• Triplet Therapeutics, Inc. v. Board Of Supervisors Of Louisiana State University And Agricultural And Mechanical CollegeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2021 · PGR2021-00059 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–15: grounds 2–5 lacked a supported reason to combine, and ground 1 repeated arguments considered by the Office.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have the authority and discretion to determine whether to institute a post grant review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , 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(a). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that the challenged claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art in asserted grounds 2–5. With regard to ground 1, Petitioner’s written description ground, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments are substantially the same as those previously presented to and considered by the Office, and we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and decline to institute post-grant review of the ’542 patent on that ground alone.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments regarding whether the ’542 patent provides § 112 written description support for the challenged claims are substantially the same as those considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’542 patent. As set forth above, the Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending claims because (1) the claims were overly broad in light of the guidance provided in the specification that was limited to the working examples specific to exon 7 of a gene encoding a MLH3 subunit (Ex. 1006, 623–24); (2) the claims did not enable the oligonucleotides to “hybridize[] to a complementary target nucleic acid sequence of a gene or gene product to modulate the expression of a component of a mismatch repair (MMR) complex” based on the disclosure of the specification, which was limited to the working examples (id.); and (3) the claims did not enable a pharmaceutical composition of the recited nucleotide base length range for the entire scope of the claims based on the disclosure of the specification, which was limited to the working examples (id. at 1183–84). The rejections were based on a broad reading of the claims as interpreted by the ordinarily skilled artisan, and required analysis of whether there is sufficient support in the specification for the entire scope of the claims. Applicant overcame these issues by narrowing the claims until the Examiner agreed that the support present was sufficient.” slip op. at 36

