- Dr. Squatch, LLC v. The Procter & Gamble CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01174 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 10–23 are unpatentable: the Board found claims 1–15 anticipated or obvious over the asserted grounds and claims 16–23 obvious over the Native combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“argument that the prior art fails to enable a stable deodorant stick. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak sufficiently teaches compositions with the relevant ingredients and achieves stable compositions through the use of a second wax having a melting point of 73 to 90° C. Reply 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:39–54). For example, Lesniak’s compositions (nos. 8 and 11) that used such a second wax, namely CastorWax MP80, are disclosed as sufficiently stable. Ex. 1003, Table 2. Here, we further credit the testimony of Dr. Michniak-Kohn that Lesniak teaches how to make stable compositions by including a secondary wax, such as castor wax, with a sufficiently high melting point. Ex. 1003, 1:39-54, 5:23-32, Table 2. Both of the compositions (nos. 8 and 11) tested by Lesniak that had such a wax passed the stability tests. Id. Ex. 1086 ¶ 7; see also Reply 6 (“Lesniak overcame any stability issues, as it expressly discloses compositions that are ‘physically stable at high and low temperatures.’”) (citing Ex. 1003, 5:23–32).” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree; and (2) at least two years of experience in cosmetics formulations.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications at this stage of the proceeding. PO Resp. 10. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal above, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner asserts that the preamble of independent claim 1, 16, and 20 reciting “a deodorant stick” is limiting” as it provides antecedent basis for the recitation of “said deodorant stick being free of an aluminum salt” for each independent claim. PO Resp. 7–10. Patent Owner also points to dependent claims 6–9 as relying on the preamble reciting “a deodorant stick” as antecedent basis for claim elements. Id. at 9. We agree. Petitioner does not provide argument to the contrary. See, e.g., Pet. 19 (arguing that Lesniak discloses a deodorant stick in the form of an antiperspirant stick). We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only 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))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that the evidence of record fails to support Patent Owner’s argument that the prior art fails to enable a stable deodorant stick. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak sufficiently teaches compositions with the relevant ingredients and achieves stable compositions through the use of a second wax having a melting point of 73 to 90° C. Reply 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:39–54). For example, Lesniak’s compositions (nos. 8 and 11) that used such a second wax, namely CastorWax MP80, are disclosed as sufficiently stable. Ex. 1003, Table 2. Here, we further credit the testimony of Dr. Michniak-Kohn that Lesniak teaches how to make stable compositions by including a secondary wax, such as castor wax, with a sufficiently high melting point. Ex. 1003, 1:39-54, 5:23-32, Table 2. Both of the compositions (nos. 8 and 11) tested by Lesniak that had such a wax passed the stability tests. Id. Ex. 1086 ¶ 7; see also Reply 6 (“Lesniak overcame any stability issues, as it expressly discloses compositions that are ‘physically stable at high and low temperatures.’”) (citing Ex. 1003, 5:23–32). Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that Lesniak provides sufficient disclosure to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate deodorant stick within the parameters of claim 1. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of evidence that Lesniak anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,497,706 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,497,706 - Ascend Elements, Inc. v. Duesenfeld GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · PGR2025-00037 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–14 because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–14 of the ’463 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–14 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, material science, chemical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 to 3 years of academic or industry experience in the recycling or processing of lithiumion batteries. Additional formal education focusing on processing of lithium batteries may substitute for practical experience and additional practical experience can substitute for less education.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner does not contest this definition of a person of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as, on the present record, it appears consistent with the ’463 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“distinct from “comminute[ion],” Petitioner offers only the testimony of its expert, Mr. Juzkow, who equates Tomioka’s “cutting” with “comminute[ion].” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 121. However, Mr. Juzkow provides insufficient reasoning to support his conclusion, particularly given the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence discussed above. In contrast, Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Dantam, provides extensive reasoning, supported by citations to other evidence, to support his conclusion that Tomioka’s “dismantling” is not the claimed “comminution.” Thus, we give more weight to Mr. Dantam’s testimony than Mr. Juzkow’s testimony. Weighing this evidence all together, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka’s teaches the claimed comminution under Petitioner’s first theory.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundTeaching away not foundNot shown unpatentable
