• Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00874 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show Bansal's claimed light intensity arrangement.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An obviousness determination requires finding both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Obviousness grounds must be supported with “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” and not by “mere conclusory statements.” See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S at 418. slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown for institution that Bansal teaches or suggests arranging light sources “such that a higher intensity of light is emitted proximate the second edges compared to the intensity of light emitted not proximate the second edges,” as required by the challenged claims. Instead, Petitioner demonstrates how Bansal describes varying the density of light source distribution throughout the array to provide a higher density of light in the entire peripheral area of the array, which includes the areas proximal to both the first and second edges, as compared to the central area of the array. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1005 ¶ 25. In this regard, Petitioner relies on Bansal’s Figure 9b, asserting that it “shows one embodiment where more light sources are placed near the edges of the panel compared to the light sources in the center.” Pet. 36–37. The comparison of Bansal’s light density between the entire periphery and the central area of the array is insufficient. What is missing from Petitioner’s argument and discussion of Bansal is how Bansal teaches or suggests a configuration that provides a higher density of light proximate to the second shorter edges of the periphery in comparison to the remaining areas of the array, which includes the first longer edges of the periphery. Without that discussion, we find that Petitioner has not shown sufficient for institution that Bansal is persuasively relied upon for the light source arrangement limitation of the challenged claims. likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claims 1, 5, 16, 20, or 21, or dependent claims 2, 4, 6–8, and 17–19 over Larsen, Bansal, and Jones.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelOther

    “would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, physics, biomedical engineering, computer engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one year of work or research experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, photodynamic diagnosis (PD), photodynamic therapy (PDT), phototherapy (PT), or a related field. Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that, alternatively, a “POSITA in the relevant time frame would have had at least four years of industry or academic experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, PD, PDT, PT, or a related field.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’028 patent was filed, “would have had a M.D. and/or a Ph.D. in an electrical engineering, physics, optical sciences, optical engineering, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one to two years of work or research experience in optical engineering, optics, optoelectronics, phototherapy (‘PT’), PDT, or a related field.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner asserts that, “[a]lternatively, a POSITA could have a Bachelor’s degree in one of the above areas and at least three to four years of work or research experience in that area.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–31). We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. To the extent that the proposed definitions differ, we do not need to resolve those differences as our findings and conclusion in this Decision would be the same under any of the proposed definitions.” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,697,028
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/SInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00723 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–6 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence (1966). In analyzing the obviousness of a combination of prior art elements, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of skill in the art “to combine . . . known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of a challenged claim is not necessary to establish obviousness. Id. Rather, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. Accordingly, a party that petitions the Board for a determination of unpatentability based on obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that “[t]he claimed subject matter falls within the medicinal chemical and pharmacological arts and encompasses the skills, education, and expertise of a team of individuals working together to develop and formulate GLP-1 analogs to treat patients having type-2 diabetes or related conditions.” Pet. 7. The persons of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) making up the team would have an M.D., Pharm.D., or doctoral degree(s) in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical sciences, chemical engineering, biochemical engineering or related fields, peptides or proteins, and experience with the development, design, manufacture, formulation, or administration of therapeutic peptides or proteins, and the literature concerning protein or peptide formulation and design or diabetes treatments. Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 27; Ex. 1022 ¶ 27; Ex. 1024 ¶ 21; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 25–26). 13 Patent Owner does not offer a different level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the current record, and for the purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’343 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)). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11

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

    “We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Moreover, “the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” In re Abbott 13 We need not consider Petitioner’s similar alternative definitions. See id. at 8–9. v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The parties contend that no claim term requires construction. Pet. 13. Prelim. Resp. 15. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary to reach our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. v. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Overview of Asserted References” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “On the record before us, however, Dr. Flatt’s assessment of the relative benefit one of ordinary skill in the art would have accorded the higher Ki of mono-substituted compound 3 as compared to the “much longer plasma half-life” of Dong’s bi-substituted compounds is at odds with Dong’s selection of bi-substituted compound 4 for clinical trials. See Ex. 1013, 670– 671 (Table 1). We are also skeptical of Dr. Flatt’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Dong’s substitution of Aib for alanine at position 8 “would complement and work synergistically with liraglutide’s [other] properties,” including the fatty acylation of Lys26. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 181. In this respect, Patent Owner notes that, unlike liraglutide, Dong’s GLP-1 analogs were not acylated, whereas Knudsen 2001 counseled against N-terminal modifications in the context of acylation. Prelim. Resp. 28–30, 46 (citing Ex. 1011, 680–681). In addressing such combinations, Knudsen 2001 states, for example, that “Desamino His7 represents one of the more potent suggestions to a modification giving metabolic stability (81 ). Nevertheless, as seen when comparing 19 (687 pM) to 5 [liraglutide] (68 pM), considerably more potent compounds could be obtained by not modifying the N-terminus when a combination with acylation was desired.” Id. at 680. As such, we are unpersuaded on the record before us that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the Aib8 modification would be beneficial or otherwise “complement and work synergistically with” the acylated Lys26 of liraglutide or semaglutide. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 181.” slip op. at 30