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not found

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s allegations regarding the skilled artisan’s reasons to combine are conclusory and insufficiently supported by evidence. Petitioner cites Dr. Wood’s testimony to explain why the skilled artisan would have understood that Fuselier’s suggestion to “switch[] isoforms of MLH3” could be accomplished by manipulating pre-mRNA splicing to delete exon 7. Petitioner’s discussion on pages 59–60 quotes phrases from Dr. Wood’s referenced testimony, see Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 213–216, but the rationale appearing in the Petition merely comprises repetitive generalized statements akin to “Morcos is a powerful tool that can accomplish what Fuselier suggested.” See Pet. 59–60. Dr. Wood’s underlying testimony lacks key explanation as to the understanding of the ordinary artisan at the time of the invention. What Petitioner has not provided, as Patent Owner argues, are the reasons 1) why Fuselier’s suggestion to “switch[] isoforms” would have led the artisan to pursue deletion of exon 7; and 2) why the artisan would have selected Morcos’ time. See Prelim. Resp. 55–56.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “invention in the field of antisense technology “would have had knowledge of the scientific literature and have skills relating to approaches for utilizing synthetic oligonucleotides to manipulate gene expression” and “have been well-experienced in laboratory techniques and strategies for designing and making SSOs, conducting in vitro and in vivo testing, and application of SSOs in research.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30, 31). Petitioner adds that the artisan “would have had knowledge of laboratory techniques and strategies in creating nuclease-resistant SSOs, and using such SSOs to manipulate gene expression to force expression of selected isoforms of a M.D. or a Ph.D. in physiological science, biochemistry, molecular biology, chemistry, or a related discipline, with at least five years of experience in SSOs design and manipulation” and may have “worked as part of a multidisciplinary team” to permit input by others on the team with specialized skills to assist in solving problems. Id. Patent Owner does not contest the skill level provided by Petitioner for the purpose of deciding institution (Prelim. Resp. 4), and we adopt it as reasonably consistent with the level of skill represented by the ’542 patent and the art of record.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,669,542
• Favored Tech Corporation v. P2i LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 23, 2021 · IPR2020-00478 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Favored Tech did not prove claims 1–17 unpatentable: Baalmann did not anticipate the asserted claims, and the obviousness grounds lacked adequate disclosure or motivation with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “After considering Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 9, Patent Owner’s silence regarding claim 9, and the language in the ’070 patent itself (e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:45–52, 12:60–61), we agree with Petitioner that the term “1H, 1H, 2H, 3H-heptadecafluorodecylacylate” in claim 9 should be construed to correctly recite HDFDA (1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-heptadecafluorodecylacrylate). The error Petitioner identifies is conspicuous and undisputed, and the intrinsic record does not suggest a different interpretation. Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112, 1119–20 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Additionally, after reviewing the parties’ remaining claim construction arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other terms for purposes of this Decision because, as addressed in detail below, we find Petitioner’s showings deficient for reasons that do not depend on the construction of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (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.”)).” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’070 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–31). Patent Owner agrees with this proposed definition “with the understanding that ‘experience with plasma-polymerization techniques’ includes plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) techniques.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 63). In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. As Patent Owner points out, Dr. Gleason states that PECVD is a form of plasma polymerization, and thus the parties agree that experience with plasma-polymerization techniques would include PECVD. PO Resp. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 63. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate adequately that each and every element in claim 1, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. NetMoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369; Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner combines several different teachings from Baalmann to support its anticipation argument. For example, Petitioner relies on the “evacuable chamber with a volume of 1 m3” from Baalmann’s Example 1, but not the power (2kW) expressly disclosed as being used with that reactor of Example 1. Ex. 1004 ¶ 47. With regard to power density, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure that “[t]he electrical power input per chamber volume is set between 0.5 kilowatt/m3 and 5 kilowatt/m3.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 20. As Patent Owner points out, however, that power density range is not tied to any particular reactor volume or plasma zone volume. PO Resp. 19. Baalmann also fails to expressly disclose the plasma zone volume of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. To attempt to overcome this absence of an express disclosure, Petitioner argues that, for the reactor used in Example 1, the plasma zone volume and reactor volume are the same based on the configuration of the electrodes in the reactor. Pet. 24–25. Baalmann, however, does not expressly disclose the electrode configuration of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. Instead, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure of an embodiment wherein one electrode is formed by the chamber wall itself. Pet. 24–25; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 35, 61. In so doing, Petitioner ignores the fact that Baalmann also states that “[t]wo opposite rod-shaped electrodes may also be used.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 35. In view of this, we disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that chamber to be configured as described throughout the rest of the specification: with the chamber wall serving as one of the electrodes.” Pet. 24. Even if we were persuaded by Petitioner’s argument, the fact remains that Petitioner’s anticipation challenge is based on the combination of different features disclosed in separate portions of Baalmann. “Such picking and choosing . . . has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587–88 (CCPA 1972) (cited with approval in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that anticipation is not proven by multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention).” slip op. at 12

