• Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · PGR2021-00114 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: they lack written description support and are anticipated by Hinga; the Board also found the challenged dependent claims obvious over the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “As explained in our Institution Decision (Dec. Inst. 5–6), we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner states a POSITA must have one to two years of postdoctoral research experience and Patent Owner’s definition requires at least five years of “research experience,” Patent Owner’s definition does not indicate a specific time for that research (i.e., it could include research during or after a doctoral program). Neither party addresses or contests the other party’s definition in their post-institution papers. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Moreover, we find that Dr. Shaner and Dr. Somers are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 5–11, App’x A; see also Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F. 4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“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.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “amount.” Pet. Reply 14. Patent Owner, however, argues that we erred in our construction because the Specification explicitly defines “effective amount” to mean “the amount of herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional [i.e., wild, non-mutant] rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” PO Resp. 10 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:34–37). Because the inventors served as their own lexicographers, Patent Owner asserts the Specification’s express definition controls. Id. at 10–11 (citing Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“When a patentee explicitly defines a claim term in the patent specification, the patentee’s definition controls.”)). Nevertheless, Patent Owner acknowledges that the “less than 10% injury” language “is indeed a limitation of the ’346 Patent claims.” Id. at 11. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the inventors acted as their own lexicographer to define “effective amount” and that that definition governs its meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1316 (“[O]ur cases recognize that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”). We, therefore, construe the term “effective amount” to mean “the amount of an herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” As explained further below, however, whether incorporated into the construction of “effective amount” or not, the claim language itself further requires that the “effective amount” encompass a specific range of amounts of herbicide (i.e., 14 g AI/Ha to 40 g AI/Ha of quizalofop) and cause “less than 10% injury” to the mutant rice. See Ex. 1001, claim 1.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Mankin would derive the herbicide range suggested by Patent Owner and Dr. Somers from the “rules of thumb,” that range is much broader than the claimed range. Claim 1 recites that the effective amount is 14 g AI/Ha–40 g AI/Ha of quizalofop, but, according to Dr. Somers’s calculations from the Assure II herbicide label, a POSITA would understand the effective amount to be 19.25–154 (or 19.25–184.8) g AI/Ha. Ex. 2036 ¶ 54; PO Resp. 38. Patent Owner does not identify anything in the specification that would allow a POSITA to “immediately discern” the specific range limitations of the claims. See General Hospital, 888 F.3d at 1372. As the Federal Circuit has stated, “one cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention.” Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326. Thus, we are not persuaded that the disclosure of a broad range of effective amounts via the Assure II herbicide label coupled with Dr. Somers’s undisclosed “rules of thumb” provide written description support for the narrower range limitations of the claims. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is impermissibly working backward from the claimed ranges to determine whether Dr. Somers’s “rules of thumb” can be used to re-create the claimed range from the herbicide label. Pet. Reply 15. That is not the test for written description. Written description “requires a statement of an invention, not an invitation to go on a hunting expedition to patch together after the fact a synthetic definition of an invention.” Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., 18 F. 4th 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Dr. Somers’s “rules of thumb” applied to the extrinsic herbicide label would be understood by a POSITA as a description in Mankin of the range limitation of the claims. Rather, as Dr. Somers concedes, his “rules of thumb” in conjunction with the herbicide label represent a starting point for a POSITA to test plants to determine what the effective amount range should be. See Ex. 2036 ¶ 53 (referring to a “dose response analysis” between 0.5x and 4x). But “a ‘mere wish or plan’ for obtaining the claimed invention is not sufficient.” See Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” slip op. at 30