“obvious. Pet. 34–35. However, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has also failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka renders this limitation obvious. See Prelim. Resp. 28–31. To begin with, Petitioner’s contentions lack sufficient reasoning explaining why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Tomioka in the manner proposed. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Petitioner merely asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art could use the roller system in place of the dismantling disclosed for the embodiments in Figures 19 and 20. On this record, we find this bare contention insufficient. actual disclosure of Tomioka. The rollers in Tomioka are used to separate the “battery body” from the “resin package enclosing the battery body,” and Tomioka specifically discloses that this technique is designed to “avoid damaging the battery body.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 26, 29; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 72–73. Thus, there is a significant difference between what Tomioka teaches and what Petitioner proposes to use the roller system to do. In addition, as Patent Owner points out, Tomioka specifically discloses there are risks associated with mechanically crushing battery packs, such as “risk of sparking due to residual voltage if the battery units are damaged in the process.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. Although we do not agree with Patent Owner that this amounts to a “teaching away,” see In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994), we do believe that this teaching suggests a trade off that should be weighed in determining whether to make the modification, see Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, Petitioner has failed to account adequately, if at all, for this trade off. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka accounts for the claimed “comminuting.”” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 12,119,463 - Billerud Aktiebolag (Publ) v. Westrock MWV, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 12, 2025 · IPR2023-01206 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 4–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 25–26 are allowed, while 24 and 27 are denied for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are also not admissible as expert testimony because Mr. Wirén is not “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 703. “To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Mr. Wirén does not meet our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Section II.B, supra. That definition is based on the undisputed testimony of Messrs. Zotterman and Klass. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. Although Mr. Wirén has a Master’s of Science in chemical engineering, he lacks any experience or specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 2011, 12:1–10, 19:6–25, 20:2–7. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are the testimony of Mr. Wirén and should be excluded from evidence because Mr. Wirén is not a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. PO MTE 5–6, 9; Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Unless a patent lawyer is also a qualified technical” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based on the testimony of the parties’ witnesses, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related degree, with three to five years of experience in paperboard manufacturing, or a master’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, or mechanical engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’142 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“A claim construction that excludes a particular element is viewed as a “negative limitation.” Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847 Fed. App’x 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). “[S]uch exclusions must find support either in ‘the words of the claim’ or through an ‘express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.’” Id. (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an intent to define the term.’” Id. (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Similarly, disclaimer or disavowal requires that the specification or prosecution history demonstrate that the invention does not include a particular feature. Id. Here, we find no claim language, lexicography, or disclaimer in the ’142 Patent or its file history that would support defining a “hot-hard calender” as requiring that only one of the two rollers be heated to an elevated temperature.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“a contact surface of said thermo-roller is heated to an elevated temperature of at least 250°F.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the temperature limitation is taught by the combination of Fugitt and Papermaking. Pet. 32–34. Fugitt discloses that “[t]he rolls of the calender may be steam heated.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 26. In a section titled “Heated Rolls,” Papermaking discloses that “Steam can be used up to 170°C [338°F] surface temperature.” Ex. 1010, 95, 98. Petitioner is thus correct that, “[w]hile Fugitt teaches that a hot calender may be steam heated, Papermaking clarifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that steam heated thermo-rollers may reach up to 338°F.” Pet. 36. Based on these disclosures, we are persuaded by Mr. Zotterman’s testimony that it would have been “obvious to heat the thermo-roller of Fugitt to at least 250°F.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 159. combine Fugitt and Papermaking because of Papermaking’s status as a “trusted handbook[],” because both references disclose a method of manufacturing a paperboard structure with hot calendering,” and “because of the known advantages of heated rollers.” Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157, 159, 162. Petitioner’s contention is supported by Papermaking’s disclosures that, for cartonboard, “[p]recalendering is used before the coater to reduce roughness and porosity” and “[h]igh thermo roll temperatures (in some cases over 200°C) result in bulk savings because of the temperature gradient.” Ex. 1005, 80–82; see also Pet. 38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 164 (citing these disclosures). Papermaking’s disclosed range of “up to 170°C [338°F]” for steam- heated rolls (Ex. 1010, 98), overlaps the claimed range of “at least 250°F.” Patent Owner agrees. Tr. 27:11–13. “If the relevant comparison between a disputed claim limitation and the prior art pertains to a range of overlapping values, ‘. . . even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 946 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “[S]uch an overlap creates a presumption of obviousness, and . . . the burden of production falls upon the patentee to come forward with pertinent evidence that the overlapping range would not have been obvious in light of the prior art.” Id. (citing E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,293,142 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,293,142 - Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · PGR2024-00049 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for PGR; the challenged claims were supported by the 2006 priority application.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006. 2. Conclusion: PGR Eligibility For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’202 patent has, or had, at least one claim having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, we determine that the ’202 patent is entitled to the filing date of the ’634 application (October 18, 2006), and, thus, the ’202 patent is not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, the ’202 patent consistently and repeatedly characterizes the invention as incorporating tobacco in some form and ties the stated benefits of the invention to the inclusion of tobacco. Moreover, the Specification is directed to smoking articles containing tobacco, all of the embodiments include tobacco, and “the present invention” is described as a smoking article, where the smoking article includes tobacco. Consequently, we determine that “smoking article” as it is used in the challenged claims is limited to devices that include tobacco. See Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding claimed “lip” is limited to “extrudable plastic materials” where specification states that “the device of the present invention is constructed of extrudable plastic materials” and “emphasizes the benefits of using extrudable plastics and describes them as benefits of the invention as a whole”); Poly-Am., L.P. v. described in the specification has inwardly extended short seals and every section of the specification indicates the importance of inwardly extended short seals. These two facts provide together a proper reason to limit the claims in this way.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.”).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s argument is dependent on accepting Petitioner’s assertion that the claims include a smoking article that does not contain tobacco, which we have not done. Instead, as set forth above, we construe “smoking article” as being limited to devices that include tobacco. See § II.B.2, supra. Based on our construction of “smoking article” and the evidence of record in this proceeding, we determine that the challenged claims are supported by the specification of the ’202 patent, which is identical to the specification of all of the continuations in the chain leading back to the October 18, 2006 that the specification of the ’202 patent and every patent in its priority chain “have identical specifications”); Prelim. Resp. 13 (noting that Petitioner does not identify other limitations in the challenged claims “allegedly lacking support in the ’202 patent family’s applications dating back to U.S. App. No. 11/550,634, filed on October 18, 2006”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,925,202 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · PGR2024-00043 · APJ John G New · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on all challenged claims, finding a sufficient likelihood that claims are anticipated or obvious under Grounds 1–10; it found Ground 11’s enablement challenge insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board “may not authorize a post-grant review to 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.” For the reasons we explain below, we institute post-grant review of the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“asserted reference qualifies as prior art is public accessibility. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “[A]t the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application (at top center). See Ex. 1001, code (60) (listing “provisional application No. 5,995,873, filed on Oct. 2, 2006”). However, simply to claim the priority benefit of an earlier application is not necessarily to receive it. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority.… Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120.”). As the diagram shows (and as we have verified), the ’529 application was a continuation-in-part of the preceding ’329 application. See Ex. 1001, code (63). However, the ’529 application was abandoned on February 10, 2016 (See Ex. 1052), and the succeeding application, U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 15,474,875 (the “’875 application”) which is listed in the ’943 patent as being a continuation-in-part of the ’529 application, was not filed until March 30, 2017. See Ex. 1001, code (63) (stating that “said application No. 15/474,875 is a continuation-in-part of application No. 12/508,529”). Put simply, the ’875 application was not filed until over a year after the ’529 application was abandoned. As 35 U.S.C. § 120 states, in relevant part: An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385, which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. (emphasis added). In other words, if there is a “break in the chain” of priority caused by the abandonment or termination of an application claiming priority prior to filing of a subsequent application, the subsequent application loses the priority benefit of the abandoned or terminated application, as well as the priority benefit of all applications that antedate that abandoned or terminated application. Such is the case presently before us. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the abandonment of the ’529 application prior to filing of the continuation-in-part ’875 application broke the priority chain leading to the ’720 provisional application, and the ’943 patent cannot, therefore, claim the priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application’s October 2, 2006 filing date. Consequently, the earliest date of which the ’943 patent could possibly claim the priority benefit is that of U.S. Patent Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/403,680 (the “’680 provisional application”) (located at the top of the left branch of the “family tree” depicted above), which has a filing date of September 20, 2010. See Ex. 1001, code (60). Burnett (i.e., the ’329 application) was filed on October 2, 2007 and thus antedates the ’680 provisional application. Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument fails based on the current record, and Burnett is prior art to the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 55
