- Beone Medicines USA, Inc. / Beigene, Ltd. v. Pharmacyclics LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 1, 2025 · PGR2024-00009 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 12, and 20 are unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the enablement, anticipation, or obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting and that the terms “optionally substituted fused heterocyclic ring system” and “irreversible” BTKIs should be construed consistent with the definitions provided in the Specification. Pet. 42–45; see also id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 19:57–20:7 (defining “optionally substituted” or “substituted”), 14:51–52 (defining “fused”), 15:66–16:21 (defining “heterocycle”), 14:36–44 (defining “ring” and “ring system”), 26:23–25 (defining “irreversible Btk inhibitor”); PO Resp. 26.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable
“To satisfy written description for the claimed genus of iBTKIs, the Specification must describe either a representative number of members of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus with enough precision that a POSA can visualize or recognize the members of the genus. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Patent Owner concedes that the Specification does not describe a representative number of members of the genus, stating “this is a common structural features case.” Tr. 65:25–66:3. We, therefore, focus our analysis on whether the Specification adequately describes common structural features of the genus. We find that it does not.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 11,672,803 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,672,803 - Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Biosciences, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · PGR2021-00088 · APJ John G New · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 are unpatentable because the ’908 patent lacks written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach Grounds 1–3 or 5.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“To the extent that Dr. Dobs has admitted that she is “not comfortable with chemical terminology”; “could not answer questions regarding the chemical structures in the prior art articles”; “did not know whether CRF1 receptor antagonists contained the structural features she deemed ‘essential’ in her Declaration”; and “agreed that tildacerfont has structurally unique features” (see Ex. 1038, 52–53, 125–126, 126–128, 128–130), we will weigh her testimony regarding those matters accordingly. However, for the reasons explained above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Dobs’ written description opinions in paragraphs 19 and 80–91 of Exhibit 2014 is denied.” slip op. at 10
- Strike new argumentOther
“Analysis Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2020–2026 play no part in our reasoning and were not relied upon by the Board in reaching our Decision. Petitioner’s Motion to strike Exhibits 2020–2026 is therefore dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“typically possess a medical degree or a Ph.D. in a field related to endocrinology, and would have knowledge of hormone regulation and disorders, as well as knowledge of the treatment regimens employed to treat such disorders. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34). Petitioner argues that such a person of ordinary skill would also have at least three years of experience conducting research concerning endocrine disorders, including CAH or other adrenal disorders. Id. Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the demonstrable level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1025, 2003, 2004, 2005), and in the absence of a different proposed definition of the level of skill in the art by Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, we do not find persuasive the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dobs, that: By describing adjustments of dosing protocols to achieve at least a 10% reduction from baseline, and describing this use of tildacerfont as just one embodiment of the claimed use of the entire well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class, the specification reasonably conveyed to a POSA that the invention extended to the particularly claimed use of the entire recited class. Ex. 2014 ¶ 87. On the contrary, far from being a “well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class” the prior art teaches a heterogeneous assembly of different classes of small molecule CRF1 receptor antagonists (Type I, Type II, and “atypical”) displaying a very considerable variety of structures, both in terms of the core pharmacophore (e.g., monocyclic, bicyclic, tricyclic, phenolic, cyclohexyl amide, etc.) as well as in the various side groups. Moreover, the challenged claims recite only “a CRF1 receptor antagonist or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,” the scope of which also encompasses the much larger (and, according to Williams) much more effective large-molecule (peptide) CRF1 receptor antagonists, about which the Specification is entirely silent. See Ex. 1029, Abstr., 1065.” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 10,849,908 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,849,908 - PTAB · May 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00009 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–8, 12, and 20 on all asserted grounds, finding the petition showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
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 shown 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 petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 20. Although defining a person of ordinary skill in the art as a “team” of individuals is not conventional, because Patent Owner does not dispute the definition at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it appears to be consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner “agrees that the preamble is limiting as a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method is performed—treating patients with CLL or SLL.” Prelim. Resp. 18. But Patent Owner disagrees with an “attempt to rewrite an express definition in the specification” and adds a safety requirement that is not recited in the definition of “therapeutically effective amount” in the Specification. Id. at 19. Patent Owner contends “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification to mean “a sufficient amount of an agent or a compound being administered which will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms [of a] B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (BCLD) . . . [or] reduction and/or alleviation of the signs, symptoms, or causes of BCLD.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 24:58–63). Notwithstanding its proposed construction, Patent Owner posits that “a precise construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount’ is not necessary to resolve the dispute here” and “[e]ven under Petitioner’s flawed construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount,’ Petitioner fails to meet its burden to warrant institution.” Id. at 20. Having considered the parties’ respective arguments at this stage of the proceeding, we agree that the preamble is limiting as a statement of intentional purpose. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound”). Moreover, we find Patent Owner has the better position that the term “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification and not according to the separate and distinct definition of “effective amount,” as Petitioner suggests. That is, we decline to import a safety limitation to the term “therapeutically effective amount” that only appears in the definition for “effective amount.” Compare Ex. 1001, 24:58–62 with id. at 24:66–25:2” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“an “attempt to rewrite an express definition in the specification” and adds a safety requirement that is not recited in the definition of “therapeutically effective amount” in the Specification. Id. at 19. Patent Owner contends “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification to mean “a sufficient amount of an agent or a compound being administered which will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms [of a] B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (BCLD) . . . [or] reduction and/or alleviation of the signs, symptoms, or causes of BCLD.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 24:58–63). Notwithstanding its proposed construction, Patent Owner posits that “a precise construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount’ is not necessary to resolve the dispute here” and “[e]ven under Petitioner’s flawed construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount,’ Petitioner fails to meet its burden to warrant institution.” Id. at 20. Having considered the parties’ respective arguments at this stage of the proceeding, we agree that the preamble is limiting as a statement of intentional purpose. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound”). Moreover, we find Patent Owner has the better position that the term “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification and not according to the separate and distinct definition of “effective amount,” as Petitioner suggests. That is, we decline to import a safety limitation to the term “therapeutically effective amount” that only appears in the definition for “effective amount.” Compare Ex. 1001, 24:58–62 with id. at 24:66–25:2 amount” but not “therapeutically effective amount”). Thus, we construe the term “therapeutically effective amount” to mean “a sufficient amount of an agent of a compound being administered which will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms [of] B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (BCLD).”” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,672,803 - Guardant Health, Inc. v. University Of WashingtonAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01158 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable because Eltoukhy anticipates them; the Board found they were not entitled to a priority date before Eltoukhy’s publication.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would typically have an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., with research experience in genomics, molecular biology, bioinformatics, or a related field, or could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 38). Patent Owner states that for the purposes of this proceeding, it does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the skill level. PO Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 21, 22). After reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“1. “Sequence Reads” Petitioner argues that, for purposes of this Decision, no claim term needs specific construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10–11. Petitioner, however, seeks to provide context for understanding the scope of the term “sequence reads.” Specifically, Petitioner contends that “sequence reads” are produced by sequencing at least some of the tagged strands, whereas “consensus sequences” are generated by collapsing sequence reads. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–47, 20:50–22:25, 23:29–57, 24:46–48, claim 1, claim 6). In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with Petitioner that “[t]he claims of the ’951 patent as well as the specification make clear that a ‘sequence read’ is different and distinct from a ‘consensus sequence.’” DI 7 (quoting Pet. 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion. PO Resp. 12. Based on the complete record, we see no reason to change our determination of the scope of the term “sequence reads.”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the terms “paired sequence reads” and “unpaired sequence reads.” Even though the ’951 patent Specification discloses grouping sequence reads “sharing a unique set of SMI tags” into paired families,4 “[t]he written description part of the specification itself does not delimit the right to exclude. That is the function and purpose of claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.”). Here, claim 1 explicitly defines the terms “paired sequence reads” and “unpaired sequence reads.” Indeed, in the context of paired versus unpaired sequence reads, claim 1 specifies that the complementarity is related to the “original parent polynucleotide molecule,” and not the duplex tags. For example, claim 1 recites that “each unpaired read represents a first tagged strand having no second differently tagged complementary strand derived from an original parent polynucleotide molecule represented among said sequence reads in said set of sequence reads.” Ex. 1001, 37:50–55 (emphasis added). Thus, the plain claim language contradicts Patent Owner’s argument” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Claim 1 defines the terms “paired sequence reads” and “unpaired sequence reads” based on the complementarity of the target sequence strands derived from the “original parent polynucleotide molecule.” Ex. 1001, 37:46–55. As explained above, we reject Patent Owner’s contention that a sequence read is considered unpaired solely based on the complementarity of the SMI tags. See supra Section II.C.2. Due to the “errors introduced during sample preparation and sequencing” (Ex. 1029 ¶ 5), there are four outcomes when determining the complementarity of the sequence reads of two strands of SMI-linked target sequence: (1) the first SMI tag and the first strand target sequence are complementary to the second SMI tag and the second strand target sequence, respectively; (2) the first SMI tag is complementary to the second SMI tag but the first strand target sequence is not complementary to the second strand target sequence; (3) the first SMI tag is not complementary to the second SMI tag but the first strand target sequence is complementary to the second strand target sequence; and (4) the first SMI tag is not complementary to the second SMI tag, and the first strand target sequence is not complementary to the second strand target sequence. It is undisputed that Schmitt groups sequence reads into paired families based on the SMI tags, and Schmitt only considers sequences in which “information from both DNA strands was in perfect agreement.” Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 14, 96; PO Resp. 18. Thus, among the four outcomes, only scenario (1), in which both the SMI tags and the target sequences are complementary, represents a “paired sequence read,” which claim 1 defines as corresponding to “sequence reads generated from a first tagged strand and a second differently tagged complementary strand derived from an original parent polynucleotide molecule.” Ex. 1001, 37:46–50. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (see PO Resp. 26), in Schmitt,” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,752,951 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,752,951 - PTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · PGR2022-00025 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Remand
The Board granted PGR of claims 1–19, finding claim 1 more likely than not anticipated by Grigoriadis and claims 1–19 more likely than not lacking written-description support.
