• Neuroderm Ltd. v. Abbvie Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2022 · PGR2022-00040 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–17 based on all asserted grounds, finding the petition showed they more likely than not lacked written description support and enablement.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons explained below, we find that Petitioner has met the threshold showing for post-grant review of claims 1–17 with respect to the first challenge (written description support for the claimed genus). On that basis, we institute post-grant review of all challenged claims. See SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1358 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims . . . .”). We address this challenge first, then provide the parties guidance on Petitioner’s second written description challenge (support for carbidopa itself).” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Ex. 1006, 1 (citations omitted). Accordingly, when considering the ’507 patent’s purpose, the type of problems encountered in the art, and prior art solutions to those problems, it is clear that with respect to levodopa/carbidopa treatments for Parkinson’s Disease, the pharmaceutical formulation and its resulting pharmacokinetics and patient experience are intertwined, thus supporting a requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art have knowledge or experience in each of these areas. See, e.g., Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., S.A., 930 F.3d 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding no clear error in district court’s compromise measure of level of ordinary skill in the art as a team comprising different skill sets). In view of the above considerations, we preliminarily find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be a member of a team that includes person(s) with (a) a Ph.D. in a field related to the development of pharmaceuticals (for example, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicinal chemistry, formulation development, or a related field), or equivalent degree, and 2–4 years of experience in the analysis of pharmacokinetic data, pharmaceutical formulation development, and/or drug discovery or development, or a B.S. or M.S. degree in a field related to the development of pharmaceuticals, or equivalent degree, and 4–6 years of experience in the analysis of pharmacokinetic data, pharmaceutical formulation development, and/or drug discovery or development, and (b) a medical degree or equivalent degree with experience in treating patients with Parkinson’s disease. In subsequent briefing, should the parties propose any differences from the team approach articulated above, they should support their proposal and address the impact, if any, of the differences on the pertinent disputes in this proceeding. Any final determination on the level of ordinary skill in the art will be made on the full trial record.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Additionally, based on their statements of qualifications and curricula vitae, for purposes of this Decision we find Drs. LeWitt and Sloan qualified to provide technical opinions from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 1–10, pp. 87–119 (Dr. LeWitt’s statement of qualifications and curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–11, pp. 45–71 (Dr. Sloan’s statement of qualifications).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree with the parties that the express definition provided during prosecution should be adopted. See, e.g., Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (construing claims in accordance with definition provided in declarations submitted during prosecution). Accordingly, we preliminarily construe the term “a compound comprising levodopa” in accordance with the full definition Dr. Okun provided during prosecution, i.e., “any molecule with a levodopa core moiety including levodopa itself, as well as prodrugs, salts, and hydrates of levodopa.”” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,091,507
• Sandoz Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2022 · PGR2022-00037 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that the patent was eligible for post-grant review; the challenged claims were entitled to the pre-AIA priority date.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not identified any challenged claim that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. For this reason, we find that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’265 patent is eligible for post-grant review. IV. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presently before us, we determine Petitioner has not shown that the ’265 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(d), the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 29

