• JSR Corporation / JSR Life Sciences, LLC v. Cytiva Bioprocess R&D ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00041 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, 18–20, and 23–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4 and 17 were not shown unpatentable because the art did not establish expected Fab binding.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering, molecular and structural biology, biochemical engineering, or similar disciplines; (2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience (including industry experience) in one or more of these areas; and (3) an understanding of the various factors involved in purifying proteins using chromatography.[] Such a person would have had multiple years of experience with affinity ligand design and protein purification. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–14). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is unopposed and appears consistent with the Specification and art of record, we apply it here.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “According to the Specification, “the present invention . . . relates to a multimeric chromatography ligand (also denoted a ‘multimer’) comprised of at least two Domain C units, or a functional fragments or variants thereof.” Ex. 1001, 7:27–30. The Specification additionally recites that a multimer containing only domain C units can, however, include linkers. Id. 7:39–41. In addition, the Specification describes that “the multimer comprises one or more additional units, which are different from Domain C.” Id. 7: 44–45. Based on these disclosures in the Specification, a multimer is composed of at least two or more monomers. Because Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the ’142 patent’s express construction of the term, and because Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s construction, we apply it here.” slip op. at 14

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

    “knowledge that any one of the five SPA IgG binding domains are known to bind IgG and can function as a ligand for the purification of antibodies. Linhult and Abrahmsén both expressly suggest that the glycine codon at position 29 can be mutated for an alanine codon in any one of the SPA IgG binding domains E, D, A, B, or C. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, 2:32–37. Here, the SPA IgG binding domains comprise a short list of 5 members: E, D, A, B, or C. Of these 5 members, the glycine at position 29 in domain B has already been mutated to an alanine to create a domain Z which has been shown to retain IgG binding activity. Ex. 1004, 6 (Fig. 3). Figure 1A of Linhult is reproduced below. Linhult’s Figure 1A, reproduced above, shows the amino acid alignments of the Z, Z(F30A) and the five homologous domains (E, D, A, B, and C). The three boxes show the α-helices. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, Fig. 2. Here, Linhult and Abrahmsén show that the IgG binding domains of SPA – E, D, A, B, and C share many structural similarities. See Ex. 1004, 2 (Fig. 1(a) (reproduced above)); Ex. 1005, 3:25–35. As discussed in our Institution Decision (Dec. 30–31), there are a finite number—five (5)—SPA IgG binding domains and each possesses the dipeptide sequence Asp-Gly known to a be a target for alkaline protein degradation. Therefore, the solution of mutating the glycine at position 29 for an alanine to remove the alkaline sensitive sequence is not a product of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense. See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). It is well established that” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentable

