• Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00113 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–15 because Petitioner showed it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable over Hinga or Hinga2013.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “We find Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the “effective amount” limitation of each of the challenged claims is not adequately supported by the Mankin Application. Although the Mankin Application does generally describe herbicidal compositions that “comprise an herbicidal effective amount” of at least one ACCase herbicide (Ex. 2034 ¶ 233), that generic disclosure is not sufficient written description support for the specific effective amounts recited in the claims. Indeed, we agree with Petitioner that the Mankin Application does not disclose any effective amounts of any of the recited herbicides within the claimed ranges, let alone one that causes less than 10% injury. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90, 91. 94; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 128, 237 (Table 1), 248, Fig. 17. description is satisfied because the Mankin Application’s disclosure of an herbicide tolerance study for a DIM herbicide would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to the specific effective amounts of the FOP herbicides recited in the claims. Prelim. Resp. 72–73. Nor are we persuaded that there is adequate written description support because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to ascertain the effective amounts for each herbicide based on the knowledge in the art. Id. at 73. That is not the test for written description. “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Rather, “[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features.” Id.” slip op. at 15

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable

    “We note that Petitioner does not appear to consider the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in evaluating the amount of guidance needed to enable the claimed invention. As our reviewing court states, “[a] patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.” Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Although the ’345 patent does not provide a specific working example of the G2096S mutation, we are not persuaded on this record that that necessarily weighs heavily in favor of undue experimentation given the prior knowledge in the art that that mutation confers herbicide tolerance to rice plants and the deposit of the G2096S mutation seed, as taught by Hinga and Hinga2013. Ex. 1003 ¶ 21; Ex. 1004 ¶ 54.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Analysis Anticipation requires that “each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.’” Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, to anticipate, a prior art reference must “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 31

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,345
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2022 · PGR2021-00108 · APJ Aaron W Moore · PGR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable, including because the asserted combination did not link rule generation to the packet correlation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Obviousness Analysis A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, primarily: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.6 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–2, 7–8, 10, 12–13, and 17–18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 18–64. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2-3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’797 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. C.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner argues that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “determining . . . a first plurality of log entries” and “determining . . . a second plurality of log entries” is “identifying” or “ascertaining” log entries.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he terms “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the first plurality of packets received by the network device,” and “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the second plurality of packets transmitted by the network device” (“provisioning rules”) . . . should be given their plain and ordinary meaning—rules configured to identify packets.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Neither party, however, argues that the prior art arguments presented in the Petition turn on the construction of these terms. Instead, it appears that they are raised as claim construction issues only because Petitioner is challenging the language under Section 112. We will discuss the Section 112 arguments below, but do not see a dispute about the constructions offered by the parties above the makes a difference in the prior art analysis and, therefore, do not construe these terms at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10

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

    “respect to this limitation for several reasons, including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning” is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not “based on the determined correlation.” Prelim. Resp. 38. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the determined correlation, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the first host.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,931,797
• Samsung Electroncis Co. Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2020-01183 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 17–18, and 21–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 17–18 are obvious over Jammy, and claims 21–24 are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and Jammy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “mental steps that an ordinarily skilled artisan theoretically might have taken after reviewing the minimal disclosure in the ’423 patent. The ’423 patent does not discuss any properties of metal oxides (other than the lower barrier of the metal oxide TiO2) or design considerations concerning the selection of particular oxides to use in the claimed structure, particularly in the context of MIGS separation. Dr. Kuhn cites very little, if any, evidence to support her testimony regarding the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Thus, we do not credit this analysis as showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found that the inventors of the pre-2011 priority applications possessed the recited genus. See Ariad, 593 F.3d at 1352 (a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the written description requirement); PowerOasis Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.”) (quoting In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002),” slip op. at 22