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

    “To interpret “stable,” we begin with how the term is used in independent claims 7 and 19. Both terms recite “stable” in relation to the pharmaceutical formulation as a whole by reciting “wherein the formulation is stable.” Ex. 1001, 189:62–190:27. From this, we conclude that the ordinary artisan, as defined above to have a relevant advanced degree and at least two years of experience in development or manufacture of therapeutic protein formulations, would have understood that the components of a “stable” formulation would maintain their integrity and desired function following preparation, including when stored as described. This meaning is supported by the following language in the specification pertaining to the disclosed pharmaceutical compositions: Pharmaceutical compositions according to the present invention are described in further details hereinbelow. In one aspect, the pharmaceutical compositions disclosed herein are physico-chemically stable and maintain the integrity of an antibody comprised in said pharmaceutical composition, for example when stored for 8 weeks at 40° C. as shown hereinbelow. Ex. 1001, 84:20–26. We also note, as Petitioner argued, that the prosecution history supports that the formulation components needed to remain functional during storage, and that Patent Owner cited to formulation integrity after a storage period of 8 weeks at 40° C as evidence of such integrity. Ex. 1004, 7380. As disclosed in the ’265 patent, Examples 9 and 12 measure function and identity of the components following storage to confirm formulation stability.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “burden of showing that claim 7 or 14 lacks written description support in the priority application, which Petitioner has conceded provides the same support as the ’265 patent specification. In this regard, we agree that the reasoning in Fresenius likewise applies: there is no legal requirement that a patent specification must include test results or working examples demonstrating stability for every possible composition that is covered by the claims. Fresenius at 13, citing Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1352 (stating that “the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction to practice”). Formulations 2 and 3, disclosed in the ’265 patent specification, which Petitioner acknowledges falls within the scope of claims 7 and 14 (Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134, 135)), were shown to be stable for 8 weeks in a syringe. Moreover, the ordinary artisan was provided with guidance in making such formulations from the teachings of the specification and has additional knowledge from the art. See Ex. 1001, 85:32–94:35. Claims 7 and 14 identify specific structures (risankizumab) and required excipients within a defined pH range, which are stable as confirmed by testing results presented in the specification. Prelim. Resp. 33; Ex. 1001, 94:14–36. On this record, we conclude that the evidence presented does not establish that it is more likely than not that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have reasonably believed that the inventors of the ’265 patent possessed the claimed subject matter, each limitation of which is demonstrated as supported in the specification. As we have interpreted the claim term “wherein the formulation is stable” to mean “wherein the formulation maintains the functional integrity of the antibody and other components, for example when stored for 8 weeks at 40° C,” the specification supports maintenance of functional integrity as shown by the stability of Formulations 2 and 3, including when stored for a period of time. For this reason, we find that Petitioner has not shown that the ordinary artisan would not have understood the inventors of the ’265 patent possessed the subject matter of claims 7 and 14 as of the filing date of the priority application.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable

    “We acknowledge that in the Fresenius case, the extensive testing disclosed in that specification supported the ordinary artisan’s ability to formulate stable compounds using such guidance, and that the specification here discloses less testing. See, e.g., Sur-Reply. 8–9. Nevertheless, it is Petitioner’s burden on this issue, and we are not persuaded that the concerns raised by Dr. Klibanov provide sufficient evidence of actual instability to justify institution on this record. See, e.g., Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding lack of evidence that district court erred in upholding claims as enabled where defendant did not identify inoperable embodiments despite extensive testing). In particular, we are persuaded that, on this record, Petitioner’s lack of evidence of instability of any formulation falling within the limitations of claim 14 indicates that Petitioner has not established sufficiently, for purposes of trial institution, that it is more likely than not that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been able to practice the full scope of claim 14 invention based on the teachings of the specification.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,078,265
• Human Power Of N Company v. Heartbeet LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · PGR2022-00004 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for post-grant review.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Determining whether a patent is subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA, and therefore eligible for post-grant review, is straightforward when the patentee filed the application from which the patent issued before March 16, 2013, or when the patentee filed the application on or after March 16, 2013, without any priority claim. The determination is more complex, however, for a patent that issues from a “transition application,” that is, an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date. See MPEP § 2159.04 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). Entitlement to the benefit of an earlier date under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 121, or 365 is premised on disclosure of the claimed invention “in the manner provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode)” in the earlier application. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e), 120. Thus, a patent that issues from a transition application is not available for post-grant review if the claimed subject matter complies with the written description and enablement requirements of § 112(a) for an ancestor application filed prior to March 16, 2013.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “B. Legal Standard 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.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledDecided for patent owner

    “[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Undue experimentation is analyzed by applying the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988).5 Nothing more than objective enablement is required, and therefore it is irrelevant whether this teaching is provided through broad terminology or illustrative examples. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971); see also In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 105 (CCPA 1981) (“An inventor need not, however, explain every detail since he is speaking to those skilled in the art.”). slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art 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 2 This chart repeats the grounds as presented in Petitioner’s chart at Pet. 4. 3 Brunton, An Address on Blood Pressure in Man: Its estimation and indications for treatment, The British Medical Journal, pp. 64-67 (July 10, 1909) (Ex. 1032 “Brunton”). 4 Brunton et al., An Address on Longevity and the Means of Attaining It, The Lancet, Vol. 168, Issue 4342, pp. 1330–1355 (Nov. 17, 1906) (Ex. 1033 “Brunton 2”). post-doctoral research or clinical experience with physiology, biochemistry, or dietary supplements and formulation.” Pet. 13 (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 ’747 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 6

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,083,747
• Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. / Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP v. Seagen Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2022 · PGR2021-00042 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing, reversed its discretionary denial, and instituted PGR on claims 6–8 based on the threshold showing of likely lack of enablement and anticipation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “We agree with Petitioner that a rehearing of our prior decision to deny institution is appropriate due to the changed circumstances of claims 6–8 of” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “institution is appropriate due to the changed circumstances of claims 6–8 of” slip op. at 6

