent claims 25, 40, and 56 includes treatment of a patient with these particular diseases. See Pet. 20–21. 10 On this record, we further agree with Petitioner that “manic depressive psychosis” would be interpreted by a person or ordinary skill in the art as “bipolar disorder,” which includes Bipolar I Disorder, Bipolar II Disorder, Cyclothymia, and Bipolar Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. See id. at 21–22 (citations omitted); see also PO Resp. 3 (“Bipolar disorder, once known as manic depressive psychosis.”). Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any other term expressly. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 9,815,827 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,815,827 - Slayback Pharma LLC v. Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2021 · IPR2020-01053 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–75 are unpatentable as obvious over Saji; the Board did not reach the Latuda Information anticipation and Latuda Information–Loebel obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We do not discern an appreciable difference in the parties’ respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and any perceived distinction does not impact our Decision. Indeed, as Patent Owner acknowledges, the parties’ proposed definitions of the ordinary skill level do “not differ significantly.” Id. at 25. Nevertheless, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the skill level, as it is consistent with the ’827 patent disclosures and the prior art of record, and more inclusively describes the suitable experience for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we find Petitioner’s proposed constructions are supported by intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. See Pet. 18–23. We agree with Petitioner here that “a patient” or “the patient” should have its ordinary and customary meaning of “one or more patients,” as opposed to a “patient population” as Patent Owner has previously argued in a district court litigation involving another party. See id. at 19–20. Indeed, Patent Owner agrees. See Reply 19 (“There is no dispute that ‘a patient,’ as recited in the ’827 claims, refers to ‘one or more patients.’”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any other term expressly. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Based on Saji’s preferred dose range of 5 to 100 mg/day, which overlaps with the “from 20 to 120 mg/day” range required by each challenged independent claim, Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been “motivated to conduct dose ranging studies and would find the claimed dosing regimens.” Pet. 62; see also id. at 55 (contending that “dose ranging was a routine part of drug development” (citing Ex. 1030)). Dr. Stahl’s testimony supports Petitioner’s argument. Indeed, Dr. Stahl testifies that, although with some drugs, it can be difficult to find a safe and effective dose, or to get an effective dose into the patient, neither is the case with lurasidone. Ex. 1054, 141:3–14; see also id. at 142:2–6 (“Q. [A]re you aware of any particular difficulties with lurasidone hydrochloride and finding a safe and effective dose for schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis? A. No.”); 135:18–25 19 (Dr. Stahl testifying that he is “not aware of anything unusual about [lurasidone’s] dose range”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan, starting from Saji’s preferred dosing range, would have conducted routine dose ranging studies and identified the claimed dosing regimens.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 9,815,827 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,815,827 - Eis GmbH v. Novoluto GmbHRehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 25, 2020 · IPR2020-00007 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Rehearing
Granted EIS GMBH’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17–21, and 23–26 on all asserted grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“We find that Dr. Prisco’s testimony is a reasonable interpretation of how Taylor works if the bellows are bidirectional, and the bellows are expanded and contracted when the suction cup is sealingly engaged. Figure 3 of Taylor shown above appears to support Dr. Prisco’s testimony that the bellows may be expanded or contracted from the initial position shown in Figure 3 and does not appear to show any valve or second opening in the bellows to provide unidirectional flow as Dr. Jensen, Patent Owner’s declarant, asserts. Also, as Petitioner asserts, Taylor indicates that a squeeze ball may be substituted for the bellows expressly indicating a device with a bidirectional flow. Although Patent Owner raises valid arguments concerning a common definition of bellows indicating unidirectional flow and provides testimony from Dr. Jensen reasonably supporting such a position, these dueling positions create a genuine issue of material fact that we weigh in favor of Petitioner on institution. See 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c).” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We conclude from a review of Fang and Taylor that they are not substantially the same art nor is Petitioner making substantially the same argument as was presented the Office during prosecution of the ’061 Patent based on Fang. We find that the way in which Fang and Taylor work appear to be materially different. Fang appears to apply only suction to the skin whereas Taylor, with the sealingly connected suction cup, appears to apply a cyclical vacuum that Dr. Prisco testifies meets the claim limitations requiring generation of a pattern of negative and positive pressures, modulated with respect to a reference pressure. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–64, 75. Thus Taylor appears to teach the claim element Patent Owner argued during prosecution was missing from Fang. Also, in applying factors (b) and (d) of Becton, Dickinson, because of such differences noted above, we find that Taylor is not cumulative of Fang, which was considered and applied by the Office during prosecution of the ’061 Patent. 