- Ascend Elements, Inc. v. Duesenfeld GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · PGR2025-00037 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–14 because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–14 of the ’463 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–14 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, material science, chemical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 to 3 years of academic or industry experience in the recycling or processing of lithiumion batteries. Additional formal education focusing on processing of lithium batteries may substitute for practical experience and additional practical experience can substitute for less education.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner does not contest this definition of a person of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as, on the present record, it appears consistent with the ’463 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“distinct from “comminute[ion],” Petitioner offers only the testimony of its expert, Mr. Juzkow, who equates Tomioka’s “cutting” with “comminute[ion].” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 121. However, Mr. Juzkow provides insufficient reasoning to support his conclusion, particularly given the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence discussed above. In contrast, Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Dantam, provides extensive reasoning, supported by citations to other evidence, to support his conclusion that Tomioka’s “dismantling” is not the claimed “comminution.” Thus, we give more weight to Mr. Dantam’s testimony than Mr. Juzkow’s testimony. Weighing this evidence all together, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka’s teaches the claimed comminution under Petitioner’s first theory.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundTeaching away not foundNot shown unpatentable
“obvious. Pet. 34–35. However, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has also failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka renders this limitation obvious. See Prelim. Resp. 28–31. To begin with, Petitioner’s contentions lack sufficient reasoning explaining why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Tomioka in the manner proposed. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Petitioner merely asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art could use the roller system in place of the dismantling disclosed for the embodiments in Figures 19 and 20. On this record, we find this bare contention insufficient. actual disclosure of Tomioka. The rollers in Tomioka are used to separate the “battery body” from the “resin package enclosing the battery body,” and Tomioka specifically discloses that this technique is designed to “avoid damaging the battery body.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 26, 29; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 72–73. Thus, there is a significant difference between what Tomioka teaches and what Petitioner proposes to use the roller system to do. In addition, as Patent Owner points out, Tomioka specifically discloses there are risks associated with mechanically crushing battery packs, such as “risk of sparking due to residual voltage if the battery units are damaged in the process.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. Although we do not agree with Patent Owner that this amounts to a “teaching away,” see In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994), we do believe that this teaching suggests a trade off that should be weighed in determining whether to make the modification, see Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, Petitioner has failed to account adequately, if at all, for this trade off. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka accounts for the claimed “comminuting.”” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 12,119,463 - PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · PGR2025-00046 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, 5, and 7–33 based on likely lack of written description and enablement; it found the obviousness challenge insufficient at institution.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition and the cited evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7–33 of the ’692 patent, and therefore, we grant post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’692 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id. At this stage of the proceeding and on the record before us now, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“On the current record, the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the claims of the ’692 patent fail to satisfy the written description requirement because they “recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it and . . . cover any compound later actually invented and determined to fall within the claim’s functional boundaries— leaving it to the pharmaceutical industry to complete an unfinished invention.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353. Accordingly, on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’692 patent does not comply with the written description requirement. Similarly, the current record does not appear to provide evidence of possession of the full scope of the claims of the ’692 patent in the ’731 application or any of the subsequent divisional or continuation applications leading to the ’692 patent that claim priority to the ’731 application (which appear to all have similar specifications) for the reasons given above. Therefore, the ’692 patent might not receive the benefit of priority to the earlier filed applications, and based on this preliminary determination, is eligible for post-grant review because the effective filing date is no earlier than the ’692 patent’s filing date of December 19, 2022. See Ex. 1001, code (22).” slip op. at 25
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Instituted
“D. Conclusion As we balance the Wands factors, we find that the totality of the evidence shown in the current record as discussed above supports Petitioner’s position. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that undue experimentation would have been required to enable the broad scope of the claims, and we determine that it is more likely than not that the claims fail to comply with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 37
