- Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 22, 2018 · PGR2017-00008 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description because the claimed dosing regimen is not supported by the specification.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“with regard to claim 17. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. Rather, we find that the ’239 patent contains a sufficient written description of an oral dosage form containing “at least 10% zoledronic acid.” The specification describes a full panoply of zoledronic acid concentrations. Liquid compositions may contain “about 10% (w/v) to about 15% (w/v), about 15% (w/v) to about 20% (w/v), about 20% (w/v) to about 30% (w/v), about 30% (w/v) to about 40% (w/v), or about 40% (w/v) to about 50% (w/v) of zoledronic acid.” Ex. 1003, 10:25–28. Solid dosage forms may contain “at least about 10% (w/w), at least about 20% (w/w) . . .” up to “at least about 80% [w/w]” zoledronic acid. Id. at 10:30–32. Solid dosage forms also are described as containing zoledronic acid in ranges beginning from “about 10% (w/w) to about 30% (w/w), about 10% (w/w) to about 20% (w/w) . . .” all the way up to a range of “about 80% (w/w) to about 90% (w/w).” Id. at 10:32–39. The breadth of zoledronic acid concentration ranges disclosed is more comprehensive than, and therefore distinguishable from, the more limited concentration ranges disclosed in Wertheim (claimed range of “at least 35%” not supported by disclosure of 25% to 60% range disclosed in priority application). In short, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art – a medical doctor with experience treating CRPS – would have recognized that the “inventor invented what is claimed” and did not overreach in claiming “at least 10% zoledronic acid” in an orally administered dosage form for treating CRPS. See University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 928 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyOther
“Unocal or Wertheim where the specification clearly allowed persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the claimed invention despite the absence of literal support. In Unocal, the original disclosure explicitly described the effects of altering the variables, explicitly described the claimed endpoints as preferred, or explicitly recited them in an original claim. Moreover, persuasive expert testimony was offered to support the finding that the specification reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor possessed the later claimed invention. Unocal, 208 F.3d at 993, 998–99. In Wertheim, the CCPA held that the specification supported the claimed range of 35–60% where the specification described the range of 25–60% along with specific embodiments of 36% and 50%. 541 F.2d at 264–65. In this case, the ’239 patent specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the “about 80 mg” endpoint as part of invention described in the ’239 patent. There is no disclosure of “about 80 mg” as a preferred endpoint, no disclosure of a specific embodiment including a dose of 80 mg, nor any other description suggesting the importance or criticality of the “about 80 mg” endpoint.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateWritten description adequateMixed
“In this case, the ’239 patent specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the “about 80 mg” endpoint as part of invention described in the ’239 patent. There is no disclosure of “about 80 mg” as a preferred endpoint, no disclosure of a specific embodiment including a dose of 80 mg, nor any other description suggesting the importance or criticality of the “about 80 mg” endpoint.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,283,239 unpatentable§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,283,239 - Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., And Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01413 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 16–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Royce, McGinity, Hoffmeister, Joshi, and PDR.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“DISCUSSION A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’976 patent would have “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, polymer 1 Royce, U.S. Patent 5,273,758, issued Dec. 28, 1993 (Ex. 1022) (“Royce”). 2 McGinity et al, WO 97/49384, published Dec. 31, 1997 (Ex. 1024) (“McGinity”). 3 Hoffmeister et al., U.S. Patent 4,070,494, issued Jan. 24, 1978 (Ex. 1010) (“Hoffmeister”). 4 Joshi et al., Pub. No. US 2002/0187192 A1, published Dec. 12, 2002 (Ex. 1014) (“Joshi”). 5 OxyContin entry in Physicians’ Desk Reference, 2569–74 (53d ed., 1999) (Ex. 1016)(“PDR”). chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical technology, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacology, and/or a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 31– 34). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 27. We, therefore, apply that skill level in our analysis, with the understanding that the level of skill of art in this proceeding is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be more persuasive based on the ’376 patent specification. In particular, the specification defines “unsuitable for injection” “to mean that one would have substantial difficulty injecting the dosage form (e.g., due to pain upon administration or difficulty pushing the dosage form through a syringe) due to the viscosity imparted on the dosage form, thereby reducing the potential for abuse of the opioid analgesic from the dosage form.” Id. at 3:15–20. Additionally, in an example concerning the formation of a gel at different concentrations, the specification characterizes certain solutions as “THICK (10 cP to 60 cP): Although a syringe can be filled with this solution, it was hard to do.” Id. at 32:8–24, Table 3. Thus, the specification teaches that a viscosity of at least 10cp is difficult to pull into a syringe or administer parenterally (via injection). Patent Owner does not address these teachings of the specification. We, therefore, determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “unsuitable for parenteral administration” and “unsuitable to pull into an insulin syringe” encompasses a gelling agent that imparts a viscosity of at least 10 cp.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, also called collateral estoppel, a judgment on the merits in a first suit precludes relitigation in a second [proceeding] of issues actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Lawlor v. National Screen Serv. Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 326 (1955)). The Federal Circuit has articulated a four-factor test in determining whether collateral estoppel attaches: “(1) the identity of the issues in a prior proceeding; (2) the issues were actually litigated; (3) the determination of the issues was necessary to the resulting judgment; and (4) the party defending against preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.” Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Collateral estoppel can attach in proceedings before the Office for identical issues that were addressed with respect to a different patent during prior slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“Although the statements above encompass “mixtures” of HPMC and PEO among a myriad of other possibilities for the gelling agent, we find no basis to conclude that the inventors of the ’376 patent were in possession of the specifically claimed formulation from such a broad disclosure.10 The Federal Circuit has held that such “laundry list” disclosures are insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement when there is no further guidance (“blazemarks”) provided about which species or combination of species included as part of the list may be selected to arrive at the claimed 9 The April 25th draft application is heavily redacted and we thus cannot discern what other materials were specifically contemplated as “thickening” agents by that time. See Ex. 2091, 5. Given the nature and amount of the redactions and Patent Owner’s assertion that the draft application ultimately led to the filing of the ’534 provisional with the broad disclosure set forth above, we find it reasonable to conclude that additional materials were included in the draft application. Moreover, the draft application was forwarded as part of an email from Patent Owner’s attorney, which “[e]nclosed the latest draft of the tamper resistant application.” Ex. 2091. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the list of thickening agents included as part of the draft application originated from the inventors as opposed to patent counsel. 10 We recognize that the same broad disclosure with a “laundry list” of possible gelling agents is found in the specification of the ’376 patent. See Ex. 1001, 6:46–62. We, however, do not address the issue of written description support for any of the subsequently filed applications. invention. See Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Not having specifically named or mentioned the combination in any manner, “one is left to select[] from the myriads of possibilities encompassed by the broad disclosure, with no guide indicating or directing that this particular selection should be made rather than any of the many others which could also be made.” In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967); see also Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure in each application must ‘reasonably convey[ ]’ to those skilled in the art that as of the claimed priority date the inventor was in possession of the later claimed subject matter.”) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Other evidence of record further supports our conclusion that the inventors of the ’376 patent had not conceived of or reduced to practice the claimed formulation prior to Joshi’s August 30, 2001, filing date. In his declaration, inventor Benjamin Oshlack attests that Patent Owner’s laboratory scientists focused on “testing the syringeability of various concentration solutions of pectin, sodium alginate, and sodium acrylate, as well as combinations of pectin and sodium alginate” between January 4 and 17, 2001. Ex. 2081 ¶ 22. Additionally, Mr. Oshlack attests that the scientists had evaluated “xanthan gum, carrageenan, and locust bean gum (and combinations thereof) as gelling agents, between April 5 and 12, 2001.” Id. ¶ 23. None of the laboratory notebook excerpts proffered by Patent Owner mention a combination of HPMC and PEO as gelling agents to be used in an oxycodone formulation. Exs. 2087–2090. Consistent with the testing actually done, the working examples set forth in the ’534 provisional (as well as in the ’376 patent) focus on xantham gum, pectin, microcrystalline cellulose, and hydroxyethlcellulose as the gelling agents. See Ex. 1026, 44– 49 (Examples 1–5). We find, therefore, that the inventors did not particularly consider either PEO or HPMC, let alone both PEO and HPMC in combination, when evaluating possible gelling agents for an abuse-deterrent formulation of oxycodone. Accordingly, because we find that the ’376 patent is not entitled to a” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,034,376 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,034,376 - Coalition For Affordable Drugs (Adroca) LLC v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 9, 2017 · IPR2015-01853 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–52 of the ’703, claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10–41 of the ’826, claims 1–8 of the ’685, and claims 1–40 of the ’437 were not shown unpatentable under § 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts constructions for the following claim terms, “less than 15 milligrams,” “release profile,” “matrix,” “improving walking,” and “initiating treatment.” Pet. 18–19. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to provide an explanation as to why the identified claim terms require construction and why the Board should depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. Prelim. Resp. 17, n.4. In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Patent Owner and determined that it was unnecessary to construe explicitly the claim terms for purposes of the Institution Decision. See Dec. Instit. 6 (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We also determine here that we need not construe expressly any claim term in order to issue a Final Written Decision regarding the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Skill Petitioner’s declarants, Drs. Pleasure and Polli, testify that a person of ordinary skill in connection with the ’703 patent would have had an M.D. or Ph.D. in neuroscience or a related field with an understanding of pharmacokinetics and at least some experience in providing drug therapy to MS patients. Ex. 1023 ¶ 16, Ex. 1044 ¶ 13. Additionally, Drs. Pleasure and Polli testify that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had access to a person having an advanced degree in pharmaceutics or pharmaceutical formulation, specifically oral sustained release formulations, or at least five years of experience in formulating sustained oral release drug products and may work as part of a multi-disciplinary team. Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 13–14. Patent Owner does not dispute this recitation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2042 ¶ 68 n.5. We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art identified by Drs. Pleasure and Polli as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of record); In re GPAC Inc., 14 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“In order for claims of the ’703 patent to be entitled to benefit of the filing date of the Provisional, the Provisional must provide written description support for those claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 120. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and provide support for the challenged claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the Provisional must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 261, 262 (CCPA 1976); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563– 64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The primary consideration in determining whether appropriate written description support exists “is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure.” Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 27
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“We are persuaded by Dr. Hayes’ testimony as confirmed by testimony from Drs. Pleasure and Polli, and conclude that the Provisional supports the CavSS ranges in claims 14–15 and 35–36. Dr. Hayes offers credible 34 testimony concerning how one of skill in the art would interpret Table 7 of the Provisional, which depicts essentially the same data as Table 3 of Hayes. See Ex. 2041 ¶ 17. Dr. Hayes interpretation of the data in Table 7 is supported by testimony from Drs. Pleasure and Polli that about two thirds of the measured data fall within one standard deviation and approximately 95 percent of measured values are within two standard deviations from the mean. Id. at 20–22 (citing deposition testimony from Drs. Pleasure and Polli confirming such an understanding). We agree with Dr. Hayes that “[i]n light of the fact that a POSA would immediately recognize that Table 7 of the ’894 Provisional (Ex. 1007-00045) shows possession of measured data beyond even two standard deviations from its reported mean values, a more complete view of the information reported in Table 7 would consider data dispersed beyond two standard deviations from the mean” to encompass a CavSS range from 3.7–37.8 ng/ml. Ex. 2041 ¶ 23. We are not persuaded by Dr. Fairweather’s testimony that Table 7 supports a CavSS of only 15.1 ng/ml to 26.5 ng.ml. See Ex. 1066 ¶ 21. Dr. Fairweather was asked if he could identify where “range” is defined as plus or minus one standard deviation, and he replied that he could not identify where he found such a definition, Ex. 2176, 44:13–22, but Dr. Fairweather confirmed such a definition is not how he would define “range” in his usual practice, Id. at 92:20–93:21. See also id. at 108:5–11 (conceding there may not be any document that defines “range” as one 35 standard deviation from the mean). When asked whether he could justify the range that he provided for CavSS in his declaration, Dr. Fairweather stated that he could not. Id. at 104:25–105:2. He testified that he conceded the smallest range so as to avoid a discussion of what’s the proper definition for range. Id. at 104:16–20. Dr. Fairweather stated twice that he was not a person of skill in the art and would not be able to answer what assumptions such a person would make when reviewing Table 7 of the Provisional. Id. 136:16–23, 138:14–139:7. Finally, Dr. Fairweather also testified that he could not rule out whether the CavSS data for the 10 mg b.i.d. dose described in Table 7 of the Provisional had a range of at least 15 to 35 ng/ml. Id. at 90:9–92:19. In light of these statements, we do not credit Dr. Fairweather’s testimony.