• Cooler Masters Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00337 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 10, and 13 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “The existence of a published abstract that would have allowed one skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence to locate the foreign patent application and the fact that the application was classified and indexed in the patent office, were central to the Wyer court’s conclusion that the application was “publicly accessible.”” slip op. at 35

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

    “inherency, then the assertions of obviousness are mere conclusory statements. We are unable to recognize any proffered reasoning underlying the assertions of obviousness. “[Challenges] on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As yet another possible alternative, Petitioner may be basing its case on improper hindsight by relying on and quoting the Specification of the ’240 patent in its obviousness analysis. See Pet. 27. That, too, is unpersuasive. Regardless as to its theory of the case, we determine that Petitioner has failed to explain sufficiently why the claimed heat pipe having a configuration of two plates having bonded together circumferential edge lips would have been obvious. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 12 is unpatentable over Morikawa alone.” slip op. at 55

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “as not relevant under FRE 104 on the grounds that Petitioner failed “to introduce sufficient proof that Exhibit 1004 was publicly accessible such that it qualifies as a prior art printed publication under United States law.” Paper 46, 3; see also id. at 4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104, 401). As set forth in section II.D, above, the evidence of record leads us to an entirely different conclusion regarding Nakamura’s prior art status. Because Petitioner persuades us that Nakamura qualifies as a prior art printed publication as of the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent, we deny Patent Owner’s request on its merits.” slip op. at 82

  Patent outcomesUS 7,066,240 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,066,240
• Cooler Masters Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00144 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–12 were not shown unpatentable; claim 13 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Nakamura and Takahashi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “The existence of a published abstract that would have allowed one skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence to locate the foreign patent application and the fact that the application was classified and indexed in the patent office, were central to the Wyer court’s conclusion that the application was “publicly accessible.”” slip op. at 36

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

    “made using related processes, however, says nothing about why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine them in a manner that renders the claimed subject matter obvious. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”)). Petitioner’s argument that the references are “similar and analogous” is not adequate reasoning, by itself, to support a conclusion of obviousness.” slip op. at 54

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “as not relevant under FRE 104 on the grounds that Petitioner failed “to introduce sufficient proof that Exhibit 1004 was publicly accessible such that it qualifies as a prior art printed publication under United States law.” Paper 46, 3; see also id. at 4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104, 401). As set forth in section II.D, above, the evidence of record leads us to an entirely different conclusion regarding Nakamura’s prior art status. Because Petitioner persuades us that Nakamura qualifies as a prior art printed publication as of the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent, we deny Patent Owner’s request on its merits.” slip op. at 73

  Patent outcomesUS 7,066,240 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,066,240
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02139 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis”) timely submitted a Petition presenting substantially the same challenges as set forth in Pfizer’s Petition along with a request for joinder to IPR2017-01488. IPR2017- 02139. Paper 1. We granted Bioepis’s Petition and associated request for joinder to this case. IPR2017-02139, Paper 11, 6–7.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

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

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner. 11 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest: Tabulation and Analysis of Amino Acid and Nucleic Acid Sequences of Precursors, V- Regions, C-Regions, J-Chain, T-Cell Receptor for Antigen, T-Cell Surface Antigens β2-Microglobulin, Major Histocompatibility Antigens, Thy-1 Complement, C-Reactive Protein, Thymopoietin, Post-Gamma Globulin, and α2-Macroblobulin, 41–175 (4th Ed. 1987). Ex. 1052. See PO Resp. 47. Moreover, in a parallel proceeding involving the same patent, Patent Owner did not dispute that the reference to “all sequences” in the patent, “refer[s] to all known sequences and there’s no dispute . . . that was really synonymous with Kabat 1987.” See IPR2017-01374 Paper 82, Tr. 15:4–16:4; see Ex. 1202 ¶ 157; Ex. 2105 ¶¶ 24–25; Ex. 2107 ¶¶ 18–19; Ex. 1198, 56:20–61:24; Ex. 1199, 27:14–28:13, 29:25–36:2, 57:1–58:6, 115:7–17, 165:17–169:9. Indeed, in a similar parallel proceeding, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term “all human immunoglobulins” refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” IPR2017-01373, Paper 83, 47:21–48:5. Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ proposed construction, with a clarifying modification, specifically, “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure, as set forth in Kabat 1987.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient.” In our institution decision, we determined that this claim language “refer[s] to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” Dec. 10–12. Neither party disputes this interpretation. See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 5–6. Consistent with claim 63’s express comparison between the immunogenicity of the claimed humanized antibody and that of its non-human parent, the Specification states that one object of the invention is to “to provide methods for the preparation of antibodies which are less antigenic in humans than non-human antibodies but have desired antigen binding and other characteristics and activities.” Ex. 1001, 4:24–28. The Specification similarly states that embodiments within the scope of the claims have “low immunogenicity,” or are designed to “minimize the potential immunogenicity of the resulting humanized antibody in the clinic.” Id. at 52:54–58, 61:56–61. Moreover, with reference to claim 63 in particular, Patent Owner points to the ’272 application as “explain[ing] that the purpose of humanizing antibodies using its consensus sequence approach is to reduce immunogenicity versus the non-human parent antibody. (Id., 6:24–30, 84:24–30.).” Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2032 (File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/715,272 (“the ’272 application”)); see also id. at 38 (indicating that the limitation is satisfied where “[o]nly 1 out of 885 patients experienced an immunogenic response . . . which was a substantial improvement over the murine 4D5 antibody”). In light of the above, we do not alter our prior determination that “[a] humanized antibody which lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient,” refers to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-01488 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