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

    “We are not persuaded. Given the state of the art in 2017, and the known availability of the G2096S seeds at that time, we find the ’346 patent specification enables the claims. The ’346 patent specification clearly describes the G2096S mutant ACCase rice and its use in the claimed method for treating rice. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:37–45, 57:51–61. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the ’346 patent specification has not omitted the G2096S herbicide tolerant rice. Rather, the ’346 patent specification expressly identifies the G2096S mutant rice that possesses the phenotype of tolerance to the effective amounts of herbicides, and describes the method for treating that mutant rice with those effective amounts. See, e.g., id. at 8:8–12; 57:51–61. Thus, we are not persuaded that we erred in relying on Hinga’s seed deposits to determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to prove that the ’346 patent specification fails to enable the challenged claims. Cf. Wands, 858 F.2d at 736 (stating “[n]o deposit is necessary if the biological organisms can be obtained from readily available sources.”).” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 11,096,346 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,346
• Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · PGR2021-00113 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: they lack written-description support, and claims 1–3, 7, and 11–15 are anticipated by Hinga or Hinga2013.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “As explained in our Institution Decision (Dec. Inst. 6–7), we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner states a POSITA must have one to two years of postdoctoral research experience and Patent Owner’s definition requires at least five years of “research experience,” Patent Owner’s definition does not indicate a specific time for that research (i.e., it could include research during or after a doctoral program). Neither party addresses or contests the other party’s definition in their post-institution papers. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Moreover, we find that Dr. Shaner and Dr. Somers are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–15; Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 5–11, App’x A; see also Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F. 4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“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.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the inventors acted as their own lexicographer to define “effective amount” and that that definition governs its meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1316 (“[O]ur cases recognize that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”). We, therefore, construe the term “effective amount” to mean “the amount of an herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” As explained further below, however, whether incorporated into the construction of “effective amount” or not, the claim language itself further requires that the “effective amount” encompass a specific range of amounts of herbicide and cause “less than 10%” injury to the mutant rice. See Ex. 1001, claim 1. We determine it is unnecessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, 642 F.3d at 1361.” slip op. at 11

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

    “labels is akin to relying on literature that clearly provides, on its face, the missing disclosure, as in Falkner. Id. On the contrary, Patent Owner’s argument makes clear that the herbicide labels, by themselves, are insufficient to describe the claimed range limitation. Specifically, because the label ranges do not align with the claimed ranges, Dr. Somers had to make additional assumptions and inferences to support Patent Owner’s written description argument. For example, to calculate the potential effective amount range of herbicides, Dr. Somers applied several different “rules of thumb,” none of which are disclosed in the Mankin specification. See Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 34, 54. According to Dr. Somers, to determine the effective amount for a plant with an unknown response to an herbicide, a POSITA “would naturally test the lowest label (1X) rate of the herbicide, along with a few rates below (starting at about half-X) and above the 1X rate (up to 4X) of the herbicide, to determine the effective dose for this ‘uncharacterized’ plant.” Id. ¶ 34. Dr. Somers refers to this as a “dose response analysis.” Id. ¶ 53. In other words, to determine what the actual effective amount of herbicides should be, Dr. Somers explains that a POSITA would have to test the plants at these “rule of thumb” amounts to determine the effective range. Id. ¶ 34. Given the additional assumptions and inferences that must be made to the herbicide labels to arrive at the range limitations, we are not persuaded that relying on the extrinsic herbicide labels for written description support is proper in this case. That said, even if we were to allow Patent Owner to rely on the herbicide labels and the “rules of thumb” for determining the effective herbicide dose, Patent Owner admits that the ranges calculated from the herbicide labels are broader than the range limitations of the claims. See PO Resp. 39. As Petitioner notes, however, the Mankin Application does not provide any guidance as to whether the effective amount range of herbicide would include a 0.5x dose, a 2x dose, or the 4x dose, such that a POSITA could immediately discern the claimed range from the herbicide label.17 Pet. Reply 16.” slip op. at 30