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,007,826 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,007,826 - Coalition For Affordable Drugs (Adroca) LLC v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 9, 2017 · IPR2015-01857 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 of the ’685 patent were not shown unpatentable because S-1 was not prior art, alone or with Hayes or Juarez.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“filing date of the Provisional, the Provisional must provide written description support for those claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 120. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and provide support for the challenged claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the Provisional must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 261, 262 (CCPA 1976); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563– 64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The primary consideration in determining whether appropriate written description support exists “is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure.” Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 27
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Because the Provisional provides written description support for the challenged claims, S-1 potentially qualifies as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), but not § 102(b), because the S-1 publication date of September 26, 2003 is less than one year before the filing date of the Provisional of April 9, 2004. As discussed in more detail below, however, Patent Owner has provided evidence that S-1 is not prior art to the claims of the ’703 patent under § 102(a) either because the pertinent portions of the S-1 are the original work of inventors Drs. Blight and Cohen. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a); Katz, 687 F.2d at 454 (stating “one’s own work is not prior art under sec. 102(a) even though it has been disclosed to the public in a manner or form which otherwise would fall under [sec.] 102(a)”).” slip op. at 37
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“We find that Petitioner’s evidence that allegedly casts doubt on the authorship of the relevant portions of S-1 is not sufficient to overcome the ample, unequivocal evidence presented by Patent Owner that supports our finding that the relevant portions of S-1 are the original work of Drs. Blight and Cohen alone. See In re Katz, 687 F.2d at 455. Both Drs. Cohen and Blight state that they alone are the inventors and sole originators of the work in S-1 upon which Petitioner relies. See Exs. 2044, 2045. Five other declarants, intimately involved in the development of S-1, two of which now work for entities other than Acorda, substantiate this testimony. See Exs. 2046–2048, 2052, 2056. Relying on statements that may, on their face, 42 indicate that others may have been involved without any evidence that others were, in fact, originators of the work in question or inventors is simply not enough to carry Petitioner’s burden to show that the S-1 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). For the reasons discussed above, we determine that S-1 does not qualify as prior art to the claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b). Thus, all of Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’703 patent, which depend on S-1 alone or in combination with Hayes or Juarez, fail. Petitioner, therefore, has not carried its burden to prove unpatentability of claims 1–52 of the ’703 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.9” slip op. at 42
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached
“For the reasons discussed above, we determine that S-1 does not qualify as prior art to the claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b). Thus, all of Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’703 patent, which depend on S-1 alone or in combination with Hayes or Juarez, fail. Petitioner, therefore, has not carried its burden to prove unpatentability of claims 1–52 of the ’703 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.9 D. IPR2015-01853; IPR2015-01857; and IPR2015-01858 Petitioner’s patentability challenges to the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,354,437 B2 (“the ’437 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,007,826 B2 (“the ’826 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,354,437 B2 (“the ’437 patent”), at issue in IPR2015-01853, IPR2015-01857, and IPR2015-01858, respectively, essentially raise the same issues presented in the patentability challenge to the claims of the ’703 patent in IPR2015-01850. Therefore, we chose to 9 Because we find that S-1 is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), we need not reach whether S-1 is a printed publication.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,663,685 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,663,685 - Bioactive Laboratories v. BTG International Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 2, 2016 · IPR2015-01305 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied BioActive Laboratories’ rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–22 because the ’352 patent was not shown to be prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After reviewing the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition, however, we were not persuaded that Petitioner had shown that the ’352 patent fails to provide proper written description support or enablement for the claims of the ’414 patent. Accordingly, we were not persuaded that the ’352 patent is prior art to the claims of the ’414 patent and declined to institute an inter partes review on grounds based on the ’352 patent. Dec. 10–11.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable