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,091,692 - PTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · PGR2025-00033 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, and 6–29 based on the written-description and enablement grounds; it found the obviousness ground did not meet the institution threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Applying that standard in view of the current record, we determine that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1, 2 and 6–29 of the ’652 patent are unpatentable and therefore institute post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’652 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not have expertise specifically in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id. Moreover, Patent Owner fails to persuasively explain why Petitioner’s definition that includes a person with expertise in other enzymes is insufficient. Even if we were to apply Patent Owner’s POSA definition, it is not clear on the record before us that Petitioner’s experts lack relevant expertise or qualifications of at least a POSA.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:41–54 (emphasis added). Based on this express definition, the current record does not support the interpretation proffered by Patent Owner and Dr. Triggs-Raine that the “term ‘modified PH20 polypeptide,’. . . has a purely structural meaning in the context of the specification.” Prelim Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2055 ¶ 68). Patent Owner and its declarant rely on a truncated version of the definition above that omits the text after the first period because, in their view, that text “is not part of the express definition of ‘modified PH20 polypeptide’” and “merely describes an upper limit for the number of modifications possibly allowing a modified PH20 polypeptide to exhibit enzymatic activity.” Ex. 2055 ¶¶ 67, 77–78 (emphasis in original). On this record, we disagree. We find that this text is part of the definition of “modified PH20 polypeptide” because it continues to detail specific elements required of that term, i.e., a requirement that modifications in the PH20 polypeptide are permitted “so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Ex. 1001, 48:47–49 (emphasis added); see Ex. 2055 ¶ 67 (acknowledging that a “patent’s definition controls,” but referring, without adequate explanation, to the second sentence of the definition paragraph as “a non-limiting example”). Indeed, while some of the language in the definitional paragraph is permissive in nature, i.e.., describing the number of amino acid replacements a modified PH20 polypeptide “can have” or “[t]ypically . . . contains” or the other modifications the polypeptide “can include,” the phrase “so long as” is not. See Ex. 1001, 48:41–56. This distinction demonstrates that hyaluronidase activity is not an optional feature of a non-limiting example as Patent Owner posits, but a requirement of the “modified PH20 polypeptide” defined and claimed in the ’652 patent. See Alynylam Pharms., Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., 138 F.4th 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (explaining that the “contrast” between “non-limiting terms” and more definitive statements may indicate that the latter is definitional).” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“On the current record, the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the claims of the ’652 patent fail to satisfy the written description requirement because they “recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it and . . . cover any compound later actually invented and determined to fall within the claim’s functional boundaries— leaving it to the pharmaceutical industry to complete an unfinished invention.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that there is insufficient written description for the challenged claims. Similarly, the current record does not appear to provide evidence of possession of the full scope of the claims of the ’652 patent in the ’731 application or any of the subsequent divisional or continuation applications leading to the ’652 patent that claim priority to the ’731 application (which appear to all have similar specifications) for the reasons given above.11 Therefore, the challenged claims of the ’652 patent do not receive the benefit of priority from the earlier filed applications, and based on this preliminary determination, the ’652 patent is eligible for post-grant review because the 11 We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner only evaluates description and enablement as of 2011, rather than as of the 2012 filing date of the ’731 application. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1, 11–12, 32. Instead, we agree with Petitioner that it “did not restrict the § 112(a) analysis to December 2011;” rather Petitioner stated that “the claims are not entitled to the ‘December 28, 2012’ benefit date of the ’731 Application, while ‘the obviousness grounds use’ the December 2011 priority date being claimed.” Prelim. Reply 5–6 (citing Pet. 5–6, 15–16). effective filing date is no earlier than the ’652 patent’s actual filing date of December 12, 2022. See Ex. 1001, code (22).” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,049,652 - PTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · PGR2025-00017 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, 6–15, and 17–30 based on written-description and enablement challenges; it found the obviousness challenge insufficient at this stage.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the cited evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6–15, and 17–30 of the ’520 patent, and therefore, we grant post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’520 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id. Moreover, Patent Owner fails to persuasively explain why Petitioner’s definition that includes a person with expertise in other enzymes is insufficient. Even if we were to apply Patent Owner’s POSA definition, it is not clear on the record before us that Petitioner’s experts lack relevant expertise or qualifications of at least a POSA.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–53 (emphasis added). Based on this express definition, the current record does not support the interpretation of Dr. Triggs-Raine that the “term ‘modified PH20 polypeptide,’ therefore, has a purely structural meaning in the context of the specification.” Ex. 2055 ¶ 68. Indeed, when reproducing the definition from this column of the ’520 patent, Dr. Triggs-Raine does not include any text after the first period, stating that “is not part of the express definition of ‘modified PH20 polypeptide’” and “merely describes an upper limit for the number of modifications possibly allowing a modified PH20 polypeptide to exhibit enzymatic activity.” Ex. 2055 ¶¶ 67, 77–78. On this record, however, we find that this text is part of the definition of “modified PH20 polypeptide” because it continues to detail specific elements required including a requirement that replacements in the PH20 polypeptide are permitted “so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Ex. 1001, 48:44–47; see Ex. 2055 ¶ 67 (stating a “patent’s definition controls”). And Dr. Triggs-Raine states “the modified PH20 polypeptides have multiple credible uses, including ‘therapeutic uses of modified PH20 polypeptides that have the ability to degrade hyaluronan.’” Ex. 2055 ¶ 115.7 That is, Dr. Triggs-Raine recognizes hyaluronidase as the primary utility for the modified PH20 polypeptides recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted