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

    “As discussed above, Petitioner has demonstrated Grupp ’483 is prior art to challenged claims 1–3, 17–18, and 21–24 of the ’261 patent. It is undisputed that the priority applications disclose at least some group IV semiconductors. Thus, claims reciting the metal oxide interface layer and Group IV semiconductor are anticipated under In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that a generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus; in other words, whatever would infringe if subsequent will anticipate if prior.”) and In re Gosteli, 872 F. 2d 1008, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The additional limitations of the challenged dependent claims are also disclosed in Grupp ’483. See Pet. 25–26. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 17–18, and 21–24 are anticipated by Grupp ’483.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “On this record Patent Owner has not provided sufficient evidence of a nexus between the long felt and the specific limitations recited in claims 1–3 and 17–18, e.g., the structure recited in independent claim 1, in which a metal oxide interface layer interposed between a metal and a group IV semiconductor comprising the source or drain of a transistor has a thickness between 0.1 nm and 5 nm.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 9,209,261 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,209,261
• 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
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al. v. Sisvel International S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01102 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 15–20, 30, and 31 are unpatentable as obvious over Qualcomm and TS25.322; claims 6–14 and 21–29 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 32–35, 45–49, 59, and 60 were denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have a degree in electrical engineering or similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience in telecommunication, including familiarity with cellular communications technologies,” that this person “would also have familiarity with WCDMA,” and that “[t]his definition is approximate,” as “more education may substitute for industry experience or vice versa.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 30–34). We adopted Petitioner’s proposal at institution. See Decision 7–8. In its Response, Patent Owner “proposes that a person having ordinary skill at the time of invention—August 23, 2005—in the relevant art would be one with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer sciences, or telecommunications, along with three to five or more years of practical experience in the field” and that “[a] combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). Patent Owner asserts that “[a]lthough [its] proposed level of skill in the art is similar to Petitioners’ proposal, Patent Owner includes the qualification that a combination of more experience in the field and less education, or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” Id. The parties do not argue that the formulation of the level of skill in the art affects any issue in this case, and we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s formulation, which we find to be generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’443 patent and the prior art, and which includes that “more education may substitute for industry experience or vice versa.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “length indicator” to mean “a single length indicator that provides two pieces of information: (1) that a first data octet of the protocol data unit is a first octet of a first service data unit; and (2) that at least one other octet of the protocol data unit is the last octet of another service data unit.” See Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We agreed with Patent Owner that the specification’s description of a single length indicator that conveys both types of information and the arguments made during prosecution that the claims required a “single LI” or “the same length indicator” to include both types of information were sufficient to support a construction that required a single length indicator to include both pieces of information. See Decision 9. Although it did not propose a construction in the Petition, Petitioner now argues that “the claim language uses the indefinite article ‘a’ to modify ‘length indicator’” and that “[p]recedent is well settled that ‘an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” Pet. Reply 5 (citing KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). While we agree with Petitioner that “a” may mean “one or more,” that simply means that the addition of more length indicators would not be excluded from the scope of the claim. Petitioner does not explain, and we do not see, how that affects the meaning of “length indicator” itself and, for the reasons argued by Patent Owner and adopted at institution, we maintain the earlier construction of “length indicator” as “a single length indicator that provides two pieces of information: (1) that a first data octet of the protocol data unit is a first octet of a first service data unit; and (2) that at least one other octet of the protocol data unit is the last octet of another service data unit.” See Decision 8; Prelim. Resp. 9–12; PO Resp. 10–13. slip op. at 11