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

    “For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have inferred the volume of the plasma zone10 in Coulson is 470 cm3 based on Coulson’s disclosure of a “glow discharge reactor” having a volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38; Reply 15–16. In view of this, we are likewise not persuaded that Coulson discloses a power density of 85.1 W/m3, because Petitioner’s 9 Dr. Gleason confirmed that she did not perform any experiments to verify her opinions regarding Coulson’s plasma zone. Ex. 2017, 80:10–18. 10 As noted above, Petitioner presented its argument in the context of its proposed construction of plasma zone. Petitioner did not present an alternative argument supported by sufficient evidence addressing the volume of Coulson’s plasma zone based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of plasma zone. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that we do not need to expressly construe the term plasma zone to resolve this issue. Sur-reply 1. argument that Coulson discloses this power density is based on its assertion that Coulson has a plasma zone volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38. This finding is fatal to Petitioner’s obviousness challenge of claim 1 based on the combined teachings of Baalmann and Coulson because Coulson’s purported disclosure of using a power density of 85.1 W/m3 is an essential component of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge. An obviousness determination requires finding both “that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art . . . and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In attempting to establish a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Baalmann and Coulson, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, Petitioner repeatedly refers to using Coulson’s optimized reaction conditions, including power density, in Baalmann’s larger reactor. Pet. 48 (stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to maintain the same or similar reaction conditions within a larger reaction chamber that were present in Coulson’s chamber during Coulson’s reported plasma polymerization reactions, including power density and pressure, to preserve the same effective results.”), 48–49 (“That would have included motivation to maintain Coulson’s disclosed power density when scaling up to a larger reaction volume to preserve the beneficial results Coulson reported at that optimized power density.”); Reply 23 (referring to the “straightforward, compelling obviousness case set forth in the petition” that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected to succeed performing Coulson’s reactions on a larger scale in view of Baalmann”); 23 (“The petition explained why a POSA would have modified Baalmann to use Coulson’s HDFDA monomer and reaction conditions to produce coatings with a reasonable expectation of success” ), 24 (stating the Petition “explained why a POSA would have expected success using known parameters from Coulson in an established large-scale apparatus”). During the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner confirmed its obviousness positions depend on using Coulson’s power density. Tr. 20:10–21:16. Accordingly, Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate adequately that Coulson discloses or suggests a power density of 85.1 W/m3 undermines its reason to combine and reasonable expectation of success arguments. Petitioner’s argument that Baalmann discloses the claimed power” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,389,070 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,389,070
• Solvay USA Inc. v. Worldsource Enterprises, LLC, Eco Agro Resources LLC, And Eco World Group LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2020 · PGR2019-00046 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board held claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations and denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In light of the complete record now before us, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition to the academic requirements associated with obtaining a bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, Petitioner’s definition includes at least two years of experience specific to chemical formulations used in the agricultural industry. Pet. 8. Patent Owner’s “definition” is generic to “formulation chemistry.” Sur-Reply 4. Patent Owner does not explain, nor do we discern, why the skilled artisan would not have had at least some work experience in developing chemical formulations in the relevant field, i.e., the agrochemical industry. Indeed, some of Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to solvent delivery systems used in the agricultural market. PO Resp. 57–78.” slip op. at 7

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

    “filing date, we apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Id. at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Neither party offers a construction for any claim term. Pet. 11; see also PO Resp., generally. On the complete record, we determine that no claim limitations need an express construction to resolve the controversy.” slip op. at 6

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

    “analogous art. PO Resp. 47; Sur-Reply 8, 15–16. Patent Owner incorrectly frames the analogous art inquiry by comparing whether the prior art references are analogous to each other. See PO Resp. 47 (“not all three references are in the same field of endeavor”); Sur-Reply 16 (asserting that CN400 “is not analogous art with Iannotta [] and/or Kolc” because CN400’s NBPT is purportedly “not dissolved in any solvent”). Our reviewing court has stated, however, that “[a] reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court stated Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Innovention Toys, 637 F.3d at 1322. Regarding whether the CN400 patent is in the same field of endeavor as the ʼ108 patent, we must consider the scope of the ʼ108 patent as a whole and not just the claims. In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting appellant’s attempt to rely on the claimed subject matter to define the relevant “field of endeavor” when the specification described a broader one). Significantly, the ʼ108 patent discloses both solutions and suspensions of NBPT. See Ex. 1001, 5:20–52, 6:5–12, 6:39–40 (disclosing various solutions of NBPT), and 13:24–36 (setting forth an embodiment that formed “a suspension of NBPT in the aqueous mixture” that may “be solved by agitation”). Therefore, regardless of whether CN400’s process set forth in its claim 1 results in a solution or suspension of NBPT, CN400 is from the same field of endeavor as defined by the ʼ108 patent itself––“solvent formulations for the urease inhibitor . . . NBPT.” Ex. 1001, 1:15–18. Even if CN400 was not in the same field of endeavor as the ʼ108 patent, we find it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. The ʼ108 patent identifies NBPT formulation toxicity as problematic to the environment, animals, and possibly humans (id. at 2:60–62, 4:8–33), and expressly states “it is desirable to develop formulations/fertilizers that are less toxic to the environment and to animals and humans” (id. at 4:34–36). The skilled artisan would have been aware of this toxicity problem with NBPT-containing formulations (Ex. 1025, 1; Ex. 1007 ¶ 6), and CN400 was also concerned with this problem (Ex. 1006, 1 (Abstract), ¶¶ 2, 5; see also Ex. 2006, 461 (machine translation of CN400 abstract noting how use of its fertilizer formulation will not pollute the environment), 462 ¶ 2, 463 ¶ 5. Notably, Patent Owner does not address this second test in its briefing. Tr. 39:6–11 (Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledging “[w]e did not address the other prong in the briefing”). Thus, on several bases, we find CN400 is analogous art to the ʼ108 patent and may be properly relied on in our obviousness determination.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,221,108
• Mexichem UK Ltd. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2019 · IPR2019-00529 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–11, and it declined to institute the remaining grounds under § 314(a).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner contends that “a POSITA is a person with a masters or doctorate degree in chemistry and/or chemical engineering, and having at least 3 years of experience working on the research, development, manufacture and formulations of HFC, HCFC and HFO compounds and mixtures.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 23). Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Thrasher testifies, however, that he has “reviewed Dr. Sandford’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art” and his opinions “do not change under Dr. Sandford’s definition.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 24. We agree with the parties that a POSITA would have had an advanced degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, and experience in the research, development, and/or manufacture of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and hydrofluoroolefins (HFO), which is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in 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))). Our determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, and we note that our conclusions would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 6

