• Apotex Inc. v. Cellgene CorporationInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00512 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “IV. CONCLUSION Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial in showing that at least one of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 of the ’628 patent is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Our decision derives from our review of the preliminary record before us. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of each challenged claim the ’628 patent on each of the grounds asserted by Petitioner. This decision does not reflect a final determination on the patentability of the claims. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is granted and we institute inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 of the ’628 patent based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 53

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Moreover, “[w]hen the specification explains and defines a term used in the claims, without ambiguity or incompleteness, there is no need to search further for the meaning of the term.” Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We agree with the parties that the ’628 patent expressly defines this term in stating “[t]he term ‘non-enteric-coated,’ when used herein, refers to a pharmaceutical composition, formulation, or dosage form that does not comprise a coating intended to release the active ingredient(s) beyond the stomach (e.g., in the intestine),” and we adopt this express definition herein with regard to “nonenteric coated tablet.”9 Ex. 1001, 11:42–48 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 14

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

    “to, and sometimes associated with, but not identical to the claim term “subject”), which appears in claims 11, 12, 18–22, and 38–43, means “a human or other animal who received the recited pharmaceutical composition in connection with a test of the recited parameter.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19 (also asserting Petitioner does not appear to dispute this construction). We first note that the term “test subject” appears in the ’628 patent only in the claims. See generally Ex. 1001. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition comports with the Specification’s express definition of “subject,” a term the Specification appears to use synonymously with the claim term “test subject” and the word patient, and that Patent Owner’s definition adds that the subject received the pharmaceutical composition in connection with a test of the recited parameter, which we find to be a reasonable interpretation of the claim term “test subject,” in accordance with the plain language of the claims on their face, and as supported by the relevant portions of the Written Description that describe testing parameters relating to drug administration. Ex. 1001, 35:45–36:62, 67:61–81:48. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition herein.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014). However, “‘[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.’” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted, alterations in original). “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.” Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999). slip op. at 38

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,846,628
• Candela Corporation v. Nikolai TankovichInstituted
  PTAB · Jun 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00234 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–28, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would be unpatentable under the five asserted § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “when no part of the distribution patterns of the two beams cross each other at the point of reference, identified above in Figure 2D–F as “in a tissue.” Id. As both claim 1 and claim 11 refer to tissue treatment, we interpret the point of reference for determining whether the beams overlap to be the point at which the beams first intersect the tissue being treated. This interpretation is supported by the diagrams in Figure 2 above and in the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:4 (“The invention can avoid interference of the wavelengths by delivering the wavelengths simultaneously and in spatially separated and overlapping regions of the tissue being treated.”). In view of the above, we determine that the term “overlapping,” as used in the claims, refers to the crossing of the beam pattern at the point at which the beams intersect the tissue being treated.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “when no part of the distribution patterns of the two beams cross each other at the point of reference, identified above in Figure 2D–F as “in a tissue.” Id. As both claim 1 and claim 11 refer to tissue treatment, we interpret the point of reference for determining whether the beams overlap to be the point at which the beams first intersect the tissue being treated. This interpretation is supported by the diagrams in Figure 2 above and in the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:4 (“The invention can avoid interference of the wavelengths by delivering the wavelengths simultaneously and in spatially separated and overlapping regions of the tissue being treated.”). In view of the above, we determine that the term “overlapping,” as used in the claims, refers to the crossing of the beam pattern at the point at which the beams intersect the tissue being treated.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted