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

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner.” slip op. at 13

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

    “humanized” (claims 1, 30, 62–64, 66, 79, 80); “and further comprising a Framework Region (FR) amino acid substitution at a site selected from the group consisting of” (claims 1, 30, 62, 63, 66, 79, and 80); “numbering system set forth in Kabat” (claims 1, 30, 62, 63, 66, 79, and 80); and “up to 3-fold more” (claim 65). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed constructions, but asserts that “[n]o construction of those terms is necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 19; PO Resp. 19. On the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that the terms identified by Petitioners need not be construed to resolve the issues presently before us. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (instructing that claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “substitutions, most being unrepresented in any ’272 embodiment.” Pet. Reply 8. We do not find Petitioners’ argument persuasive in light of Patent Owner’s evidence showing that the ’272 application discloses, inter alia, each of the framework substitutions recited in claims 12, 42, 60, 65, 71, 73– 74, and 79 (collectively, 66L, 71H, 73H, 78H, 93H), along with “a generalized scheme for humanizing any non-human antibody.” See PO Resp. 43–44 (citing Ex. 2032, 87–90, 93; Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 91–95).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-01374 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable because Kurrle and Queen 1990 were not prior art …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “with respect to the ’213 patent. See Pet. 12–13; Prelim. Resp. 17–18; PO Resp. 17–18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 10–11. Petitioner does not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates this level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings on 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)). C.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner’s proposed construction derives from the ’213 patent’s definition of consensus sequence as “refer[ing] to an amino acid sequence which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Ex. 1001, 11:32–38. In the context of the patent as a whole, however, we do not understand the term to require a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense because the embodiments in the patent were generated using the most common residue at each position identified in Kabat 1987.11 See id. at 10:34–63, 11:55–60; Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 25– 26. And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner. See PO Resp. 47. Moreover, at oral argument, Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s assertion that the reference to “all sequences” in the patent, “refer[s] to all known sequences and there’s no dispute . . . that was really synonymous with Kabat 1987.” Tr. 15:4–16:4.12 Accordingly, we adopt the parties proposed construction, with a clarifying modification, specifically, “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure, as set forth in Kabat 1987.”” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionDecided for patent owner