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and the evidence cited therein, we determine that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Therefore, we grant institution of a post-grant review.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is supported by Dr. Lambert’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 20) and is consistent with the scope and content of the ’039 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,808,039
• Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. / Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP v. Seagen Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2022 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing

  Granted Petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted PGR on claims 1–5, 9, and 10 based on the more-likely-than-not enablement showing and efficiency considerations.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “As acknowledged by both Petitioner and Patent Owner, this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve essentially identical issues. See 6 Reh’g Req. 15; Prelim. Resp. 19 n.3. In particular, we note that claims 6–8 of the ’039 patent challenged in PGR2021-00042 depend from claim 1 of the ’039 patent challenged in this proceeding, and are challenged under essentially identical written description, enablement and prior art issues. Reh’g Req. 15. Thus, our decision to institute post-grant review in PGR2021-00042 effectuates our review of issues almost identical to those in this proceeding. Petitioner further argues that this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve related issues, and that “considerations of efficiency . . . therefore counsel in favor of the Board reviewing the patentability of claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of the ’039 patent as well.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that, because we are to review practically the same issues of this proceeding in PGR2021-00042, considerations of efficiency (i.e., efficient use of the Board’s resources) strongly weigh in favor of also instituting trial in this proceeding. See Reh’g Req. 15. Considering all the factors together as a whole, we determine that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the interests of efficiency and integrity of the patent system weigh against exercising discretionary denial under § 324(a). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution. We consider the merits of the Petition with respect to the threshold for institution below.” slip op. at 6

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

    “3. Analysis “[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) (alteration in original). “The enablement requirement ensures that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement. The scope of enablement, in turn, is that which is disclosed in the specification plus the scope of what would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.” National Recovery Techs. Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1195–96 (Fed Cir. 1999). [Although] a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art . . . , that general, oft-repeated statement is merely a rule 24 of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure. . . . [W]hen there is no disclosure of any specific starting material or of any of the conditions under which a process can be carried out, undue experimentation is required; there is a failure to meet the enablement requirement that cannot be rectified by asserting that all the disclosure related to the process is within the skill of the art. It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement. Genentech Inc., 108 F.3d at 1366. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of the ’039 patent lack enablement. In particular, we are persuaded based on the record at this stage of the proceeding that the Specification does not enable the full scope of the claims. The Specification focuses on dolastatin/auristatin derivatives and does not describe novel ADCs having non-dolastatin/auristatin derivative drug moieties. Ex. 1001, Abstract. For example, the Specification states that “there is a clear need in the art for dolastatin/auristatin derivatives having significantly lower toxicity, yet useful therapeutic efficiency [sic]” and purports that “[t]hese and other limitations and problems of the past are addressed by the present invention.” Id. at 4:25–29 (emphasis added). Moreover, each embodiment, example, figure, and assay disclosed in the Specification appears to use a drug moiety that is a dolastatin/auristatin derivative. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, 4:22–29, 50:56–52:30, 71:19–22, 131:23–48, Figs. 1–19, Examples 2–16. Claim 1, however, recites ADCs” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “As acknowledged by both Petitioner and Patent Owner, this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve essentially identical issues. See 6 Reh’g Req. 15; Prelim. Resp. 19 n.3. In particular, we note that claims 6–8 of the ’039 patent challenged in PGR2021-00042 depend from claim 1 of the ’039 patent challenged in this proceeding, and are challenged under essentially identical written description, enablement and prior art issues. Reh’g Req. 15. Thus, our decision to institute post-grant review in PGR2021-00042 effectuates our review of issues almost identical to those in this proceeding. Petitioner further argues that this proceeding and PGR2021-00042 involve related issues, and that “considerations of efficiency . . . therefore counsel in favor of the Board reviewing the patentability of claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of the ’039 patent as well.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that, because we are to review practically the same issues of this proceeding in PGR2021-00042, considerations of efficiency (i.e., efficient use of the Board’s resources) strongly weigh in favor of also instituting trial in this proceeding. See Reh’g Req. 15. Considering all the factors together as a whole, we determine that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the interests of efficiency and integrity of the patent system weigh against exercising discretionary denial under § 324(a). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution. We consider the merits of the Petition with respect to the threshold for institution below.” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Instituted