RulingsRemand decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] 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; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the Petition, Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence in light of the Director’s Decision, we conclude that Petitioner has satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Therefore, we grant institution of a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Independent claim 1 recites a method of treating CAH by reducing an A4 level “from baseline” after administering a CRF1 receptor antagonist to a CAH patient. See Ex. 1001, 47:51–48:5. The Specification expressly teaches that, with respect to the clinical phase 2 trial described in Example 4, “Patients will have overnight [pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics] PK/PD assessments performed at baseline, which include an [sic] pre-dose overnight assessment and a post-dose overnight assessment for PK/PD following administration of the first dose.” Ex. 1001, 41:55–59. This is the same quotation and clinical trial relied upon by Dr. Barnes in his Declaration, and is the only definition of a “baseline” in the ’201 patent. See Ex. 1037, 36–37. We note that placebos were evidently not employed in the phase 2 clinical study of Example 4.5 Given the sole exemplary description of “baseline” in Example 4 of the Specification, we construe the claim term reciting “reduced from baseline” as meaning “a reduction in A4 level compared to an A4 level measurement made prior to, and/or at the beginning of, administration of the drug.”” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Reference is prior artInstituted
“A claim is unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only when “every element and limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in possession of the invention.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A reference may inherently anticipate if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed “is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,007,201 - PTAB · Oct 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00040 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 1–17 and denied substitute claims 18–30 for lack of written-description support; it did not reach the remaining grounds against the substitute claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“For the reasons discussed below, on the full trial record, we find that Patent Owner has not carried its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed substitute claims introduce no new matter relative to the original disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(d)(1); see also Paper 58, 2 (Patent Owner acknowledging that it “bears the burden to meet the regulatory and statutory requirements” for a motion to amend, including demonstrating that the substitute claims do not “introduce new matter”). Importantly, we note that Patent Owner fails to explain how the material cited in the claim chart supports the claims. See Mot. 15–16. Instead, Patent Owner provides only a claim chart with bare citations, leaving it to the panel to discern how the cited material supports the claim limitations. See id. Patent Owner’s failure to explain the citations constitutes a fatal error, as we have reviewed the passages cited by Patent Owner and are unable to discern where support is found for several of the substitute claim limitations. Where, as here, “the Board is unable to determine how the specification and drawings support the proposed substitute claims, the motion to amend may be denied.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“TPG”),6 71.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuades us that the ’418 Application lacks adequate written description support for the formulation limitations of proposed substitute claim 18 [limitations 18a–8c]. As outlined by Petitioner and its declarants, the ’418 Application, including the Abstract, Field of the Invention, Summary of the Invention, and Detailed Description of the Invention sections, uniformly focuses on phosphate prodrugs of levodopa and carbidopa. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 (Sloan Decl.) ¶¶ 38–55, 64–69; Ex. 1003 (LeWitt Decl.) ¶¶ 89–97; Ex. 1047 (Forrest Decl.) ¶¶ 40–74, 80–92; Opp. 6– 10; Pet. 23–26, 49–55. We agree with Petitioner that “nothing in the specification suggests that the invention includes methods of subcutaneous infusion with anything other than the carbidopa prodrugs and L-dopa prodrugs of Formulas (I) and (II), respectively, or teaches how to get sufficient amounts of either L-dopa or carbidopa into solution, or achieve particular L-dopa plasma levels, without those particular prodrugs.” Pet. 27. Petitioner persuades us that the ’418 Application fails to contain “[so] much as a single generic sentence, anywhere in the application, suggesting the inventors possessed the claimed formulations.” Sur-reply 3. Additionally, the ’418 Application contains no example teaching administration of an aqueous formulation comprising carbidopa itself with levodopa itself or one of the three claimed levodopa prodrugs, let alone one that is suitable for continuous subcutaneous administration. See Ex. 1047 (Forrest Decl.) ¶¶ 61–72, 82–92. Patent Owner is correct that to establish written description support, neither “an actual reduction to practice,” nor a verbatim recitation of the claims is required. Sur-reply 4. Nevertheless, “[a]lthough examples are not always required to satisfy the written description requirement, the lack of any disclosure of examples may be considered when determining whether the claimed invention is adequately described.” Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the lack of an actual reduction to practice or verbatim description of a formulation that falls within the scope of the claims is relevant, because we also see no other description or material in the ’418 Application that suggests the claimed methods extend to continuous subcutaneous administration of a composition comprising levodopa or one of the three claimed levodopa prodrugs, together with carbidopa, in an aqueous carrier.” slip op. at 28
