• Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2018 · IPR2018-00376 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and upheld denial of institution on the Slemmer and Vu obviousness ground because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co.,, 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Notably, we must base our determination of a “reasonable likelihood” that Petitioner would “prevail” on “the information presented in the petition,” specifically. In the present case, Petitioner has not provided a basis, legal or otherwise, in support of its position that we must determine a “reasonable likelihood” based on information presented in some other petition, much less based on some other evidence of record in another proceeding. For example, in IPR2016-00077, the panel based its decision on a “Declaration by Mr. Keith Olsen.” That evidence is not of record in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3

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

    “supporting Petitioner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the cited references. Req. Reh’g. 8–10. In particular, Petitioner reiterates previous arguments presented in the Petition such as “Vu is one of the first prior art references to teach the handshake” but that “other prior art references also teach it.” Req. Reh’g 9. These arguments were previously addressed. Decision 7–8. Although Petitioner may disagree with our resolution of the arguments that Petitioner presented in its Petition, such arguments were considered fully in our Decision.” slip op. at 4

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “construction for the term ‘TCP connection hand shake completion data,’ which resulted in an incorrect determination.” Req. Reh’g. 5. In particular, Petitioner now proposes a broadest reasonable construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data” to mean “two devices initiating a communication session by the first device sending information to a second device, and the second device then responding to the first device.” Req. Reh’g. 7. Based on this newly proposed construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data,” Petitioner argues that Vu discloses this feature. Req. Reh’g. 6–8. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner must “identify all matters [Petitioner] believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Petitioner did not present this proposed construction in the Petition. See generally Req. Reh’g.; see generally Pet. We could not have “misapprehended or overlooked” what was not presented.” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,266
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00627 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10–16, 21–23, 25, and 38–46 are unpatentable; claims 6–9, 17–20, 24, and 47 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although the dictionary defines “periodically” as “from time to time” or “at regular intervals of time,” based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction is how one skilled in the art would have understood that term in the context of the ’345 patent Specification. Turning first to the intrinsic evidence, the Specification explains that “[t]he future and current minimum values are calculated continuously and initiated periodically, for example, every 5 seconds.” Ex. 1001, 8:37–39. Although the Specification later notes that “[i]t will be appreciated that, while specific values are used as in the several equations and calculations employed in the present invention, these values may be different than those shown” (id. at 8:64–67), this passage does not mean that the Specification contemplates arrangements where “periodically” is simply “from time to time.” Rather, we determine that statement from the Specification indicates that the specific amount of time (i.e., every 5 seconds) may vary. Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, the testimony of Dr. Douglas supports our conclusion, explaining that “at regular intervals of time” is the “only . . . definition . . . consistent with the understanding of a person skilled in the art in light of the specification of the ’345 Patent and its use in the particular field of audio signal processing” because [l]ike the “period” of an audio signal itself, which is the amount of time it takes for a signal to repeat itself, “periodically” as recited in claims 6 and 9 and throughout the remainder of the specification of the ’345 Patent refers to actions that occur at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds rather than merely “from time to time”). Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hochwald testifies that outside of the context of the ’345 patent Specification, “periodically” means “at regular time intervals” (Ex. 2005, 99:13–15), and when asked about that term’s meaning in the context of the ’345 patent Specification, Dr. Hochwald simply noted that “all I can do is read what it says,” which is that “[i]t’s doing something periodically, for example, every five seconds” (id. at 100:4–6). Accordingly, the testimony from Dr. Douglas, as well as that from Dr. Hochwald, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In summary, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “periodically,” requiring “at regular intervals of time,” because (1) this is consistent with how this term is used in the context of the ’345 Patent Specification; and (2) this is supported by the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner responds that, because Helf uses average values (i.e., the average of eight consecutive values), it does not disclose using a minimum value. PO Resp. 17–23. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’345 patent, itself, uses a “smoothing process [that] produces frequency bins with multiple smoothed magnitude values, ultimately finding the minimum of all of the values,” but contends that “Helf’s averaging process produces a single output representing one average of the original samples.” Id. at 20–21 (underlining omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14–28; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the differences between Helf and the ’345 patent. While Helf may ultimately produce a single minimum value, as discussed above, that value is based on a minimum value of the averages calculated over the given time period. At oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that Helf determines many averages values (i.e., the averages of the eight consecutive frames) and determines a minimum of those values. See, e.g., Tr. 22:2–6. The claim simply requires a “future minimum value,” and does not preclude that value from being a minimum value taken from a set of average values. Indeed, such an interpretation of the claim would be inconsistent with the ’345 patent’s use of smoothed values noted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 8:14–28. The testimony of Dr. Douglas cited by Patent Owner does not convince us otherwise. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72 (effectively repeating Patent Owner’s contentions, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Helf’s minimum value (Mk) corresponds to the “future minimum value” recited in claims 4 and 39.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “With respect to its “running minimum estimator,” Helf explains that the “running minimum estimator” is used “when either the speech signal is never absent for more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral shape.” Ex. 1010, 8:11–15. Helf acknowledges that its “running minimum estimator” is “much less accura[te]” than its “stationary estimator,” which is typically used for background noise estimates. Id. at 8:15–17. As a result, Helf only uses its “running minimum estimator” if “[i]t has been more than 10 seconds since the last update of the background noise spectral estimate due to the Stationary Estimator,” and “[t]he difference, D, between the past background noise estimate, which may have resulted from the Stationary Estimator or the Running Minimum Estimator, and the current Running Minimum Estimator is great.” Id. at 8:32–42. We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00626 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 12–25, 38, and 47 are unpatentable; claims 4–11 and 39–46 are not shown unpatentable, chiefly because the proposed Hirsch–Martin combination was not supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where W = 1], any purported distinction between windows and sub-windows in Martin vanishes and [Patent Owner]’s argument is irrelevant,” acknowledging that the proposed modification eliminates Martin’s sub-windows. Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner further contends that Patent Owner “incorrectly argues that the use of sub-windows is central to Martin’s algorithm” and “[n]othing in Martin suggests that the use of sub-windows is required.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–8). We disagree with Petitioner, and credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald with respect to Martin’s use of sub-windows because, as discussed below, Dr. Hochwald’s testimony is not consistent with the disclosure of Martin, while the testimony of Dr. Douglas is consistent with that disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–9 (asserting that Martin does not expressly require sub-windows); Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 94–96 (discussing Martin’s use of at least two sub-windows for monotonic determination). As noted above, Martin’s algorithm requires a determination of whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Ex. 1006, 1094. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to modify Hirsch’s system based on a scenario from Martin where W = 1 because such a scenario is counter to the entire purpose of Martin. Even Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Hochwald, acknowledges that a single data point (i.e., W = 1) cannot be used to determine whether something is monotonically increasing. See Ex. 2005 69:10–17 (explaining that you need at least two data points to make such a determination, meaning W ≥ 2). Petitioner fails to provide persuasive reasoning as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Hirsch’s teachings in a manner that is contrary to the express disclosure of Martin.” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner attempts to cure these deficiencies in its Reply, contending that, “[e]ven where Martin’s algorithm is configured to use multiple sub-windows, it still teaches the claimed ‘future minimum.’” Pet. Reply 8. We do not consider this new argument, as it is a new theory of unpatentability presented for the first time in the Petitioner’s Reply. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed Cir. 2016) (“A patent owner . . . is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to meet the grounds of [unpatentability].”) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–11, 39–42, and 46 are unpatentable over the combined teachings of Hirsch and Martin.