• Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. The United States Of America, As Represented By The Secretary, Department Of Health & Human ServicesInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2021-01484 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–9, 13, 17, and 19 as obvious over Milone and Kalled under § 103, exercising discretion under § 325(d).

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–10 (Feb. 13, 2020) (“Advanced Bionics”) (precedential), the Board addresses § 325(d) applying a “two-part framework.” In the first part of the framework, we ask whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 22 previously were presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics at 8. Factors (a), (b), and (d) of Becton, Dickinson come into play under this first part of the framework. Id. at 8–10. If either condition of the framework’s first part is met (e.g., substantially the same art is presented), we move to part two of the framework, asking “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims.” Id. at 8. Factors (c), (e), and (f) of Becton, Dickinson fall within part two of the framework. Id. at 10 (“[F]actors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated material error by the Office.”). Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated error. Advanced Bionics at 8–10. “If the petitioner fails to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “At bottom, this [§ 325(d)] framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9 (“If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.”). B.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition, but states that the person of ordinary skill in the art would “[t]ypically” . . . have had an M.D. or a Ph.D. in immunology, biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, or a related discipline, with at least two years of experience in conducting laboratory research on chimeric T cell receptors.” Prelim. Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 20). According to Patent Owner, the ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had knowledge of the scientific literature and have skills relating to chimeric T cell receptors and methods of using such receptors” and “may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team” and been able to draw on the specialized skills of, for example, an immunologist, and/or a clinical oncologist. See id. at 43–44. Considering the record before us, both parties present reasonable definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art. For the purpose of this proceeding, we consider one of ordinary skill in the art as having had an M.D. or a Ph.D. in immunology, biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, or a related discipline, with at least two years of experience in conducting laboratory research on chimeric T cell receptors and/or the use of CAR-T immunotherapy. Consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed definition, the ordinarily skilled artisan may have worked as part of a 20 multidisciplinary team and been able to draw on the specialized skills of, for example, an immunologist, and/or a clinical oncologist.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive for the reasons set forth on pages 34–40 of the Preliminary Response. Most particularly, we note that the phrase “[a] chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)” occurs solely in the preamble of independent claim 24. Terms in a preamble, however, are not generally construed as limiting. See Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). More specifically, “when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention,” the preamble is not considered a limitation. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the present case, we find it plausible—if not likely—that the Examiner gave no weight to the terms in the preamble of claim 24 such that the remaining language did not expressly or implicitly require either a 32 transmembrane domain, or a “T-cell activation moiety” specific to CAR constructs. The Examiner appears to have recognized, however, that CAR constructs differ from Kalled’s antibodies at least in having a transmembrane domain as expressly recited in claims 29 and 30. See Ex. 2005, 605, 745–749 (allowing amended claims). This view is underscored by the Examiner’s decision not to reject claims 34 and 38 as anticipated by Kalled. See Ex. 2005, 604. Notably, claims 34 and 38 recite SEQ ID Nos 4–12, each of which encodes a complete CAR construct and, thus, implicitly includes a transmembrane domain. See id. at 589 (claiming a CAR comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID Nos: 4–12 (claim 34) or a nucleic acid encoding the same (claim 38)); Ex. 1001, 9:49–53; Ex. 2001 ¶ 92.12” slip op. at 32

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,765,342
• Human Power Of N Company v. Heartbeet LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 25, 2022 · PGR2021-00110 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show the ’555 patent was eligible for post-grant review; the challenged claims were entitled to pre-AIA effective filing dates.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” based on an “objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). If this test fails, the application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date. The written description requirement is satisfied when the specification “set[s] forth enough detail to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is claimed and to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 928 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The specification does not have to provide exact or verbatim textual support for the claimed subject matter at issue. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Federal Circuit has clarified that [a]lthough [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, . . . the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed . . . . The test for sufficiency of support . . . is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon “reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). Moreover, “the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction to practice.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “An applicant is not required to describe in the” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an M.D. degree or a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry, pharmacology, nutrition chemistry, exercise physiology, or kinesiology, and at least two years of post-doctoral research or clinical experience with physiology, biochemistry, exercise science, or dietary supplements and formulation.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not challenge this definition at this time. Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition as it is consistent with the level of skill presented in the ’555 patent and applied art. We also note that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention may be 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)).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are unpersuaded that Dr. Volek’s reliance on Exhibit 1066 as the sole source of his conclusion that certain doses of inorganic nitrate would have been lethal in the context of the claimed methods is sufficient to establish undue experimentation under the Wands factors. As Patent Owner argues, the working example disclosed in PCT1 discloses administration of a dose Dr. Volek states would have been lethal, but was not. Rather, the result of that experiment was a demonstrated decrease in glucose consumption by the participants, a benefit of increased endurance. Ex. 1008 ¶ 106. We agree with Patent Owner that this case is distinguishable from those cited by Petitioner for the reasons explained by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 31–33), and also from the recent case by our reviewing court, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In Amgen, the court found the claims lacked enablement because the claims recited dual functional limitations, and potentially millions of antibody candidates could be found to fall within those limitations. Id. at 1088. The court found the examples provided in the specification insufficient to enable the full scope of the claims given the high effort required to screen and identify all such antibodies. Id. Here, as Patent Owner has observed, the only effort required to practice claims within the range in light of the working example is to “simply administer a different dosage to the human for which increased exercise endurance is desired,” which would have been within the scope of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Prelim. Resp. 31. Moreover, Patent Owner correctly notes that methaemoglobinaemia15, the source of the lethality cited in Exhibit 1066, does not result via the claimed method. Prelim. Resp. 30, citing Ex. 1066 at 14–15. As Patent Owner explains, Petitioner’s sole cited Exhibit, 1066, discloses a risk of development of methaemoglobinaemia, a condition where more than 10% of the haemoglobin is transformed into methaemoglobin.” Id. When the conversion to haemoglobin exceeds 70% the condition can be fatal.” Ex. 1066 at 14–15. Patent Owner explains that the inventors discussed the risk of development of methaemoglobinaemia, and explained in PCT1 that their methods do not cause a significant rise in the methemoglobin level in the test subjects. Prelim. Resp. 30. Moreover, PCT1 discloses a working example where three test subjects were given a dose in the range Petitioner alleges would be lethal, with no ill result. Id., citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 106. Dr. Volek’s failure to address this discrepancy, or to provide alternate sources to explain why his conclusion is nonetheless correct, merits his brief testimony on this issue be assigned little probative” slip op. at 20

