- Coalition For Affordable Drugs (Adroca) LLC v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 9, 2017 · IPR2015-01853 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–52 of the ’703, claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10–41 of the ’826, claims 1–8 of the ’685, and claims 1–40 of the ’437 were not shown unpatentable under § 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts constructions for the following claim terms, “less than 15 milligrams,” “release profile,” “matrix,” “improving walking,” and “initiating treatment.” Pet. 18–19. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to provide an explanation as to why the identified claim terms require construction and why the Board should depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. Prelim. Resp. 17, n.4. In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Patent Owner and determined that it was unnecessary to construe explicitly the claim terms for purposes of the Institution Decision. See Dec. Instit. 6 (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We also determine here that we need not construe expressly any claim term in order to issue a Final Written Decision regarding the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Skill Petitioner’s declarants, Drs. Pleasure and Polli, testify that a person of ordinary skill in connection with the ’703 patent would have had an M.D. or Ph.D. in neuroscience or a related field with an understanding of pharmacokinetics and at least some experience in providing drug therapy to MS patients. Ex. 1023 ¶ 16, Ex. 1044 ¶ 13. Additionally, Drs. Pleasure and Polli testify that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had access to a person having an advanced degree in pharmaceutics or pharmaceutical formulation, specifically oral sustained release formulations, or at least five years of experience in formulating sustained oral release drug products and may work as part of a multi-disciplinary team. Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 13–14. Patent Owner does not dispute this recitation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2042 ¶ 68 n.5. We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art identified by Drs. Pleasure and Polli as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of record); In re GPAC Inc., 14 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“In order for claims of the ’703 patent to be entitled to benefit of the filing date of the Provisional, the Provisional must provide written description support for those claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 120. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and provide support for the challenged claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the Provisional must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 261, 262 (CCPA 1976); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563– 64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The primary consideration in determining whether appropriate written description support exists “is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure.” Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 27
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“We are persuaded by Dr. Hayes’ testimony as confirmed by testimony from Drs. Pleasure and Polli, and conclude that the Provisional supports the CavSS ranges in claims 14–15 and 35–36. Dr. Hayes offers credible 34 testimony concerning how one of skill in the art would interpret Table 7 of the Provisional, which depicts essentially the same data as Table 3 of Hayes. See Ex. 2041 ¶ 17. Dr. Hayes interpretation of the data in Table 7 is supported by testimony from Drs. Pleasure and Polli that about two thirds of the measured data fall within one standard deviation and approximately 95 percent of measured values are within two standard deviations from the mean. Id. at 20–22 (citing deposition testimony from Drs. Pleasure and Polli confirming such an understanding). We agree with Dr. Hayes that “[i]n light of the fact that a POSA would immediately recognize that Table 7 of the ’894 Provisional (Ex. 1007-00045) shows possession of measured data beyond even two standard deviations from its reported mean values, a more complete view of the information reported in Table 7 would consider data dispersed beyond two standard deviations from the mean” to encompass a CavSS range from 3.7–37.8 ng/ml. Ex. 2041 ¶ 23. We are not persuaded by Dr. Fairweather’s testimony that Table 7 supports a CavSS of only 15.1 ng/ml to 26.5 ng.ml. See Ex. 1066 ¶ 21. Dr. Fairweather was asked if he could identify where “range” is defined as plus or minus one standard deviation, and he replied that he could not identify where he found such a definition, Ex. 2176, 44:13–22, but Dr. Fairweather confirmed such a definition is not how he would define “range” in his usual practice, Id. at 92:20–93:21. See also id. at 108:5–11 (conceding there may not be any document that defines “range” as one 35 standard deviation from the mean). When asked whether he could justify the range that he provided for CavSS in his declaration, Dr. Fairweather stated that he could not. Id. at 104:25–105:2. He testified that he conceded the smallest range so as to avoid a discussion of what’s the proper definition for range. Id. at 104:16–20. Dr. Fairweather stated twice that he was not a person of skill in the art and would not be able to answer what assumptions such a person would make when reviewing Table 7 of the Provisional. Id. 136:16–23, 138:14–139:7. Finally, Dr. Fairweather also testified that he could not rule out whether the CavSS data for the 10 mg b.i.d. dose described in Table 7 of the Provisional had a range of at least 15 to 35 ng/ml. Id. at 90:9–92:19. In light of these statements, we do not credit Dr. Fairweather’s testimony.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,007,826 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,007,826 - Coalition For Affordable Drugs (Adroca) LLC v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 9, 2017 · IPR2015-01857 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 of the ’685 patent were not shown unpatentable because S-1 was not prior art, alone or with Hayes or Juarez.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“filing date of the Provisional, the Provisional must provide written description support for those claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 120. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and provide support for the challenged claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the Provisional must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 261, 262 (CCPA 1976); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563– 64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The primary consideration in determining whether appropriate written description support exists “is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure.” Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 27