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) is not tenable. In deciding whether to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) in situations where only some of the challenges fall within its scope, we evaluate the challenges and determine whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting on all challenges. If so, the panel will evaluate whether the entire petition should be denied.” See USPTO, SAS Q&As (June 5, 2018) at D1, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/ sas_qas_20180605.pdf; see also Kansas State Univ. Res. Found., PGR2022- 00021, Paper 11 at 7–8 & n.3 (Vidal Feb. 24, 2023) (holding that “the Board will further evaluate … whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting review on all challenges presented in the Petition”). We having instituted post grant review based at least upon claim 1 of Ground 1 of the Petition. Even if the panel agreed with Patent Owner that Grounds 5–8 present “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” previously presented to the Office, § 325(d) would not be “sufficiently implicated” due to the 7 other asserted grounds. We therefore do not proceed with the § 325(d) analysis established in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) and decline to exercise our discretion to deny the petition on that basis.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,844,943 - Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v. Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00726 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 were unpatentable under any of the three asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Based upon our review of the arguments and an examination of the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, we determine that the record supports finding that the entire “wherein” clause recited in independent claim 1 is limiting. This clause recites, wherein the effective amount of ganaxolone is administered as an intravenous bolus plus continuous infusion to produce and maintain a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 ng/ml to about 1000 ng/ml for about 8 hours to about 12 hours.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time the application for the ’100 patent was filed “would have had a medical degree or a Ph.D. in pharmacology or fields related to the development of pharmaceuticals and would have been familiar with the PK [pharmacokinetics] and PD [pharmacodynamics] of pharmaceuticals.” Pet. 18. Additionally, Petitioner asserts “[a] POSA also would have had several years of experience as a practicing neurologist treating patients who suffer from seizure disorders, including SE, and/or several years of experience in researching treatments for such seizure disorders.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 50). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’100 patent was filed, “would have had a medical degree, or a Ph.D. in pharmacology or other field related to the development of pharmaceuticals, or equivalent degree, and several years of with Refractory Status Epilepticus, Poster Abstract F53, 37 J. CLIN. NEUROPHYSIOLOGY 332 (July 2020) (Ex. 1009, “Husain 2020”). experience as a practicing neurologist treating patients who suffer from seizure disorders including status epilepticus and/or several years of experience in researching treatments for such seizure disorders.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 44). We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar, except that Patent Owner additionally recognizes “an equivalent degree” as an alternative to a medical degree or Ph.D. in pharmacology or other field related to the development of pharmaceuticals. Compare Pet. 18 with Prelim. Resp. 17–18. We do not need to resolve this issue as our findings and conclusion in this Decision would be the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently for institution that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the combined teachings of During and NCT03350035. As discussed above, in Section II.B., we have determined that the “wherein” clause of independent claim 1 is liming. In other words, the claim requires that the effective amount of ganaxolone is administered as an IV bolus plus continuous infusion and that such administration produces and maintains a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 to 1000 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. With respect to the recited plasma concentration limitation, Petitioner has alleged only that it is met inherently. Dr. Sankar has only offered the same conclusory position in his declaration. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 113, 115. While “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis,” this doctrine “must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194–1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As the Federal Circuit has explained: The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient. Id. at 1195 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d, 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Here, Petitioner and Dr. Sankar have not explained or demonstrated why or how the natural result of administering the dosages in During according to the method disclosed in NCT03350035 would produce and maintain a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 to 1000 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. This deficit is more pronounced in view of the Specification disclosure of a Phase 2 Open-Label Dose Range Study that exemplifies how some ganaxolone dosages that suppressed SE did not produce and maintain ganaxolone plasma concentrations ≥ 500 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. See Ex. 1001, Fig 15; see also Ex. 1001, 55:13–56:30. Thus, because Petitioner relies on inherency for the plasma concentration limitation without providing evidence that such inherency exists, Petitioner has failed to establish sufficiently for institution that During and NCT03350035 teach or suggest each limitation of the claim 1. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently for institution that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the combined teachings of During and NCT03350035. As discussed above, in Section II.B., we have determined that the “wherein” clause of independent claim 1 is liming. In other words, the claim requires that the effective amount of ganaxolone is administered as an IV bolus plus continuous infusion and that such administration produces and maintains a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 to 1000 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. With respect to the recited plasma concentration limitation, Petitioner has alleged only that it is met inherently. Dr. Sankar has only offered the same conclusory position in his declaration. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 113, 115. While “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis,” this doctrine “must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194–1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As the Federal Circuit has explained: The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient. Id. at 1195 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d, 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Here, Petitioner and Dr. Sankar have not explained or demonstrated why or how the natural result of administering the dosages in During according to the method disclosed in NCT03350035 would produce and maintain a ganaxolone plasma concentration of about 500 to 1000 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. This deficit is more pronounced in view of the Specification disclosure of a Phase 2 Open-Label Dose Range Study that exemplifies how some ganaxolone dosages that suppressed SE did not produce and maintain ganaxolone plasma concentrations ≥ 500 ng/ml for about 8 to 12 hours. See Ex. 1001, Fig 15; see also Ex. 1001, 55:13–56:30. Thus, because Petitioner relies on inherency for the plasma concentration limitation without providing evidence that such inherency exists, Petitioner has failed to establish sufficiently for institution that During and NCT03350035 teach or suggest each limitation of the claim 1.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,110,100 - Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. / Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP v. Seagen Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 9, and 10 are unpatentable for lack of written description, lack of enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by Ogitani.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. While there seems to be a slight difference in whether the ordinary artisan has ADC design experience obtained after a master’s degree or postdoctoral, neither party provides clear basis to explain how this will impact the analysis. 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” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION We interpret claim terms using “the same claim construction standard” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable
“4. Analysis We note that “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“4. Analysis The facts here are consistent with the situation in Amgen, which” slip op. at 76
Patent outcomesUS 10,808,039 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,808,039 - PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2023-00074 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 11 are obvious over the May Article.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record, we find that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Examiner did not consider the same or substantially the same art that Petitioner relies upon for its obviousness challenges. Petitioner’s grounds primarily rely on three different “May” references, only one of which the Examiner considered during prosecution, i.e., the May Article. The additional primary references relied upon by Petitioner are the May Thesis, which provides a more detailed disclosure than the May Article, and the May Abstract, which provides less detail than the May Article, in terms of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments used to generate the disclosed TNS9 vector. Those differences are only material with respect to whether each reference discloses the fragments as recited in independent claim 1, or renders those fragments obvious. As discussed in Section II.D.2., however, we determine that the May Thesis is not prior art. 11 The ’221 application claims priority to provisional application no. 60/301,861 (Ex. 1034) (“the ’861 provisional application”), filed June 29, 2001, and provisional application no. 60/302,852 (Ex. 1035) (“the ’852 provisional application”), filed on July 2, 2001, referred to, collectively, as “the provisional applications,” “the provisionals” and “the Provisionals.” Article, but in less detail, the May Abstract may be considered cumulative to the May Article. Because the May Thesis provides more explicit details regarding the fragments disclosed in the May Article, it may not be considered to be cumulative to the May Article. However, as discussed in Section II.D.2., we determine that the May Thesis is not prior art. When considering the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the May Article or Patent Owner distinguishes the May Article, we note that Patent Owner alleged during prosecution and here that the May Article is not prior art for a number of reasons, including that it is the work of the inventors and that it was published one year or less before the priority date asserted by Patent Owner for the challenged claims. We note also that Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are not entitled to the priority date asserted by Patent Owner, and recognized by the Examiner. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that substantially the same prior art that Petitioner relies upon was previously presented to the Examiner during prosecution. The first part of the § 325(d) framework is, therefore, met. Accordingly, we turn to the second part of the § 325(d) and determine whether error by the Office has been shown. See Advanced Bionics at 8.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “at the time of the alleged invention would have had: (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, biotechnology, protein chemistry, genetics, molecular and structural biology, bioengineering, or similar disciplines.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14– 15). Petitioner further asserts that a POSA would have had “(2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience in one or more of these areas” and “(3) an understanding of vector design and the effect of LCR fragments on gene expression, including experience with how the LCR regulates gene expression.” Id. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’061 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “that no term of the ’061 patent requires construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51) (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not argue for any express claim constructions. See Prelim. Resp. Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Based on our consideration of the arguments and evidence presented at this stage of the proceeding, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, that claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 11 of the ’061 patent are not entitled to receive benefit of the filing date for either the ’861 provisional application or the ’852 provisional application. In particular, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments that the provisional applications do not satisfy the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for those claims. Independent claim 1 recites, in part, “a recombinant lentiviral vector which comprises a nucleic acid encoding a functional globin operably linked to a 3.2-kb nucleotide fragment . . . said vector providing expression of the globin in a mammal in vivo.” Ex. 1001, 11:57–67. Independent claim 11 recites, in part, “a recombinant lentiviral vector comprising a nucleic acid encoding a functional globin operably linked to a 3.2-kb nucleotide fragment . . . said vector providing expression of the globin in a mammal in vivo.” Ex. 1001, 12:64–13:7. Based upon our review, we agree with Petitioner that these limitations are not adequately described in the provisional applications. The ’061 patent Specification (and the ’221 Application) describe the term “functional globin gene” as: that does not produce a hemoglobinopathy phenotype, and which is effective to provide therapeutic benefits to an individual with a defective globin gene. The functional globin gene may encode a wild-type globin appropriate for a mammalian individual to be treated, or it may be a mutant form of globin, preferably one which provides for superior properties, for example superior oxygen transport properties. . . . Suitably, the globin may encode α-globin, β-globin, or γ-globin. Ex. 1001, 2:44–55 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1032, 3:24–4:3 (same). Based on this description, we agree with Petitioner that the ’061 patent claims cover a recombinant vector comprising a nucleic acid encoding a “functional globin” genus that includes wild-type globin and mutant forms of globin, wherein the globin may encode different globin types, i.e., α-, β-, or γ-globin. Patent Owner does not identify, nor do we see, any portion of the provisional applications describing the genus of functional globin. Rather, as Petitioner demonstrates, the provisional applications describe one species of that genus, i.e., the wild-type human β-globin. Pet. 14–18. The provisionals do not describe the “functional globin” genus. Indeed, as Petitioner correctly asserts, during the ’061 patent prosecution, Applicants/Patent Owner, relied on a description of “functional globin,” quoted above, that does not appear and has not counterpart in the provisional applications. Compare Ex. 1001, 2:44–55 and Ex. 1032, 3:24–4:3 with Ex. 1034 and Ex. 1035.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,058,061 - PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2023-00070 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 10, 19, and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over the May Article.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In evaluating matters under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “at the time of the alleged invention would have had: (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, biotechnology, protein chemistry, genetics, molecular and structural biology, bioengineering, or similar disciplines.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–15). Petitioner further asserts that a POSA would have had “(2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience in one or more of these areas” and “(3) an understanding of vector design and the effect of LCR fragments on gene expression, including experience with how the LCR regulates gene expression.” Id. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “no term of the ’179 patent requires construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49– 50) (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not argue for any express claim constructions. See Prelim. Resp. Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“As the Federal Circuit has noted, however, “[i]n order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,541,179 - Pfizer, Inc. v. Uniqure Biopharma B.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,982,248
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.