• Ascend Elements, Inc. v. Duesenfeld GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 12,119,463
• Billerud Aktiebolag (Publ) v. Westrock MWV, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,293,142
• Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,925,202
• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00052 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4, 8–14, and 18–26 not shown unpatentable because they were entitled to priority before the November 2018 Venclexta Label, which therefore was not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner did not expressly recite hematological malignancies, Petitioner did refer to expertise in clinical oncology, which would encompass the blood cancers recited in the claims. Neither party identifies a difference in the analysis or conclusions that would be based on differences in the ordinary skill in the art 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 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))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties do not identify any issue relating to the preamble that would impact our analysis. We recognize that Patent Owner is suggesting that Petitioner’s expert, at least, is reading the word “clinical” into the treatment language of claim 1. However, the plain language of the claim 1 preamble states “treating lymphoma or leukemia in a human patient” and is supported by a straightforward definition in the Specification of the ’087 patent, expressly limiting the invention to treatment of human patients. See Ex. 1001, 16:25–38. We therefore find that the preamble terms do not need claim construction because there is no actual dispute suggesting that, for example, claim 1 implicitly recites the term “clinical.” See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 5

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “d. Analysis Considering the Wands factors as a whole, we find that the limited breadth of the claims, presence of several working examples, significant amount of direction and guidance provided by the ’087 patent, predictability in treating blood cancers with Bcl-2 inhibitors like GDC-0199, and high level of skill in the art are balanced against a large quantity of experimentation. Based on our consideration of the entirety of the evidence, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that undue experimentation would not have been required to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims of the ’087 patent. One underlying theme of Petitioner’s contentions and Petitioner’s expert testimony is the repeated contention that clinical trials were not completed by Patent Owner. See, e.g., Pet. 48 (“venetoclax (GDC-0199) was not FDA-approved”); Ex. 1020 ¶ 193. We find these arguments unpersuasive as we agree with Patent Owner that “[i]t is well established that a patent may be secured, and typically is secured, before the conclusion of clinical trials.” In re Montgomery, 67 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Particularly as to the dependent claims, a preponderance of the evidence of record does not support a finding that undue experimentation would have been required to administer three different doses of GDC-0199 starting with 100 mg, to use multiple daily dosing cycles of one day, to continue until disease progression occurs, or to combine with other treatment compounds. We find that a preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner’s position that any of the dependent claims fail to comply with the enablement requirement.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Applying Rai and Wertheim to the instant facts, we agree with Patent Owner that, factually and legally, in the ’087 patent “the claimed dosages of 100 mg, 200 mg, and/or 400 mg of GDC-0199 are adequately supported.” PO Second Suppl. Brief 2 (citing PO Resp. 11, 27–29; PO Sur-reply 19, 21– 22; Ex. 1001, 24:20–29.) In particular, the ’087 patent describes all three specific dosage values 100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg in the context of an escalating drug dosage series and Petitioner points to no persuasive statements in the specification that dispute either the effectiveness or the operability of GDC-0199 at any of these dosages.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 11,110,087 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,110,087
• Nextremity Solutions, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Extremity Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00802 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 59 is unpatentable as anticipated by Brumfield, Marcus, and Chandran; the motion to amend proposing substitute claim 62 is denied because claim 62 is unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find this argument unpersuasive. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner’s expert provides a definition of POSITA that is very similar to that recited by Patent Owner in its Motion to Amend, substantively differing only in the number of years of experience of the engineer at issue. This congruity supports the conclusion that the level of ordinary skill in the art may be recognized in the prior art itself. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the “portion of the preamble reciting ‘for compressing bone’ is not limiting to the claim” and found that other terms did not require construction. Dec. 8–9. We agreed with Petitioner that “[t]he phrase ‘for compressing bone’ merely identifies an intended use.” Pet. 20; Dec. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation. See generally PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner that “the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, having considered the entire record developed during trial, we adhere to the preliminary construction that the limitation “for compressing bone” does not impose a structural limitation on claim 59 and that the other terms do not require construction.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner disputes the Petition generally but Patent Owner does not identify any error in Petitioner’s foregoing arguments. Accordingly, we adopt the factual statements regarding the specific teachings of the references as findings of fact. See generally In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the Board need not make specific findings as to claim limitations that Patent Owner does not dispute are disclosed in the prior art). We have reviewed Petitioner’s analysis and the underlying evidence cited in support and conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations of claim 59 are disclosed by Brumfield.” slip op. at 26

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

    “For the reasons discussed below, Patent Owner has shown that proposed substitute claim 62 meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. For the reasons discussed below, however, Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 62 is unpatentable over prior art. Therefore, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,303,589 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,303,589
• Pelican Biothermal, LLC v. Va-Q-Tec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · PGR2021-00085 · APJ Barry L Grossman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the motion to amend but held amended claim 64 unpatentable as anticipated by NanoCool 98596-type products and obvious over the cited combinations; all other amended claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that amended claim 64 is unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Non-Contingent Motion to Amend is granted for claims 64 and denied for all other amended claims; and” slip op. at 77

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A. Status as Prior Art Is a Substantive Issue, Not an Evidentiary Issue. A motion to exclude is not an appropriate mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of evidence, such as whether a reference qualifies as prior art, or the proper weight that should be afforded an argument. See Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, Paper 113, 4, 8–9 (PTAB September 3, 2015); PTAB Consol. Trial Practice Guide 79 (Nov. 30 Mr. Zumwalt testifies that other NanoCool products, designated by product number 85430 and 98630, also have the same configuration as the 98830 product and are made by the same process. Thus, “the 98830, 85430, and 98630 products can be collectively referred to as ‘98830-type’ products all having the same relevant design.” Ex. 1030 ¶ 17. 2019) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact. A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence—arguments regarding weight should appear only in the merits documents.”); Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2017-02187, Paper 42,17 (PTAB May 21, 2019) (status as prior art “is a substantive issue, not an evidentiary issue.”) Thus, whether the NanoCool 98830 product is prior art is not the proper basis for Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude evidence concerning the NanoCool 98830 product.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Harber provide any analysis of the factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill, identified above, to support their conclusory statements. We give Mr. Harber’s conclusory testimony minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to which we have been directed of the need for specific education or experience in biological or chemical technologies related to the claimed containers and inserts.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and at least two to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [insulated shipping containers] depending on education level.” Pet. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Exhibit 1002 is the Declaration testimony of Mr. Paul Haber. Mr. Harber actually states a slightly different level of ordinary skill. Mr. Harber testifies: The hypothetical POSITA would have: (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and have at least three to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [Insulated Shipping Containers][29]. Such a person may also have (ii) a higher level degree, such as a PhD and/or Master’s degree in engineering, or related sciences, and have at least two to three years of experience in designing and testing ISCs. 29 See Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. Ex. 1002 ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Mr. Harber also testifies that “[t]hese descriptions are approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,766,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,766,685
• Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · PGR2021-00114 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

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

  Patent outcomesUS 11,096,345 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,345
• Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00113 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,345
• Commonwealth Scientific And Industrial Research Organisation v. BASF Plant Science Company GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2021 · PGR2020-00057 · APJ Robert A Pollock · PGR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,351,870 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,351,870

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.