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Hirsch is directed to “techniques . . . to estimate the noise spectra or the noise characteristics for noisy speech signals” that “can be combined with a nonlinear spectral subtraction scheme.” Ex. 1005, 153. Hirsch discusses use of “FFT based spectral analysis” (id. at 154), for example, which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “generating the frequency spectrum of said audio signal thereby generating frequency bins of said audio signal” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch discusses use of an “adaptive threshold” for each frequency bin to distinguish between speech and noise (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “setting a threshold for each frequency bin using a noise estimation process” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch describes comparing spectral components to their corresponding thresholds to determine if speech is present (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “detecting for each frequency bin whether the magnitude of the frequency bin is less than the corresponding threshold, thereby detecting the position of noise elements for each frequency bin” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27–28). Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 1. We also are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 38 for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, as well as the “subtracting said noise elements . . . from said audio signal” additionally recited in claim 38. With respect to the recited “subtracting,” Petitioner cites Hirsch’s discussion of spectral subtraction. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 153–155). As Petitioner notes, “[t]he spectral subtraction technique shown in Hirsch subtracts the noise estimate from each sub-band or ‘bin’ and sets any negative values to zero” (id. (citing Ex. 1005, 153)), which “is the same technique used in the ’345 patent” (id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:58–61, 7:16–27)). Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 21, and 23 depend from claim 1, and Petitioner cites to relevant portions of Hirsch as disclosing the additional limitations of those claims. See Pet. 28–31. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s unrebutted arguments and evidence related to how Hirsch properly accounts for each and every element of these dependent claims, which we adopt for purposes of this decision. Specifically, we find that Hirsch discloses the additional limitations recited in those claims based on the citations to Hirsch therein and the supporting expert testimony. See id. Based on our review of the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that claims 1–3, 12, 13, 21, 23, and 38 are anticipated by Hirsch.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “Initially, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art would have considered Martin’s teachings, generally, when reviewing the teachings of Hirsch, as Martin is specifically referenced in Hirsch itself. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would have modified Hisch’s system based on the teachings of Martin in the particular manner proposed by Petitioner. Consistent with Patent Owner’s contentions noted above, Martin describes determining “[t]he noise power estimate is based on the minimum of signal power within a window of L samples” and “[f]or reasons of computational complexity and delay the data window of length L is decomposed into W windows of length M such that M * W = L,” and provides an example where W=4. Ex. 1006, 1094. Martin distinguishes between “slowly varying noise power” and “rapidly varying noise power” to determine its noise power estimate, with a determination of whether the minimum power in successive sub-windows is monotonically increasing central to its estimation. Id. “If the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing we decide on rapid noise power variation” and “the noise power estimate equals the power minimum of the last M samples Pn(i) = PMmin(i = r * M).” Id. “In case of non monotonic power the noise power estimate is set to the minimum of the length L window.” Id. Regardless of whether the noise power calculation is that for “slowly varying noise power” or “rapidly varying noise power,” Martin requires that first a determination is made as to whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Id. (emphasis added). To the extent there can be any dispute on this issue, the testimony from Dr. Douglas supports the understanding that at least two subwindows are required to determine which noise power calculation to use. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 95, 96. In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00692 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–14 as anticipated by Best and obvious over Best, and claim 15 as obvious over Best, Mills, and Bonella.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction “requires two layers of IC packages, in which a first IC package (the Board’s ‘carrier’) contains one or more second IC packages (the Board’s memory chips).” PO Resp. 39. Petitioner counters that “[t]he Board’s construction does no such thing.” Pet. Reply 18–19. We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument is predicated upon the erroneous assertion that “[e]ach memory chip in the Board’s ‘carrier’ requires a different IC package (i.e., a second IC package) that encloses at least one memory die.” PO Resp. 39. Each memory chip does not require its own integrated circuit package. On the contrary, it may be, as Best discloses, a die enclosed with another die in a single IC package. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain our construction of “memory module” to mean “a carrier that contains one or more memory chips,” where “carrier” encompasses an integrated circuit package.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Otherwise, we determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We have reviewed the arguments provided by Patent Owner and determine such arguments are insufficient to have Mr. Maltiel’s declaration excluded in its entirety. Rather, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); and Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within [its] discretion.”). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that we should give the entirety of Mr. Maltiel’s declaration no weight.” slip op. at 16