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,129,343
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/SInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00722 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13, and 15 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving them obvious under any of the three grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that “[t]he claimed subject matter falls within the medicinal chemical and pharmacological arts and encompasses the skills, education, and expertise of a team of individuals working together to develop and formulate GLP-1 analogs to treat patients having type-2 diabetes or related conditions.” Pet. 7. The persons of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) making up the team would have an M.D., Pharm.D., or doctoral degree(s) in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical sciences, chemical engineering, biochemical engineering or related fields, with at least two years of experience in developing therapeutic peptides or proteins, and experience with the development, design, manufacture, formulation, or administration of therapeutic peptides or proteins, and the literature concerning protein or peptide formulation and design or diabetes treatments. ¶ 24).14 Patent Owner does not offer a different level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the current record, and for the purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’122 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)).” slip op. at 14

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

    “The parties contend that no claim term requires construction. Pet. 16. Prelim. Resp. 16. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary to reach our 14 We need not consider Petitioner’s similar, but alternative, definitions. See id. at 8–9. v. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15

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

    “For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’122 patent is unpatentable, we do not institute an inter partes review on the Grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); see also Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018).1” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Considering the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the required modification with a reasonable expectation of success. (4) Hindsight and Reasonable Expectation of Success One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to modify liraglutide would need undertake at least four discrete steps to arrive at semaglutide—some of which entail multiple options and decision points (e.g., the selection and placement of di-AEEA, and whether to replace, or add to, the existing γ-glu linker). As discussed above, we find Petitioner’s justification for these individual steps problematic. Taken as whole, and considering the vast number of modifications suggested in the art—and indeed, the large number of amino acids suggested as cites for modification—Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to make all of the identified substitutions and no others. See e.g., Ex. 1010, 4130 (Figure 3) (identifying amino acids available for derivatization (Ser18, Gln23, Lys26, Glu27, Lys34, and Arg36) or modification (Ala8)); Ex. 1011, 680–681 (identifying desamino His7 as “one of the more potent suggestions to a modification giving metabolic stability,”); Ex. 1012 at, e.g., 9:21-19:59; 192:30–60 (Table 1), 193:35–46 (disclosing numerous GLP-1 analogs, including those with greater half-lives or potency than liraglutide, and teaching that each could be further modified, including with amino acid substitutions and/or acylation at multiple positions, numerous the fatty and amino acids); Ex. 1013, 670–671 (disclosing that GLP-1 analogs bearing modifications at both positions 8 and 35 maintain efficacy but “have much longer plasma half-life than mono-substituted compounds”).” slip op. at 43

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,536,122
• Nextremity Solutions, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Extremity Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00802 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,303,589 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,303,589
• Forte Biosciences, Inc. v. University Of MassachusettsInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 3, 2023 · PGR2023-00014 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–5 and all asserted challenges, finding written description and enablement challenges met the threshold but the Harris–Xing obviousness challenge did not.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because the combination of Harris with Xing is not cumulative of Pavlakis, Harris-2015, and Damsky. Here the combination of Harris with Xing is argued in different ways compared to what was made to the Examiner. Additionally, we agree with Petitioner that Xing discloses information the Examiner indicated were absent from the prior art. See Ex. 1010, 14–15. For example, Xing teaches administering a therapeutically effective amount of an inhibitor of IL-15 or the IL-15 receptor is administered to the subject. Compare id. at 15, with Ex. 1007, 3. Xing also teaches that TM-β1-mediated blockade of CD122 prevented disease development and progression and that inhibiting IFN-γ production downstream of IL-15 through topical administration of JAK inhibitors effectively eliminated existing lesions. Thus, we do not find that the same or substantially the same arguments were presented previously to the Office, nor do we find that the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office. Thus, the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied for Petitioner’s § 103 challenge, and we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of a trial proceeding on this challenge.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not assert a different level of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention and uses Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 16. For the purposes of this Decision, we too adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’505 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “Both parties state that express claim construction is unnecessary at this stage of the proceeding and that all terms are to given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 23; Prelim. Resp. 17. We agree. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 terms for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 7