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

    “We also observe that, although Patent Owner characterizes this issue as one based on “teaching away” (see, e.g., PO Resp. 3; PO Sur-Reply 15– 16), the argument is not about teaching away because Patent Owner is not pointing us to any specific teaching in the prior art, or elsewhere, that would counsel against the proposed modification. Patent Owner is not arguing that something in the prior art disparages or discourages the use of one bit of an LI as a flag. Instead, Patent Owner is arguing that one of skill in the art would not pursue the Qualcomm approach because to do so would mean accepting other drawbacks that would flow from the use of the flag. In any event, we credit Patent Owner’s evidence that dedicating a bit of the LI for use as a flag would reduce the length that could be represented by the remaining bits of the LI and cause SDUs to be divided into more PDUs. See, e.g., Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 30, 32. However, the record also shows that use of the flag would provide a specific advantage, as described in Qualcomm. See Ex. 1006, 3; Ex. 1007 ¶ 253. This is the motivation advanced by Petitioner which, notably, Patent Owner does not dispute. We conclude that, even if Patent Owner is correct that the proposal in Qualcomm would reduce the permitted PDU size from 128 octets to 64, the change would merely be something a skilled artisan would need to weigh against the advantages that the Qualcomm technique would provide. Patent Owner may be correct that the reduced lengths would, in the end, render the modified system unsuitable for certain applications or for adoption in a standard. That would not, however, make the modification nonobvious, particularly where the exact change proposed in the combination was suggested by individuals working in the field, as evidenced by Qualcomm itself.7 The record shows that at least some of those working in the field, at the time of the invention, believed that the advantages of Qualcomm’s approach would outweigh the reduced lengths.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenMixed

    “In TS25.322, the value “0000000” is a predefined, special value used to indicate that “[t]he previous RLC PDU was exactly filled with the last segment of an RLC SDU and there is no ‘Length Indicator’ that indicates the end of the RLC SDU in the previous RLC PDU.” See Ex. 1005, 36–37. However, although Qualcomm specifically contemplates implementing its flag scheme by “[r]e-arrang[ing] special LI values as they are now coded on less number of bits” (Ex. 1006, 4), the Petition did not argue a combination that includes modification of the special LIs for the independent claims. Instead, Petitioner relied on Qualcomm’s proposal to modify ordinary LIs that indicate the end of SDUs. See, e.g., Pet. 71–72 (describing and illustrating modification of the LI that identified the end of SDU 1: “[t]he green modified LI indicates that a first data octet of PDU is a first octet of SDU1 and another octet of the PDU is the last octet of SDU1”); Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 261–262. Petitioner’s argument with respect to these claims is thus not consistent with the argument it advanced for the independent claims from which these claims depend. Petitioner cannot reasonably rely on one type of prior art LI as the “length indicator” of claim 1, but then shift to a different type of prior art LI when addressing the very same “length indicator” recited in a dependent claim. Moreover, Petitioner fails to explain how or why the special LI “0000000” that is used to indicate the layout of the previous PDU could reasonably be used to also indicate the layout of the current PDU in which the LI appears. For example, if the previous PDU did not meet the condition identified by the “0000000” special value, then the LI would not appear in the next PDU even if that next PDU had a first SDU that ended in that PDU. For these reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation or argument to establish obviousness of claims 6 and 21.9” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,894,443 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,894,443
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01205 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–12, and 14–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; the priority applications do not support or enable the claims’ full scope.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateEntitled to earlier dateMixed