    “Here, the teachings of Linhult, Abrahmsén, and Hober suggest mutating the glycine at position 29 for an alanine in any one of the IgG binding domains of E, D, A, B, or C of SPA in order to avoid protein degradation. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, 5:4–9. We, therefore, agree with Petitioner that the art expressly suggests that the glycine codon can be mutated for an alanine codon in any one of the SPA IgG binding domains E, D, A, B, or C. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–111). Attaching any one of SPA mutated IgG binding domains E D A B or C to a matrix using “known ligand-construction methods to yield a predictable result[] (e.g., the claimed affinity chromatography matrix)” would have been obvious. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 130). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[w]here a skilled artisan merely pursues ‘known options’ from ‘a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,’ the resulting invention is obvious under Section 103.” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Linhult Abrahmsén, and Hober expressly suggests mutating the glycine codon for an alanine codon in any one of the SPA IgG binding domains E, D, A, B, or C. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–111). We also agree that the cited art teaches using these mutant SPA domains in column chromatography for the isolation of antibodies.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,343,142 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,343,142
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron would prevail on its asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’806 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “words” and because “the numerous (8) independent claims recite two very different interconnection techniques for stacked multichip modules.” Id. Petitioner represents that The current Petition challenges independent claims 1, 2, 23, 24, and 30 in addition to dependent claims 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 14-19, 25-26, and 32—all of which recite a wire bond interconnection technique. The first Petition (IPR 2023-00071) seeks cancellation of independent claims 3, 27, and 31 in addition to dependent claims 4-5, 8, 11, 20-22, 28, 29, and 33—all of which recite using a combination of flip-chip and wire bond interconnection techniques for stacked multichip modules. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner further states that “each claim is challenged only once.” Id. at 3. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions that two petitions are necessary. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the present record, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to deny institution of either petition on the basis of Petitioner filing two petitions to address the large number of claims included in the ’806 patent. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59–60 (Nov. 2019)2 (in determining whether multiple petitions are necessary, the Board may consider petitioner’s explanations regarding “the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’806 patent would understand the claim term “electrode section” recited in the challenged claims to mean “electrical terminals, usually called bond pads, that are part of the substrate’s wiring layer.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–107). At this time, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “electrode section.” See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe the term “electrode section” because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Patent Owner contends that the term “adhesion layer” recited in the challenged independent claims should be construed to mean “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Patent Owner argues that Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh do not teach “adhesion layer” under Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term. See, e.g., id. at 16–24. Although Patent Owner’s argument raises an issue of claim construction, we need not expressly construe “adhesion layer” for purposes of this Decision because, as discussed in Section III.D.5 below, Petitioner shows sufficiently that the asserted combination of Ball, Fogal, Mostafazadeh, and the knowledge of a skilled artisan teaches or suggests “adhesion layer” even under Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Celltrion, Inc. et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00298 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain that Petitioners’ definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’338 patent and the prior art of record. On the other hand, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be inappropriately limited to those having “firsthand experience” regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, as explained by Dr. Do. See Ex. 2051 ¶ 28. While it may be that the claimed methods would be performed an ophthalmologist, a person having ordinary skill in the art need not be limited to those more appropriately considers that knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders, may be possessed by other professionals that are not ophthalmologists. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioners’ definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “preamble of method claims 1 and 14, i.e., “[a] method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” is limiting. Although we agree with Petitioners that the preamble sets forth “‘a statement of purpose or intended’ use for the claimed dosing regimen,” see Pet. 17, that does not the end our inquiry. As noted in the Institution Decision, the Federal Circuit has explained that its case law does not support a “binary distinction between statements of mere intended purpose on the one hand and limiting preambles on the other.” Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Rather, as the Federal Circuit reiterated, “there is no ‘litmus test’ for determining whether a preamble is limiting.” Id. (citing Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2006) and Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). As the Court instructed, we consider whether to treat a preamble as a claim limitation based upon “the facts [in this] case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Id. (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “or that the administered doses are “therapeutically effective” separately or cumulatively. Instead, the claimed method focuses on treating an angiogenic eye disorder with a specific compound, i.e., a VEGF antagonist, based on a specific temporal regimen, i.e., sequentially administering an initial dose, followed by a prescribed time frame for secondary and tertiary dose(s). As discussed above, we determined that the preamble limits the claims in terms of requiring the doses of VEGF antagonist administered to be for the purpose of treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. We find that the intrinsic evidence supports finding that it is the administration of the VEGF antagonist to such patient for the purpose of providing an improvement of or beneficial effect on their angiogenic eye disorder that satisfies the “treating” portion of the preamble.” slip op. at 19