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. A post-grant review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The “more likely than not” standard requires greater than 50% chance of prevailing. Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 58 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. We decline to deny the Petition on a discretionary basis as requested by Patent Owner. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the ’505 patent and all of the asserted challenges to patentability.” slip op. at 2

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,278,505
• 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
• Slayback Pharma LLC v. Eye Therapies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00142 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious over Gil, Norden, Dean, Alphagan, and Federal Register; anticipation over Gil and Walters was not shown for claims 1–2.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the parties disagree as to the specific qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ experts agree that their Ex. 1049 ¶ 6 (Sher); Ex. 2020 ¶ 28 (Noecker); Ex. 2021 ¶ 34 (Williams); Ex. 2022 ¶ 23 (Davies). Both parties’ proposed definitions and the prior art of record indicate a high level of skill in the relevant art. Because the parties’ respective experts agree that any dispute as to the level of ordinary skill in the art is not material to their opinions, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition as consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 28–31; 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))).” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “We are not persuaded. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Sher, who explains that because of the “high degree of imprecision of Figures 2 and 6,” a POSA would be unable to reach any quantitative conclusions from the figures or “clinically distinguish” between brimonidine concentrations that differ by only five-thousandths of a percent. Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 10–18. For example, as Dr. Sher notes, there are no incremental hash marks that indicate where any non-enumerated concentrations such as 0.02% or 0.025% would fall. Id. ¶¶ 11–12. Moreover, the x-axis of both figures appears to be neither linear nor logarithmic. Id. The uncertainty of the scale of the x-axis calls into question the assumption by Dr. Noecker that the blue dot on the x-axis of Figure 6 is necessarily 0.025% as opposed to, for example, 0.02%, which is specifically called out in the Specification’s description of Figure 6 as a preferred concentration. See Ex. 1001, 19:57 (stating Figure 6 demonstrates that “the net effectiveness of brimonidine as a decongestant is greatest between about 0.01% and about 0.03%; preferably between about 0.012% and about 0.02%”) (emphasis added). Moreover, like Dr. Sher, we question the accuracy of Dr. Noecker’s statement that concentrations less than 0.03% have no rebound hyperemia. See Ex. 1049 ¶ 19 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶ 94). As seen by a magnified portion of Figure 2, reproduced below, the dark gray, solid line indicating rebound hyperemia appears to show at least some amount of rebound hyperemia below 0.03%: That is, the magnified portion of Figure 2 depicts the dark gray rebound hyperemia curve between 0.01% and 0.03% to be above the x-axis, indicating—on its face—that some rebound hyperemia occurs, contrary to Dr. Noecker’s testimony. Id. We, therefore, credit the reasoning of Dr. Sher, who explains that, in light of the imprecision of the figures, a POSA would not rely on the figures to discern when rebound hyperemia begins, but would rather rely on the Specification, which states “rebound hyperemia begins at around 0.03%.” Id. We are persuaded that those words of approximation suggest that rebound hyperemia could begin either a little less than, at, or a little more than 0.03% brimonidine. See Ex. 1049 ¶ 25. Thus, we agree with Dr. Sher that “a POSA would read the ’742 patent’s description of Figure 6 and reasonably conclude that ‘at around 0.03%’ includes 0.025%.” Id.” slip op. at 25

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “As an initial matter, we agree with the parties that the preamble of the claims is limiting. “Whether to treat a preamble as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021). And where, as here, the claims are directed to methods of using a composition for a specific purpose (i.e., reducing eye redness), and the method comprises a single step of administering that composition, the Federal Circuit “has generally construed statements of intended purpose in such method claims as limiting.” Id. at 1340. agree with Petitioner that it does not and find Eli Lilly to be instructive. In Eli Lilly, the preambles of the claims recite a “method for reducing incidence of or treating at least one vasomotor symptom in an individual” and a “method for treating headache in an individual.” 8 F.4th at 1335. There, the Federal Circuit held that the preambles “are not merely statements of effect but rather statements of the intentional purpose for which the methods must be performed.” Id. at 1342. Thus, the Federal Circuit did not require proof of actual clinical results from performing the claimed method, even though the claims also recited an “effective amount.” Id. The Federal Circuit held that because the specification defined an “effective amount” as an “an amount sufficient to effect beneficial or desired results” and provided examples of such results in the context of prophylactic or therapeutic uses, the claims “encompass a clinical result, [but] they do not require such a result.” Id. Here, similarly, the ’742 patent claims simply recite administering the brimonidine composition (at a concentration range) and do not recite any efficacy requirement, nor even the “effective amount” of note in the Eli Lilly claims. But, like Lilly and as explained below, the “ocular conditions” of the claims encompass prophylactic reduction of hemorrhage and hyperemia in addition to therapeutic uses. See Ex. 1001, 12:13–19. We, therefore, find the claims here do not require actual redness reduction and, thus, no clinical result is required to satisfy the claimed method. Thus, having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we determine that the preamble of the claims is limiting and requires that the claimed brimonidine composition be administered with the actually reduced.” slip op. at 10