    “To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide, where the interface layer is configured to provide a specific contact resistivity between a contact metal and a semiconductor of than 1 Ω- μm2. Ex. 1001, 18:37–43. It is undisputed that the only species the pre- 2011 priority applications disclose is TiO2, as set forth in the following passage: Two other properties of the dielectric deserve mention. First is the property of the height of the barrier compared to the semiconductor conduction band (for electrons). In making the barrier thinner than a silicide barrier, the tradeoff may be a higher tunnel barrier (e.g., 2 eV for nitride, compared with about half the gap of 0.6 eV for silicide). Spacer layers may be used with lower barriers (e.g., TiO2 has a barrier of less than 1 eV). Nevertheless, even with the higher barrier to electrons, the present inventors have determined that the resistance can still be one hundred times lower than a contact to silicon with a silicide barrier. Id. at 17:59–18:2 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “evidence shows, that the disclosure does not enable specific contact resistance down to zero. Ex. 1016, Schubert Decl. ¶¶ 87–90. Instead, Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have understood there to be an “inherent lower limit” and that the claims are enabled because one of skill in the art could achieve that lower limit through experimentation based on the disclosure of patent. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument, for two main reasons. First, we do not agree that the cases cited by Patent Owner establish that the enablement requirement is satisfied if one of skill in the art could experiment in accordance with the disclosure to find a practical end of an open ended range recited in a claim. Patent Owner principally relies on Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, but the Federal Circuit in that case affirmed the jury verdict of enablement because “the upper limit of the Young’s modulus of the structural member would lie somewhere between the Young’s modulus of the wood fiber and that of the polymer used in the composition.” 474 F.3d at 1377. In other words, there were two known quantities that provided a fixed range. That is not the case here, where Patent Owner does not point to any such predefined limits. Patent Owner also cites a district court case, PerkinElmer Health Scis., Inc. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 962 F. Supp. 2d 304, 310 (D. Mass. 2013). That case is not directly on point, because it was considering claim construction and not enablement, but that court also found an existing practical upper limit to the” slip op. at 36

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

    “Neither party asks for a construction of the subject claim language, and we determine that the plain meaning of “a specific contact resistivity . . . of less than 1Ω μm2” would encompass all specific contact resistances below 1 Ω-μm2 and down to zero.” slip op. at 35

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableReference is prior artUnpatentable

    “reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 [] differs from the enablement standard under section 112.” Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Enablement under section 112, which is required for priority under section 120, requires enablement of the full breadth of a claim. Wyeth and Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 720 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2013); MagSil, 687 F.3d at 1384; 35 U.S.C. § 120. Enablement for anticipation does not; rather it requires only enablement of an embodiment or embodiments that fall within the scope of the claim. Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“a CIP's claim for a genus might not be enabled by a parent's disclosure, but that parent may enable a species that anticipates the CIP's claim for a genus . . . . the Court of Custom and Patent Appeals [] made clear the differences between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures”) (citing In re Lukach, 442, F.2d 967, 969–970 (CCPA 1971)). Here, the enablement challenge for priority is for a lack of enablement of the full breadth of the recited range, and in particular, a lack of enablement of the lower part of the recited range (that which is at or near zero). No party has argued that the upper part of the recited range (just below 1 Ω-μm2) is not enabled by either the priority applications or Grupp ’483. See, e.g., Pet. 20; PO Resp. 1–2; Pet. Reply 27–28; PO Sur-reply 17– 18. And enablement by a prior art patent is presumed. In re Antor Media Pharm., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, the record does not reflect an inconsistency in holding the priority applications as not enabling the breadth of the recited range while treating Grupp ’483 as enabling the upper part of the range for anticipation. As set forth below, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates every challenged claim.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 9,461,167 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,461,167
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01204 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 13–16, and 77–80 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; the challenged claims are not entitled to the earlier priority date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that “[a]ny of the following combinations of education and experience would have qualified someone as an ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of the ’336 Patent”: (a) “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science”; (b) “chemical engineering, with two years of practical experience with semiconductor research and design”; (c) “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or chemical engineering, with four years of practical experience with semiconductor research and design”; or (d) “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or chemical engineering, with six to eight years of practical experience with semiconductor research and design.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 70–71). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education could compensate for less practical experience, and vice versa” and that “[t]he same level of ordinary skill would have been applicable in August 2002, February 2011, or November 2012.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. Because Petitioner’s proposal is consistent the disclosures of the ’336 patent and the cited art, we apply it in this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeOther

    “We dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot because, unlike other cases in this family, this case does not include any claims that recite an “oxide of titanium.”” slip op. at 53