4. Conclusion Thus, we find that Taylor and Fang are not substantially the same art, nor were substantially the same arguments based on these references presented in the Petition and during prosecution of the ’061 Patent, respectively. As discussed above, because Petitioner primarily relies on Taylor in all four grounds for teaching the modulation of positive and negative pressures with respect to a reference pressure as required by all of the challenged claims, we also find that, overall, the same or substantially the same art was not previously presented to the Office nor were the same or substantially the same arguments previously presented to the Office. Therefore, we do not need to reach the application of the remaining Becton, Dickenson factors relating to whether the Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review here.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“how Taylor works if the bellows are bidirectional, and the bellows are expanded and contracted when the suction cup is sealingly engaged. Figure 3 of Taylor shown above appears to support Dr. Prisco’s testimony that the bellows may be expanded or contracted from the initial position shown in Figure 3 and does not appear to show any valve or second opening in the bellows to provide unidirectional flow as Dr. Jensen, Patent Owner’s declarant, asserts. Also, as Petitioner asserts, Taylor indicates that a squeeze ball may be substituted for the bellows expressly indicating a device with a bidirectional flow. Although Patent Owner raises valid arguments concerning a common definition of bellows indicating unidirectional flow and provides testimony from Dr. Jensen reasonably supporting such a position, these dueling positions create a genuine issue of material fact that we weigh in favor of Petitioner on institution. See 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c).” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We find that Dr. Prisco’s testimony is a reasonable interpretation of how Taylor works if the bellows are bidirectional, and the bellows are expanded and contracted when the suction cup is sealingly engaged. Figure 3 of Taylor shown above appears to support Dr. Prisco’s testimony that the bellows may be expanded or contracted from the initial position shown in Figure 3 and does not appear to show any valve or second opening in the bellows to provide unidirectional flow as Dr. Jensen, Patent Owner’s declarant, asserts. Also, as Petitioner asserts, Taylor indicates that a squeeze ball may be substituted for the bellows expressly indicating a device with a bidirectional flow. Although Patent Owner raises valid arguments concerning a common definition of bellows indicating unidirectional flow and provides testimony from Dr. Jensen reasonably supporting such a position, these dueling positions create a genuine issue of material fact that we weigh in favor of Petitioner on institution. See 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,849,061 - Eis GmbH v. Novoluto GmbHRehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 17, 2020 · IPR2019-01302 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and instituted inter partes review of claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Guan, Lee, and Hovland.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner in turn.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Request for Rehearing and conclude there are genuine issues of material fact about the teachings of Guan that warrant institution and resolution at trial.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that Guan is non-analogous art in that it is not related to stimulation of the clitoris. Prelim. Resp. 59. Patent Owner also contends that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Lee and Guan. Id. at 60–63. Patent Owner argues that one skilled in the art would not consider using the indirect stimulator of Guan in the dildo of Lee as it would require a modification of Lee beyond a simple substitution of elements. Id.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner has also provided a reasonable motivation to combine the teachings of Lee and Guan. Lee comprises a dildo with an extension which directly stimulates the clitoris, a body part. Ex. 1006, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 72, 134–137. Guan discloses an apparatus, which indirectly stimulates a body part. Ex. 1007, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 137. Given the teaching in the art of the problems with direct stimulation versus indirect stimulation, we agree on this record with Dr. Prisco that one skilled in the art would have had a reason to substitute the indirect stimulation device of Guan for the direct intensive and is best decided on a full record. Cf. Monark Knitting Mach, Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH, 139 F.3d 877, 886 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (determining that issues of fact concerning secondary considerations precluded grant of summary judgment) reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 132–137.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,937,097 - Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP v. LG Chem Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 24, 2020 · IPR2018-01520 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious; the contingent motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 9–16.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. “anti-fingerprint coating” The phrase “anti-fingerprint coating” appears twice in claim 1: first in” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“fingerprint must “vaporize” from the coated surface.30 As discussed above (Section III(C)), the claimed “anti-fingerprint” functionality encompasses a coating that is capable of actively reducing transfer of a fingerprint or decomposing a fingerprint transferred to a surface of the coated substrate. Accordingly, notwithstanding Buchanan’s shortcomings in evidencing inherent vaporization of enzymatically decomposed fingerprint components, we are unpersuaded this is fatal to Petitioner’s challenge. Rather, for” slip op. at 43
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“conclusory” lack merit. Dr. Cairns has relevant expertise in this area, whereas Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Rozzell, does not. Ex. 2035 (Rozzell dep.), 128:15–20 (“[Y]ou are not a person of ordinary skill in the art as it pertains to the use of haze values to assess visibility, are you? A. No.”); Ex. 2033 (Cairns Decl.) ¶¶ 2–9 (describing, inter alia, Dr. Cairns’s many years of experience working with and researching specialized coatings for display and touch-sensor applications and optical properties for such devices). Accordingly, Dr. Cairns’s testimony about there being a recognized and sufficiently definite correlation between haze and contaminant (including fingerprint) visibility on display devices is entitled to greater weight than Dr. Rozzell’s opinions on the topic. See, e.g., Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 62–67 (analyzing portions of the patent and prior art to support the opinion that haze is correlated to visibility); Ex. 2035 (Rozzell dep.) 125:1– 16 (“[W]hatever familiarity you have acquired with respect to the utilization of haze as a measurement of visibility has been acquired in the context of this IPR; correct? A That’s correct.”). Dr. Cairns’s opinions are also not conclusory as argued, but are supported with evidence from the patent and the prior art as noted. Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 62–67. slip op. at 83