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

    “arguments and the evidence, we find that the Specification expressly defines the terms “initial dose,” “secondary doses,” and “tertiary doses.” The Specification states, refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist. Thus, the “initial dose” is the dose which is administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen (also referred to as the “baseline dose”); the “secondary doses” are the doses which are administered after the initial dose; and the “tertiary doses” are the doses which are administered after the secondary doses. Ex. 1001, 3:31–38 (emphasis added). Based on those express definitions in the Specification, we do not find cause to construe the terms differently. In particular, we do not find that the Specification requires the “tertiary doses” to maintain any efficacy gain achieved after the initial and secondary doses, or that the term suggests any specific level of efficacy. The Specification unequivocally states that “[t]he terms ‘initial dose,’ ‘secondary doses,’ and ‘tertiary doses,’ refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist,” and that “the ‘tertiary doses’ are the doses which are administered after the secondary doses.” Ex. 1001, 3:31–38 (emphasis added). Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the Specification or other persuasive evidence that supports adding an efficacy requirement to that definition.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,254,338 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,254,338
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Celltrion, Inc. et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00258 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain that Petitioners’ definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’338 patent and the prior art of record. On the other hand, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be inappropriately limited to those having “firsthand experience” regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, as explained by Dr. Do. See Ex. 2051 ¶ 28. While it may be that the claimed methods would be performed an ophthalmologist, a person having ordinary skill in the art need not be limited to those more appropriately considers that knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders, may be possessed by other professionals that are not ophthalmologists. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioners’ definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “preamble of method claims 1 and 14, i.e., “[a] method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” is limiting. Although we agree with Petitioners that the preamble sets forth “‘a statement of purpose or intended’ use for the claimed dosing regimen,” see Pet. 17, that does not the end our inquiry. As noted in the Institution Decision, the Federal Circuit has explained that its case law does not support a “binary distinction between statements of mere intended purpose on the one hand and limiting preambles on the other.” Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Rather, as the Federal Circuit reiterated, “there is no ‘litmus test’ for determining whether a preamble is limiting.” Id. (citing Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2006) and Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). As the Court instructed, we consider whether to treat a preamble as a claim limitation based upon “the facts [in this] case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Id. (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Here, the claims are directed to methods of administering, i.e., using, a VEGF antagonist for an intended purpose of “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” See Claims 1 and 14, Ex. 1001, 23:2–3; 24:3–4. The angiogenic eye disorders in patients. See, e.g., id. at 1:18–20, 63–66, 2:23– 27; 3:19–20; 5:11–13. Apart from the preamble, the independent claims do not elsewhere recite or indicate any other use for the method steps comprising the administration of a VEGF antagonist. Thus, we determine that the preamble sets forth the essence of the invention—treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. As the Federal Circuit explained in Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003), “preamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise,” and that this principle frequently holds true for method claims. Id. at 1345 (citing Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We find that such is the case here. Additionally, we find that the preamble provides antecedent basis for claim terms “the patient” recited in the body of each independent claim, and “angiogenic eye disorders” recited in dependent claims 6, 7, 18, and 20. Indeed, without the preamble, it would be unclear to whom the doses of VEGF are administered. Thus, in view of Federal Circuit case law regarding statements of intended purpose in claims directed to method of using compositions, and in view of the evidence of record, namely, the claim language and the written description of the ’338 patent, we find that the preambles of method claims 1 and 14 are limiting insofar as they require “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.”” slip op. at 17

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

    “We begin by noting that the claims do not recite any dosage amounts or that the administered doses are “therapeutically effective” separately or cumulatively. Instead, the claimed method focuses on treating an angiogenic eye disorder with a specific compound, i.e., a VEGF antagonist, based on a specific temporal regimen, i.e., sequentially administering an initial dose, followed by a prescribed time frame for secondary and tertiary dose(s). As discussed above, we determined that the preamble limits the claims in terms of requiring the doses of VEGF antagonist administered to be for the purpose of treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. We find that the intrinsic evidence supports finding that it is the administration of the VEGF antagonist to such patient for the purpose of providing an improvement of or beneficial effect on their angiogenic eye disorder that satisfies the “treating” portion of the preamble. regarding the “Amount of VEGF Antagonist Administered.” See Ex. 1001, 6:29–7:14. In that discussion, the Specification explains, The amount of VEGF antagonist administered to the patient in each dose is, in most cases, a therapeutically effective amount. As used herein, the phrase “therapeutically effective amount” means a dose of VEGF antagonist that results in a detectable improvement in one or more symptoms or indicia of an angiogenic eye disorder, or a dose of VEGF antagonist that inhibits, prevents, lessens or delays the progression of an angiogenic eye disorder. Id. at 6:48–55 (emphasis added). That description, along with the absence of the phrase “therapeutically effective” in the claims,11 signals for us the inventors’ intention to not limit the claims to the administration of doses that ultimately prove to be therapeutically effective in a given patient. Instead, the Specification describes administration of VEGF antagonist doses for treating angiogenic eye disorder in a manner that encompasses doses that result in disclosed improvements and benefits, referred to as “therapeutically effective amounts,” and doses that do not. Indeed, as guidance, the Specification discloses that “a therapeutically effective amount can be from about 0.05 mg to about 5 mg,” without any guarantee that any particular dosage regimen administered within that range of dosage amounts will necessarily be “therapeutically effective,” and without limiting the treatment methods based upon such results. Ex. 1001, 6:55–58 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 19