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Somers, however, relies on the label for Fusilade II, which is a different fluazifop-P-butyl herbicide with a different range of 52.98–103.96 g AI/Ha, which—not surprisingly—aligns more closely with the claimed range of at least 56–150 g AI/Ha. Ex. 2036 ¶ 52. We note that Fusilade II does not appear to be one of the listed herbicides in Table 1, whereas Fusilade DX is. Ex. 2034 ¶ 219 (listing “Fusilade, Fusilade 2000, Fusilade DX, ICI-A 00009, ICI-A 00005, SL-236, IH-773B, TF-1169, and Fusion” as examples of synonyms and trade names for fluazifop-P-butyl). Regardless, that the dose range differs for the same herbicide calls into question the credibility of Dr. Somers’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to discern the claimed range limitation by simply looking at the EPA-approved herbicide labels (and applying his “rules of thumb”).18, 19” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 11,096,345 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,345
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Uniqure Biopharma B.V.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00926 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 4–6, 11–13, 17, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Stafford and Manno; claims 2, 5, 6, 11–13, 17, and 18 are also anticipated or obvious over Monahan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, although we agreed with Patent Owner that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have experience in the treatment of coagulopathy, we applied a broader definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated by Drs. Wang and Pedersen. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 48; Ex. 1094 ¶ 19. We determined a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the skill of a research team working to develop factor IX variants and gene therapies, where that team would include “(1) one or more researchers with experience in the fields of molecular biology and virology and the use of gene therapy for treatment of coagulopathies, working together with (2) one or more individuals with experience in protein structure or engineering;” and where the individuals working on the team have an advanced degree and several years of experience in a relevant discipline. See id. Patent Owner states its positions on patentability of the challenged claims “would not change under that construction or Petitioner’s proposed definition ....” PO Resp. 13. Accordingly, we apply the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art set forth supra and in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the ’248 patent provides an express definition of “treat” and “treatment.” The Specification states, “[i]n the present text the term ‘treat’ or ‘treatment’ of a pathology means the prophylaxis and/or therapy and/or cure of this pathology.” Ex. 1001, 5:19– 21. This definition includes “cure” as a separate concept from therapy, and further provides that therapy includes “partial or total” alleviation of symptoms. Id. at 5:21–24. The ’248 patent does not define or otherwise describe “treating a coagulopathy” as requiring any specific duration of therapeutic efficacy; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that partial alleviation of symptoms and a shorter duration of therapeutic efficacy is encompassed in “treating a coagulopathy” as recited in claim 1. Claim 16, which depends from claim 1, supports a construction of “treating a coagulopathy” that does not require complete alleviation of symptoms or permanent therapeutic efficacy. Claim 16 recites the “modified FIX polypeptide is expressed at a level that reduces and/or prevents hemorrhages.” Ex. 1001, 46:34–36. Because claim 16 depends from claim 1, this means that “treating a coagulopathy” as recited in claim 1 encompasses merely reducing hemorrhages, i.e., partial alleviation of symptoms. Accordingly, based on the intrinsic evidence, including the express definition of the terms “treat” and “treatment,” we construe “treating a coagulopathy” as prophylaxis and/or therapy and/or cure of the coagulopathy which includes partial alleviation of symptoms, for any duration of therapeutic efficacy. We determine that we need not explicitly construe any other claim terms.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “the earlier application must disclose the claimed invention “in the manner provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode).” 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e), 120. Section 112(a) requires that the specification contain a written description of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is met when the specification “conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of” and “actually invented” the claimed subject matter. Id. The purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that a patent’s claims “do[] not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Federal Circuit has stated: The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,982,248 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,982,248
• Thorne Research, Inc. v. Trustees Of Dartmouth CollegeAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00268 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by Stamler and, alternatively, obvious over Stamler.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “2. Anticipation2 “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the 2 As noted above, the pre-AIA provisions of 35 U.S.C. apply to the ’086 patent. the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Under § 120, a patent is entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application if (1) the written description of the earlier filed application discloses the invention claimed in the later filed application sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 112; (2) the applications have at least one common inventor; (3) the later application is filed before the issuance or abandonment of the earlier filed application; and (4) the later application contains a reference to the earlier filed application. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 35 U.S.C. § 120 . As discussed above and in our Decision to Institute, the ’086 patent meets this criterion. While we agree with Petitioner that the face of the ’086 patent does not include a citation of the ‘701 application, the specification does contain a clear claim of priority back to the ’701 application. Ex. 1001, col. 1. ll. 7–13; Ex. 1004 1.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the art offered by Patent Owner in the ’1795 IPR, which, as noted above, also involved the ’086 patent, should apply to this proceeding, namely “someone with a Ph.D. in biochemistry or similar field in the pharmaceutical sciences, with familiarity and experience with pharmacokinetics.” Pet. 33. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition and, indeed, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Amiji, used the same definition in his analysis. Ex. 2014 ¶ 21. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and supports Petitioner’s definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 14

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

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties, and find that our initial construction is proper for the reasons set forth in the ’1795 proceeding. Ex. 1018 12–14. We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction that calls for an isolation step separate from the process used to manufacture synthetic NR.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,383,086 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,383,086
• Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00114 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–17 on all petition grounds, finding the claims more likely than not unpatentable over Hinga and related art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner states a person of ordinary skill in the art must have one to two years of postdoctoral research experience and Patent Owner’s definition requires at least five years of research experience, Patent Owner’s definition does not indicate a specific time for that research (i.e., it could include research during a doctoral program). On this record, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Moreover, we find on this record that Dr. Shaner and Dr. Burgos are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–15; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 5–17.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Patent Owner states that it “agrees that the claim terms of the ’346 Patent should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Prelim Resp. 20. We interpret Patent Owner’s statement to mean that it agrees with Petitioner’s proposed constructions of “endogenous non-transfected mutant” and “effective amount.” Because Petitioner’s construction of “endogenous non-transfected mutant” is consistent with the ’346 patent’s express construction of the term, that construction in this proceeding.” slip op. at 7