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

    “8–14. Pet. 30–37, 44–49. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Best.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,874,831 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,874,831
• Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2018 · PGR2017-00008 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description because the claimed dosing regimen is not supported by the specification.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “with regard to claim 17. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. Rather, we find that the ’239 patent contains a sufficient written description of an oral dosage form containing “at least 10% zoledronic acid.” The specification describes a full panoply of zoledronic acid concentrations. Liquid compositions may contain “about 10% (w/v) to about 15% (w/v), about 15% (w/v) to about 20% (w/v), about 20% (w/v) to about 30% (w/v), about 30% (w/v) to about 40% (w/v), or about 40% (w/v) to about 50% (w/v) of zoledronic acid.” Ex. 1003, 10:25–28. Solid dosage forms may contain “at least about 10% (w/w), at least about 20% (w/w) . . .” up to “at least about 80% [w/w]” zoledronic acid. Id. at 10:30–32. Solid dosage forms also are described as containing zoledronic acid in ranges beginning from “about 10% (w/w) to about 30% (w/w), about 10% (w/w) to about 20% (w/w) . . .” all the way up to a range of “about 80% (w/w) to about 90% (w/w).” Id. at 10:32–39. The breadth of zoledronic acid concentration ranges disclosed is more comprehensive than, and therefore distinguishable from, the more limited concentration ranges disclosed in Wertheim (claimed range of “at least 35%” not supported by disclosure of 25% to 60% range disclosed in priority application). In short, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art – a medical doctor with experience treating CRPS – would have recognized that the “inventor invented what is claimed” and did not overreach in claiming “at least 10% zoledronic acid” in an orally administered dosage form for treating CRPS. See University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 928 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Unocal or Wertheim where the specification clearly allowed persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the claimed invention despite the absence of literal support. In Unocal, the original disclosure explicitly described the effects of altering the variables, explicitly described the claimed endpoints as preferred, or explicitly recited them in an original claim. Moreover, persuasive expert testimony was offered to support the finding that the specification reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor possessed the later claimed invention. Unocal, 208 F.3d at 993, 998–99. In Wertheim, the CCPA held that the specification supported the claimed range of 35–60% where the specification described the range of 25–60% along with specific embodiments of 36% and 50%. 541 F.2d at 264–65. In this case, the ’239 patent specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the “about 80 mg” endpoint as part of invention described in the ’239 patent. There is no disclosure of “about 80 mg” as a preferred endpoint, no disclosure of a specific embodiment including a dose of 80 mg, nor any other description suggesting the importance or criticality of the “about 80 mg” endpoint.” slip op. at 16

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateWritten description adequateMixed

    “In this case, the ’239 patent specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the “about 80 mg” endpoint as part of invention described in the ’239 patent. There is no disclosure of “about 80 mg” as a preferred endpoint, no disclosure of a specific embodiment including a dose of 80 mg, nor any other description suggesting the importance or criticality of the “about 80 mg” endpoint.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,283,239 unpatentable
  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,283,239
• Initiative For Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-Mak), Inc. v. Gilead Pharmasset LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2018-00103 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–19 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was anticipated by Klecker or Sommadossi, or obvious over Sommadossi and Klecker.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4. Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review for any challenged claim of the ’572 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Klecker. To anticipate a reference must expressly or inherently disclose “within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (2008). Moreover, “anticipation is not proven by ‘multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.’” Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal citation omitted). “[A] disclosed genus may anticipate a claimed species when the genus is so small that one of ordinary skill in the art would ‘at once envisage each member of this limited class.’” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting AbbVie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Tr., 764 F.3d 1366, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In this case, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is improperly using claim 1 as a roadmap to cherry pick teachings of the Klecker reference to arrive at compounds encompassed by the genus of that claim. For example, we acknowledge that Klecker teaches that a fluorine may be placed below the ring at the 2' position of the sugar ring. Ex. 1005, 19:25‒26. Petitioner does not point us to any teaching of Klecker, however, that teaches a compound that has both a methyl group and a fluorine at the 2' position of the sugar ring, regardless of whether the fluorine is in the up position or the down position. That is, although the broad genus of compounds disclosed by Klecker encompasses such compounds, Petitioner does not point us to any teaching, other than the broad disclosure of the genus, wherein “W, X, Y, [and] Z” may be “H, hydroxy, halogen, alkyl (C1- C6), alkoxy (C1-C6)a label containing moiety or a label” (Ex. 1005, 15:3‒5), that would direct the ordinary artisan to choose X and W such that one of X and W is methyl and the other is fluorine, much less pointing to support of X as fluorine and W as methyl.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Fortunak in asserting that because Klecker teaches the X position may be substituted with fluorine and teaches that W can be an alkyl (C1 – C6), the ordinary artisan would understand from “general knowledge and common sense that methyl is a preferred lower alkyl in that group.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92). Dr. Fortunak, however, merely repeats the statement in the Petition without citing any evidentiary support. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 92; see also id. ¶¶ 93‒95 (discussing choosing other substituents in the structure of Klecker). Conclusory statements by an expert “that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Furthermore, Petitioner’s conclusory statements (Pet. 34‒35) that because C is the first substituent identified for J, and H and OH are the first two substituents identified for Y and Z and, thus, the ordinary artisan would immediately envisage a compound where J is C, Y is H, and Z is OH, do not sufficiently persuade us that the ordinary artisan would immediately envisage their implementation to arrive at compounds that fall within the genus of claim 1.” slip op. at 12