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

    “evidence presented at trial, we agree with Petitioner that the term “about 0.025%” includes 0.03%. Our construction is supported not only by intrinsic evidence, but also by extrinsic evidence that demonstrates the alleged criticality of the “about 0.025%” limitation. terms of a specific numerical range. We must, therefore, determine how broadly a POSA reading the ’742 Specification would extend the numerical range around 0.025%. In doing so, we consider the described criticality of “about 0.025%” brimonidine and its purpose to the claimed invention. See Cohesive, 543 F.3d at 1368. The ’742 patent makes clear that the purpose of the “about 0.025%” limitation in the claims is to use “low doses of highly selective a-2 adrenergic receptor agonists to achieve vasoconstriction with significantly reduced hyperemia.” Ex. 1001, 2:39–41. Furthermore, the Specification explains that there is a need for methods that provide “safe and long term vasoconstriction with reduced or minimized side effects, such as rebound hyperemia.” Id. at 2:30–33. There is no dispute that both 0.025% and 0.03% constitute low doses of brimonidine, as described by the Specification. See id. at 3:60–65 (defining “low concentrations” as “between about 0.0001% to about 0.05%”). Thus, the question is whether there is a critical distinction between the two concentrations and their ability to provide vasoconstriction with reduced rebound hyperemia. Patent Owner argues they are clinically distinct, whereas Petitioner argues they are not. In light of the intrinsic evidence discussed below, we agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,293,742 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,293,742
• Restem, LLC. v. Jadi Cell, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01535 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not proven unpatentable: Majore did not anticipate claims 1–13 and 15, and the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 132, 133. Importantly, however, Dr. Olson does not cite anything to support his opinion that the ordinary artisan would have known that MSCs could be cultured to be renewable from subepithelial UC tissue. Nor does Dr. Olson explain why the artisan would have had this understanding aside from simply stating it. Majore uses the word “subepithelial” only once to explain that primitive stem cells are “distributed in subepithelial and intervascular regions,” but this does not teach what Dr. Olson asserts. Accordingly, Dr. Olson’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–16 (finding that an expert’s conclusory assertions that repeat the proposition for which they are offered without “any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning” in support are “conclusory and unsupported, add[] little to the conclusory assertion[s] for which [they are] offered to support, and is” slip op. at 52

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “21 The parties do not dispute that the preamble’s recitation of “isolated cell” serves as a limitation to claim 1 as it provides antecedent basis for its recitation later in the body of the claim. Accordingly, we treat the preamble as limiting. “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” slip op. at 31

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

    “[JUDGE NEWMAN:] So if -- if the comparison is possible, why did you not present evidence of that comparison? MR. FITZPATRICK: We --we’ve had the -- we had this discussion with our -- with our expert, and our conclusion was that it’s just not -- it wasn’t necessary. The conclusion was that the -- the evidence that’s in the -- in the prior art references, including the fact that it clearly practices the exact same steps as the claims, that was sufficient to -- and would anticipate or render obvious the claims. That’s the only reason we didn’t present evidence -- our own evidence.” slip op. at 38

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

    “Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (alteration in original). We agree that an ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the teachings of analogous references for information, but to establish obviousness, a party must show that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale to explain why the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the isolated cell with the specific marker profile or why the artisan would have looked to the cited references themselves out of the wide range of references available in the art.” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 9,803,176 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,803,176
• Apotex Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2023 · IPR2022-01524 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  Institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 and 26–30 were unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). An inter partes review may be instituted if the information presented by Petitioner in the Petition, in view of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and the preliminary record, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 19