“Thus, the ’520 patent evidences that even when only a single mutation is made in the PH20 polypeptide, that single mutation is more likely than not to alter the structure in such a way as to inactivate the hyaluronidase activity found in the native PH20 polypeptide. On this record, Dr. Hecht persuasively demonstrates that when the full scope of claim 1 is addressed, which includes not just single mutations in the PH20 polypeptide, but also multiple mutations, there is no expectation of structural homogeneity, stating that “[i]ntroducing multiple amino acid changes simultaneously . . . could prevent the folding of sequences into secondary structures and structural motifs and can destabilize those structures if they do form.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Dr. Hecht notes that claim 1 allows “21-42 changes, with each additional change (except at position 324) being to 1 of 19 other amino acids. But the up to 21-42 changes also can be at any of between 430 and 465 (or, in the case of the broadest claims, 474) different positions depending on which unmodified PH20 sequence is used.” Id. ¶ 120. Dr. Park calculates that “95% sequence identity to PH201-465 means that the protein can have 23 total changes,” and that where one of those changes is one of five choices at position 324 as required by claim 1, the number of possible PH20 polypeptides with twenty-two additional changes is “extremely large by all accounts, ranging from 1059 to 10112.” See” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,110,520 - PTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · PGR2025-00009 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, 6–14, and 16–29, finding the written-description and enablement challenges met the institution threshold; the obviousness challenge did not.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the cited evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6–14, and 16–29 of the ’035 patent, and therefore, we grant post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’035 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 15–16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–53 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“On the current record, the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the claims of the ’035 patent fail to satisfy the written description requirement because they “recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it and . . . cover any compound later actually invented and determined to fall within the claim’s functional boundaries— leaving it to the pharmaceutical industry to complete an unfinished invention.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353. Accordingly, on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’035 patent does not comply with the written description requirement. Similarly, the current record does not appear to provide evidence of possession of the full scope of the claims of the ’035 patent in the ’731 application or any of the subsequent divisional or continuation applications leading to the ’035 patent that claim priority to the ’731 application (which appear to all have similar specifications) for the reasons given above.10 Therefore, the ’035 patent might not receive the benefit of priority to the earlier filed applications, and based on this preliminary determination, is eligible for post-grant review” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,123,035 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · PGR2025-00004 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–4, 7–19, and 22; it found written-description and enablement challenges likely to succeed, but the obviousness ground insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the level of skill reflected in prior art relevant to the ’298 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases. See id. Moreover, Patent Owner fails to persuasively explain why Petitioner’s definition that includes a person with expertise in other enzymes is insufficient. Even if we were to apply Patent Owner’s POSA definition, it is not clear on the record before us that Petitioner’s experts lack relevant expertise or qualifications of at least a POSA. Patent Owner will have the chance to cross-examine Dr. Hecht and Dr. Park in this proceeding to develop a full record for us to determine the weight that each expert’s testimony should be given. Patent Owner will have further opportunity on a full record to assert that we should discount either experts’ testimony due to lack of appropriate qualifications. At this stage of the proceeding and on the record before us now, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“posttranslational modifications and those that do not contain chemical or posttranslational modifications.” Id. at 44:59–62. The ’298 patent provides an express definition of the term “modified PH20 polypeptide” which refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 47:15–30 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Under the second step of the Advanced Bionics framework, we must determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated Examiner error in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, at 10. Becton, Dickinson Factors (c), (e), and (f) inform our analysis at this step. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the cited evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1–4, 7–19, and 22 of the ’298 patent, and therefore, we grant post-grant review for the reasons articulated below.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,018,298 - PTAB · Jun 2, 2025 · PGR2025-00003 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–4 and 8–21 because the Board found a more-likely-than-not showing of written description and enablement failures; the obviousness ground did not meet that threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing because Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a POSA is too restrictive. Petitioner’s proposal is sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the prior art relevant to the ’600 patent. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in analysis of protein structure, Petitioner is asserting that knowledge of proteins generally is sufficient to understand the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems, and the ordinary artisan need not be an expert in hyaluronidases. See Pet. 16. Petitioner requires that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts (e.g., biochemistry, recombinant biology, sequence analysis and protein modeling) to enzymes such as hyaluronidases.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“refers to a PH20 polypeptide that contains at least one amino acid modification, such as at least one amino acid replacement as described herein, in its sequence of amino acids compared to a reference unmodified PH20 polypeptide. A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity. Typically, a modified PH20 polypeptide contains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 amino acid replacements. It is understood that a modified PH20 polypeptide also can include any one or more other modifications, in addition to at least one amino acid replacement as described herein. Id. at 48:38–53 (emphasis added). Based on this express definition, the current record does not support the interpretation of Dr. Triggs-Raine that the “term ‘modified PH20 polypeptide,’ therefore, has a purely structural meaning in the context of the specification.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 68.4 Indeed, when reproducing the definition from this column of the ’600 patent, Dr. Triggs-Raine does not include any text after the first period, but the ’600 patent text continues to detail specific elements required including a requirement that replacements in the PH20 polypeptide are permitted “so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Ex. 1001, 48:44‒46. On this” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“on the ’429 patent, and there is no evidence of record that the Examiner meaningfully considered the relevant disclosures of the ’429 patent. We find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s reliance on the Examiner’s issuance of an office action with a written description rejection over a different issue that also included some double patenting rejections. As to Becton, Dickinson Factor (e), “whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the [E]xaminer erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art,” Petitioner provides persuasive evidence of Examiner error. See Pet. 36–39 (citing Ex. 1009, 21–27). We agree with Petitioner that the Examiner overlooked the written description requirement with regard to claim 1. As discussed below, we find that, on the current record, the evidence sufficiently shows that it is more likely than not that the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. See Section X. We, thus, find that the Examiner erred by either overlooking, or failing to appreciate, the factual underpinning necessary to support a written description for the breadth of an enormous genus claim such as claim 1 of the ’600 patent.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“XIII. CONCLUSION Petitioner has, at this stage, established that it will more likely than not prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. This determination is, however, based on a preliminary record and is not final on any issues of patentability. We will make a final determination on the patentability of the challenged claims, as necessary and applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, based on a fully developed record through trial. XIV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) post grant review of claims 1–4 and 8–21 of the ’600 patent is hereby instituted on the grounds set forth in the Petition, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and” slip op. at 60
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,952,600 - Beone Medicines USA, Inc. / Beigene, Ltd. v. Pharmacyclics LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 1, 2025 · PGR2024-00009 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 12, and 20 are unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the enablement, anticipation, or obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting and that the terms “optionally substituted fused heterocyclic ring system” and “irreversible” BTKIs should be construed consistent with the definitions provided in the Specification. Pet. 42–45; see also id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 19:57–20:7 (defining “optionally substituted” or “substituted”), 14:51–52 (defining “fused”), 15:66–16:21 (defining “heterocycle”), 14:36–44 (defining “ring” and “ring system”), 26:23–25 (defining “irreversible Btk inhibitor”); PO Resp. 26.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable
“To satisfy written description for the claimed genus of iBTKIs, the Specification must describe either a representative number of members of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus with enough precision that a POSA can visualize or recognize the members of the genus. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Patent Owner concedes that the Specification does not describe a representative number of members of the genus, stating “this is a common structural features case.” Tr. 65:25–66:3. We, therefore, focus our analysis on whether the Specification adequately describes common structural features of the genus. We find that it does not.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 11,672,803 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,672,803 - Billerud Aktiebolag (Publ) v. Westrock MWV, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 12, 2025 · IPR2023-01206 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 4–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 25–26 are allowed, while 24 and 27 are denied for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are also not admissible as expert testimony because Mr. Wirén is not “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 703. “To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Mr. Wirén does not meet our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Section II.B, supra. That definition is based on the undisputed testimony of Messrs. Zotterman and Klass. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. Although Mr. Wirén has a Master’s of Science in chemical engineering, he lacks any experience or specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 2011, 12:1–10, 19:6–25, 20:2–7. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are the testimony of Mr. Wirén and should be excluded from evidence because Mr. Wirén is not a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. PO MTE 5–6, 9; Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Unless a patent lawyer is also a qualified technical” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based on the testimony of the parties’ witnesses, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related degree, with three to five years of experience in paperboard manufacturing, or a master’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, or mechanical engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’142 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“A claim construction that excludes a particular element is viewed as a “negative limitation.” Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847 Fed. App’x 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). “[S]uch exclusions must find support either in ‘the words of the claim’ or through an ‘express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.’” Id. (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an intent to define the term.’” Id. (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Similarly, disclaimer or disavowal requires that the specification or prosecution history demonstrate that the invention does not include a particular feature. Id. Here, we find no claim language, lexicography, or disclaimer in the ’142 Patent or its file history that would support defining a “hot-hard calender” as requiring that only one of the two rollers be heated to an elevated temperature.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“a contact surface of said thermo-roller is heated to an elevated temperature of at least 250°F.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the temperature limitation is taught by the combination of Fugitt and Papermaking. Pet. 32–34. Fugitt discloses that “[t]he rolls of the calender may be steam heated.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 26. In a section titled “Heated Rolls,” Papermaking discloses that “Steam can be used up to 170°C [338°F] surface temperature.” Ex. 1010, 95, 98. Petitioner is thus correct that, “[w]hile Fugitt teaches that a hot calender may be steam heated, Papermaking clarifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that steam heated thermo-rollers may reach up to 338°F.” Pet. 36. Based on these disclosures, we are persuaded by Mr. Zotterman’s testimony that it would have been “obvious to heat the thermo-roller of Fugitt to at least 250°F.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 159. combine Fugitt and Papermaking because of Papermaking’s status as a “trusted handbook[],” because both references disclose a method of manufacturing a paperboard structure with hot calendering,” and “because of the known advantages of heated rollers.” Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157, 159, 162. Petitioner’s contention is supported by Papermaking’s disclosures that, for cartonboard, “[p]recalendering is used before the coater to reduce roughness and porosity” and “[h]igh thermo roll temperatures (in some cases over 200°C) result in bulk savings because of the temperature gradient.” Ex. 1005, 80–82; see also Pet. 38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 164 (citing these disclosures). Papermaking’s disclosed range of “up to 170°C [338°F]” for steam- heated rolls (Ex. 1010, 98), overlaps the claimed range of “at least 250°F.” Patent Owner agrees. Tr. 27:11–13. “If the relevant comparison between a disputed claim limitation and the prior art pertains to a range of overlapping values, ‘. . . even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 946 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “[S]uch an overlap creates a presumption of obviousness, and . . . the burden of production falls upon the patentee to come forward with pertinent evidence that the overlapping range would not have been obvious in light of the prior art.” Id. (citing E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,293,142 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,293,142 - Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · PGR2024-00049 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for PGR; the challenged claims were supported by the 2006 priority application.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006. 2. Conclusion: PGR Eligibility For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’202 patent has, or had, at least one claim having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, we determine that the ’202 patent is entitled to the filing date of the ’634 application (October 18, 2006), and, thus, the ’202 patent is not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, the ’202 patent consistently and repeatedly characterizes the invention as incorporating tobacco in some form and ties the stated benefits of the invention to the inclusion of tobacco. Moreover, the Specification is directed to smoking articles containing tobacco, all of the embodiments include tobacco, and “the present invention” is described as a smoking article, where the smoking article includes tobacco. Consequently, we determine that “smoking article” as it is used in the challenged claims is limited to devices that include tobacco. See Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding claimed “lip” is limited to “extrudable plastic materials” where specification states that “the device of the present invention is constructed of extrudable plastic materials” and “emphasizes the benefits of using extrudable plastics and describes them as benefits of the invention as a whole”); Poly-Am., L.P. v. described in the specification has inwardly extended short seals and every section of the specification indicates the importance of inwardly extended short seals. These two facts provide together a proper reason to limit the claims in this way.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.”).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s argument is dependent on accepting Petitioner’s assertion that the claims include a smoking article that does not contain tobacco, which we have not done. Instead, as set forth above, we construe “smoking article” as being limited to devices that include tobacco. See § II.B.2, supra. Based on our construction of “smoking article” and the evidence of record in this proceeding, we determine that the challenged claims are supported by the specification of the ’202 patent, which is identical to the specification of all of the continuations in the chain leading back to the October 18, 2006 that the specification of the ’202 patent and every patent in its priority chain “have identical specifications”); Prelim. Resp. 13 (noting that Petitioner does not identify other limitations in the challenged claims “allegedly lacking support in the ’202 patent family’s applications dating back to U.S. App. No. 11/550,634, filed on October 18, 2006”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,925,202
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.