• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00147 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–6 and 8–20 not shown unpatentable under three obviousness grounds, principally because the proposed combinations did not establish a feasible curved battery or transparent potting encapsulating the components.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, e.g., sensor system design, including inertial and other motion sensor system design, and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 25. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’124 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We need not reach the issue of whether the preamble is limiting for purposes of determining patentability of the challenged claims. Even were we to agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting and the claims are limited to a finger-worn ring wearable computer device, Petitioner has relied on Schröder in each ground to disclose a “wearable computing device configured to be worn around a finger of a wearer.” Pet. 22 (Ground 1), 45 (Ground 2, relying on Yuen for adding the functionality of light sources with a photodetector, temperature sensors, and varying the sampling frequency of sensor data acquisition), 56 (Ground 3). We agree with Petitioner that Schröder discloses such a device. Thus, no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and find that Patent Owner has the better position for several reasons. First, the record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “would have to be reduced in size on the 6 There is no Exhibit 2022 in the record of this case. magnitude of 5-10x from its current size to fit in a ring of Schröder.” Resp. 38 (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Second, Petitioner relies on evidence in the Reply that Petitioner failed to specifically identify in the Petition. Compare Reply 3–5 (citing Ex. 1369 ¶¶ 7–14; Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 47, 71; Ex. 2022, 138:7–143:1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96, 337; Ex. 2021, 12–13, 307:7–17; Ex. 2020, 212:6–214:13; Ex. 1081, 130:18–131:14; Ex. 1010 ¶ 168), 9 (referring back to Section § II.B.2) with Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 157, 163, 168, 201, Fig. 6). More specifically, while the portion of Dr. Anthony’s Declaration cited in the Petition (see Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99)) mentions the Technology Background Section V of his Declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–147), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Anthony sufficiently explains what evidence supports his opinion that it was feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices into finger-rings, or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have miniaturized a curved battery for incorporation into Schröder’s ring. Ex. 1002 ¶ 196 (describing that rechargeable batteries powering wearable electronic devices were “well-known by 2013” and “had also undergone significant advances in terms of miniaturization and energy density [that] made it feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices such as supercapacitors into smaller form factors, such as finger rings, without sacrificing functionality” such as “lithium-polymer (Li-Po) batteries and solid-state batteries.”). Moreover, some of Petitioner’s citations in the Reply appear to be incorrect as there is no Exhibit 2022 of record in this case, as noted above. These issues undermine the strength of Petitioner’s showing by making it difficult to follow its reasoning, much less identify where in the record that reasoning finds support. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Third, even considering Petitioner’s new Reply arguments and” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony over Dr. Anthony’s and agree that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to account for the constraints of a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 140. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’124 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’124 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 140). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 141. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura patent), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 74–84. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 85. We also agree with Dr. Mercier that Dr. Anthony’s testimony lacks evidence or a technical analysis of the power requirements for the various sensors he suggests including in a wearable device and the capacity of the proposed GMBPow battery. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 210, 214–17; Ex. 2018 ¶ 97. Moreover, Dr. Anthony does not address the issues with the batteries that are identified in the references he discusses. For example, Dr. Anthony does not address Lee’s disclosure that “direct coating of electrode slurry onto plain paper led to the occasional internal-shorting of the device due to the leakage of the electrode material through a large-sized hole in the paper.” Ex. 1019, 2415. In contrast, Dr. Mercier discusses the pitfalls the skilled artisan faced in developing finger-ring devices. See, e.g., Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 77–79 (discussing the issues Rhee’s and Asada’s large rings), 83 (identifying power requirements as a design constraint). For example, Dr. Mercier explains that “flexible or curved batteries include flexible packaging materials such as aluminum laminated films that house the electrodes and electrolyte” such that “once the battery packaging is added to a battery such as GMBPow and then placed within a housing (e.g., external housing shell and internal potting), the resulting device would have dimensions that are not suitable for a finger-worn ring.” Id. ¶ 96 (citing Ex. 2026).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,188,124 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,188,124
• Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29