    “We previously stated that the language of claim 63, “refer[s] to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” IPR2017-01488, Paper 27 at 10–12. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation. See PO Resp. 19. Petitioner argues that the recited reduction in immunogenicity is both an inherent aspect of the claimed humanized antibodies, and “the stated goal of all humanization projects, including that of Queen 1990 and Kurrle.” Pet. Reply, 28, 43. Petitioner also contends that the term is not a claim limitation and “simply a statement of the intended result of the claimed compositions,” but, nevertheless, states: “For the purpose of the present petition only, Petitioner will assume that the preambles are limiting.” Pet. 13 n.3. On balance, we see no need to alter our prior determination that “[a] humanized antibody which lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient,” refers to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody. Nevertheless, to the extent Petitioner is correct that the preambles should be accorded no weight, such a determination would not alter the outcome of this proceeding.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “The ’213 patent issued from application number 08/146,206 (“the ’206 application”), which is an application that entered the national stage on November 17, 1993, from a PCT application filed on June 15, 1992. Ex. 1001, (21), (22), (86). The ’206 application is also a continuation-in-part of the ’272 application, filed on June 14, 1991. Id. at (63). Kurrle was published on December 19, 1990 (Ex. 1071, (43)), and Queen 1990 was published on July 26, 1990 (Ex. 1050, (43)), both of which predate the earliest possible priority date, June 14, 1991, shown on the face of the ’213 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has satisfied its initial burden of showing that Kurrle and Queen 1990, on their face, qualify as prior art to the challenged claims. We next consider whether Patent Owner has antedated these references.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, IncSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-01489 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 25, 29–31, 33, 42, 60, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 78, 80, and 81 unpatentable as obvious; claims 65, 72, 75–77, and 79 were not …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Decision to Institute, we found the parties’ proposed definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent are similar. Dec. 7 (citing Pet. 16; Prelim. Resp. 17). We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Id. During trial, Patent Owner points out that Petitioner’s proposed definition “encompasses persons without advanced degrees but who have ‘knowledge gained through 4–5 years of work experience.’” PO Resp. 17. A person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The artisan may gain such knowledge through either formal education or extensive work experience. Thus, we do not discern an appreciable difference in the parties’ respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and any perceived distinction does not impact our Decision. Having considered the complete record developed at trial, we see no reason to change our assessment.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with Patent Owner that the ’213 patent expressly defined “consensus human variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Dec. 9–10; Ex. 1501, 11:32–38. During trial, the parties did not argue otherwise, and we see no reason to change our position as to claim construction. See PO 17–18; Reply 5. We, however, clarify that “all” in the consensus of “all human immunoglobulins” is not in the literal sense. In fact, Patent Owner does not appear to argue otherwise.7 Dr. Wilson, the expert witness for Patent 7 In a parallel proceeding involving the same patent, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term “all human immunoglobulins” refers to Owner, testified that the consensus sequence of the ’213 patent was “derived from ‘all’ known antibody sequences of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Ex. 2041 ¶ 210 (emphasis added); see also PO Resp. 52 (arguing the same); Ex. 1698, 59:22–60:1 (Dr. Carter testifying that the consensus sequence, as defined in the ’213 patent, “only describes what was known at that time or it’s only available sequences at that -- at that time”); Ex. 1699, 35:9–16 (Dr. Presta explaining that the consensus sequence of the ’213 patent had the most common residue at every position “for the sequences that were available”). And evidence of record shows that at the priority date of the ’213 patent, the sequences that were listed in Kabat 1987 “were the sequences available.” Ex. 1699, 35:9–20; see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 25 (Kabat 1987 “collected known sequence data of antibodies”); Ex. 1698, 60:13–25 (Dr. Carter explaining the consensus sequence was derived from Kabat 1987, which is what was available at the time of the ’213 patent); Ex. 1699, 27:19–25 (Dr. Presta stating that “Elvin Kabat had taken all known human/mouse/rabbit antibody sequences, published them in a government publication, and that there were human subgroups of sequences within the heavy and the light chains”).” slip op. at 11

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

    “For the purpose of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any other claim terms. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 13

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

    “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Here, Queen 1989 recognizes the need to substitute framework residues in order to “reduce immunogenicity while retaining high binding affinity.” See Ex. 1534, 3. Thus, even if Queen 1990 is not available as prior art, we find that an ordinary artisan would have identified the candidates for substitution, as recited in claims 12, 42, 60, 71, 73, and 74. Indeed, Dr. Wilson testified that he performed a “good analysis” and identified 19 amino acid positions in the light chain and 19 in the heavy chain, including 66L (recited in claims 12 and 42), 73H (recited in claim 71), 78H (recited in claims 60 and 73), 93H (recited in claim 74). Ex. 1697, 242:4–6; Ex. 2041 ¶ 186, Appendix 1. Claims 12, 66, 67, 71, 73, 74, and 78” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-01373 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 25, 29–31, 33, 42, 60, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; claims 65, 72, 75–77, and 79 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Decision to Institute, we found the parties’ proposed definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent are similar. Dec. 10 (citing Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 17). We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Id. at 10–11. During trial, the parties did not dispute this finding. Having considered the complete record developed at trial, we see no reason to change our assessment. We further note that, in this case, the prior art itself demonstrates 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) (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 10