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

    “To the extent that Petitioner (Pet. 51‒52) is invoking inherency in arguing that the express teaching of Sommadossi that R7 may be chloro, 6 Britton et al., U.S. Patent 5,420,266, issued May 30, 1995 (Ex. 1011). bromo and iodo, is also an express teaching that R7 may be fluoro, we disagree that the use of fluoro as the R7 group is inherent in the teachings of Sommadossi. “Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999), quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). Even though the ordinary artisan may have understood that fluoro is also a halogen and may be substituted for chloro, bromo, or iodo, the fact remains that Sommadossi taught the use of, inter alia, chloro, bromo, or iodo at the R7 position, specifically, rather than a halogen element, generally. Ex. 1006, 13:24‒27. Petitioner’s argument (Pet. 52) that “Sommadossi taught that R6 could be ‘chloro, bromo, fluoro, [or] iodo,’” is actually counter to Petitioner’s assertions. That is, that statement demonstrates that Sommadossi knew that “fluoro” could be included in the list of halogens. Moreover, Sommadossi defined the term “halo” as “chloro, bromo, iodo, and fluoro.” Ex. 1006, 52:31. Thus, to avoid inadvertently excluding a halogen, Sommadossi could have used the term “halo” in listing the possible substituents for the R7 group, but chose not to do so. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Sommadossi anticipates the compounds of claim 1. Because, as discussed above in our analysis of the anticipation ground over Klecker, all of the claims require the compound of that claim, or a particular compound that falls within the genus of claim 1, Petitioner has also not sufficiently demonstrated that any of the challenged claims are anticipated by Sommadossi. Accordingly, we decline to institute trial as to any of the challenged claims on the basis that the claim is anticipated by Sommadossi.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,429,572
• Teoxane S.A. v. Allergan, PLC Et Al.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2017-02002 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may be instituted only upon a showing that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Taking account of the information presented, we determine that the Petition fails to make out that threshold showing for review. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute a trial.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a B.S. or M.S. in biochemistry, polymer chemistry, medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry, or a related field with “several years” of practical experience. Alternatively, according to Petitioner, the ordinary artisan would have had less practical experience but a Ph.D. in one of those fields, or an M.D. in dermatology, plastic surgery, or a specialty related to the clinical use of dermal fillers. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 12–13). Patent Owner does not contest that argument in the Preliminary Response. For purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s definition, which, on this record, is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reveal the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Second, a term in a patent preamble is limiting when it “breathes life and meaning into the patent claims.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 269 (CCPA 1976). “Whether to treat a preamble as a limitation is a determination ‘resolved only on review of the entire” patent disclosure “to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.’” Catalina Mktg. Int’l. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Our review of the ’475 patent persuades us that the inventors “actually invented and intended to encompass by” claim 1 a stable composition as defined in the specification. Catalina Mktg. Int’l., 289 F.2d at 808. The inventors disclosed and claimed a “stable” composition containing both HA and lidocaine that overcame the “relative inferior stability properties” of prior art compositions. Ex. 1001, 2:6–32. In that regard, the specification repeatedly refers to the ability of the claimed compositions to remain stable after high-temperature sterilization procedures (such as autoclaving) or shelf-storage storage for prolonged lengths of time. See, e.g., id. at 2:42–49 (contrasting the “enhanced stability” of the claimed compositions “relative to conventional HA-based compositions including” “lidocaine” “when subjected to sterilization techniques such as autoclaving” or “when stored for long periods of time at ambient temperature”);” slip op. at 10