    “Black discloses that its combined beam can be controlled to rotate the mirrors to “generate various different kinds of treatment patterns” and can “create any type of three-dimensional paths and treatment pattern.” See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 61, 62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. On this record and at this stage, the ability to generate treatment patterns meets the limitations of the claims, which each require a pattern of “overlapping beams and non-overlapping beams. We credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that a scanner could be used with or instead of a modulator to provide adjustability to one or more lasers, that the artisan would have been familiar with the control and programming of multiple scanners taught in Black, and that the artisan would have been able to implement these features in Hsia’s system without undue experimentation. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93, 95, 97, 98. Additionally, we credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious from the teachings in Black to combine and scan multiple beams into a desired pattern, such as overlapping and non-overlapping in order to optimize treatment results and because the combination would have provided multiple potential benefits. Id. ¶¶ 98, 101, 112, 116, 118–128. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Milner’s testimony regarding the ordinary artisan’s motivation to combine references parrots the rationales identified and discussed in the ’481 patent. Prelim. Resp. 36–38. Dr. Milner, however, also cites disclosures in both Hsia and Black citing advantages of combined beams including improved treatment efficacy, improved healing, the ability to treat simultaneously at multiple depths, and reduction in the number of required treatments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–119. “[T]he motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one. Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 420 (alterations, emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Black discloses that its combined beam can be controlled to rotate the mirrors to “generate various different kinds of treatment patterns” and can “create any type of three-dimensional paths and treatment pattern.” See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 61, 62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. On this record and at this stage, the ability to generate treatment patterns meets the limitations of the claims, which each require a pattern of “overlapping beams and non-overlapping beams. We credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that a scanner could be used with or instead of a modulator to provide adjustability to one or more lasers, that the artisan would have been familiar with the control and programming of multiple scanners taught in Black, and that the artisan would have been able to implement these features in Hsia’s system without undue experimentation. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93, 95, 97, 98. Additionally, we credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious from the teachings in Black to combine and scan multiple beams into a desired pattern, such as overlapping and non-overlapping in order to optimize treatment results and because the combination would have provided multiple potential benefits. Id. ¶¶ 98, 101, 112, 116, 118–128. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Milner’s testimony regarding the ordinary artisan’s motivation to combine references parrots the rationales identified and discussed in the ’481 patent. Prelim. Resp. 36–38. Dr. Milner, however, also cites disclosures in both Hsia and Black citing advantages of combined beams including improved treatment efficacy, improved healing, the ability to treat simultaneously at multiple depths, and reduction in the number of required treatments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–119. “[T]he motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one. Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 420 (alterations, emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,675,481
• Synthego Corporation v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00403 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–33 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–21, and 24–33 are anticipated by Pioneer Hi-Bred; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner agrees that a POSA would have this educational level. Resp. 23. Patent Owner “also agrees that a POSA would have knowledge of prior art RNA based gene regulating technologies, but disagrees that the teachings of those technologies are relevant in the manner that Dr. Furneaux [and Petitioner] attempt[] to apply them” in the Petition’s grounds. Id. at 23– 24. We find the parties’ agreed understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be supported by the record and apply that description in our analysis herein. To the extent the parties disagree regarding the application of a POSA’s general knowledge of nucleic acids and related prior art techniques to the Petition’s grounds, such disputes are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Independent claims 1 and 19 recite a guide RNA or crRNA molecule having “gRNA functionality comprising associating with a Cas protein and targeting the gRNA:Cas protein complex to the target sequence.” Ex. 1001, 257:42–44, 259:5–7. This claim language makes clear that the recited “gRNA functionality” requires a molecule that can: (1) associate with a Cas protein, and (2) target that complex to a target sequence in a polynucleotide. To the extent Petitioner suggests that a gRNA “need only bind to the Cas protein” to have “gRNA functionality,” we disagree because the claims additionally recite the above-quoted targeting functionality. See Reply 16 (emphasis added). At the same time, we agree with Petitioner that “a gRNA need not cleave the target DNA” to have the claimed “gRNA functionality.” Reply 16. The Specification defines “gRNA functionality” as “one or more functions of naturally occurring guide RNA, such as associating with a Cas protein, or a function performed by the guide RNA in association with a Cas protein” and lists various gRNA functions, e.g., “associating,” “targeting,” “binding,” “nicking,” and “cleaving,” that may be present “in certain embodiments” of the invention. Ex. 1001, 6:56–7:1. However, as noted above, the claims recite “gRNA functionality comprising” only the associating and targeting functions. Thus, while a molecule may have additional functions such as cleaving a target polynucleotide, it need only exhibit the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions to have the “gRNA functionality” in claims 1 and 19. Our determination that “gRNA functionality” requires the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions, but not additional, unrecited functions such as cleaving, is also consistent with the parties’ position that the claim language has its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 17; Resp. 24. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other terms, nor do we discern that any further claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad OceanMotor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that it is only necessary to “construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “established that “anticipation does not require actual performance of suggestions in a disclosure.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, the Petition need not assert that “gRNA functionality” is inherently disclosed because Petitioner has shown that Pioneer Hi-Bred’s expressly discloses this limitation. Pet. 25–26 (citing evidence). There is no additional requirement that this express disclosure be backed by test data in order for the reference to be anticipatory. See, e.g., Novo, 424 F.3d at 1355; Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[P]roof of efficacy is not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation.”).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Second, even if those sequences were truncated, the record does not support Patent Owner’s argument that a POSA would doubt that they have gRNA functionality. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Dr. Marshall’s testimony that these sequences “are truncated to a point that would render them nonfunctional.” Ex. 2025 ¶ 200. But the references he cites do not support that position. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Ex. 1033 (“Fu”); Ex. 2044 (“Cencic”); and Ex. 2045 (“Mali”)). To the contrary, Fu evidences that “truncated gRNAs, with shorter regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” are functional and that truncation to 17 nt is beneficial. Ex. 1033, Abstr.; see also id. at 283 (“[W]e found that [truncated] gRNAs with 17 or 18 nucleotides of complementarity generally function efficiently at the intended target site and have improved specificities.”). Cencic and Mali likewise do not suggest that a 17 nt VT domain would lack gRNA functionality. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Cencic as showing “truncated gRNA tests showed that a guide sequence of only 16 nucleotides” abolished cleavage activity); Ex. 2045, Supp. Fig. 10 (“1-3 bp 5’ [gRNA] 11 Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Furneaux “adopted the definition of ‘truncated gRNAs’ as those with ‘regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” in paragraph 79 of his opening declaration. Sur-reply 8 n. 1. We disagree. The testimony in paragraph 79 refers to the particular results in Fu. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (citing Ex. 1033). We see nothing there that suggests Dr. Furneaux agrees with Patent Owner’s position that any gRNA with a VT region of less than 20 nt is truncated. truncations are indeed well tolerated, but larger deletions lead to loss of activity”). Accordingly, we credit Dr. Furneaux’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 78, Ex. 1059 ¶¶ 73–75) over the competing testimony offered by Dr. Marshall on these points.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,900,034 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,900,034
• Synthego Corporation v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00402 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable: claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, 18, 20–25, and 27–30 are anticipated; the remaining challenged claims are obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Furneaux, Petitioner contends that a POSA “as of December 3, 2014 (the earliest possible priority date of the ’001 Patent) would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related discipline.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 60). Petitioner further asserts that “[a] POSA would have understood the chemical structure of nucleic acids, such as DNA and RNA, and would have understood the role of such nucleic acids in cellular biology” and been aware of various prior art “methods to chemically modify RNA, including gRNAs for use in gene regulation.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–72, 80). Patent Owner agrees that a POSA would have this educational level. Resp. 24. Patent Owner “also agrees that a POSA would have knowledge of prior art RNA based gene regulating technologies, but disagrees that the teachings of those technologies are relevant in the manner that Dr. Furneaux [and Petitioner] attempt[] to apply them” in the Petition’s grounds. Id. We find the parties’ agreed understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be supported by the record and apply that description in our analysis herein. To the extent the parties may disagree regarding the application of a POSA’s general knowledge of nucleic acids and related prior art techniques to the Petition’s grounds, such disputes are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “Independent claims 1 and 12 recite a guide RNA or crRNA molecule having “gRNA functionality comprising associating with a Cas protein and targeting the gRNA:Cas protein complex to a target polynucleotide.” Ex. 1001, 243:20–22, 244:28–31. This claim language makes clear that the recited “gRNA functionality” requires a molecule that can: (1) associate with a Cas protein, and (2) target that complex to a target polynucleotide. To the extent Petitioner suggests that a gRNA “need only bind to the Cas protein” to have “gRNA functionality,” we disagree because the claims additionally recite the above-quoted targeting functionality. See Reply 17 (emphasis added). At the same time, we agree with Petitioner that “a gRNA need not cleave the target DNA” to have the claimed “gRNA functionality.” Reply 17. The Specification defines “gRNA functionality” as “one or more functions of naturally occurring guide RNA, such as associating with a Cas protein, or a function performed by the guide RNA in association with a Cas protein” and lists various gRNA functions, e.g., “associating,” “targeting,” “binding,” “nicking,” and “cleaving,” that may be present “in certain embodiments” of the invention. Ex. 1001, 6:36–40. However, as noted above, the claims recite “gRNA functionality comprising” only the associating and targeting functions. Thus, while a molecule may have additional functions such as cleaving a target polynucleotide, it need only exhibit the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions to have the “gRNA functionality” in claims 1 and 12. Our determination that “gRNA functionality” requires the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions, but not additional, unrecited functions such as cleaving, is also consistent with the parties’ position that the claim language has its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 17; Resp. 24–25. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other terms, nor do we discern that any further claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad OceanMotor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that it is only necessary to “construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence persuasive. It is well established that “anticipation does not require actual performance of suggestions in a disclosure.