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

    “under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (applicable to inter partes reviews filed on or after November 13, 2018). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, 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) (“[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)). Petitioner does not propose a construction for any of the claim terms. Pet. 21–22. For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires explicit construction.” slip op. at 6

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

    “sufficiently establishes that Rao ’434, Rao ’781, and Rao ’597 disclose compositions comprising HFO-1234yf, 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne, and at least one additional compound, as recited in independent claims 1, and 7 of the ’709 patent, or compositions comprising HFC-245eb, 3,3,3- trifluoropropyne, and at least one additional compound as recited in independent claim 11 of the ’709 patent. The ’709 patent states that the examples present a “general procedure [that] is illustrative of the method used for analyzing the products of fluorination reactions.” Ex. 1001, 12:30– 33. Examples 1, 2, and 3 of the ’709 patent use that procedure to measure the reaction product of (1) vapor phase dehydrofluorination of HFC-245eb to HFO-1234 with fluoride alumina catalyst, (2) pyrolysis of HFC-245eb, and (3) liquid phase dehydrofluorination of HFC-245eb to HFC-1234yf, respectively. Id. at 13:1–14:16. Although the ’709 patent provides the amounts of a number of different reaction products detected in each example, i.e., HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze, and HFC-245eb, notably absent is a measurement for 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne. Id. There is no indication, therefore, that the products in the examples of the ’709 patent represent the claimed compositions of the ’709 patent, each of which requires the presence of 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne.” slip op. at 15

  • Burden

    “this result. An experiment reproducing or recreating an example falls within the scope of that example so long as the reproduction is consistent with the teachings of the example, any deviations are immaterial, and the reasons for any deviations are adequately explained. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC, 811 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding “no clear error” in the district court’s determination that the prior art application’s process was recreated “fairly, accurately, and with no material variation”); Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding no error in the district court’s determination that one skilled in the art would have understood that testing departing from the “strict letter” of a prior art example was nonetheless consistent with that example). Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that its replication of Rao ’434’s example falls within the scope of the example.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,147,709
• Ditec Solutions, LLC v. Woblleworks, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2019 · IPR2018-01414 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Ditech’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the arguments did not show that the Board misapprehended or overlooked its construction of claims 1 and 13.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING In pertinent part, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “held cake decorator extruder” as “a three-dimensional (3D) drawing device” in the ʼ444 patent’s Notice of Allowance. Req. 4; Ex. 1002, 344. When viewed in context, however, we do not share Petitioner’s view that the Examiner’s mere characterization of Young’s extruder as a three-dimensional (3D) drawing device, on its own, rises to the level of a “rejection” of Patent Owner’s arguments distinguishing 3D drawing devices from devices that deposit material in layers over time. Ex. 1002, 317–322.2 In fact, the Examiner provides no discussion whatsoever regarding the “three-dimensional” aspect of Young’s device in the Notice of Allowance, but rather focuses on Young’s internal actuators, motor, and gear train. Id. at 344. Thus, the Examiner’s isolated statement that Young’s device is a three-dimensional (3D) drawing device, without more, is not enough to 2 We disagree with Petitioner’s contention (Req. 5) that Patent Owner’s statements made during prosecution were not sufficiently “clear and unmistakable” to invoke the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Spectrum Int’l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (explaining how “explicit statements made by a patent applicant during prosecution to distinguish a claimed invention over prior art may serve to narrow the scope of a claim” because “[b]y distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover.”). persuade us that the Examiner was unequivocally rejecting Patent Owner’s construction of “a three-dimensional (3D) drawing device.”” slip op. at 6