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“have wanted to combine Amin’s and Wang’s coatings, Petitioner simply does not provide an adequate, evidence-backed analysis of how such person would have predictably done so. As Patent Owner points out, the evidence on this record raises doubts that the two coatings could have been successfully combined. MTA Reply 6–8. Specifically, evidence of record supports Patent Owner’s argument that a skilled artisan would not have reasonably expected “that the digestive enzymes of Wang could be successfully immobilized on the fluorine-coated surface of Amin.” Id.; Ex. 2036, ¶¶ 6–10; Ex. 2035, 15:5˗19:2. Notably, the testimony of Petitioner’s own declarant supports the conclusion that the combination Petitioner proposes would not have been reasonably predictable—if even possible at all. When Dr. Rozzell was asked if there were other materials (like enzymes) that could be adhered to the surface of Amin’s coatings, he did not know. Ex. 2035: 15:16–17:13 (“[Y]ou don’t know what any of those materials [that might adhere] are, sitting here today? A Not without doing some research on my end.”) (“So turning back to our discussion of immobilizing an enzyme on this [Amin’s coating], you don’t know of a way, today, that you could immobilize an enzyme on top of a fluorine-coated layer. A Well, I’ve personally not done exactly that type of experiment, but I can imagine that there would be approaches that would allow you to do that. Q But you don’t know any of them today? A I can’t tell you one as I’m sitting here today. Q Okay. And you’ve not recalled seeing this in a publication? A No.”).” slip op. at 87
Patent outcomesUS 8,932,717 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,932,717 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00599 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 9 are unpatentable under § 103 because the cited combinations teach the claimed limitations that the Board found limiting.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related subject, and two or three years of work experience with network-based applications and/or multimedia applications. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 6-7 years) (Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 38)). Patent Owner does not dispute the educational level or experiential aspects of Petitioner’s definition in its Response (see generally PO Resp.; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 19–20). We note that the assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding (see Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). Based on our review of the ’074 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’074 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Drs. Reddy and Jones (Ex. 1005 ¶ 38; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 19–20), we determine a skilled artisan would have possessed a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, and two or three years of work experience with content delivery networks or applications or comparable education or work experience in the field.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“a. “helper server” The ’074 patent describes “helper server” in the following terms: “Helper Server (HS): a HS, also referred to as a helper, is one of a plurality of servers in the network that provide certain value-added services” (Ex. 1001, 4:11–13). Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that neither claim 3 nor claim 9 recites where the “receiving” step takes place and, in particular, neither claim recites “receiving said SM object” at the plurality of or one of the helper servers. [C]laim terms cannot be narrowed by reference to the written description or prosecution history unless the language of the claims invites reference to those sources. See, e.g., McCarty v. Lehigh Val. R.R., 160 U.S. 110, 116, 16 S. Ct. 240, (1895) (“[I]f we once begin to include elements not mentioned in the claim in order to limit such claim ..., we should never know where to stop.”); Renishaw [PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni], 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 [(Fed. Cir. 1998)]. In other words, there must be a textual reference in the actual language of the claim with which to associate a proffered claim construction (Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989–90 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, we do not find a textual reference in “receiving said SM object.” We determine that the inventors did not introduce their own lexicographic definition, i.e., defining the term “receiving said SM object” or “receiving.” Furthermore, we are not persuaded “the term or terms chosen by the patentee[s] so deprive the claim of clarity that there is no means by which the scope of the claim may be ascertained from the language used” (see id. at 990 (citations omitted)). Nor do the preambles of claim 3 and 9, respectively, provide any textual reference that “receiving said SM object” should be interpreted as “receiving said SM object at a helper server.” Thus, “[i]n this case, the [disputed term] has a clear and well-defined meaning. This term is not so amorphous that one of skill in the art can only reconcile the claim language with the inventor’s disclosure by recourse to the specification” (Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s assessment of the preambles of claims 3 and 9. The preamble of claim 3 recites: A method for storing a streaming media (SM) object in a network having a content server which hosts SM objects for distribution over said network through a plurality of helper servers (HSs) to a plurality of clients, said SM object being comprised of a plurality of successive time-ordered chunks, wherein a chunk is further comprised of a discrete