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, the Petition need not assert that “gRNA functionality” is inherently disclosed because Petitioner has shown that Pioneer Hi-Bred’s expressly discloses this limitation. Pet. 24–26. There is no additional requirement that this express disclosure be backed by test data in order for the reference to be anticipatory. See, e.g., Novo, 424 F.3d at 1355; Rasmusson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[P]roof of efficacy is not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation.”).” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Second, even if those sequences were truncated, the record does not support Patent Owner’s argument that a POSA would doubt that they have gRNA functionality. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Dr. Marshall’s testimony that these sequences “are truncated to a point that would render them nonfunctional. Ex. 2025 ¶ 200. But the references he cites do not support that position. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Ex. 1033 (“Fu”); Ex. 2044 (“Cencic”); and Ex. 2045 (“Mali”)). To the contrary, Fu evidences that “truncated gRNAs, with shorter regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” are functional and that truncation to 17 nt is beneficial. Ex. 1033, Abstr.; see also id. at 283 (“[W]e found that [truncated] gRNAs with 17 or 18 nucleotides of complementarity generally function efficiently at the intended target site and have improved specificities.”). Cencic and Mali likewise do not suggest that a 17 nt VT domain would lack gRNA functionality. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Cencic as showing 11 Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Furneaux “adopted the definition of ‘truncated gRNAs’ as those with ‘regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” in paragraph 79 of his opening declaration. Sur-reply 8 n. 1. We disagree. The testimony in paragraph 79 refers to the particular results in Fu. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 79 (citing Ex. 1033). We see nothing there that suggests Dr. Furneaux agrees with Patent Owner’s position that any gRNA with a VT region of less than 20 nt is truncated. “truncated gRNA tests showed that a guide sequence of only 16 nucleotides” abolished cleavage activity); Ex. 2045, Supp. Fig. 10 (“1-3 bp 5’ [gRNA] truncations are indeed well tolerated, but larger deletions lead to loss of activity”). Accordingly, we credit Dr. Furneaux’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 79, Ex. 1059 ¶¶ 73–75) over the competing testimony offered by Dr. Marshall on these points.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,337,001 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,337,001
• Vifor (International) AG v. Biofer S.P.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01608 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16, 19–21, and 23–25 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “step of reacting a sugar with bromine occurs “in a solution at a pH between 7.0 and 9.0.” Ex. 1001, 16:46–47. A dispositive question arises, on this record, as to whether Petitioner’s information, directed to this pH range limitation, is sufficient to support institution of review. For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner’s information is not sufficient and deny the Petition on that basis.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “and 12 and that Stoll suggests a pH range of 7 or greater. Pet. 29–30 and n.7, 39. Those prior art pH ranges overlap or encompass the specified pH range of “between 7.0 and 9.0.” Pet. 38–39 and n.10. Under these circumstances, the burden of production shifts to Patent Owner to come forward with evidence of the criticality of the specified pH range limitation. See id. at 39–40 (quoting E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Patent Owner meets that burden by directing us to the Marchi Declaration. Resp. 9–12; Ex. 1004, 432–440. That evidence contains experimental results that support Dr. Marchi’s opinion that the claimed method, when performed at a pH of 8, “can be run with equimolar amounts of oxidant without increasing depolymerization,” but when performed at a pH of 10, results in an undesirable “depolymerizing attack on the main chain, even employing only 0.9 equivalents of oxidant.” Ex. 1004, 434–435 (¶ 7). As Patent Owner points out, moreover, the oxidation reaction in each of the examples in Geisser is carried out at a pH of 10. see Prelim. Resp. 26 and n.8 (citing Ex. 1006, Examples 1–8).” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We assess the ground based on anticipation by Geisser in view of the principle that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim “if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The ground based on anticipation by Geisser rests on a conclusory opinion that Geisser’s disclosure of a pH range between 8 and 12 “describes” an oxidation reaction that occurs “at a pH between 7.0 and 9.0.” Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 178, which repeats that conclusory opinion verbatim without objective evidence or analysis). It is unclear on this record, and Petitioner does not explain adequately, how or why Geisser anticipates the pH range limitation of claim 1, which is “critical” for reasons explained above in our analysis of the ground based on obviousness over Geisser and Stoll. Ex. 1004, 435 (the Marchi Declaration, ¶ 7). Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing “with respect to at least [one] of the claims” based on any ground asserted in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner proposes that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would hold an advanced degree, such as an M.S. or doctorate, in chemistry, medicine, pharmacy, or a related degree,” as well as post-graduate experience “in areas of carbohydrate chemistry, synthetic chemistry, medicinal chemistry, inorganic chemistry, and/or metal carbohydrate complexes, or the clinical use of such complexes.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,759,320
• Restem, LLC. v. Jadi Cell, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01535 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not proven unpatentable: Majore did not anticipate claims 1–13 and 15, and the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 132, 133. Importantly, however, Dr. Olson does not cite anything to support his opinion that the ordinary artisan would have known that MSCs could be cultured to be renewable from subepithelial UC tissue. Nor does Dr. Olson explain why the artisan would have had this understanding aside from simply stating it. Majore uses the word “subepithelial” only once to explain that primitive stem cells are “distributed in subepithelial and intervascular regions,” but this does not teach what Dr. Olson asserts. Accordingly, Dr. Olson’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–16 (finding that an expert’s conclusory assertions that repeat the proposition for which they are offered without “any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning” in support are “conclusory and unsupported, add[] little to the conclusory assertion[s] for which [they are] offered to support, and is” slip op. at 52