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

    “In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with Patent Owner that the ’213 patent expressly defined “consensus human variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Dec. 7; Ex. 1001, 11:32–38. During trial, the parties did not argue otherwise, and we see no reason to change our position as to claim construction. We, however, clarify that “all” in the consensus of “all human immunoglobulins” is not in the literal sense. Indeed, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” Tr. 47:21–48:5. Dr. Wilson, the expert witness for Patent Owner, testified that the consensus sequence of the ’213 patent was “derived from ‘all’ known antibody sequences of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Ex. 2041 ¶ 207 (emphasis added); see also PO Resp. 52 (arguing the same); Ex. 1140, 59:22–60:1 (Dr. Carter testifying that the consensus sequence, as defined in the ’213 patent, “only describes what was known at that time or it’s only available sequences at that -- at that time”); Ex. 1142, 35:9–16 (Dr. Presta explaining that the consensus sequence of the ’213 patent had the most common residue at every position “for the sequences that were available”). And evidence of record shows that at the priority date of the ’213 patent, the sequences that were listed in Kabat 1987 “were the sequences available.” Ex. 1142, 35:9–20; see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 25 (Kabat 1987 “collected known sequence data of antibodies”); Ex. 1140, 60:13–25 (Dr. Carter explaining the consensus sequence was derived from Kabat 1987, which is what was available at the time of the ’213 patent); Ex. 1142, 27:19–25 (Dr. Presta stating that “Elvin Kabat had taken all known human/mouse/rabbit antibody sequences, published them in a government publication, and that there were human subgroups of sequences within the heavy and the light chains”). Thus, although we reiterate our previous construction of “consensus” slip op. at 11

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

    “For the purpose of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any other claim terms. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 13

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

    “combination of Queen 1989 and the PDB database, together with the knowledge of an ordinary artisan, teaches or suggests each limitation of claims 12, 63, 66, 67, 71, 73, 74, and 78, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the references, and would have had a reasonable expectation of producing humanized antibodies with the substitutions and properties recited in those claims. We further determine that evidence of secondary considerations is not sufficient to outweigh the strong evidence of obviousness associated with the other Graham factors. As a result, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12, 63, 66, 67, 71, 73, 74, and 78 are unpatentable over Queen 1989 and the PDB database.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00359 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 32, 34, 37–38, 55–57, and 59 are unpatentable over Cunningham; claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, 24–31, 36, 42, 43, 46–49, 51–54, and 60–64 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “This argument is conclusory and not supported by sufficient evidence. Moreover, the stated conclusion is vague with respect to the limitation at issue. Petitioner argues that “the node 18 must translate messages” (id. (emphasis added)), but does not explicitly argue that all three recited pieces of information—“the select information, the transmitter identification information, and transceiver identification information”—must be translated. Even assuming Mason’s node must translate all three recited pieces of information, Petitioner does not show that all such translated pieces of information must be further transmitted to the AMR server over the WAN. In particular, Petitioner does not show that transceiver identification information would have to be further transmitted.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that such a construction is “non- specific, vague and unhelpful” in the context of the ’692 patent. Reply. 16. Patent Owner’s construction limits “low power” to signals having a “limited transmission range,” but provides no guidance of what “limited” means, or what its boundaries might be. Petitioner argues correctly that Patent Owner’s construction fails to address questions its proposed construction raises, such as, what a ‘limited’ transmission range means and how ‘limited’ the range must be (i.e., what the range’s distance should be), whether the transmission range depends on the particular system or application, and whether other factors should be considered in determining whether the transmission range is limited.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Notably, Petitioner says these contentions are “further evidence” but does not explain how this evidence is to be used to buttress Cunningham’s disclosure or how it is to be combined with Cunningham’s disclosure. Specifically, given the limited contentions in the Petition detailed above, Petitioner does not explain how Energy Management Services or the “routines” described in the Provisional send control signals from the computer to the actuator as required by the claims. For example, even if we to accept that the “Williams Network Control Center” creates control signals as required by the claim Petitioner has not explained how those signals are translated from network transfer protocol to RF signals and then translated to an analog signal that can be used at an actuator. Even though the ’978 Provisional is allegedly incorporated by reference, an obviousness determination still requires--“[w]hether a [obviousness challenge] is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference[--] a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2017); c.f. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding obviousness shown despite fact that “all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments pictured side by side in the patent, not in one embodiment” because the party showed motivation to combine and reasonable likelihood of success). Additionally, “there must be evidence presented on the obviousness of the claim as a whole.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727); see also Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a whole, not separate pieces of the claim”). Here, the “routines” described in the ’978 Provisional work differently than the “utility prices” embodiment of Cunningham. Petitioner has not explained how those would work together to meet the claim limitations.” slip op. at 30