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“All of the exhibits that are the subject of Patent Owner’s motion to exclude relate to the prior-art status and/or authenticity of Yacoby-Zeevi and ancillary related documents underlying Petitioner’s prior art-based challenges to the proposed substitute claims. See generally MTE. Because we deny Patent Owner’s request to enter proposed substitute claims 18–30 based on lack of written description support and do not reach Petitioner’s prior-art based challenges to the patentability of these claims, we do not rely on Exhibits 1005, 1007, 1040–1044, 1046, or 1048–1050 in this Decision. Accordingly we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 49
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“On the other hand, Petitioner shows that Patent Owner took positions in its Motion to Amend that it only later sought to support with technical declarations. For example, in the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner elected to assert “that levodopa and carbidopa could be ‘interchanged’ in a formulation with their prodrugs, and that a skilled artisan could ‘perform a pharmacokinetic analysis to predict steady state levodopa plasma levels’ using the ‘parent compounds’ based on Example 24.” MTS 2 (citing Mot. 12–13). Patent Owner, however, “chose to forgo any expert support” on these issues at the time it filed its Motion to Amend, and instead waited until the Reply to submit technical declarations in support of these arguments. Id. We agree with Petitioner that although Patent Owner “was not required to anticipate the arguments that [Petitioner] would make in its Opposition” to the Motion to Amend, if Patent Owner “wanted to provide expert testimony to support the positions it actually took” in that Motion, “the TPG required [Patent Owner] to do so at that time, instead of waiting until [Petitioner] had limited ability to respond.” Id. at 5. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that in this respect at least some portions of Patent Owner’s Declarations are untimely, because it is “improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.” TPG 74. Nevertheless, an order striking arguments and evidence in their entirety is an “exceptional remedy,” particularly under the circumstances here, where some portions of the Declarations are proper, while other portions are untimely. TPG 80. Moreover, “there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012- 00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014). Under the facts of this case, Patent Owner was permitted to file evidence to respond to Petitioner’s unpatentability claims, but also belatedly supported positions it made in earlier attorney argument. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike, however, challenges all of Patent Owner’s evidence, without acknowledging that some portions constitute proper reply. Although “[t]he Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply” (TPG 74, emphasis added), under the circumstances here, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s lack of specificity as to what it seeks to strike is fatal to Petitioner’s motion. Accordingly, we decline to strike the Declarations in their entirety as untimely.” slip op. at 46
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,091,507 - Bausch & Lomb Incorporated v. Zeavision, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00089 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 12–14, 16–21, 23, and 24 are unpatentable: Lang anticipates some claims, and the asserted Lang-based combinations render all challenged claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition (Dec. Inst. 6–7), which Patent Owner states that it “does not contest.” PO Resp. 17. Because the parties do not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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. Johnson and Dr. Dorey are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 2–11, App’x A; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 4–14, 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 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“Similarly, here, the Specification consistently states that the invention relates to oral formulations for protecting eye health and that the benefits of carotenoids, such as zeaxanthin and lutein, include the ability to absorb UV and blue light. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“Oral formulations for promoting eye health”), 4:25–31 (stating carotenoids such as zeaxanthin are “very good at absorbing ultraviolet (UV) and blue light”), 15:45–47 (“one object of this invention is to disclose multi-component orally-ingestible formulations for protecting eye health in mammals”). Like the preamble in Proveris, the preamble in claim 12 is the only reference in any of the independent claims to the allegedly inventive concept of protecting eye health from the harmful effects of blue light. Proveris, 739 F.3d at 1373. Moreover, the preamble of claim 12 recites: “A nutrient formulation for oral ingestion for protecting a user’s eyes from the harmful effect of blue light, the formulation comprising:.” Ex. 1001, 37:13–15. The body of claim from the group consisting of capsules, tablets, liquids, and powders for oral ingestion.” Ex. 1001, 37:22–24 (emphasis added). Similarly, claim 22, which depends from claim 12, relies on the preamble of claim 12 for antecedent basis for the limitation “wherein the user has macular degeneration and a lens-related disorder.” Id. at 38:21 (emphasis added). Thus, “the nutrient formulation” and “the user” in the claim body derives antecedent basis from the “nutrient formulation” and “user” that is “defined in greater detail in the preamble.” See Proveris, 739 F.3d at 1373. Accordingly, reading the patent as a whole, because the inventor clearly relied on both the preamble and the body of claim 12 to define the claimed invention, the preamble of claim 12 should be construed as limiting. See id.