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

    “G. Claim Construction In a post-grant review, we apply the same claim construction standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2020). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Pet. 23–24. Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “inorganic nitrate.” Prelim Resp. 8–9. For purposes of determining whether to institute trial of the challenged claims, we determine it is not necessary to construe “inorganic nitrate.” 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.”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an AIA proceeding).” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,835,555
• Revance Therapeutics, Inc. v. Medy-Tox, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · IPR2021-01204 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 3, 4, 11, or 12 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “In this case, Petitioner argues that “longer” lasting means “the longer duration of efficacy of an animal-protein-free botulinum toxin composition when compared to an animal-protein-containing botulinum toxin composition that is dosed at the same or comparable amount and administered in the same manner (e.g., by injection) to the same or comparable location(s).” Pet. 20 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:53–59). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction because it is consistent with the express definition in the ’731 patent Specification. See Ex. 1001, 4:53–59.” slip op. at 9

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

    “been obvious over the combination of Ruegg, BOTOX Label, and Jung I. Pet. 21–58. Petitioner provides claim charts, mapping each limitation of claims 1–3 and 9–11 to the teachings of Ruegg, BOTOX Label, and Jung I. Id. at 23–30, 48–52. Petitioner further explains its arguments, including its contention that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Ruegg and BOTOX Label, and Jung I would have 12 had a reasonable expectation of success when doing so. Id. at 30–48, 52–58. Despite its detailed presentation, Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in this challenge.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term “longer.” See supra, Section II.A (“[L]onger” lasting means “the longer duration of efficacy of an animal-protein-free botulinum toxin composition when compared to an animal-protein-containing botulinum toxin composition that is dosed at the same or comparable amount and administered in the same manner (e.g., by injection) to the same or comparable location(s).” (emphasis added)). Although Petitioner is correct in pointing out that Ruegg compared the effect of “5.0 U/kg of either RT003 or BOTOX®” (Pet. 35; Ex. 1004, Figure 1), 13 Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that 5.0 U/kg of RT003 is the same or comparable amount as 5.0 U/kg of BOTOX. Indeed, BOTOX Label explains that one unit (U) of BOTOX “corresponds to the calculated median intraperitoneal lethal dose (LD50) in mice.” Ex. 1007, 548. BOTOX Label emphasizes that the method for performing the assay is specific to BOTOX. Id. “Due to specific details of this assay such as the vehicle, dilution scheme and laboratory protocols for the various mouse LD50 assays,” it warns, units of biological activity of BOTOX “cannot be compared to nor converted into Units of any other botulinum toxin or any toxin assessed with any other specific assay method.” Id.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,731
• Revance Therapeutics, Inc. v. Medy-Tox, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · IPR2021-01203 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5–10, 13, and 14 because Petitioner did not show that Ruegg’s RT003 and BOTOX doses were the same or comparable amount.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, only the term “longer” needs express construction.” slip op. at 6