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “As an initial matter, we find Petitioner has insufficiently addressed the issue of inherent anticipation by Dixon (or any other prior art) and has done so in a merely conclusory manner. There is no dispute that Dixon (as well as the other asserted prior art) discloses angiogenic eye disorder treatment using the same drug (aflibercept), at the same dose (2 mg), administered in the same way (intravitreal injection), and administered at the same dosing regimen (an initial, a secondary, and a tertiary dose), as required by all challenged claims. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. Petitioner relies on these facts, and the results of a phase 2 clinical trial that followed a different dosing protocol (one not claimed) to establish that the results limitations of claims 1, 26, and 29 are inherent to the phase 3 clinical trials (VIEW 1 and 2) with a dosing regimen that is claimed. See Pet. 38–39. Petitioner calls the claimed results limitations mere newly discovered results of a known process. Id. (citing Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1381). As Patent Owner identifies, it is not so simple. The evidence of the results of the VIEW 1 and 2 trials itself (found in the ’572 patent) shows that some, but not all, patients treated with the claimed dosing regimen achieved “a gain in visual acuity” as recited by claim 1, “a gain in visual acuity” that is “as effective” “as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab” as recited by claim 26, or “maintaining visual acuity” “as effective[ly]” “as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab” as recited by claim 29. See Ex. 1001, 13:5–38 (Table 1). As Patent Owner points out, the ’572 patent’s described studies 1 and 2, when following the claimed dosing regimen (2Q8), were not always effective treatments––achieving mere maintenance (as opposed to improvement or “gains”) of vision 95.1% and 95.6% (respectively) of the time. Id.; see Prelim. Resp. 34–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:8–27; Ex. 1014, 4, 6; Ex. 1030, 9; Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 109–111; Ex. 2022). Thus, the evidence shows that, although most would, about 4–5% of patients (or, possibly, an even higher number based on Patent Owner’s cited evidence––Ex. 1030, 9) would not see the gains in visual acuity required by claims 1 and 26 or the maintenance in visual acuity required by claim 29. It is well established that “[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities” and “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re. Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)). Here, the evidence shows that the claimed results limitations may typically flow from the claimed method, but not necessarily.” slip op. at 33