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“stereoisomers” should have its plain and ordinary meaning, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this term to mean that the zeaxanthin that is present in the 3R-3R' stereoisomer form is “largely but not wholly free of meso-zeaxanthin stereoisomers.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 57, Ex. 1031, 3). Petitioner also contends the term “mixed tocopherols” should be construed to mean “a mixture of tocopherols such as alpha-, beta-, gamma-, and delta-tocopherols.” Pet. 22–24 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 65–66). Patent Owner does not address either of these claim terms in its Response. See generally PO Resp. Because there does not appear to be any dispute over the construction of these terms, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions as they are consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. See Wellman, 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))).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“2. 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 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 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,307,384 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,307,384 - Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,096,346 - Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,096,345 - Adama Agan Ltd. v. Bayer Cropscience LPInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2023 · PGR2022-00057 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–18 lacked written description or enablement, or were unpatentable over the asserted prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] 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; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in agronomy, agricultural sciences, or a related field and at least 3-5 years of experience in the application of pesticides, including experience conducting weed science research, such as field trials to determine herbicide efficacy and safety.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner responds that it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a POSA at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 15. Because Petitioner’s definition of a person of skill in the art appears commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the asserted art in this case, as well as the ’463 patent itself, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“When claim 1 is read in light of the Specification of the ’463 patent, we find that Petitioner’s construction is too expansive and not commensurate with the appropriate scope of claim 1 when the Specification of the ’463 patent is considered. As the Specification of the ’463 patent makes clear, indaziflam has been in use as an herbicide and is well-characterized. See Ex. 1001, 3:17–6:6. The Specification of the ’463 patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 8,114,991, which describes indaziflam, and the Specification of the ’463 patent also describes several commercially available herbicides incorporating indaziflam as their active ingredient. See id. at 3:22–27, 4:15–41. The Specification of the ’463 patent sets forth embodiments with specific ranges for the amount of indaziflam. See id. at 5:45–6:6. Finally, the Specification of the ’463 patent states: A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand how to adjust dosages and concentrations depending on whether the composition is to be applied to a desirable plant or seed, part or habitat thereof, or directly to a site in which no desirable plants are present or growing (e.g., a monoculture of unwanted annual grass).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction needed
“We find that Petitioner’s expansive construction of the claim phrase “a composition comprising a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor” to be inconsistent with the meaning of the transitional phrase “comprising” within the context of the claim as a whole and also inconsistent with the teachings set forth in the Specification of the ’463 patent. The transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and should be read to not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition ‘comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Comprising” is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”) (citing In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, although the term “comprising” does not exclude additional steps or elements, that does not mean that any other step or element may or should be added, such as any other chemical, as Petitioner asserts. The Specification of the ’463 patent contemplates using indaziflam as the herbicidally active ingredient, but also contemplates the addition of other active ingredients in the composition. Ex. 1001, 5:59–65; 6:7–11. The Specification of the ’463 patent also contemplates the addition of other ingredients in the composition as well. Specifically, the Specification states: These formulations are produced in any desired or known manner, for example by mixing the active compounds with extenders, such as liquid solvents, pressurized liquefied gases and/or solid carriers, optionally with the use of surface-active agents, such as emulsifiers and/or dispersants and/or foam formers. Id. at 17:6–11. This and the remainder of the Specification does not suggest the expansive interpretation of the claim limitation argued by Petitioner. For example, the Specification explains that the point of the invention is to treat vegetation that is or will be consumed by livestock animals, and, more specifically, that such animals will provide food (e.g., milk or meat) for others (e.g., people or pets) further up the food chain. Id. at 2:31–35, 2:39– 59. Reason and the evidence of record support that such goals are not commensurate with co-applying any chemical in any amount to the same area. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23, 30, 34–36, 38–43, 55, 59–61, 63” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,166,463
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.