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

    “Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,906,508
• MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. / MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · IPR2023-00016 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–6 not shown unpatentable because unexpected results outweighed the prima facie obviousness case, and granted Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”)See Paper 83 (“CAFC Decision”). The Federal Circuit did not disturb our determination that Petitioner “established a prima facie case of obviousness.” See CAFC Dec. 6–8. However, it took issue with the unexpected results analysis in the Decision, explaining that “without more explanation from the Board as to its determination that the experiments [offered by Patent Owner to show unexpected results] compared the challenged claims to the closest prior art, we cannot reach a judgment on MSN’s challenges to the Board’s holding of non-obviousness.” Id. at 14. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated the Decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the unexpected results evidence. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner and credit Dr. Davies’s testimony (Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 210–215) that a POSA would not have expected the Glu3 substitution to produce such a result. Indeed, the premise for Petitioner’s “conservative substitution” rationale is that the Glu3 substitution would have been expected to produce an analog having similar properties to human uroguanylin. See, e.g., Pet. 1, 36 (stating that a POSA “would have expected this particular conservative substitution to retain excellent receptor-activating activity”); Reply 3 (urging that the reason to modify a known compound may be an expectation that the new compound will have “similar properties to the old”) (internal quotations omitted). Patent Owner’s HPLC data, however, demonstrate a difference in kind between the data for SP-304 (a single HPLC peak) and uroguanylin (two distinct peaks corresponding to the active and inactive topoisomer) after incubation under the same conditions. As Dr. Davies explains, “topoisomers exist as a mixture of compounds with different[] spatial conformations” that are “continuously interconverting between spatial conformations” with “varying degrees of interconversion stability.” See Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 51–56. Thus, Patent Owner’s data show that the Glu3 substitution results in a peptide that is demonstrably more stable against interconversion than the parent, unmodified peptide.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia with nexusObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s evidence persuasive to show that the Glu3 substitution results in an unexpected improvement in interconversion stability. As explained above, RP-HPLC was a known technique for separating the topoisomers of human uroguanylin. Ex. 2010, 230–231; Ex. 2011, 27–28; Ex. 2020, 223; Ex. 2028, TRUL00018269; see also Ex. 1063 ¶¶ 37, 40 (Petitioner’s expert confirming same). It was also known that one of human uroguanylin’s topoisomers was biologically active, whereas the other, i.e., what we and the parties refer to as the “inactive” topoisomer, had significantly less or no activity at the same concentration. Ex. 2011, 31 (“compound I shows significant activity in the cGMP producing assay, whereas compound II is practically inactive”); see also Ex. 2010, 238–239 (Fig. 8) (showing the “A isomer” had a potency “with a minimal concentration between 10-7and 10-8 M,” but that the B isomer “had virtually no effect on cGMP level at 10-6 M”); Ex. 2074, 48 (compound II “showed maximal 10% of the activity of compound I at 10-6 M”). The chromatograph for uroguanylin in Patent Owner’s data is consistent with these teachings, showing two peaks representing the active and inactive topoisomers. Compare Ex. 2028, TRUL00018269 (Fig. 1) with Ex. 2011, 28 (Fig. 2). The chromatograph for SP-304 shows a markedly different result, i.e., a “single peak,” which was confirmed “using the cGMP T84 cell assay” to represent “the fully active conformer of SP-304.” Ex. 2028, TRUL00018269; Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 208–209. We agree with Patent Owner and credit Dr. Davies’s testimony (Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 210–215) that a POSA would not have expected the Glu3 substitution to produce such a result. Indeed, the premise for Petitioner’s “conservative substitution” rationale is that the Glu3 substitution would have been expected to produce an analog having similar properties to human uroguanylin. See, e.g., Pet. 1, 36 (stating that a POSA “would have expected this particular conservative substitution to retain excellent receptor-activating activity”); Reply 3 (urging that the reason to modify a known compound may be an expectation that the new compound will have “similar properties to the old”) (internal quotations omitted). Patent Owner’s HPLC data, however, demonstrate a difference in kind between the data for SP-304 (a single HPLC peak) and uroguanylin (two distinct peaks corresponding to the active and inactive topoisomer) after incubation under the same conditions. As Dr. Davies explains, “topoisomers exist as a mixture of compounds with different[] spatial conformations” that are “continuously interconverting between spatial conformations” with “varying degrees of interconversion stability.” See Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 51–56. Thus, Patent Owner’s data show that the Glu3 substitution results in a peptide that is demonstrably more stable against interconversion than the parent, unmodified peptide.” slip op. at 34