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “21 The parties do not dispute that the preamble’s recitation of “isolated cell” serves as a limitation to claim 1 as it provides antecedent basis for its recitation later in the body of the claim. Accordingly, we treat the preamble as limiting. “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” slip op. at 31

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “[JUDGE NEWMAN:] So if -- if the comparison is possible, why did you not present evidence of that comparison? MR. FITZPATRICK: We --we’ve had the -- we had this discussion with our -- with our expert, and our conclusion was that it’s just not -- it wasn’t necessary. The conclusion was that the -- the evidence that’s in the -- in the prior art references, including the fact that it clearly practices the exact same steps as the claims, that was sufficient to -- and would anticipate or render obvious the claims. That’s the only reason we didn’t present evidence -- our own evidence.” slip op. at 38

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (alteration in original). We agree that an ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the teachings of analogous references for information, but to establish obviousness, a party must show that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale to explain why the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the isolated cell with the specific marker profile or why the artisan would have looked to the cited references themselves out of the wide range of references available in the art.” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 9,803,176 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,803,176
• Streck, Inc. / Streck LLC v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01577 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 55–61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89–92, 94, 126–130, 132, and 133 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “III. MOTIONS Motion to Strike (Paper 50) Petitioner filed a motion to strike portions of Patent Owner’s Sur- Reply. Paper 50. Patent Owner opposes the motion. Paper 53. Petitioner contends Patent Owner raised new argument about Exhibit 1014 (a paper authored by Dr. Patterson), which was submitted with the filing of the Petition but only cited by Patent Owner for the first time in its Sur-Reply. Paper 50, 1–3; PO Sur-Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1014). According to Petitioner, Patent Owner presents new argument about the reversibility of certain crosslinks caused by formaldehyde, cites new experimental data (in Ex. 1014, Fig. 2.1), and argues such matters would have been known before any possible priority date of the ’277 patent. Paper 50, 1–3. Moreover, Petitioner argues, the untimeliness of Patent Owner’s arguments about Exhibit 1014 prevented the exhibit’s author, Dr. Patterson, from addressing them to provide explanation or context. Id. at 2–3. For the reasons given below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to strike. First, we find that Patent Owner’s arguments on Exhibit 1014 are, on balance, responsive to issues raised by Petitioner in its Reply. It is true that Petitioner submitted Exhibit 1014 with its Petition and that Patent Owner did not cite it until its Sur-Reply. However, the points raised by Patent Owner about Exhibit 1014 respond to certain of Petitioner’s arguments raised for the first time in its Reply. For example, Petitioner argued a POSA would not have been concerned about formaldehyde’s use (such as cross-linking disclosed in Heinmoller that Patent Owner cited in its Response) and that those concerns arose only after the supposed priority date of the ’277 patent. 88 Pet. Reply 8–9. Patent Owner’s citation of Exhibit 1014 is responsive on such points (e.g., it discusses cross-linking with formaldehyde’s use), it published in 2000 and is thus earlier than some references Petitioner argued were too late to evidence a POSA’s knowledge, and, lastly, it was authored by Dr. Patterson and arguably called into question the credibility of rebuttal opinions he offered about the state of a POSA’s knowledge on such issues. Second, Exhibit 1014 does not, ultimately, help Patent Owner as we do not rely on the portions of Exhibit 1014 cited by Patent Owner or Patent Owner’s argument about them. As discussed in our analysis, if cross-linking (as reported in Heinmoller or, for that matter, Exhibit 1014) was a perceived problem, Dr. Patterson provides a credible explanation how it could be and likely was addressed by Pertl.54 Supra Section II(G)(3) (citing Ex. 1047).” slip op. at 88