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

    “arguments and the evidence, we find that the Specification expressly defines the terms “initial dose,” “secondary doses,” and “tertiary doses.” The Specification states, refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist. Thus, the “initial dose” is the dose which is administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen (also referred to as the “baseline dose”); the “secondary doses” are the doses which are administered after the initial dose; and the “tertiary doses” are the doses which are administered after the secondary doses. Ex. 1001, 3:31–38 (emphasis added). Based on those express definitions in the Specification, we do not find cause to construe the terms differently. In particular, we do not find that the Specification requires the “tertiary doses” to maintain any efficacy gain achieved after the initial and secondary doses, or that the term suggests any specific level of efficacy. The Specification unequivocally states that “[t]he terms ‘initial dose,’ ‘secondary doses,’ and ‘tertiary doses,’ refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist,” and that “the ‘tertiary doses’ are the doses which are administered after the secondary doses.” Ex. 1001, 3:31–38 (emphasis added). Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the Specification or other persuasive evidence that supports adding an efficacy requirement to that definition.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,254,338 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,254,338
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Celltrion, Inc. et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00257 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 8–12 are unpatentable: Dixon anticipates claims 1 and 9–12 and claim 8, and the Board also finds the claims obvious over Dixon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “On February 9, 2022, we instituted an inter partes review in IPR2022- 00257 and granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00880, adding Celltrion, Inc. as a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 35. On the same date, we also instituted an inter partes in IPR2022-00301 and likewise granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00880, adding Apotex, Inc. as a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 36. We refer to Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celltrion, Inc. and Apotex, Inc., collectively, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 3

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the challenged Exhibits are not authenticated. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 sets a relatively low bar for authentication. See Comcast, 2020 WL 4687062, at *28. Rule 901(a) states: “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). By way of example, Rule 901(b)(1) states that a witness with knowledge can provide authenticating testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be. Fed. R. 901(b)(1).” slip op. at 15