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “motion. The American Peptide letter contains out of court statements from a third party submitted by the EPO opponent. The statements in the letter were not made under oath, nor is there evidence that Patent Owner was ever able to question the author of that letter or anyone else with personal knowledge of the statements therein. Petitioner argues that the American Peptide letter is evidence “to doubt that the ‘singular peak’ for uroguanylin in Liu represents the active topoisomer of uroguanylin” because it evidences that American Peptide “provided its customers with the ‘B’ (i.e., inactive) form of uroguanylin at the time.” Pet. Remand Resp. 25. That is, Petitioner relies on the American Peptide letter for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Such use plainly implicates the rule against hearsay and falls squarely within our prior reasoning for excluding the Currie submission portion of Exhibit 1067. We incorporate that analysis herein. See Dec. 61–72. Petitioner asserts that the American Peptide letter is admissible under the residual hearsay exception in FRE 807. MTE Opp. 3–5. We disagree. The American Peptide letter was submitted by the EPO opponent specifically for the purpose of opposing a foreign counterpart to the ’786 patent. We see no reason to distinguish it from the other materials previously excluded as hearsay in the Currie submission. Petitioner’s assertion that it contains sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness because it was “provided by a neutral third-party” (American Peptide) and “an individual having first- hand knowledge, [American Peptide Company’s] VP of sales and marketing” is speculation. See id. at 3–4. Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has never been afforded an opportunity to examine anyone regarding the statements in this letter or even confirm that it is, in fact, a letter from the American Peptide Company. The mere fact that it was submitted in a foreign patent proceeding does not make it any more trustworthy than any other untested assertion offered by an adverse party in a legal proceeding.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,041,786
• MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. / MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · IPR2022-00722 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable because the unexpected results from the Glu3 substitution outweighed the prima facie obviousness showing; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was granted.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “More specifically, the Federal Circuit identified “three reasons” why “the Board’s determination that the[se] experiments compared the claimed invention with the closest prior art lack[ed] adequate explanation” and instructed us to address these issues on remand. See CAFC Dec. 11–13. First, the Court stated we “should determine, based on the evidence put forward by the parties, whether plecanatide exhibits topoisomerism and whether the testing of the challenged claims should encompass both the active and inactive forms.” Id. at 12.3 Second, the Court instructed us to reconsider what the closest prior art compound is in view of Patent Owner’s “contention that highly pure A-form uroguanylin could be maintained as a lyophilized powder,” noting that “[i]f it is true . . . that uroguanylin can be maintained and therefore tested in its active A form as a lyophilized powder, that would support that the experiments [which were conducted in solution] did not use the closest prior art.” Id. Third, the Court observed that the Decision did not sufficiently address “whether the experiments submitted by [Patent Owner] actually used” the closest prior art and instructed the Board “to reevaluate the experimental evidence consistent” with the determinations noted above. Id. at 12–13.” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “In sum, we find that there is a sufficient nexus between Patent Owner’s results and the challenged claims and that those results are reasonably commensurate with the same. Accordingly, for all of reasons explained above, the unexpected results Patent Owner relies upon are probative of non-obviousness. E. Conclusion for Ground 1 Weighing the record as a whole in view of the findings and analysis above as well as our findings and analysis relating to Petitioner’s prima facie showing in the Decision, we conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Currie and Li. The evidence suggesting that it would have been obvious to make the Glu3 substitution because it is a conservative substitution (see Dec. 20–38 (§ III.E.ii)) is substantially outweighed by Patent Owner’s comparatively strong evidence demonstrating unexpected results relating to improved interconversion stability, potency, and binding affinity from the Glu3 substitution. See Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Evidence of objective indicia [such as unexpected results] ‘can be the most probative evidence of nonobviousness in the record,’ and . . . enable[s] ‘the court to avert the trap of hindsight.’”) (quoting Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Indeed, the interconversion and potency categories of Patent Owner’s unexpected results showing are particularly strong such that even without the additional results in Liu, we would still reach the same ultimate conclusion on obviousness. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 56