  • ExcludeDenied

    “by the non-designating party. See generally Paper 60. We nevertheless reviewed the designated testimony. The objections are overruled, but were also considered during review.” slip op. at 90

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on grounds advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 93

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “3. Conclusion For the reasons above, we find Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Chiu/Lee discloses “an agent that inhibits cell lysis, if cells are present” as recited in independent claims 55 and 81, and the claims depending therefrom. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that claims 55–59, 61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89, 94, and 126–130 would have been obvious over Chiu and Lee.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,277 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,277
• Hope Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Oregon Health & Science UniversityOther
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00123 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled original claim 1 and denied substitute claim 2 for lack of written-description support; it did not reach the obviousness or enablement grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill is inappropriate because it “requires qualifications that exclude even the sole inventor of the ’190 Patent, Dr. Edward Neuwelt.” MTA Opp. 1. According to Petitioner, Dr. Neuwelt is “a neurosurgeon,” not a pediatric oncologist, and lacks the requisite “at least 2 years” experience in platinum-based therapies. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 18; Ex. 1038, 98:9–17, 100:15–101, 4). We agree with Petitioner. It is well settled that inventors are typically persons skilled in the field of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner presents persuasive evidence to show that under Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill, Dr. Neuwelt, the sole inventor, would not qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan, because he is not a pediatric oncologist, even though he is considered “one of the world leading experts on this compound [STS] and otoprotection” and “an expert in the area of [STS] as a . . . drug to use in children with medulloblastoma.” Ex. 1038, 98:9–17, 99:17–18, 101:18–102:13.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Paragraph 102 of Dr. Rassekh’s Declaration, however, does not support Patent Owner’s assertion. Instead, Dr. Rassekh testifies that [t]he stratum of previous craniospinal radiation therapy contained 8 participants: 2 of the 4 (50%) participants receiving STS had hearing loss compared to 4 of the 4 (100%) participants not receiving STS, and none of the hearing loss assessments were changed at the 1 year follow up period. (Ex. 1001 at 20: 28-32, 47-50.) Ex. 2024 ¶ 102. Dr. Rassekh offers no opinion on how many osteosarcoma patients with prior cranial irradiation and how many medulloblastoma patients with prior cranial irradiation had hearing loss.” slip op. at 20

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “In sum, we find the disclosures of the ’243 application that Patent Owner relies on do not provide sufficient written-description support for the ototoxicity efficacy limitation.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “F. Petitioner’s Asserted Unpatentability Grounds In light of our determination above that Patent Owner has not shown sufficient written-description support for proposed substitute claim 2 in the ’243 application, we do not reach the grounds of unpatentability set forth in Petitioner’s Opposition. See Revised MTA Opp. 17–25 (alleging non-enablement and obviousness).” slip op. at 26