“anticipated by, and claims 8 and 19 are unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,489,352 (Ex. 1004, “the ’352 patent”). Petitioner acknowledged that the ’352 patent “is listed in the priority chain on the face of the ’414 patent” (Pet. 5), and that the specifications of the ’352 patent and the ’414 patent are identical (id. at 29), but argued that: [T]he ’352 patent is in fact prior art because not one application in the ’414 patent’s alleged priority chain complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, the ’414 patent’s priority applications do not describe or enable the full scope of the claimed invention. Therefore, the ’414 patent’s priority claim fails under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and the ’352 patent qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“[T]he ’352 patent is in fact prior art because not one application in the ’414 patent’s alleged priority chain complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, the ’414 patent’s priority applications do not describe or enable the full scope of the claimed invention. Therefore, the ’414 patent’s priority claim fails under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and the ’352 patent qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,048,414 - PTAB · May 20, 2014 · IPR2013-00124 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1-26 and allowed substitute claims 27-44, but denied substitute claim 45 as unpatentable over Behan.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“patent claims. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“partes review must set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundMixed
“In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness based on structural similarity, the prior art must provide a reason to make the claimed compound, and there must also be “„adequate support in the prior art‟ for the 7 P.E.A. Teal et al., (Z)-11-Hexadecen-1-ol: A Behavioral Modifying Chemical Present in the Pheromone Gland of Female Heliothis Zea (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae), 116 CAN. ENTOMOLOGY 777-79 (1984). Ex. 2003. 8 Yih-Shen Hwang et al., Structure-Activity Relationship of Unsaturated Fatty Acids as Mosquito Ovipositional Repellents, 10 J. OF CHEM. ECOLOGY 145-51 (1984). Ex. 2004. change in structure.” Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 731-32 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit noted that the test for obviousness of a compound based on structural similarity is in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), specifically, that it is important to identify “„a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does‟ in an obviousness determination.” Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1356-57 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Thus, “in cases involving new chemical compounds, it remains necessary to identify some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound in a particular manner to establish prima facie obviousness of a new claimed compound.” Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1357.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundDecided for petitioner
“We acknowledge that McMahon and the Zhang Declaration are evidence that the ordinary artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation that, because a compound is known to repel mosquitoes, such as Aedes aegypti, the compound would also repel ticks, such as Amblyomma variegatum. Claim 45, however, encompasses the use of isolongifolanone when R1 is a hydrogen atom and R2 is an oxygen atom, which is the same compound specifically taught by Behan. See Pet. 7-8 (showing the structure of isolongifolanone, and discussing how it is encompassed by the chemical formula set forth in claim 1). As discussed above, Behan teaches the use of isolongifolanone to repel mosquitoes or cockroaches. Patent Owner provides no evidence that ticks and mites would not be present on the same objects or areas where mosquitoes and cockroaches are found, which are the insects addressed by Behan. Thus, by applying the isolongifolanone taught by Behan to an object or airspace for the purpose of repelling mosquitoes or cockroaches, one would also inherently repel ticks and mites. “It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the realization of a new benefit of an old process does not render that process patentable); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating in the context of a claimed process that was drawn to the same use comprising the same steps of the prior art, “[n]ewly discovered results of known processes directed to the same purpose are not patentable because such results are inherent.”). We, therefore, conclude that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the patentability of proposed claim 45.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,579,016
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.