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

    “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 amount recited in the claims. Indeed, we agree with Petitioner that the Mankin Application does not disclose any effective amounts of quizalofop within the claimed range, let alone one that causes less than 10% injury. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90, 91. 94; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 128, 237 (Table 1), 248, Fig. 17.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,346
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Askeladden LLC v. Leigh M. RothschildAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2020 · IPR2019-00855 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board canceled original claims 1, 2, 11, 14–19, and 21 and denied the motion to amend because the proposed substitute claims were obvious over Karthik, Robinson, and Ortiz.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The claim language itself implies that the financial services provider decides which biometric information is required during the enrollment stage because the Decision Limitation is added to element 17A, which is the first step in the enrollment stage recited in elements 17A–D. However, “in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908 (2014). Patent Owner identifies support for the Decision Limitation in the Specification that favors interpreting the Decision Limitation as occurring during the transaction stage (i.e., during elements 17E–G). Mot. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:9–14). The cited portion of the Specification states: “In another embodiment, the financial service provider may have the system set up such that the server 114 queries through the point-of-sale terminal 102 and informs the merchant which biometric identification data is/are required for the desired transaction.” Ex. 1001, 9:9–14 (emphasis added). The plain language of the claim is consistent with our interpretation because it specifies that the biometric data is the data “required for the transaction,” which refers to the “transaction” recited in element 17G (describing the operation of the claimed system during a transaction stage). Based on our review of the Specification and claim language, we conclude that the Decision Limitation is sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Based on that review, we also interpret the Decision Limitation to require that the financial services provider informs, through the server, which type(s) of user biometric identification data must be received at the terminal (e.g., a point-of-sale terminal) to validate the transaction. E. WHETHER THE MOTION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.121” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteDecided for patent owner

    “The claim language itself implies that the financial services provider decides which biometric information is required during the enrollment stage because the Decision Limitation is added to element 17A, which is the first step in the enrollment stage recited in elements 17A–D. However, “in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908 (2014). Patent Owner identifies support for the Decision Limitation in the Specification that favors interpreting the Decision Limitation as occurring during the transaction stage (i.e., during elements 17E–G). Mot. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:9–14). The cited portion of the Specification states: “In another embodiment, the financial service provider may have the system set up such that the server 114 queries through the point-of-sale terminal 102 and informs the merchant which biometric identification data is/are required for the desired transaction.” Ex. 1001, 9:9–14 (emphasis added). The plain language of the claim is consistent with our interpretation because it specifies that the biometric data is the data “required for the transaction,” which refers to the “transaction” recited in element 17G (describing the operation of the claimed system during a transaction stage). Based on our review of the Specification and claim language, we conclude that the Decision Limitation is sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Based on that review, we also interpret the Decision Limitation to require that the financial services provider informs, through the server, which type(s) of user biometric identification data must be received at the terminal (e.g., a point-of-sale terminal) to validate the transaction. E. WHETHER THE MOTION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.121” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner argues that if Patent Owner were to argue that the Decision Limitation can be met by the financial services provider deciding which biometric information is required for a transaction during the enrollment or transaction stages, then the claims would be unpatentable for lack of written description support in the Specification. Opp. 8. Petitioner concedes that the portion of the Specification relied upon by Patent Owner for support describes making the decision about what biometric information is needed during the transaction stage. Id. at 9. As explained in Part II.D above, we have narrowly interpreted the Decision Limitation to encompass only such decisions. Accordingly, Petitioner does not persuade us that the Specification fails to provide the required written description for the 7 Normally, a Patent Owner must identify material in the originally filed application leading to issuance of the patent at issue that supports the proposed amendment. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7. Failing to cite the original disclosure is a basis for denying a motion to amend. Id. However, because Patent Owner appears pro se, we reviewed the original disclosure ourselves to verify that the portion of the Specification cited is identically found in that disclosure. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 42, with Ex. 1001, 9:9–14. Accordingly, in this case, we find that Patent Owner’s citation to the Specification functionally refers to material in the original disclosure. Decision Limitation as we have interpreted it. Additionally, we conclude that Patent Owner has established that the Specification meets the written description requirement for the Decision Limitation. F. PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 1, 2, 11, 14–19, AND 21:” slip op. at 17

  • ScopeDecided for patent owner

    “3. Whether the Amendments Enlarge the Scope of the Claims An amendment may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). We determine that Patent Owner’s addition of the Decision Limitation narrows the scope of every challenged claim and thus satisfies the prohibition against enlarging the scope of any claim.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,799,088 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,799,088
• 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.