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner’s argument is inapposite, as it is premised on reading a limitation into the claims, namely that the information encoded in the RF signal must be translated in real time. Further, we agree with Petitioner, that even under such an erroneously narrow construction, Cunningham would meet the limitation. In that regard, Petitioner argues that, “although Cunningham discloses sending cumulative data readings, individual signals from the sensor are identified by the gateway and this information is then transmitted (with transmitter identification information) to a computer on the WAN.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶31–32; Ex. 1004, 31:6–28). Petitioner argues, and we are persuaded, that “Cunningham explains that the ‘most current cumulative reading’ is the current absolute ‘reading’ (i.e., information signal) from the sensor (Ex. 1004, 13:44–46) and that two cumulative readings can be used to ‘interpolate’ and ‘recover’ a missed reading (i.e., a signal from the sensor).” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 13:44–56; 31:6–27; Pet. 75; Ex. 1002 ¶¶115, 152; Ex. 1046 ¶32). We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. Lastly, claim 32 also recites “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” To meet this limitation, Petitioner accurately points out that “Cunningham discloses that[,] in response to receiving information from the sensor interface module through the data collection modules, the host module compiles the information into a user specified readable format and stores it for later retrieval upon demand from a customer computer or workstation.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:19–27, 44:12–41, 44:53–64, 46:44–61, 47:44–54, Ex. 1002 ¶¶138–140). Patent Owner does not contest that Cunningham discloses “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” See PO Resp. 22–29, 41–46. We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,437,692 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,437,692
• Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation et al. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2018 · IPR2017-00447 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over SMIL 1.0 and SMIL 1.0 with Hua; claims 12–16 were not shown unpatentable, and anticipation was not established for claims 1–7 and 9–13.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or computer engineering, or the equivalent” and “3-5 years’ experience developing multimedia presentations using a markup language and/or developing software tools to automate the development of multimedia presentations, or equivalent academic experience (e.g., a master’s degree with a similar focus).” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner also does not provide its own definition. See id. Based on the evidence of record, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 15; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Ex. 1001, 5:54–55, 6:29–30. Petitioner proposes construing the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “part or all of the media presentation.” Pet. 19. Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the claim language and specification of the ’806 patent. Id. at 17–19. Patent Owner proposes construing the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “a media presentation with multiple segments.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the claim language and specification of the ’806 patent. Id. The dispute between the parties focuses on whether a media presentation can consist of only a single file or must have multiple segments. Pet. 17–19; PO Resp. 11. The ’806 patent consistently uses the term “segment” to indicate that a media presentation is divided into multiple segments. Ex. 1001, Abstract (“An electronic file, e.g., an MP3 file, is partitioned into a sequence of segments at the server side.”), 1:65–66 (“To this end the content file is split into multiple parts. Each part or segment requires a relatively short download time.”), 2:60–62, 2:67–3:2, 3:14–16, 3:31–33, 4:15–26 (“The segmentation of the content file into separately downloadable segments . . . .”), 4:35–38, Fig. 1. In contrast, the ’806 patent does not use the term “segment” to refer to a media presentation that consists of only a single file. Id. at 2:7–9. Therefore, because Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification of the ’806 patent, we construe the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “a media presentation with multiple segments.”4” slip op. at 7