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for patent owner

    “same combination of Currie and Li for the limitations of claim 1 and the similar limitations recited in the other independent claims. In the Decision, we found that, based on the teachings in those references, an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have been motivated both to select human uroguanylin as a lead compound and modify its sequence by making a conservative Glu3 substitution for uroguanylin’s Asp3. Dec. 15–37. We did not, however, credit Petitioner’s other purported rationales for that modification. Id. at 34–37. Those findings were not disturbed on appeal. See CAFC Dec. 6–8 (rejecting 9 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective after the filing of the application that led to the ’786 patent. Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. 10 U.S. Pat. 5,489,670, issued Feb. 6, 1996 (Ex. 1005) (“Currie”). 11 Z. Li et al., Purification, cDNA Sequence, and Tissue Distribution of Rat Uroguanylin, 68 Regulatory Peptides 45–56 (1997) (Ex. 1006) (“Li”). 12 R. Narayani et al., Polymer-coated Gelatin Capsules as Oral Delivery Devices and their Gastrointestinal Tract Behavior in Humans, 7 J. Biomater. Sci. Polymer Edn. 39–48 (1995) (Ex. 1007) (“Narayani”). 13 M. Campieri et al., Oral Budesonide is as Effective as Oral Prednisolone in Active Crohn’s Disease, 41 Gut 209–214 (1997) (Ex. 1008) (“Campieri”). 14 U.S. Pat. 5,359,030, issued Oct. 25, 1994 (Ex. 1009) (“Ekwuribe”). Patent Owner’s alternative arguments for affirmance). We incorporate by reference the portions of the Decision addressing Petitioner’s prima facie showing herein. See Dec. 8–37 (§§ III.A–D and E.i–ii). We consider the findings and explanation therein to the extent it bears on our analysis below.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “motion. The American Peptide letter contains out of court statements from a third party submitted by the EPO opponent. The statements in the letter were not made under oath, nor is there evidence that Patent Owner was ever able to question the author of that letter or anyone else with personal knowledge of the statements therein. Petitioner argues that the American Peptide letter is evidence “to doubt that the ‘singular peak’ for uroguanylin in Liu represents the active topoisomer of uroguanylin” because it evidences that American Peptide “provided its customers with the ‘B’ (i.e., inactive) form of uroguanylin at the time.” Pet. Remand Resp. 25. That is, Petitioner relies on the American Peptide letter for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Such use plainly implicates the rule against hearsay and falls squarely within our prior reasoning for excluding the Currie submission portion of Exhibit 1067. We incorporate that analysis herein. See Dec. 61–72. Petitioner asserts that the American Peptide letter is admissible under the residual hearsay exception in FRE 807. MTE Opp. 3–5. We disagree. The American Peptide letter was submitted by the EPO opponent specifically for the purpose of opposing a foreign counterpart to the ’786 patent. We see no reason to distinguish it from the other materials previously excluded as hearsay in the Currie submission. Petitioner’s assertion that it contains sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness because it was “provided by a neutral third-party” (American Peptide) and “an individual having first- hand knowledge, [American Peptide Company’s] VP of sales and marketing” is speculation. See id. at 3–4. Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has never been afforded an opportunity to examine anyone regarding the statements in this letter or even confirm that it is, in fact, a letter from the American Peptide Company. The mere fact that it was submitted in a foreign patent proceeding does not make it any more trustworthy than any other untested assertion offered by an adverse party in a legal proceeding. For these reasons, we grant Patent Owner’s motion to exclude page 86 of Exhibit 1067.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,041,786
• Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Upl Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · PGR2023-00017 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, and 10 are anticipated by Godoy; claims 1–10 are anticipated by Tobler; other grounds were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “record (Ex. 1022, Attachments 5, 6) and the ResearchGate page (id., Attachments 7–10), to further support her opinion that the Godoy report was publicly available before November 4, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 31–38, 42–48. She testifies that “ResearchGate contains many search features which would allow an interested POSA to find the Godoy report, e.g., key word searching.” Id. ¶ 48. Dr. Jacobsen, who has personally used the service, agrees that in ResearchGate, “you can start to search for publications using keywords and things like that, authors.” Ex. 1043, 66:1–67:10. For these reasons, we again find Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony credible.” slip op. at 32

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “record (Ex. 1022, Attachments 5, 6) and the ResearchGate page (id., Attachments 7–10), to further support her opinion that the Godoy report was publicly available before November 4, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 31–38, 42–48. She testifies that “ResearchGate contains many search features which would allow an interested POSA to find the Godoy report, e.g., key word searching.” Id. ¶ 48. Dr. Jacobsen, who has personally used the service, agrees that in ResearchGate, “you can start to search for publications using keywords and things like that, authors.” Ex. 1043, 66:1–67:10. For these reasons, we again find Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony credible.” slip op. at 32