number of segments, each segment allocated to a respective disk block of said plurality of HSs, and the preamble of claim 9 recites: A method for managing storage of a streaming media (SM) object in a network having a content server which hosts SM objects for distribution over said network through a plurality of servers to a plurality of clients (Ex. 1001, Claims). Neither of the preambles recites that storage depends on the availability of disk space. Patent Owner additionally points to Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914, Paper 64 at 11–14 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2018) (PO Resp. 10). Claim 1 of Reactive Surfaces recites:” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,462,074 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,462,074 - Hyperbranch Medical Technology, Inc. v. Incept LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01836 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 8–12 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over Rhee ’500 or Rhee ’587, each combined with Bass or Tse.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Upon review of the parties’ respective definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as a person with either: (1) a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, polymer chemistry, chemical engineering, materials science and/or a related field and having at least one year of educational or work experience in the synthesis and development of biocompatible polymer materials; (2) a bachelor’s degree in in [sic] the field of chemistry, polymer chemistry, chemical engineering, materials science and/or a related field and at least two years of work experience in the synthesis and development of biocompatible polymer materials; or (3) any education and experience equivalent to (1) or (2). Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). We find that Patent Owner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, i.e., a person having “a Ph.D. degree, or equivalent education, in polymer chemistry, or a bachelor of science degree in chemistry or a closely related field and several years of experience in the development and manufacture of polymer materials for use as tissue sealants,” PO Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 27), does not differ materially from Petitioner’s definition. Furthermore, our analysis would be the same under either parties’ definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“1. “visualization agent” In its Petition, Petitioner proposed interpretations of certain claim terms. Pet. 18–22. The Board determined in its Institution Decision, however, that only the term “visualization agent” required express interpretation. Inst. Dec. 8 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). The Board set forth the broadest reasonable interpretation of “visualization agent” as “an agent that reflects or emits light at a wavelength detectable to a human eye so that a human eye may visualize the hydrogel coating.” Id. at 9. Neither party challenges that interpretation. See, e.g., Third Tr. 6:15–17. We have reassessed that determination in light of the arguments and evidence adduced at trial, and maintain that determination based on the full record.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Id. Here, we determine that the preamble phrase “suitable to coat a tissue of a patient” is not merely a statement of purpose, but instead represents the “essence or a fundamental characteristic of the claimed invention.” Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Vizio, the Federal Circuit held that a preamble reciting “for decoding” certain data “is properly construed as a claim limitation” because the apparatus and method claims reciting that preamble “would have little meaning without the intended objective of decoding.” Id. at 1341. Similarly here, we determine that the method step of claim 1—namely, mixing reactive nucleophilic precursor species, electrophilic precursor species, and a visualization agent—would have little meaning without the intended objective of forming a hydrogel coating on the tissue of a patient. Put differently, there would be no reason to perform the method step of claim 1 but for forming a hydrogel coating on the patient’s tissue. See Ex. 1001, 39:56–40:2 (claim 1) (providing that the reactive precursors crosslink after contact with the tissue to form a hydrogel in the form of a coating). Thus, we determine that “suitable to coat a tissue of a patient” is limiting in this case because it gives “life and meaning” to method claim 1. We further find that the arguments and evidence in this case show that skilled artisans would reasonably interpret “suitable to coat a tissue of a patient” as encompassing a biocompatibility requirement. Although Petitioner correctly notes that “[n]one of challenged claims recite the term ‘biocompatible,” Petitioner acknowledges that skilled artisans understand “that hydrogels are, by their nature as water-swelled materials, known to be biocompatible.” Pet. Suppl. Br. 4–5. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lowman, declared that “biocompatibility is presumed as a fundamental aspect of the claimed and disclosed inventions.” Ex. 2018 ¶ 40. And in his deposition, Dr. Lowman testified that skilled artisans would understand “biocompatible” to mean that the hydrogel composition is “suitable for use and tolerated by a patient.” Ex. 2019, 13:2–11 (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that “suitable to coat a tissue of a patient” reasonably encompasses a biocompatibility requirement for the hydrogel composition. slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Motivation to combine the prior art references and reasonable expectation of success Even “[i]f all elements of the claims are found in a combination of prior art references,” “the factfinder should further consider whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would [have been] motivated to combine those references, and whether in making that combination, a person of ordinary skill would have [had] a reasonable expectation of success.” Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The “motivation to combine” and “reasonable expectation of success” factors are subsidiary requirements for obviousness subsumed within the Graham factors. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,009,034 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,009,034
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.