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

    “constraints.” Ex. 1001, 5:57, 6:33. Petitioner proposes construing the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” to mean “constraints upon a system.” Pet. Reply 9. Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’806 patent. Id. at 9–11. Patent Owner proposes construing the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” to mean “constraints on a system imposed by resources.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’806 patent. Id. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable even if we apply Patent Owner’s narrower proposed construction of the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints.” See infra Sections II.D.2, II.D.10. Therefore, we determine that it is unnecessary to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the meaning of the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” in order to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability in this case. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms 4 Our construction is consistent with the District Court’s determination that the term “media presentation” means “data having multiple segments.” Ex. 1014, 7. need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “3. Means-Plus-Function Limitations Claim 12 recites several limitations that begin with the phrase “means for.” Ex. 1001, 6:41–62. The parties agree that these limitations of claim 12 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 19–20; PO Supp. Resp. 1–2. We address the means-plus-function limitations of claim 12 in detail below. See infra Sections II.C.2, II.D.13.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,806 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,806
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2018 · IPR2017-00001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham; Petitioner did not show claim 8 unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction against the prior art than it does to construction of the term itself. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, like Petitioner’s, does not, on its face, exclude RF protocol conversion. In this respect, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is improperly attempting to read in additional limitations that go beyond claim 5’s broad recitation of a “transmitter . . . configured to encode the electrical signal.” See Paper 45, 3. As Petitioner further observes, the Specification of the ’661 patent refers interchangeably to data controller 324 (shown in Figures 3A–3E, not reproduced here) as “data formatter 324” (emphasis added), which “operates to form concise data packets.” Id.; Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 49–51. Petitioner’s proposed construction is thus consistent with the Specification. Patent Owner agrees that data controller 324 “encodes a physical condition into a function code,” but emphasizes that it does so “before getting converted by the RF transmitter.” Paper 44, 3. The distinction Patent Owner relies on to exclude RF protocol conversion from its proposed construction would improperly narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding a limitation that has no express basis in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) (“Nevertheless, ‘reading a claim in the light of the specification,’ to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.”). Having thus considered the parties’ positions, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “encoded electrical signal” as “coded information representing the electrical signal generated by the sensor.” We address application of this construction to the prior art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not advocate for a specific level of skill in its Response, but its expert, Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., articulates a level of skill similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 2009 ¶ 75. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth opines that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing.” Id. In addition, according to Dr. Almeroth, a person of ordinary skill “would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks. Id. And “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Given the similarity of articulations by the respective experts, and because our Decision does not depend on nuanced distinctions of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Dr. Almeroth’s more detailed articulation, but include electrical engineering as an additional alternative educational background, as indicated by Mr. Kinney.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We thus agree with Patent Owner that the rationale articulated by Petitioner is conclusory, and insufficiently supported. PO Resp. 30–31. On the record before us, it is more reasonable to construe “the transceiver identification information” as referring to something other than the identification information for the at least one wireless transmitter. For example, Patent Owner contends that “[o]ne skilled in the art, reading the plain text of claims 5 and 8, would easily recognize that the ‘transceiver’ referred to in claim 8 is the transmitter in claim 5 that is configured to both send and receive signals.” Id. at 33. Patent Owner provides support for this reading both by identifying disclosure in the Specification of the ’661 patent consistent with its position, and through testimony by its expert, Dr. Almeroth. Id. at 33–36 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3C, 3D, col. 6, ll. 3–8, col. 9, ll. 53–56, col. 10, ll. 32–34; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 125–132). For example, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Mason’s AMR server “at most would need only some meter identification number and a meter reading.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 134. We credit this testimony, as well as Dr. Almeroth’s assertion that “[t]ransceiver identification information is extraneous for the needs of the AMR server in Cunningham and Mason.” Id. Ultimately, we need not resolve the construction issues, and the issue of whether claim 8 is indefinite is not before us. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting inter partes review to “a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103”). It is sufficient for us to determine whether Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham. In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has not.” slip op. at 34

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

    “c. “one or more additional wireless transmitters” Third, Petitioner combines the teachings of Shuey with those of Mason in addressing claim 5’s recitation of “one or more additional wireless transmitters.” Id. at 62–63. The claim requires that each such additional wireless transmitter is “electrically interfaced with a sensor and configured to receive the RF signal and retransmit the RF signal,” i.e., to act as a repeater. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 22–24. As discussed above, Mason discloses that meter 12D is considered “inaccessible” with respect to node 18, and that another meter within the network may act as a repeater so that the inaccessible meter may still be contacted. Id. at col. 6, ll. 27–35. Petitioner cites Shuey for details regarding the information included in retransmission by meters acting as repeaters, and provides sufficient reason to effect the combination in light of Mason’s explicit reference to Shuey: “A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate into Mason’s system Shuey’s teaching of a repeater that retransmits all of the claimed information, because Mason explicitly notes that Shuey’s system is a system for which Mason’s invention is particularly suited.” Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 35–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–112). Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,468,661 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,468,661

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.