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

    “III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Neither party seeks any claim constructions, and we see no terms that need to be expressly construed to resolve the issues before us, so we do not engage in any formal claim construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the pre-2011 priority applications do not describe the recited genus. To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide, where the interface layer is configured to provide a specific contact resistivity between a contact metal and a semiconductor of less than or equal to approximately” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,766,336 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,766,336
• Commonwealth Scientific And Industrial Research Organisation v. BASF Plant Science Company GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2021 · PGR2020-00057 · APJ Robert A Pollock · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, lack of enablement, and anticipation or obviousness over Bauer, Napier, and Petrie I; the Petrie II obviousness ground was not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Although the precise definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art is not dispositive of Petitioner’s grounds, we find it useful in framing the field of the invention. While we agree with Petitioner’s emphasis on plant recombinant DNA techniques, Patent Owner’s focus on plant genetics and plant lipids is well taken. As noted in the Patent Owner Response, the challenged claims are “directed to plant seed oils produced by a transgenic 10 Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s assertions regarding the similarities between the subject matter of the ’870 patent and the patents at issue in the Virginia litigation but asserts that its arguments in the Virginia litigation differed from those presented here, that those arguments were not accepted by the judge, and that “CSIRO ended up giving BASF a covenant not to sue on every single patent that had the language ‘at least a number with no upper limit.’” See Ex. 2005, 5–16; Ex. 2003, 14–16; Tr. 75:25– 76:11. plant,” whereas the portions of the Specification most relevant to those claims describe “genetically modified plants capable of producing certain oils, lipids, and fatty acids, and the genetic techniques related thereto.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 54); see also section I.D, above. Considering the above, as well as the ’870 patent and cited art, we view a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art as having a working knowledge of plant recombinant DNA techniques, a Ph.D. in plant molecular biology, lipid biochemistry, or lipid metabolism, and three years of work experience (excluding Ph.D. thesis studies) in lipid biochemistry or lipid metabolism as applied to plants. B.” slip op. at 17

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

    “In light of the above, the many variables affecting DHA production render the functional upper bound of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” a moving target. We thus return to the intrinsic evidence and the plain language of the independent claims. Applying the ordinary and customary meaning in accord with Phillips, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” as covering amounts of DHA from 1% to 99% (since the claims also require a minimum amount of 1% EPA). See Pet. 30; Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. For similar reasons, and because Patent Owner does not expressly argue the meaning of the remaining terms, we further adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a ratio of DHA to [DPA] of at least 2,” as covering a ratio from 2 up to infinity; and “a conversion rate of DPA to DHA of at least 75%,” as covering a conversion rate of 75% to 100%. See Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 57; Dec. 13–14. We further adopt Petitioner’s uncontested explanation that the “ratio of DHA to DPA of 2.9” recited in claims 6 and 15 indicates “an implicit upper limit of 73.6% DHA.” See Pet. 56 n.15.” slip op. at 29

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

    “We consider, first, the evidence of record under our construction of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” as covering amounts of DHA from 1% to 99% (since the claims also require a minimum amount of 1% EPA). Patent Owner argues that such levels are “impossible” and does not contest Petitioner’s assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description under this construction. PO Resp. 27, 28. Indeed, Dr. Sederoff admitted that the ’870 patent neither describes nor enables one 15 The arguments and evidence adduced in this proceeding do not address whether the conversion of 18:2 and 18:3 to DHA could be accomplished using a subset of the enzyme activities shown in Figure 1 by omitting some of the enzymes that permit formation of alternative intermediates. To the extent this is possible, it would not alter the thrust of our reasoning throughout this Decision. of ordinary skill in the art to make a transgenic Brassica plant (as recited in claims 5 and 13) that produces more than 50% DHA. Ex. 1016, 64:23–66:2, 67:24–68:4. But although reaching the upper limit of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” may be impossible under any of the constructions considered herein, the Federal Circuit “repeatedly and consistently has recognized that courts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.” Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb- Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). For the above reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that claims 1–17 do not comply with the written description requirement as set forth in Ground 1 under our construction of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA),” with respect to any plant including Arabidopsis. Considering claims 5 and 13, in particular, the ’870 patent does not describe a transgenic Brassica plant that produces more than 50% DHA.” slip op. at 35