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “We deny the motion to exclude the referenced argument in Petitioners’ Reply, as well as the invitation to consider the motion as one to strike the argument. As Patent Owner notes in the motion, Patent Owner raised this issue previously in this proceeding. PO Mot. Exclude 5. At that time, we denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to strike the referenced argument in the Reply. It is improper for Patent Owner to now seek to strike the argument in a motion to exclude. A motion to exclude is not the proper vehicle to address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of a reply. See USPTO, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (2019) at 79, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf?MURL= (last visited October 27, 2022) (“CTPG”). Moreover, as Petitioners correctly assert, Patent Owner has failed to satisfy the prerequisite for filing a motion to exclude by failing to timely file an objection. See 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1); CTPG 78–79. Patent Owner has not been left without an opportunity to address the Reply argument. When we denied authorization to file a motion to strike, we authorized Patent Owner to file, with its Sur-Reply, a table identifying any portion of the Reply that Patent Owner considers to have exceeded the scope of the Reply. Further, we explained that Patent Owner, alternatively, may address that contention, or the merits of any newly-raised arguments or evidence in its Sur-Reply. Indeed, Patent Owner addressed the issue in its 26 Sur-Reply for our consideration. Thus, Patent Owner had sufficient opportunity to identify in its Sur-Reply its contentions regarding Petitioners’ allegedly inappropriate Reply argument and took advantage of that opportunity. That is sufficient for us to consider the issue and determine whether such argument should be disregarded. See CTPG 80.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s definition is the better definition for purposes of this proceeding. We acknowledge that the claims of the ’069 patent are directed to a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” 29 and that the actual practice of the method would therefore seem to be limited to those who have the ability to treat patients, i.e., physicians, etc. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be unduly limiting. Individuals who are involved in drug development or sub-clinical level testing of drugs for treating eye disorders may be extremely knowledgeable about the development of the treatment of eye disorders and drug development, and able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Pet. 25. Such individuals might not possess an M.D. degree, but instead possess a Ph.D. in a “biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field,” or a lesser degree with a corresponding increased depth of experience, as suggested by Petitioner. We agree that such individuals should be considered persons of ordinary skill in the art. We also find that Petitioner’s definition is commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the prior art. See, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1010, 1030, 1033; see also 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))). We consequently adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art has having an M.D. or Ph.D. or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field, and having practical academic or medical experience in developing treatments 30 for angiogenic eye disorders or treating angiogenic eye disorders including through the use of VEGF antagonists.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,669,069 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,669,069
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Celltrion, Inc. et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00880 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 8–12 are unpatentable: Dixon anticipates claims 1 and 8–12 and renders claims 1 and 9–12 obvious; other grounds were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We therefore conclude that Patent Owner has met the standard set forth in Rule 901(b)(1) of presenting a witness with knowledge to authenticate the challenged Exhibits as being true and correct copies of records that are in the possession of Patent Owner. As a Senior Litigation Support Specialist, working in consultation with a Regeneron custodian of records, and with access to the restricted Regeneron server where the 16 Exhibits at issue are kept, Ms. Weber qualifies as a person with knowledge, under Rule 901(b)(1), that the Exhibits were true and correct copies of the records in Regeneron’s possession. Ms. Weber’s testimony does not speak to the substance of the challenged Exhibits, but merely that these are accurate copies of records that are in the possession of, and controlled by, Regeneron. As such, her testimony is sufficient to authenticate, under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, the challenged Exhibits as being what Patent Owner claims them to be. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude the challenged Exhibits upon this ground is consequently denied.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “We deny the motion to exclude the referenced argument in Petitioners’ Reply, as well as the invitation to consider the motion as one to strike the argument. As Patent Owner notes in the motion, Patent Owner raised this issue previously in this proceeding. PO Mot. Exclude 5. At that time, we denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to strike the referenced argument in the Reply. It is improper for Patent Owner to now seek to strike the argument in a motion to exclude. A motion to exclude is not the proper vehicle to address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of a reply. See USPTO, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (2019) at 79, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf?MURL= (last visited October 27, 2022) (“CTPG”). Moreover, as Petitioners correctly assert, Patent Owner has failed to satisfy the prerequisite for filing a motion to exclude by failing to timely file an objection. See 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1); CTPG 78–79. Patent Owner has not been left without an opportunity to address the Reply argument. When we denied authorization to file a motion to strike, we authorized Patent Owner to file, with its Sur-Reply, a table identifying any portion of the Reply that Patent Owner considers to have exceeded the scope of the Reply. Further, we explained that Patent Owner, alternatively, may address that contention, or the merits of any newly-raised arguments or evidence in its Sur-Reply. Indeed, Patent Owner addressed the issue in its 26 Sur-Reply for our consideration. Thus, Patent Owner had sufficient opportunity to identify in its Sur-Reply its contentions regarding Petitioners’ allegedly inappropriate Reply argument and took advantage of that opportunity. That is sufficient for us to consider the issue and determine whether such argument should be disregarded. See CTPG 80.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s definition is the better definition for purposes of this proceeding. We acknowledge that the claims of the ’069 patent are directed to a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” 29 and that the actual practice of the method would therefore seem to be limited to those who have the ability to treat patients, i.e., physicians, etc. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be unduly limiting. Individuals who are involved in drug development or sub-clinical level testing of drugs for treating eye disorders may be extremely knowledgeable about the development of the treatment of eye disorders and drug development, and able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Pet. 25. Such individuals might not possess an M.D. degree, but instead possess a Ph.D. in a “biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field,” or a lesser degree with a corresponding increased depth of experience, as suggested by Petitioner. We agree that such individuals should be considered persons of ordinary skill in the art. We also find that Petitioner’s definition is commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the prior art. See, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1010, 1030, 1033; see also 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))). We consequently adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art has having an M.D. or Ph.D. or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field, and having practical academic or medical experience in developing treatments 30” slip op. at 29

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

    “We agree that it is unnecessary to construe these claim terms in view of the express definitions set forth in the Specification. DePuy, 469 F.3d at 1014. Because the claim terms are undisputed, we adopt the definition of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose” as expressly defined by the Specification of the ’069 patent. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 9,669,069 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,669,069
• Thorne Research, Inc v. Trustees Of Dartmouth CollegeNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2022 · IPR2021-00491 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 were not shown unpatentable because the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article and PCT Publication were not shown to be the work of another and thus were not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we find Patent Owner has satisfied its burden of production to show the Cell Article is not prior art. We find the testimony of Dr. Brenner—as corroborated by the testimony and disclaimer of Dr. Bieganowski—to be persuasive evidence that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article represent the work of Dr. Brenner alone. See In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding applicant’s declaration and prior art inventor’s disclaimer sufficient to overcome a § 102(e) rejection).” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “Under § 120, a patent is entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application if (1) the written description of the earlier filed application discloses the invention claimed in the later filed application sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 112; (2) the applications have at least one common inventor; (3) the later application is filed before the issuance or abandonment of the earlier filed application; and (4) the later application contains a reference to the earlier filed application. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2018). As discussed above, the ’807 patent meets all four criteria set forth above for each application in the priority chain of the PCT application listed on the face of the ’807 patent. Since the claim of priority arises under Section 120, the provisions of the Paris Convention and PCT do not apply.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we find Patent Owner has satisfied its burden of production to show the Cell Article is not prior art. We find the testimony of Dr. Brenner—as corroborated by the testimony and disclaimer of Dr. Bieganowski—to be persuasive evidence that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article represent the work of Dr. Brenner alone. See In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding applicant’s declaration and prior art inventor’s disclaimer sufficient to overcome a § 102(e) rejection).” slip op. at 19