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

    “Relating to the claim construction, the Federal Circuit found that patent at issue was “clear” that the tissue fibrosis, recited by the claim as arrested or regressed by the otherwise recited treatment, was not the same as and did not necessarily accompany the symptom of erectile disfunction (taught in and the focus of the relied-upon prior art), although the former (fibrosis) may frequently result in the latter (disfunction). Id. at 1059. The Federal Circuit held that the “arresting or regressing” clause was more than a mere statement of intended result, but was a limitation carrying patentable weight because the phrase was drafted as a part of a separate step of the method rather than of the preamble, the “arresting or regressing” language demanded efficacy, and the efficacy was linked to specific treatment minimum duration and dosage. Id. at 1060–61. The patients exhibiting these two issues were not necessarily the same. In part because the Board did not consider the arresting/regressing result limitation in its unpatentability analysis, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patent owner that the Board’s findings were insufficient. Id. at 1064, 1067. The Federal Circuit found that that prior art reference relied upon in the Board’s decision for teaching the claimed treatment, and also relied upon to link the condition of fibrosis with the symptom of erectile dysfunction, did not teach treating a population of patients suffering from erectile dysfunction only because of a fibrosis condition and, even though such patients may have had fibrosis, it was not certain; and further found that other cited prior art did not make certain a link between fibrosis and such dysfunction. Id. at 1065–66. This, the Federal Circuit found, was error. We find in agreement with Patent Owner that the results limitations of the challenged claims are limitations and must be given patentable weight for the same reasons arresting or regressing a tissue fibrosis was a limitation in Los Angeles Biomed. Similarly, here the claims are directed to expressly required results of the administration of aflibercept to patients at 2 mg at an initial dose, in at least one secondary dose 4 weeks later, and in at least one tertiary dose 8 weeks later. Therefore, we find that in claim 1, “wherein the patient achieves a gain in visual acuity within 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation. Further, in claim 26, “wherein the method is as effective in achieving a gain in visual acuity as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab by intravitreal injection in human subjects with age-related macular degeneration at 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation. And, in claim 29, “wherein the method is as effective in maintaining visual acuity as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab by intravitreal injection in human subjects with age-related macular degeneration at 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “A prior art reference without express reference to a claim limitation may anticipate by inherency. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” Id. (quoting MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,253,572
• Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · PGR2021-00114 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: they lack written description support and are anticipated by Hinga; the Board also found the challenged dependent claims obvious over the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “As explained in our Institution Decision (Dec. Inst. 5–6), we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner states a POSITA must have one to two years of postdoctoral research experience and Patent Owner’s definition requires at least five years of “research experience,” Patent Owner’s definition does not indicate a specific time for that research (i.e., it could include research during or after a doctoral program). Neither party addresses or contests the other party’s definition in their post-institution papers. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Moreover, we find that Dr. Shaner and Dr. Somers are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 5–11, App’x A; see also Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F. 4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “amount.” Pet. Reply 14. Patent Owner, however, argues that we erred in our construction because the Specification explicitly defines “effective amount” to mean “the amount of herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional [i.e., wild, non-mutant] rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” PO Resp. 10 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:34–37). Because the inventors served as their own lexicographers, Patent Owner asserts the Specification’s express definition controls. Id. at 10–11 (citing Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“When a patentee explicitly defines a claim term in the patent specification, the patentee’s definition controls.”)). Nevertheless, Patent Owner acknowledges that the “less than 10% injury” language “is indeed a limitation of the ’346 Patent claims.” Id. at 11. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the inventors acted as their own lexicographer to define “effective amount” and that that definition governs its meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1316 (“[O]ur cases recognize that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”). We, therefore, construe the term “effective amount” to mean “the amount of an herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” As explained further below, however, whether incorporated into the construction of “effective amount” or not, the claim language itself further requires that the “effective amount” encompass a specific range of amounts of herbicide (i.e., 14 g AI/Ha to 40 g AI/Ha of quizalofop) and cause “less than 10% injury” to the mutant rice. See Ex. 1001, claim 1.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “Mankin would derive the herbicide range suggested by Patent Owner and Dr. Somers from the “rules of thumb,” that range is much broader than the claimed range. Claim 1 recites that the effective amount is 14 g AI/Ha–40 g AI/Ha of quizalofop, but, according to Dr. Somers’s calculations from the Assure II herbicide label, a POSITA would understand the effective amount to be 19.25–154 (or 19.25–184.8) g AI/Ha. Ex. 2036 ¶ 54; PO Resp. 38. Patent Owner does not identify anything in the specification that would allow a POSITA to “immediately discern” the specific range limitations of the claims. See General Hospital, 888 F.3d at 1372. As the Federal Circuit has stated, “one cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention.” Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326. Thus, we are not persuaded that the disclosure of a broad range of effective amounts via the Assure II herbicide label coupled with Dr. Somers’s undisclosed “rules of thumb” provide written description support for the narrower range limitations of the claims. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is impermissibly working backward from the claimed ranges to determine whether Dr. Somers’s “rules of thumb” can be used to re-create the claimed range from the herbicide label. Pet. Reply 15. That is not the test for written description. Written description “requires a statement of an invention, not an invitation to go on a hunting expedition to patch together after the fact a synthetic definition of an invention.” Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., 18 F. 4th 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Dr. Somers’s “rules of thumb” applied to the extrinsic herbicide label would be understood by a POSITA as a description in Mankin of the range limitation of the claims. Rather, as Dr. Somers concedes, his “rules of thumb” in conjunction with the herbicide label represent a starting point for a POSITA to test plants to determine what the effective amount range should be. See Ex. 2036 ¶ 53 (referring to a “dose response analysis” between 0.5x and 4x). But “a ‘mere wish or plan’ for obtaining the claimed invention is not sufficient.” See Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” slip op. at 30

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded. Given the state of the art in 2017, and the known availability of the G2096S seeds at that time, we find the ’346 patent specification enables the claims. The ’346 patent specification clearly describes the G2096S mutant ACCase rice and its use in the claimed method for treating rice. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:37–45, 57:51–61. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the ’346 patent specification has not omitted the G2096S herbicide tolerant rice. Rather, the ’346 patent specification expressly identifies the G2096S mutant rice that possesses the phenotype of tolerance to the effective amounts of herbicides, and describes the method for treating that mutant rice with those effective amounts. See, e.g., id. at 8:8–12; 57:51–61. Thus, we are not persuaded that we erred in relying on Hinga’s seed deposits to determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to prove that the ’346 patent specification fails to enable the challenged claims. Cf. Wands, 858 F.2d at 736 (stating “[n]o deposit is necessary if the biological organisms can be obtained from readily available sources.”).” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 11,096,346 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,346

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.