    “skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) (alteration in original). “The enablement requirement ensures that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement. The scope of enablement, in turn, is that which is disclosed in the specification plus the scope of what would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.” National Recovery Techs. Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1195–96 (Fed Cir. 1999). [Although] a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art . . . , that general, oft-repeated statement is merely a rule 24 of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure. . . . [W]hen there is no disclosure of any specific starting material or of any of the conditions under which a process can be carried out, undue experimentation is required; there is a failure to meet the enablement requirement that cannot be rectified by asserting that all the disclosure related to the process is within the skill of the art. It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement. Genentech Inc., 108 F.3d at 1366.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,808,039
• 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
• Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc. v. Kansas State University Research FoundationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 31, 2022 · PGR2020-00076 · APJ Erica A Franklin · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “As noted by the Drs. Nordgren and HogenEsch, the differences in these descriptions are “relatively minor.” See Ex. 1038, 238:21–24; Ex. 1039 ¶ 42. Dr. Nordgren explains that even under the higher skill level required by Patent Owner’s description of a POSITA, his opinions would not change. Id. at 1039 ¶ 42. Based upon our review, the differences in Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed definitions do not impact Petitioner’s grounds for unpatentability or Patent Owner’s responsive arguments. Nor does our consideration of the issues presented turn on which proposed definition is applied. In any event, having considered the evidence and the arguments, we find Patent Owner’s rationale for its more narrow description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be persuasive and Patent Owner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art, while maintaining that the prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