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

    “In view of the above, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that even in high copy number lines, unpredictable effects such as gene silencing could prevent the accumulation of high levels of enzymes such as those listed in Table 4 of the ’870 patent. Moreover, even if high enzyme levels were achieved, the extent to which those enzymes would catalyze the desired reactions would have been unknown. Accordingly, from a quantitative standpoint, the evidence adduced points to a high level of unpredictability in the art. Focusing on the last step of the pathway illustrated in Figure 1 of the ’870 patent, Patent Owner also asserts that the ordinarily skilled artisan “knew how to introduce multiple additional copies of the key enzyme responsible for the rapid and efficient conversion of DPA to DHA, the Δ4 desaturase from Emiliana huxleyi, to achieve ratios of DHA to DPA approaching infinity, and conversion rates approaching 100%.” Sur-reply 21 (citing Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 136, 142 (stating that “no technical limitation prevents reaching a ratio nearing infinity,” i.e., 100% conversion of DPA to DHA)). Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 100, 113, 136, 142. Although we accept that the ordinarily skilled artisan could understand how and why to carry out those steps, the evidence discussed above persuades us that achieving the stated conversion efficiency for this step alone would have entailed undue experimentation. Considering that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requires, not just one, but every step of the pathway illustrated in Figure 1 proceed with (or at least near) 100% efficiency, the evidence of record persuades us that it would have required undue experimentation to achieve the claimed invention under any construction of “at least 1%” DHA advanced in this proceeding. In light of the above, and considering all the evidence, we find that a” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 10,351,870 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,351,870
• Falkbuilt Ltd. v. Dirtt Environmental Solutions Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 24, 2021 · PGR2021-00067 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–5, 8–12, and 15–17 were more likely than not unpatentable as indefinite or obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner’s Certificate of Correction Brief, and Petitioner’s Certificate of Correction Response Brief, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “indefinite. “[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014); see also id. at 910 (The definiteness requirement “require[s] that a patent’s claims, when viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of invention with reasonable certainty.”). Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that, when viewed in light of the specification and the prosecution history, claims 2 and 3 fail to inform a skilled artisan about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Petitioner fails to address the amendment of claim 2 leading up to the issuance of the patent.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner fails to sufficiently explain how the references are combined to teach this limitation or the reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have made such a combination. For example, Petitioner fails to explain how one would have “[a]ppli[ed] the teachings of Shingu to Scranton.” Id. Such a combination is not readily apparent from the references themselves because Shingu relates to moving a camera so that it can take a repeat photograph and does not describe determining the architectural space surrounding the user. Petitioner also does not provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the cited teachings of Shingu and Scranton to arrive at the claimed features. See id. at 41–42. Nor does Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Welch, provide testimony explaining how the teachings would have been combined or a reason to make the combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–81. Indeed, as Patent Owner notes, Dr. Welch does not even reference Scranton in his analysis of this claim limitation. See id.; Prelim. Resp. 19–20. Petitioner therefore fails to sufficiently show that the combination of Shingu and Scranton teaches “the particular physical location and the virtual predetermined position comprising the same relative view position within the architectural design file and an architectural space surrounding the user.”” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “and Scranton teaches the “receive a communication” limitation. Petitioner relies on Dr. Welch’s testimony to fill in gaps for what is not expressly disclosed in Shingu. As explained above, Shingu discloses an augmented reality system “that helps users take pictures from the same position and camera angle as a previous photo.” Ex. 1003, 272. Shingu discloses “us[ing] an existing method to estimate camera position as implemented in ARToolKit.” Id. at 271 (emphasis added). Shingu—which describes aiming a camera on an object at a certain angle—does not disclose having a user located within a particular physical space. Petitioner therefore relies on Dr. Welch to assert that it was known ARToolKit could provide the claimed functionality—indicating a relative direction that the virtual reality module (the camera in Shingu) is facing, and a location of a user with respect to the one or more position tracking sensors, wherein the user is located within the particular physical space. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69, 72). Dr. Welch’s testimony, in turn, is based on Wagner (Exhibit 1018), which appears to have been downloaded in February 2021. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69 (citing Ex. 1018), 72; Ex. 1018 (footer). Although Dr. Welch gives a date of 2002 for Wagner (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 69), that date does not appear in Exhibit 1018. See Ex. 1018. Petitioner fails to explain in its Petition what evidence supports its assertion that Wagner shows that ARToolKit had been applied to the creation of a floor of a building “more than a decade before the time of the alleged invention” or that the techniques described in Welch were “well known by the time of the alleged invention.” See Pet. 34–35. Nor does the cited testimony from Dr. Welch identify evidence or otherwise provide support for the 2002 date or that the functionality described in Wagner was “well known.” See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69, 72. Thus, Petitioner’s assertions and Dr. Welch’s testimony regarding what was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art about the functionality of ARToolKit goes well beyond the express disclosures of Shingu—using “an existing method to estimate camera position” (Ex. 1003, 271)—and, on the current record, are not sufficiently supported by contemporaneous evidence. Petitioner therefore does not sufficiently show that the combination of Shingu and Scranton teaches “receiv[ing] a communication from the one or more position tracking sensors, wherein the communication comprises an indication of a relative direction that the virtual reality module is facing, and a location of the user with respect to the one or more position tracking sensors, wherein the user is located within the particular physical space.”” slip op. at 22