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Although the laboratory techniques and starting materials used by Drs. Brenner and Bieganowski may have been known in the art, that is not the claimed invention. The invention as recited in claim 1 is directed a composition comprising isolated NR combined with one or more of tryptophan, nicotinic acid, or nicotinamide and one of the recited carriers, wherein the composition is formulated for oral administration and increases NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration. See Ex. 1001, col. 53. That the certain individual elements of the claimed composition may have been known elsewhere in the prior art does not lead to a conclusion that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article are “by another.”” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,197,807 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,197,807
• Thorne Research, Inc. v. Trustees Of Dartmouth CollegeAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00268 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by Stamler and, alternatively, obvious over Stamler.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “2. Anticipation2 “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the 2 As noted above, the pre-AIA provisions of 35 U.S.C. apply to the ’086 patent. the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Under § 120, a patent is entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application if (1) the written description of the earlier filed application discloses the invention claimed in the later filed application sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 112; (2) the applications have at least one common inventor; (3) the later application is filed before the issuance or abandonment of the earlier filed application; and (4) the later application contains a reference to the earlier filed application. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 35 U.S.C. § 120 . As discussed above and in our Decision to Institute, the ’086 patent meets this criterion. While we agree with Petitioner that the face of the ’086 patent does not include a citation of the ‘701 application, the specification does contain a clear claim of priority back to the ’701 application. Ex. 1001, col. 1. ll. 7–13; Ex. 1004 1.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the art offered by Patent Owner in the ’1795 IPR, which, as noted above, also involved the ’086 patent, should apply to this proceeding, namely “someone with a Ph.D. in biochemistry or similar field in the pharmaceutical sciences, with familiarity and experience with pharmacokinetics.” Pet. 33. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition and, indeed, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Amiji, used the same definition in his analysis. Ex. 2014 ¶ 21. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and supports Petitioner’s definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 14