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

    “In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s proposed construction is actually a subject matter eligibility argument. PO Resp. 23. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he term ‘porcine circovirus type 3 recombinant protein’ has a plain and ordinary meaning of ‘genetically engineered PCV3 protein.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2052 ¶¶ 91–92). Having considered the positions of both parties, and the evidence of record, we find that for purposes of this Decision, the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “porcine circovirus type 3 recombinant protein,” is a PCV3 protein obtained by genetic engineering, and specifically by recombinant technology, wherein the recombinant protein may either have the same structure and same amino acid sequence as variation therein. See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 217–218; Ex. 1038, 264:2–9, 266:13– 267:3). 2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts that “[a] POSITA would have understood ‘the nucleotide sequence encoding [ORF1, ORF2 or ORF3]’ to mean ‘a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with SEQ ID NOS. 3, 5, or 7 or encoding a sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with SEQ ID NOS. 4, 6 or 8.’” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶¶ 93–96). In support of that position, Patent Owner refers to the following Specification description: [a] preferred PCV3 ORF2 protein is that of SEQ ID NO. 6, but it is understood by those of skill in the art that this sequence, as well as those for ORF1 and ORF3 could vary by as much as 10% in sequence homology and still retain the antigenic characteristics that render it useful in immunogenic compositions. Patent Owner asserts, according to that Specification description, “the sequences described and identified by SEQ ID Nos. in the patent for PCV3 ORF1, ORF2 and ORF3 are representative sequences, and ‘ORF1,’ ‘ORF2’ and ‘ORF3’ in the patent also refers to those sequences with at least 90% sequence homology.” Id. (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 95; Ex. 2006, 107:9–17). Further, Patent Owner asserts this interpretation is consistent with the language of the other claims. In particular, Patent Owner refers to the limitation in claim 1 reciting that the composition comprises a PCV3 recombinant protein selected from “ORF1, ORF2 and ORF3, wherein said protein is encoded by a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with a sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO. 3, SEQ ID NO. 5, SEQ ID NO. 7.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 71:14–21). Having considered the positions of the parties, and the evidence of record, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification provides clarity and meaning for the use of the terms ORF1, ORF2, and ORF3, which are not set forth or defined in claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, or in claim 5. Petitioner, in its alternative argument regarding the construction of the phrase involving those terms in claim 5, agrees to some extent. See Pet. 26. For purposes of this Decision, and for the reasons discussed by Patent Owner, we construe the claim phrase “nucleotide sequence encoding ORF1, . . . ORF2, and . . . ORF3” recited in claim 5 as meaning “a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with SEQ ID NOS. 3, 5, or 7 or encoding a sequence having at least 90% sequence homology with SEQ ID NOS. 4, 6 or 8.”” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “We do not find that description to be adequate. Essentially, the Specification description that the sequences for PCV3 ORF 1, 2, and 3, could vary by as much as 10% sequence homology just rephrases what is claimed in terms of those sequences having at least 90% sequence homology, adding only that antigenic characteristics are retained that render it useful for immunogenic compositions. A claim, however, “does not become more descriptive by its repetition,” see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350 (quoting Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568), and “a definition of a useful result rather than a definition of what achieves that result” does not sufficiently Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). As noted by Petitioner and Dr. Nordgren, the ’351 patent discloses nucleotide and amino acid sequences corresponding only to the naturally-occurring PCV3 ORFs 1–3. PO Resp. 52; Ex. 1026 ¶ 168. While those sequences may be characterized as “reference” sequences, as they reflect sequences with 100% homology with PCV3 ORFs 1–3, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that they are “representative” sequences for the broad range of sequences claimed. We find that the Specification does not reasonably convey that the inventor made or was otherwise in possession of any of the remaining members of the genus with at least 90% sequence or amino acid homology with ORFs 1–3. PO Resp. 53; Ex. 1026 ¶ 168. We find that Dr. Nordgren credibly characterizes the Specification, as follows: [T]he ’351 Patent outlines a preliminary research plan to eventually make and use the broad range of claimed proteins. That is, the inventor provides a number of DNA and primer sequences that could be used to clone homologous DNA sequences into an expression vector, and theorizes that proteins expressed from sequences having 90% sequence homology will be antigenic. Critically, however, the ’351 Patent does not disclose which of the thousands of different claimed homologous sequences, if any, the inventor possessed, much less had discovered to be antigenic. Instead, the inventor merely proposes, without any factual support, that PCV3-derived amino acid sequences “could vary by as much as 10% in sequence homology and still retain the[ir] antigenic characteristics.” Ex. 1001 at 8:49-56. A POSITA would not credit that unsupported speculation, and therefore would not believe that the inventors possessed such a wide range of proteins.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,450,351 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,450,351
• 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
• Satco Products, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2021 · IPR2020-00410 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Lee; the contingent motion to amend is granted as to substitute claims 17–22, which Petitioner did not prove unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–25). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contention regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. All of the parties’ declarants have applied the above definition of a POSITA, which we applied in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24, 25 (Dr. Pattison); Ex. 1025 ¶ 22 (Dr. Krames); Ex. 2001 ¶ 22 (Dr. Han); Ex. 2009 ¶ 17 (Dr. Hansen). In our analysis below, we apply Petitioner’s uncontested definition of a POSITA, which is supported by Dr. Pattison’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24, 25) and is consistent with the scope and content of the ’967 Patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 22, 23. Regarding Patent Owner’s impracticality argument, we credit Dr. Pattison’s deposition testimony concerning a “selective step etch” or “mesa etch.” Ex. 2024, 122:20–124:14, 125:12–127:19. In response to questions from Patent Owner’s counsel, Dr. Pattison persuasively testified that the frames 714 and 716 in Lee Figure 25 could be created by wet chemical etching or reactive ion etching using a photoresist to mask the area denoted by 714B that should not be etched. Id.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Resp. 75–76), and Petitioner does not oppose it. See Pet. Reply 1–7 (addressing claim construction, but not for “lead frame”); see also Pet. 17 (“Petitioner does not believe any specific constructions are required at this time . . . .”). Because neither party challenges our preliminary construction, we apply the same construction as set forth in the Institution Decision and support that construction with essentially the same analysis, which follows.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Pet. 9, 11, 15, 17; PO Resp. 78; Pet. Reply 5–6. We find that Petitioner’s proposed construction differs substantially from the definitions provided by the applicant and the Examiner. Instead of specifying that material has been cut away from an object, Petitioner characterizes the sidewalls as simply “indented” from an upper portion of a lead frame. Pet. 15, 17; Pet. Reply 4. For this reason, we do not apply Petitioner’s construction for “undercut sidewalls.” To define “undercut sidewalls” in its structural sense, we rely on the definitions of “undercut” from the prosecution history. According to these definitions, “undercut” means that material has been cut away from the underside of an object. Ex. 1002, 60, 62, 78. We also rely on applicant’s prosecution history remarks, which rely on Figures 1 and 2 of the ’967 Patent as support for the claim recitation of “undercut sidewalls.” Id. at 60 (“Applicants submit that FIGS. 1 and 2 below show sidewalls that cut away material from the underside of an object so as to leave an overhanging portion in relief.”); id. at 136 (“FIGS. 1 and 2 clearly disclose 3 undercut sidewalls where the face of each sidewall has a clear undercut/step/ledge.”); see Pet. Reply 5–6 (relying on these prosecution history remarks).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,134,967 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,134,967

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.