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

    “One final point pertaining to the “stable” limitation requires discussion. The specification makes clear that stability, in the context of the ’475 patent, relates to the “shelf life” of the composition “when stored for a lengthy period of time” prior to injection into a patient, for example, “for a period of time of at least 6 months to a year or more.” Id. at 6:51–53, 13:51; see id. at 2:26–27 (objective of invention is to provide “HA-based injectable compositions which incorporate lidocaine” that are not “prone to” degradation “when placed in storage for any significant amount of time”), 4:42–43, 5:33–38 (composition has “enhanced stability” “when stored at ambient temperature for an extended period of time”), 8:4–5 (the composition of the invention will “remain stable when stored for long periods of time at room temperature”). Accordingly, we determine that the preamble term “stable” (Ex. 1001, 16:40) “breathes life and meaning into” claim 1 and, therefore, is limiting. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 269. We adopt for purposes of this decision the following definition of “stable,” which is advanced by Petitioner: soft tissue filler that is free of viable microorganisms as determined by a sterility test recognized by a regulatory authority, the filler can be sterilized by any method known in the art, and is resistant to degradation such that the composition maintains one or more of the following aspects: transparent appearance, pH, extrusion force and/or rheological characteristics, hyaluronic acid (HA) concentration, sterility, osmolarity, and lidocaine concentration, after being effectively sterilized by autoclaving and subsequently stored at a temperature of at least about 25° C for at least about two months. Pet. 11. That construction is not opposed by Patent Owner at this stage of the proceeding (Prelim. Resp. 3–4) and is substantially consistent with an express definition set forth in the specification. Ex. 1001, 5:17–20.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,450,475
• Teoxane S.A. v. Allergan, PLC Et Al.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2017-01906 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may be instituted only upon a showing that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Taking account of the information presented, we determine that the Petition fails to make out that threshold showing for review. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute a trial.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “printed publication” that was “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The touchstone of public accessibility is whether an ordinary artisan “exercising reasonable diligence” would have been able to locate the document prior to the critical date. SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner availed itself of two opportunities to make out that showing, but has not done so adequately. See Pet. 4, 14; Reply 1–5. slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “favored providing Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the evidence, presented in the Preliminary Response, which undercuts the Petition’s bare attorney argument that the Elevess Summary qualifies as a printed publication. Paper 11 (providing Petitioner an opportunity to file a Reply and Patent Owner to file a Sur- Reply on that issue). In the Reply, however, Petitioner abandons the evidence presented in the Petition, does not address the evidence presented in the Preliminary Response, and instead advances an entirely new theory of public accessibility. Reply 1–5 (citing Exs. 1067, 1068, 1069, and 1070). Petitioner’s Reply to the Preliminary Response is not the proper place to raise such information, which should have been presented in the Petition. Because the argument and evidence presented in the Reply exceeds the scope of a proper reply, we have discretion to exclude it. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “in claim 1 requiring a composition “wherein the lidocaine is freely released in vivo” (after injection in a patient). Ex. 1001 19:31. On that point, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to address adequately how the presence of HI in Hunter’s composition would affect the free release of lidocaine from the HA gel in vivo. See Pet. 20–21; Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (pointing out that the Petition includes no showing that the lidocaine in Hunter’s composition “would necessarily be ‘freely released’ in vivo” where Hunter discloses “very different compositions” that include both “hyaluronic acid and an inhibitory compound” that “can inhibit the activity of hyaluronidase” (quoting Ex. 1004, 11)).” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,357,795
• Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., And Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2018 · IPR2016-01412 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 16–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Palermo, Joshi, and Handbook, and over Oshlack, Joshi, Handbook, and Doyon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’976 patent would have “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, polymer chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical technology, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacology, and/or a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex.1007 ¶¶ 31– 34). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 74–75). We, therefore, apply that skill level in our analysis, with the understanding that the level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be more persuasive based on the ’376 patent specification. In particular, the specification defines “unsuitable for injection” “to mean that one would have substantial difficulty injecting the dosage form (e.g., due to pain upon administration or difficulty pushing the dosage form through a syringe) due to the viscosity imparted on the dosage form, thereby reducing the potential for abuse of the opioid analgesic from the dosage form.” Ex. 1001, 3:15–20. Additionally, in an example concerning the formation of a gel at different concentrations, the specification characterizes certain solutions as “THICK (10 cP to 60 cP): Although a syringe can be filled with this solution, it was hard to do.” Id. at 32:8–24, Table 3. Thus, the specification teaches that a viscosity of at least 10 cP is difficult to pull into a syringe or administer parenterally (via injection). Patent Owner does not address these teachings of the specification. We, therefore, determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “unsuitable for parenteral administration” and “unsuitable to pull into an insulin syringe” encompasses a gelling agent that imparts a viscosity of at least 10 cP.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “articulated a four-factor test in determining whether collateral estoppel attaches: “(1) the identity of the issues in a prior proceeding; (2) the issues were actually litigated; (3) the determination of the issues was necessary to the resulting judgment; and (4) the party defending against preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.” Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Collateral estoppel can attach in proceedings before the Office for identical issues that were addressed with respect to a different patent during prior district court litigation. See In re Arunachalam, No. 2016-1607, 2017 WL 4387224, at *2–4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2017) (“In light of Dr. Arunachalam’s previous opportunity to litigate the validity of the asserted claims of the ’500 Patent, which contain the [same] terms . . . , we see no reason to allow her to appeal the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’556 Patent, which also contain the same critical terms.”). All four factors for collateral estoppel are met here. With regard to the first factor, the issue of Joshi’s status as prior art is identical for both proceedings. The ’376 patent is part of the same chain of continuity as the ’888 patent, and both patents share the same specification and claim priority to the same non-provisional application filed August 6, 2002 and provisional application filed August 6, 2001. As such, to the extent Joshi qualifies as prior art to the ’888 patent, it would also qualify as prior art to the ’376 patent.” slip op. at 16