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

    “several lists, Petitioner has met its burden in showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would at once envisage the fungicidal combination of claim 1 from its disclosure. Accordingly, Tobler anticipates claim 1. We address Patent Owner’s arguments below.” slip op. at 44

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

    “28 Because Petitioner has shown that asserted prior art references anticipate claims 1 and 3–10, we do not address whether these claims would have been obvious over De Oliveira, either alone or in view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy. 29 Having determined that Petitioner has shown all challenged claims are unpatentable under other grounds, we do not address this obvious ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding a petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and, thus, agreeing that the Board has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”).” slip op. at 81

  Patent outcomesUS 11,445,727 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,445,727
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2022-01600 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–7 and 9–20 over Olmos and Varela ’774, and claim 8 over Olmos, Varela ’774, and Oglaza.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”): would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or biomedical engineering and two or more years of experience in biomechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and/or spinal implant devices. A person could also have qualified as a POSITA with some combination of more formal education (e.g., an M.D.) and less technical experience or less formal education and more technical or professional experience in the foregoing fields, and would have had further appreciation of various technical concepts in this field. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–35). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See Response 8. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “We credit Mr. Drewry’s testimony that it would have been well within the ordinary skill of a POSITA to make the proposed modifications. See Ex. 1002 (Drewry Decl.) ¶¶ 34, 56–71 (discussing the qualifications of a POSITA and the types of engineering concepts the POSITA would have understood); Ex. 1030 (Drewry Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 37, 48–56, 59–66. To the extent Mr. Culbert testifies otherwise, we do not find such testimony persuasive. Indeed, Olmos itself further supports Mr. Drewry’s testimony that a POSITA would have known how to modify dimensions to fit specific needs and make changes necessary to adapt features from one embodiment to fit another. See Ex. 1006 (Olmos) ¶¶ 153, 188 (providing a range of implant sizes and noting that “specific dimensions” of any disclosed 9 Patent Owner’s citation to Mr. Drewry’s deposition transcript at 87:13– 88:9 appears to be incorrect. We understand that the intended citation is 69:34–70:7. embodiment can be varied as is apparent to a POSITA and “all features discussed in connection with any one embodiment herein can be readily adapted for use in other embodiments herein to form various combinations and sub-combinations”). Given the POSITA’s ability to make the proposed modifications, we do not find that Patent Owner’s evidence regarding the number of modifications required undermines Petitioner’s articulated reasoning for the combination.” slip op. at 35

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “no terms require constructions differing from their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner states that it “takes no position on Petitioner’s assertion because the Board need not construe any claim term to find that the Challenged Claims are not unpatentable.” Response 8. We find that for purposes of this Decision, we need not construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 21

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,973,649 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,973,649
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2022-01435 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: Chung anticipates claim 10, and the Olmos-based obviousness grounds establish unpatentability of claims 1–11.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “9 Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s Reply brief “presents copious new evidence and theories that exceed the scope of proper reply” and “[t]he Board should refuse to consider” it. Sur-reply 7–9. This generic objection to the entire Reply fails to provide adequate notice regarding which of Petitioner’s theories and arguments Patent Owner contends are allegedly new and improper. See, e.g., Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting generic objection to alleged new theories in reply as failing to provide adequate notice of which theories are allegedly new). Accordingly, we reject Patent Owner’s request that we “refuse to consider” the entirety of the Reply. Where Patent Owner’s Sur-reply raises more particularized complaints regarding Petitioner’s allegedly improper new arguments, we address those complaints as appropriate below.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, we find Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Chung.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 10,137,001 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,137,001
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01434 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 15 are unpatentable over Chung and Olmos-based obviousness grounds; claims 10–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach the claimed complementary relationship.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “improperly incorporates-by-reference 12 pages of expert testimony via a single sentence.” PO Sur-reply 16 n.2 (citing Pet. Reply 17, which in turn cites Ex. 1026 (Hatch Decl.) ¶¶ 49–66). We find that many of the paragraphs within the cited range (i.e., Hatch Declaration paragraphs 49–66) appear to have a tenuous connection to the proposition for which Petitioner cites these paragraphs. See Pet. Reply 17. That said, we find that paragraphs 53–55 directly relate to Petitioner’s proposition in the Reply, i.e., that “Petitioner’s experts explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would rely on a cross-sectional view over a perspective view for making the determination in question, because only the cross-sections provide the needed side view directly orthogonal to the positions of the yellow expansion portion and the end of the dovetail.” Id. Accordingly, we find that paragraphs 53–55—the only paragraphs we cite from Petitioner’s range in reaching our conclusion—are not improperly incorporated by reference into Petitioner’s Reply.” slip op. at 66