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

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties, and find that our initial construction is proper for the reasons set forth in the ’1795 proceeding. Ex. 1018 12–14. We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction that calls for an isolation step separate from the process used to manufacture synthetic NR.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,383,086 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,383,086
• Tide International (USA), Inc. v. Upl Na Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2022 · IPR2020-01113 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Misselbrook, CN ’588, and JP ’902; claims 7–12 were not shown unpatentable because the grounds did not establish motivation to add a disintegrating agent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “relevant to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the type of problems encountered in the art and prior art solutions to those problems. See Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The prior art itself may also reflect an appropriate level of skill. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We also adopt the parties’ position that the preamble of claims 1 and 7 is not limiting beyond the term “granule.” Claims 1 and 7 each recite “[a] chemically stable dry flow, low compact, dust free soluble phosphoramidothioate granule consisting of” the set of ingredients recited in body of those claims. Ex. 1001, 7:44–45, 8:19–20. While the wherein clause describing the dimensions of “said granule” relies on “granule” in the preamble for antecedent basis, none of the other preamble language appears to be necessary to breathe life and meaning into the claim, and the claim body recites a structurally complete invention. See Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that a preamble is limiting if it is “necessary to give live, meaning, and vitality to the claim,” but “is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body”) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, we agree with the parties, and the district court in the related litigation, that the preamble language other than “granule” is not limiting.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Moreover, we agree that the transitional phrase “consisting of” in claims 1 and 7 creates a “very strong presumption that the claim element is ‘closed’ and therefore exclude[s] any elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim.” Pet. 5; Resp. 12 (both quoting Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Neither party seeks to overcome that presumption, nor do we see any basis for doing so based on the record before us. Accordingly, we construe the challenged claims to be limited to granule compositions containing only those ingredients recited in the claims. There are no other terms that need to be construed to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding. Therefore, we do not construe any additional terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “demonstrating that the “general conditions” regarding the use of these ingredients in such compositions was known. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that any overlap between the claimed and disclosed ranges serves to disclose the “general conditions” of the claim). “Such overlap itself provides sufficient motivation to optimize the ranges.” Id. Moreover, we credit Mr. Geigle’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood because the concentration of acephate was increased the concentration of the other ingredients would necessarily decrease and that a POSITA would have been able optimize these amounts using standard techniques and testing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–113. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated that these ingredient concentrations are result-effective variables that would have been obvious to optimize through routine experimentation.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,473,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,473,685
• Genome & Company v. The University Of ChicagoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2020 · PGR2019-00002 · APJ John E Schneider · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1–17 and 19–28 for lack of enablement and obviousness; claims 18 and 29 for obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Braun, Petitioner’s proffered expert, defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as having an advanced degree or its substantial equivalent in the biological sciences, including specifically in the fields of immunology, microbiology and the microbiome, and oncology, coupled with research experience in those fields. Ex. 1002 ¶ 40. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally, PO Resp. We determine that Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the current record. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “interprets claim terms in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b) (2018);3 Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming applicability of broadest reasonable construction standard to trial proceeding before the USPTO.). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See 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 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and conclude that the unpredictability of the art weighs in favor of finding non-enablement with respect to CPIs in general. While we agree with Patent Owner that CPIs can be effective in treating some cancers, the Specification and the evidence of record show that all of the effective CPIs are antibodies. For example, all of the CPIs listed in the chart of page 10 of Patent Owner’s Response are antibodies. Tr. 39. We find nothing in the record, other than attorney argument that one skilled in the art would know how to make of use other CPIs, such as an interfering nucleic acid molecule, in the claimed method. For example, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s expert did not consider CPIs other than antibodies, in reaching his conclusions regarding enablement. Pet. Reply, 4; Ex. 1042, 19–29. The record also does not support the contention that one skilled in the art could predict the action of non-antibody CPIs based on the action of an antibody CPI. The art and the Specification identify one non-antibody CPI, and the Fe region of human IgG. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 20–23; Ex. 2034, 206. At the time the ’302 patent was filed, studies of this potential CPI indicated that it acted differently than antibody CPIs and that efficacy was lacking compared to other CPIs. Id. This evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that the use of CPIs, especially non-antibody CPIs, was unpredictable at the time the ’302 patent was filed. We also agree with Petitioner that the selection of Bifidobacterium was unpredictable. The evidence of record supports Petitioner’s contention that the immunostimulatory activity of Bifidobacterium varies from strain to strain, even within the same species. Pet. 44–45. O’Mahony teaches that Bifidobacterium longum strain AH1714 is immunosuppressive while another stain of B. longum exhibits immunostimulatory activity. Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 103– 109. Similarly, Lopez evaluated 12 strains of four different species of Bifidobacterium and concluded that the properties exhibited by Bifidobacterium varied among the strains. Ex. 1038, Abstr. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the credibility of O’Mahony and Lopez are unpersuasive. Patent Owner made specific representations to the Examiner on several occasions that strain AH1714 disclosed in O’Mahony was immunosuppressive to support Patent Owner’s argument that one would not combine an immunosuppressive agent with an immunostimulatory agent. See, e.g. Ex. 1014, 8–9. Patent Owner suggests that it was not asserting that the statements in O’Mahony were accurate, but merely argues that those statements would have led away from making the combination proposed by the Examiner. PO Sur-Reply 10. This argument fails in its logic. If one skilled in the art upon reading O’Mahony would have recognized the alleged errors in O’Mahony’s teachings and disregarded them as Patent Owner now combination advanced by the Examiner in prosecution as Patent Owner argued. With respect to Lopez, Lopez states unambiguously that the immune effects of Bifidobacteria are species and strain specific. Petitioner has advanced evidence that those skilled in the art accepted these conclusions, citing Lopez in subsequent articles. Pet. Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1044). Moreover, the present inventors found Lopez to be sufficiently credible to incorporate the teachings of Lopez in their entirety into the instant Specification of the ’302 patent. Ex. 1001, col. 37, l. 62–col. 38, l. 4.” slip op. at 23

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

    “evidence of record and conclude that applying the all the Wands factors, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–17 and 19–28 are not enabled. In reviewing the evidence of record, we find that the nature of the invention that involves very broad claims, the high level of skill required in such an unpredictable art, and the dearth of working examples and lack of specific guidance on the full range of CPIs and cancers challenged claims are not enabled. Because claims 18 and 29 require known CPIs, however, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that these claims are not enabled.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,855,302 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,855,302

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.