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateWritten description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Although the statements above encompass “mixtures” of HPMC and PEO among a myriad of other possibilities for the gelling agent, we find no basis to conclude that the inventors of the ’376 patent were in possession of the specifically claimed formulation from such a broad disclosure.11 The 10 The April 25th draft application is heavily redacted and we thus cannot discern what other materials were specifically contemplated as “thickening agents” by that time. See Ex. 2091, 5. However, given the nature and amount of the redactions and Patent Owner’s assertion that the draft application ultimately led to the filing of the ’534 provisional with the broad disclosure set forth above, we find it reasonable to conclude that additional materials were included in the draft application. Moreover, the draft application was forwarded as part of an email from Patent Owner’s attorney, which “[e]nclosed the latest draft of the tamper resistant application.” Ex. 2091. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the list of thickening agents included as part of the draft application originated from the inventors as opposed to patent counsel. 11 We recognize that the same broad disclosure with a “laundry list” of possible gelling agents is found in the specification of the ’376 patent. See Federal Circuit has held that such “laundry list” disclosures are insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement when there is no further guidance (“blazemarks”) provided about which species or combination of species included as part of the list may be selected to arrive at the claimed invention. See Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Not having specifically named or mentioned the combination in any manner, “one is left to select[] from the myriads of possibilities encompassed by the broad disclosure, with no guide indicating or directing that this particular selection should be made rather than any of the many others which could also be made.” In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967); see also Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure in each application must ‘reasonably convey[ ]’ to those skilled in the art that as of the claimed priority date the inventor was in possession of the later claimed subject matter.”) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Other evidence of record further supports our conclusion that the inventors of the ’376 patent had not conceived of or reduced to practice the claimed formulation prior to Joshi’s August 30, 2001 filing date. In his Declaration, inventor Benjamin Oshlack attests that Patent Owner’s laboratory scientists focused on “testing the syringeability of various concentration solutions of pectin, sodium alginate, and sodium acrylate, as well as combinations of pectin and sodium alginate” between January 4 and Ex. 1001, 6:46–62. We, however, do not address the issue of written description support for any of the subsequently filed applications. 17, 2001. Ex. 2081 ¶ 22. Additionally, Mr. Oshlack attests that the scientists had evaluated “xanthan gum, carrageenan, and locust bean gum (and combinations thereof) as gelling agents, between April 5 and 12, 2001.” Id. ¶ 23. None of the laboratory notebook excerpts proffered by Patent Owner mention a combination of HPMC and PEO as gelling agents to be used in an oxycodone formulation. Exs. 2087–2090. Consistent with the testing actually done, the working examples set forth in the ’534 provisional (as well as in the ’376 patent) focus on xantham gum, pectin, microcrystalline cellulose, and hydroxyethlcellulose as the gelling agents. See Ex. 1026, 44– 49 (Examples 1–5). We find, therefore, that the inventors did not particularly consider either PEO or HPMC, let alone both PEO and HPMC in combination, when evaluating possible gelling agents for an abuse-deterrent formulation of oxycodone. Accordingly, because we find that the ’376 patent is not entitled to a filing date earlier than August 6, 2002, we further determine that Joshi qualifies as § 102(e) prior art as of that date. Having determined that Joshi qualifies as prior art, we turn to the merits of Petitioner’s patentability challenges.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,034,376 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,034,376
• Intel Corporation v. Alacritech, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2018 · IPR2017-01395 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board partly granted Intel’s rehearing request to recognize the Stansbury Declaration as a compliant sworn affidavit, but otherwise denied rehearing and left institution denied.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “When considering a request for rehearing, we review the Decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments. See id. An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