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Because the Provisional provides written description support for the challenged claims, S-1 potentially qualifies as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), but not § 102(b), because the S-1 publication date of September 26, 2003 is less than one year before the filing date of the Provisional of April 9, 2004. As discussed in more detail below, however, Patent Owner has provided evidence that S-1 is not prior art to the claims of the ’703 patent under § 102(a) either because the pertinent portions of the S-1 are the original work of inventors Drs. Blight and Cohen. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a); Katz, 687 F.2d at 454 (stating “one’s own work is not prior art under sec. 102(a) even though it has been disclosed to the public in a manner or form which otherwise would fall under [sec.] 102(a)”).” slip op. at 37
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“We find that Petitioner’s evidence that allegedly casts doubt on the authorship of the relevant portions of S-1 is not sufficient to overcome the ample, unequivocal evidence presented by Patent Owner that supports our finding that the relevant portions of S-1 are the original work of Drs. Blight and Cohen alone. See In re Katz, 687 F.2d at 455. Both Drs. Cohen and Blight state that they alone are the inventors and sole originators of the work in S-1 upon which Petitioner relies. See Exs. 2044, 2045. Five other declarants, intimately involved in the development of S-1, two of which now work for entities other than Acorda, substantiate this testimony. See Exs. 2046–2048, 2052, 2056. Relying on statements that may, on their face, 42 indicate that others may have been involved without any evidence that others were, in fact, originators of the work in question or inventors is simply not enough to carry Petitioner’s burden to show that the S-1 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). For the reasons discussed above, we determine that S-1 does not qualify as prior art to the claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b). Thus, all of Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’703 patent, which depend on S-1 alone or in combination with Hayes or Juarez, fail. Petitioner, therefore, has not carried its burden to prove unpatentability of claims 1–52 of the ’703 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.9” slip op. at 42
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached
“For the reasons discussed above, we determine that S-1 does not qualify as prior art to the claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b). Thus, all of Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’703 patent, which depend on S-1 alone or in combination with Hayes or Juarez, fail. Petitioner, therefore, has not carried its burden to prove unpatentability of claims 1–52 of the ’703 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.9 D. IPR2015-01853; IPR2015-01857; and IPR2015-01858 Petitioner’s patentability challenges to the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,354,437 B2 (“the ’437 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,007,826 B2 (“the ’826 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,354,437 B2 (“the ’437 patent”), at issue in IPR2015-01853, IPR2015-01857, and IPR2015-01858, respectively, essentially raise the same issues presented in the patentability challenge to the claims of the ’703 patent in IPR2015-01850. Therefore, we chose to 9 Because we find that S-1 is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), we need not reach whether S-1 is a printed publication.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,663,685 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,663,685 - Nintendo Of America Inc. / Nintendo Co., Ltd. v. Ilife TechnologiesAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 28, 2016 · IPR2015-00106 · APJ Michelle R Osinski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 21, and 22 are unpatentable: claims 2–3 as obvious over Yasushi and claims 1–3, 21, and 22 as obvious over Unuma.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot entitled to earlier dateMixed
“[of Figure 1] also senses along a third axis.” Pet. Reply 5. We do not find this argument persuasive for the reasons discussed above in relation to claim construction. In view of how we have construed the claims at issue, Patent Owner does not need to show written description support in its priority documents for a system that measures acceleration along all three axes, but rather must show support for a sensor that senses accelerative phenomena with regard to a system of axes (in three dimensions) in relation to which position or motion can be defined. As discussed above, in certain embodiments, such sensing can be accomplished by measuring acceleration along two axes. Petitioner also argues that “a third sensor would need to be added to a two axis accelerometer in order to sense relative to a 3D frame of reference.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1010, 9:25–10:22; 26:20–27:8). Although Dr. Sturges indicates that he “would have had to add another accelerometer orthogonal to the other two” in order “to establish a three-dimensional coordinate system” (Ex. 1010, 10:18–22), we do not find this testimony persuasive to support that a third sensor would be needed in order to sense relative to a three dimensional frame of reference. This portion of testimony relates to how three accelerometers can establish a three-dimensional coordinate system, not whether acceleration measurements in two dimensions provides information regarding a body relative to a 3D frame of reference. See id. at 9:25–10:22. As discussed above, the ’939 patent describes a system that specifically contemplates a fall detection application for a body, which contemplates the up/down (z axis), i.e., measures acceleration along two axes to obtain information about (sense acceleration phenomena of) a body relative to a 3D frame of reference. Ex. 1001, 8:21– 27. As to Dr. Sturges’ further testimony that a dual-axis accelerometer would not establish a three-dimensional coordinate system (Ex. 1010, 27:4– 8), we do not find this testimony persuasive to support a finding that a third sensor is needed in order to sense relative to a three dimensional frame of reference. A dual axis accelerometer alone, without additional information regarding the system/environment in which it will be operating, is different from a dual axis accelerometer defined to be in a particular orientation. For example, consistent with our discussion above regarding disclosures in the Specification, Dr. Sturges has testified that a third axis could be defined even if there was no sensing along that axis. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 45:15–21 (“Q. So how is that Z axis—so it’s drawn in there as a third dimension, but what is defining that Z axis? A. That those axes are relative to the space in which the instrument exists, and the axes are attached so that we can see the – the frame of reference clearly in that figure.”). Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner has shown sufficiently how the parent application (filed on September 15, 1999) describes sensing acceleration phenomena of a body relative to a 3D frame of reference, as recited in the challenged claims. Petitioner also argues that two inventors of the ’939 patent “confirmed that sensing acceleration relative to a 3D frame of reference requires sensing along three axes (‘up and down, front to back, and side to side’).” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 2007, 11; Ex. 2008, 19). We also are not persuaded by this argument, which essentially contends that disclosure of three acceleration measuring devices is required to establish written description support here. As discussed above, a sensor that comprises two acceleration” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedPriority date, deniedMixed