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “provide Petitioner an opportunity to respond under the new construction, and decline to strike Petitioner’s relevant argument and evidence. Cf. Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1383 (“[W]hen the Board adopts a new claim construction following institution, an IPR petitioner must have adequate notice and an opportunity to respond under the new construction.”). Like in Axonics, in its new arguments on Reply, Petitioner here relies on the same embodiment from the same prior art reference that it relies on in the Petition to support the same legal argument, i.e., that Olmos’s Figure 16 embodiment discloses the “complementary with one another” limitation of challenged claims 10– 14. See Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1384; see also Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (permitting petitioner to elaborate in reply on an unpatentability theory presented in the petition). Moreover, we permitted Patent Owner to file (and it indeed did file) a sur-reply brief and expert declaration that addressed Petitioner’s new obviousness theories. Accordingly, both parties had adequate notice of our preliminary construction and an opportunity to respond under that new construction. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to strike.” slip op. at 124

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

    “from the expansion portion. We agree with Patent Owner that the wording of this limitation as a whole requires that the “extension necessarily must protrude beyond a longitudinal end of the expansion portion.” Id. at 11. We also agree with Patent Owner that “[u]nder Petitioner’s tenuous theory, an extension in any direction except 90 or 180 degrees would satisfy the claim language since any such direction has a so-called ‘longitudinal component.’” Id. at 13. For these reasons, we disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the purported “longitudinal component” of Chung’s extension satisfies limitation 1[h].” slip op. at 55

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “would have been motivated to add an extension to the Figure 16 embodiment because “an integrally-formed extension advantageously requires fewer parts, which facilitates both manufacturing and use.” Pet. 118. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument is unavailing. PO Resp. 50. Petitioner’s combination entails adding an extension (from Figure 8) to an embodiment lacking one (Figure 16). We agree with Patent Owner that adding a new component (whether separately or integrally) can in some instances complicate manufacturing/assembly and increase costs. See id. (citing Ex. 2013 (Culbert Decl.) ¶ 115). Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed combination in this instance would reduce complexity or facilitate the manufacturing process. Accordingly, we do not rely on this argument offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 106

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,731 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,731
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / MSN Laboratories Private Ltd et al. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00016 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable: the unexpected results supporting claim 1 outweighed the evidence of obviousness, and the other grounds depended on that unestablished premise.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Peterson, Petitioner” slip op. at 8

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

    “C. Claim Construction Petitioner asserts that “[t]he claim terms do not require construction to apply the grounds.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not respond to this contention, or otherwise address claim construction in its Response. Accordingly, neither party has identified any claim term for construction.” slip op. at 10

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

    “in which the pKa of aspartic acid’s R group was the same or even higher than that of glutamic acid when incorporated into a peptide, which directly undermines Petitioner’s position that the relative difference would be the same. Ex. 2045, 37 (Table 1). Petitioner dismisses this evidence, urging that it relates to “residues buried inside a peptide” that “are not analogous to the Asp3 or Glu3 pKas in plecanatide.” Reply 20. But that misses the point. The record shows there are interactions beyond just whether the residue is buried that can affect the pKa. See, e.g., Ex. 1012, 127 (“interactions with other peptide R groups, and other environmental factors can affect the pKa”); Ex. 2069, 96:19–97:2, 97:19–98:1 (Dr. Peterson acknowledging that intrachain hydrogen bonds can affect pKa). Neither Petitioner, nor Dr. Peterson, sufficiently address these other interactions, much less do they do so within the context of the particular amino acid sequences at issue here. Accordingly, we credit Dr. Davies’s testimony that a POSA “would have understood that the pKa values of amino side chain groups could not be predicted when the amino acid was incorporated into a peptide” and therefore would not have expected the Glu3 substitution to result in a peptide that would “remain protonated at a higher pH as compared to Asp or result in better activity in less acidic environments.” Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 178–186.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusMixed

    “For these reasons, Patent Owner has established a sufficient nexus” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,041,786
• Synthego Corporation v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00403 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–33 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–21, and 24–33 are anticipated by Pioneer Hi-Bred; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner agrees that a POSA would have this educational level. Resp. 23. Patent Owner “also agrees that a POSA would have knowledge of prior art RNA based gene regulating technologies, but disagrees that the teachings of those technologies are relevant in the manner that Dr. Furneaux [and Petitioner] attempt[] to apply them” in the Petition’s grounds. Id. at 23– 24. We find the parties’ agreed understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be supported by the record and apply that description in our analysis herein. To the extent the parties disagree regarding the application of a POSA’s general knowledge of nucleic acids and related prior art techniques to the Petition’s grounds, such disputes are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Independent claims 1 and 19 recite a guide RNA or crRNA molecule having “gRNA functionality comprising associating with a Cas protein and targeting the gRNA:Cas protein complex to the target sequence.” Ex. 1001, 257:42–44, 259:5–7. This claim language makes clear that the recited “gRNA functionality” requires a molecule that can: (1) associate with a Cas protein, and (2) target that complex to a target sequence in a polynucleotide. To the extent Petitioner suggests that a gRNA “need only bind to the Cas protein” to have “gRNA functionality,” we disagree because the claims additionally recite the above-quoted targeting functionality. See Reply 16 (emphasis added). At the same time, we agree with Petitioner that “a gRNA need not cleave the target DNA” to have the claimed “gRNA functionality.” Reply 16. The Specification defines “gRNA functionality” as “one or more functions of naturally occurring guide RNA, such as associating with a Cas protein, or a function performed by the guide RNA in association with a Cas protein” and lists various gRNA functions, e.g., “associating,” “targeting,” “binding,” “nicking,” and “cleaving,” that may be present “in certain embodiments” of the invention. Ex. 1001, 6:56–7:1. However, as noted above, the claims recite “gRNA functionality comprising” only the associating and targeting functions. Thus, while a molecule may have additional functions such as cleaving a target polynucleotide, it need only exhibit the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions to have the “gRNA functionality” in claims 1 and 19. Our determination that “gRNA functionality” requires the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions, but not additional, unrecited functions such as cleaving, is also consistent with the parties’ position that the claim language has its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 17; Resp. 24. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other terms, nor do we discern that any further claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad OceanMotor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that it is only necessary to “construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “established that “anticipation does not require actual performance of suggestions in a disclosure.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, the Petition need not assert that “gRNA functionality” is inherently disclosed because Petitioner has shown that Pioneer Hi-Bred’s expressly discloses this limitation. Pet. 25–26 (citing evidence). There is no additional requirement that this express disclosure be backed by test data in order for the reference to be anticipatory. See, e.g., Novo, 424 F.3d at 1355; Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[P]roof of efficacy is not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation.”).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Second, even if those sequences were truncated, the record does not support Patent Owner’s argument that a POSA would doubt that they have gRNA functionality. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Dr. Marshall’s testimony that these sequences “are truncated to a point that would render them nonfunctional.” Ex. 2025 ¶ 200. But the references he cites do not support that position. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Ex. 1033 (“Fu”); Ex. 2044 (“Cencic”); and Ex. 2045 (“Mali”)). To the contrary, Fu evidences that “truncated gRNAs, with shorter regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” are functional and that truncation to 17 nt is beneficial. Ex. 1033, Abstr.; see also id. at 283 (“[W]e found that [truncated] gRNAs with 17 or 18 nucleotides of complementarity generally function efficiently at the intended target site and have improved specificities.”). Cencic and Mali likewise do not suggest that a 17 nt VT domain would lack gRNA functionality. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Cencic as showing “truncated gRNA tests showed that a guide sequence of only 16 nucleotides” abolished cleavage activity); Ex. 2045, Supp. Fig. 10 (“1-3 bp 5’ [gRNA] 11 Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Furneaux “adopted the definition of ‘truncated gRNAs’ as those with ‘regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” in paragraph 79 of his opening declaration. Sur-reply 8 n. 1. We disagree. The testimony in paragraph 79 refers to the particular results in Fu. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (citing Ex. 1033). We see nothing there that suggests Dr. Furneaux agrees with Patent Owner’s position that any gRNA with a VT region of less than 20 nt is truncated. truncations are indeed well tolerated, but larger deletions lead to loss of activity”). Accordingly, we credit Dr. Furneaux’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 78, Ex. 1059 ¶¶ 73–75) over the competing testimony offered by Dr. Marshall on these points.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,900,034 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,900,034

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.