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

    “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In the Decision, the Board determined that the record before it was insufficient to show that Stevens21 is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 311(b) with respect to the ’948 patent. Stevens2 is one of the references relied upon in the sole asserted ground of unpatentability in the Petition. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Petitioner did not slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “Stevens2 was published no later than April 7, 1995 and is prior art under 102(b).” Pet. 45 n.9 (citing Ex. 1063 in support thereof (the “Stansbury Declaration”)). The Petition, per se, provides no other evidence or argument to establish a threshold showing that Stevens2 is a printed publication— publicly accessible by an interested person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date. slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “attested that Stevens2 was ‘standard reference book on TCP/IP’ that was ‘widely cited and relied upon,’ ‘well known resources to a [person of ordinary skill in the art]’ (Petition at 15 (citing Ex.1003 at ¶¶21-88, including ¶¶27, 60, and FN3), 45 (citing Ex.1003 at ¶1212), FN9).” Req. 12. Initially we observe the Petition cites these paragraphs of Dr. Horst’s Declaration as part of the “Background Of Technology” discussion rather than as support for public accessibility of Stevens2. See Pet. 15–24. Furthermore, incorporating by reference such a substantial portion of Dr. Horst’s Declaration (paragraphs 21–88) is improper under our rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Regardless, even if we consider Dr. Horst’s description of well-known background material (including Stevens2) as support for public accessibility of Stevens2, his testimony does not indicate” slip op. at 5

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,805,948

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.