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

    “same or comparable amount and administered in the same manner (e.g., by injection) to the same or comparable location(s).” (emphasis added)). Although Petitioner is correct in pointing out that Ruegg compared the effect of “5.0 U/kg of either RT003 or BOTOX®” (Pet. 27; Ex. 1004, Figure 1), Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that 5.0 U/kg of RT003 is the same or comparable amount as 5.0 U/kg of BOTOX. Indeed, BOTOX Label explains that one unit (U) of BOTOX “corresponds to the calculated median intraperitoneal lethal dose (LD50) in mice.” Ex. 1007, 548. BOTOX Label emphasizes that the method for performing the assay is specific to BOTOX. Id. “Due to specific details of this assay such as the vehicle, dilution scheme and laboratory protocols for the various mouse LD50 assays,” it warns, units of biological activity of BOTOX “cannot be compared to nor converted into Units of any other botulinum toxin or any toxin assessed with any other specific assay method.” Id.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,731
• Human Power Of N Company v. Heartbeet Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00094 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim had an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, as required for PGR eligibility.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To institute a post-grant review, we must determine whether 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). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that the ’813 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’813 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2021). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Petitioner proposes construction of two terms, “inorganic nitrate” and “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure.” Pet. 26–27. Of these terms, Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “inorganic nitrate” (Prelim Resp. 7). For purposes of determining whether to institute trial of the challenged claims, we determine it is not necessary to construe “inorganic nitrate.” 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.”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an AIA proceeding).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed definition is unduly restrictive. The claims do not clarify the meaning of “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure”; hence, we rely on relevant disclosures in the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–19. The prosecution history adds no clarity to the meaning of this term. As noted by Patent Owner, the specification states that the claimed method seeks to lower the systolic blood pressure in a subject needing such a reduction “preferably to normal levels (about 140/80 mmHg”) and provides an example of a 43-year-old with hypertension whose “blood pressure was 142/99 on the day when the experiment started.” Prelim. Resp. 8–9. We agree with Patent Owner that these disclosures provide general guidance to the person of ordinary skill in the art that the upper bounds of normal systolic blood pressure is about 140 mmHg, and that a person “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure” is someone whose systolic blood pressure exceeds that general measurement. Moreover, as discussed above, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a medical degree or equivalent study in fields such as “biochemistry, pharmacology, nutrition chemistry, or kinesiology” (Pet. 13) such that the term would have been interpreted by persons with a sophisticated understanding of human physiology according to the facts and circumstances presented and with the guidance of “about 140 mmHg” providing a general measurement guideline. We conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of a person “requiring a reduction in systolic blood pressure” is a person having higher than about 140 mmHg systolic blood pressure.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” based on an “objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). If this test fails, the application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,842,813
• Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., And The P.F. Laboratories Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2021 · PGR2018-00048 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable for lack of written description and anticipation by the ’943 Publication; indefiniteness and lack of enablement were not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded that exclusion of the cited portions of Dr. Chambliss’ testimony or Exhibits 1073, 1074, 1075, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1088, and 1090 is warranted. While the parties disagree on the merits of Dr. Chambliss’ testimony as to whether PGGs were known to be gelling agents by persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Priority Applications, Patent Owner does not persuade us that Dr. Chambliss fails to support his testimony with any reasonable logical or scientific basis. The exhibits that Patent Owner seeks to exclude, which include a patent, technical references, and a journal article, are relevant to the inquiry Dr. Chambliss performed in forming his opinion. We therefore do not see a basis for exclusion under FRE 702/703 or 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Moreover, we find this evidence both admissible and relevant as it concerns a fundamental issue for our patentability analysis. Thus, we decline to exclude the evidence under FRE 401 or 402.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have possessed “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, and/or pharmacology and a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 82). Petitioner further proposes that “[i]f the degree is a Ph.D[.], then the required industry experience need not be significant, e.g., two years or more, but if the technical degree is a B.S. or M.S., then the industry experience would be more significant, e.g., five years or more.” Id. We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s definition of a POSA’s skill level in our Institution Decision as it was undisputed at the time and consistent with the evidence of record. Inst. Dec. 7–8. Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner addresses the level of ordinary skill in the art in the post-institution briefing. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a POSA herein and have also taken into account the level of skill reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Applying this level of skill, we find that Dr. Chambliss and Dr. Constantinides are qualified to provide opinions as to the perspective and knowledge of a POSA. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 58–63.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims recite methods of making formulations using recited features and ingredients. In addition, as we stated in our Decision on Institution, “[t]he claims define abuse deterrence in terms of when the dosage form is ‘subjected to t[a]mpering comprising heating at a temperature greater than about 45° C.’” Inst. Dec. 19 (quoting Ex. 1001, 41:50–52). Additionally, the claims and specification identify specific ingredients that can purportedly help achieve this abuse deterrence functionality. Id. Given these conclusions, further construction of “abuse deterrent,” which both parties generally agree relates to methods of making the drug dosage form less likely to be abused, is not necessary to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Notwithstanding these individual teachings, we find that the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventors of the ’961 patent possessed a dosage form comprising a combination of the recited components that also satisfied the recited functionality. We are persuaded that the specification fails to provide sufficient guidance that would have led the POSA to create the recited dosage form. See Fujikawan 93 F.3d at 1571; In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967). Rather, “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.” Ruschig, 379 F.2d at 995.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,693,961 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,693,961
• 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
• 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
• 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

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.