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,783,284
• Lassen Therapeutics 1, Inc. v. Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd., And National University Of SignaporeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · PGR2019-00053 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–10 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented fails to demonstrate it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the challenged claims of the ’603 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review of claims 1–10 of the ’603 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the preliminary response only, it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. Based on the current record and for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, we find that the prior art of record reflects this level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “Interleukin 11 receptor α (IL- 11Rα) antibody” should not be construed to include antibodies that bind to IL-11Rα of non-human species but not to the human version of this protein because such a construction does not comport with the language of claim 1, which is clearly directed to treating a human subject. See Pause Tech. v. TiVo, 419 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (rejecting interpretation of claim element that ignored “other language appearing later in the claim” in stating that ‘“[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.’”) (citing Hockerson– Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.1999)). Construing this term to include antibodies that bind solely to non-human IL- 11Rα would be inconsistent with a claim directed to treatment of a human. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we construe “Interleukin 11 receptor α (IL-11Rα) antibody” to mean “any natural or synthetic, monoclonal or polyclonal antibody made using any animal system including phage, or fragment or derivative thereof, that binds to human IL-11Rα.”” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner appears to have overlooked the ’603 patent Specification’s disclosure of anti-IL-11Rα antibodies. Specifically, the ’603 patent lists “monoclonal antibody clone 025 (Sino Biological), clone EPR5446 (Abcam), clone 473143 (R & D Systems), clones 8E2 and 8E4 described in US 2014/0219919 A1 [Edwards] and the monoclonal antibodies described in Blanc et al (J. Immunol Methods. 2000 Jul. 31; 241(1–2); 43–59).” Ex. 1001, 18:41–46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 176.6 Edwards, which Petitioner relies on for its obviousness and anticipation grounds, is directed to antibodies “that bind to IL-11Rα and neutralize IL-11 signaling.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 13. Table 1 of Edwards lists clones 8E2 and 8E4 and sixty-three other antibodies (including variants of 8E2) as “exemplary IL-11Rα-binding proteins.” Id. ¶ 362. Table 1 of Edwards also includes the sequence ID numbers for the heavy and light chains of the variable regions of each of these sixty-five clones and the amino acid sequences for each are disclosed in the sequence listing. Id. ¶ 362, p. 46– 104.7” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,106,603

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.