“For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Patent Owner has shown sufficiently that the written description of the parent application filed on September 15, 1999, conveyed with reasonable clarity that the inventors were in possession of a sensor that sensed accelerative phenomena of a body with regard to a system of axes (in three dimensions) in relation to which position or motion could be defined in the environment, in accordance with the construction of the claim as set forth above. Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 is entitled to a priority date of September 15, 1999. In the Decision on Institution, we also noted that “entitlement to priority is decided on a claim-by-claim basis, and various claims may be entitled to different priority dates.” Dec. Inst. 15 (quoting X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Petitioner’s basis for asserting that dependent claims 2 and 3 lack written description support in the parent application filed on September 15, 1999 appears to be their dependence on independent claims 1 and 11. Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 11–23). Patent Owner asserts that dependent claim 2 is also entitled to a priority date of at least September 15, 1999. Prelim. Resp. 13. Patent Owner makes no such assertion regarding dependent claim 3 being entitled to the September 15, 1999 priority date. See id. Petitioner bears the burden of going forward with evidence that there is art prior to the application date of the ’939 patent that either anticipates or renders obvious the claims of the ’939 patent, which it has. Patent Owner then has the burden of going forward with evidence (i) that the prior art does not actually anticipate or render obvious the claims, or (ii) that the alleged prior art is not actually prior art because the challenged claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the date of the alleged prior art. The second item requires Patent Owner to show why the written description in the earlier application supports the claim. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein one of said plurality of different” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 6,703,939 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,703,939 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 28, 2016 · IPR2014-01184 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 5–14 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the prior art combinations addressed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “streaming” is often used in the context of the immediate processing and playback of audio information. -01181 Dec. on Inst. 7. The ordinary meaning of the term, however, does not require the immediate playback of streaming audio information, and the portions of the ’641 patent identified by Patent Owner do not demonstrate with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision that a narrower claim definition should apply. For example, although the discussion in the ’641 patent of using high-speed communications for streaming an Internet radio station supports Patent Owner’s argument that “streaming audio” may be played immediately as it arrives, Ex. 1001, 7:3–7, the ’641 patent also discloses “downloading” “streaming audio” and “streaming Internet Broadcasts.” Id. at 3:67–4:1, 8:31–35, 17:1–2, 18:1–5. Thus, the disclosures of the ’641 patent are consistent with the dictionary definition of the term “streaming,” which contemplates the transfer of “streaming audio” as a constant stream of data for either immediate or delayed playback. Accordingly, we construe the term “streaming audio signal” as “an audio signal that is transferred in a continuous stream.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. remaining claim terms Patent Owner also proposes constructions for the terms wireless telephone device, a signal representing at least a portion of a song, while, and portable electronic device. PO Resp. 5–6, 8–10, 11–12. Upon review of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that construction of these additional claim terms is not required for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the addition of well-known rechargeable battery technology (as disclosed in Herrod) in the device of Abecassis would have been obvious, at a minimum, to eliminate the need to periodically replace the batteries in the Abecassis device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Abecassis and Herrod are in different fields of endeavor, as both references relate to the communication of data using a cellular phone.8” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary, however, to satisfy the written description requirement of section 112. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, we must also determine whether, despite the lack of express disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Patent Owner was in possession of the invention set forth in claim 8. Id. In conducting this analysis, we are cognizant that “a description which renders obvious a claimed invention is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of that invention.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Dr. Wolf recites the same disclosures as Patent Owner and concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ’812 application demonstrates possession of an invention wherein a radio dial transmitted to a recipient device could be used to cause the transmission of selected information to the recipient device. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 287, 290. Dr. Wolf does not address, however, the specific configuration set forth in claim 8 of the ’641 patent. In particular, Dr. Wolf does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the recited disclosures that the patentee was possession of a method of streaming a song from a portable electronic device to a recipient device in response to the selection of a selectable menu item “presented on a recipient device display.” In contrast, Dr. Quackenbush analyzes the disclosures of the ’641 patent in detail and concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon review of the priority disclosures as a whole, would not understand the patentee to be in possession of the invention set forth in claim 8. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 189–207. Specifically, Dr. Quackenbush concludes that the disclosures of the ’812 application and the ’641 Specification focus on the transmission of data from a storage device and digital engine to an electronic device, and not from a portable electronic device to a recipient device, in response to a selection of a selectable menu item presented on a recipient device display. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 193–203. Upon careful review of both Dr. Wolf’s and Dr. Quackenbush’s” slip op. at 52
Patent outcomesUS 8,532,641 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,532,641
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.