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Thus, Petitioner’s Request raises new arguments that could have been raised in its Petition. Specifically, the prosecution histories of both the ʼ444 patent and the ʼ266 application provided ample notice to Petitioner of Patent Owner’s previous claim construction positions. Petitioner could have presented a countervailing claim construction argument in its Petition, but instead raises new arguments here in its Request. These new arguments fail the standard set forth in Rule 42.71(d) at the outset because the Board cannot overlook or misapprehend an argument that was not before it. Nevertheless, we determine that even if these arguments were timely made in the Petition or in a Board-authorized Reply, they do not persuade us that the claim construction for the phrase “three-dimensional (3D) drawing device” as set forth in our Decision was erroneous. Dec. 11.” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 9,731,444
• Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01648 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–25 were not shown unpatentable over Timmins and Cheng because Petitioner did not establish that the combination would have targeted the claimed mean Tmax range.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner acknowledged the Board’s characterization of the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with the proposals of both parties (PO Resp. 12–13), and neither party further addressed the proper level of ordinary skill in the art or disagreed with our characterization from the Institution Decision. See PO Resp., Reply. Our determination regarding the patentability of the challenged claims does not turn on the differences between the parties’ definitions. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment, but note that our conclusions would be the same under Patent Owner’s assessment. C. Testimony of Dr. Akhlaghi” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Akhlaghi’s qualifications and deposition testimony, when read in context, indicate that Dr. Akhlaghi is sufficiently experienced to opine on the knowledge of one of skill in the art at the time of the ’866 patent. As noted in the August 13, 2018 update to our Trial Practice Guide: An expert witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify in the form of an opinion. Fed. R. Evid. 702. There is, however, no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See Notice of Update to Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 83 Fed. Reg. 156, (Aug. 13, 2018) (text of update available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018_Revised_Trial_Pr actice_Guide.pdf). In addition, we are well able to consider the value of an expert opinion and afford it appropriate weight. Perreira v. Secretary of the Dept. of HHS, 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“An expert opinion is no better than the soundness of the reasons supporting it.”) D. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 9

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

    “Tmax” In our Institution Decision, we noted that the term “Tmax” appears in each of the challenged claims, and that both parties agreed that Tmax should be construed as stated in the Specification: “the time period which elapses after administration of the dosage form at which the plasma concentration of the drug attains the highest plasma concentration of drug attained within the dosing interval (i.e., about 24 hours).” Inst. Dec. 7 (citing Pet. 24; Prelim Resp. 18; Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 49–53). We concluded that the proposed definition was consistent with the Specification and defined the claim term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, and we adopted the parties’ construction. Neither party addressed the issue of construction of Tmax in further briefing, but the parties disagree about how Dr. Akhlaghi applied the definition in her testimony. See, eg., Pet. Reply 9–10. For purposes of analyzing the patentability of the challenged claims, we continue to interpret the term as “the time period which elapses after administration of the dosage form at which the plasma concentration of the drug attains the highest plasma concentration of drug attained within the dosing interval (i.e., about 24 hours),” because that definition is consistent with the Specification, and because the parties themselves agreed to the definition of Tmax. Inst. Dec. 7. E. Overview of the Prior Art slip op. at 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on our review of the record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that combining the teachings of Timmins and Cheng as Petitioner contends would have resulted in a dosage form that provides a mean Tmax of metformin from 5.5 to 7.5 hours after administration.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,866,866 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,866,866

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.