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,596,190
• Apple Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01562 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 based on three §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Other 314aDenied

    “deny institution. This case is readily distinguishable from OpenSky. In OpenSky, the Director determined that petitioner was formed for no purpose other than to capitalize on a jury verdict awarding significant damages in a patent litigation by extracting payment from one of the parties to that litigation. OpenSky, Paper 102 at 39. The Director also determined that the petitioner was “seeking compensation from both the patent owner and another petitioner in exchange for advocacy against whichever party does not pay,” which the Director characterized as “double-dealing,” suggesting that the “petition was filed purely to extract rents, in either direction, rather than for legitimate purposes.” Id. at 40. Finally, the Director determined that petitioner in the OpenSky case was not “meaningfully pursuing unpatentability grounds.” Id. at 29. Here, there is no evidence remotely paralleling that in OpenSky. Petitioner is a practicing entity with an interest in the subject matter covered by the patent at issue. Patent Owner has not provided any evidence of double-dealing. And the evidence to date suggests that Petitioner fully intends to meaningfully pursue the unpatentability grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. We decline to deny the Petition on a discretionary basis as requested by Patent Owner. Thus, for reasons explained below, we institute inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’415 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this decision, and consistent with Petitioner’s proposal, we find that a POSA may be a member of an interdisciplinary team including persons with backgrounds in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and/or cardiology, and having at least two years of relevant work experience designing, using, or analyzing data from, cardiac monitoring devices.8 This definition is generally consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification and in the cited prior art. 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)). 8 This definition is identical to the definition we applied in the inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,572,499, which claims similar subject matter. See IPR2021-00970, Paper 43, 25 (PTAB, Dec. 6, 2022) (Final Written Decision).” slip op. at 13

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

    “We have considered Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these limitations and do not find them deficient for failure to provide a claim construction. We address these limitations infra § III.E.2 and, for purposes of this Decision, do not find it necessary to expressly construe these claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); 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’”). Nor do we find it necessary to construe any other claim terms. Id. To the extent Patent Owner contends an express claim construction of these limitations, or any other claim limitations, would be helpful, Patent Owner is invited to brief the issue in its Response.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,159,415
• Apple Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01560 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Other 314aDenied

    “We decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution. This case is readily distinguishable from OpenSky. In OpenSky, the Director determined that petitioner was formed for no purpose other than to capitalize on a jury verdict awarding significant damages in a patent litigation by extracting payment from one of the parties to that litigation. OpenSky, Paper 102 at 39. The Director also determined that the petitioner was “seeking compensation from both the patent owner and another petitioner in exchange for advocacy against whichever party does not pay,” which the Director characterized as “double-dealing,” suggesting that the “petition was filed purely to extract rents, in either direction, rather than for legitimate purposes.” Id. at 40. Finally, the Director determined that petitioner in the OpenSky case was not “meaningfully pursuing unpatentability grounds.” Id. at 29. Here, there is no evidence remotely paralleling that in OpenSky. Petitioner is a practicing entity with an interest in the subject matter covered by the patent at issue. Patent Owner has not provided any evidence of double-dealing. And the evidence to date suggests that Petitioner fully intends to meaningfully pursue the unpatentability grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. We decline to deny the Petition on a discretionary basis as requested by Patent Owner. Thus, for reasons explained below, we institute inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’956 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this decision, and consistent with Petitioner’s proposal, we find that a POSA may be a member of an interdisciplinary team including persons with backgrounds in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and/or cardiology, and having at least two years of relevant work experience designing, using, or analyzing data from, cardiac monitoring devices.10 This definition is generally consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification and in the cited prior art. 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 14

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

    “We have considered Petitioner’s arguments with respect to the “receiving heart rate . . .” limitations of claims 1 and 12 and do not find them deficient for failure to provide a claim construction. We address these limitations infra § III.E.2 and, for purposes of this Decision, do not find it necessary to expressly construe these claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); 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’”). Nor do we find it necessary to construe any other claim terms. Id. To the extent Patent Owner contends an express claim construction of the “receiving the heart rate . . .” limitations, or any other claim limitations, would be helpful, Patent Owner is invited to brief the issue in its Response.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,420,956

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.