- Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no misapprehension or oversight in its decisions rejecting the challenge to claims 1–20 as obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s second argument is that Petitioner’s theory of the chip select signal generating another logic signal, as presented in its Reply, was an “entirely new rationale.” Req. Reh’g 4–7. We disagree. As noted above, there was no new rationale presented, and we found that Petitioner did not assert a new theory. Petitioner’s Reply was based on the same ground of obviousness, involving the same combination of references (Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly), and proffering the same particular application of the Takeda reference, as set forth in the Petition. Therefore, we determine that we did not misapprehend or overlook the nature of Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,881,150 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01021 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no overlooked or misapprehended evidence or arguments in the Final Written Decisions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s second argument is that Petitioner’s theory of the chip select signal generating another logic signal, as presented in its Reply, was an “entirely new rationale.” Req. Reh’g 4–7. We disagree. As noted above, there was no new rationale presented, and we found that Petitioner did not assert a new theory. Petitioner’s Reply was based on the same ground of obviousness, involving the same combination of references (Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly), and proffering the same particular application of the Takeda reference, as set forth in the Petition. Therefore, we determine that we did not misapprehend or overlook the nature of Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 8,081,536 - Coalition For Affordable Drugs Viii, LLC v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01836 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the prior art did not establish a reasonable expectation of success using lomitapide in the claimed dosing regimen.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to reasonable expectation of success, we agree with Patent Owner that the ordinary artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success of combining Pink Sheet with Chang to arrive at the claimed invention. To the extent that Petitioner relies on our Institution Decision, we note that decision was based on the evidence of record at that time. The evidence advanced by Patent Owner during trial, discussed herein, however, tips the scale in favor of a finding different from that set forth in our Institution Decision. slip op. at 36
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“As to Exhibit 1052, which is the Deposition Transcript of S. David Kimball, and which Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner cites in its Reply, Patent Owner argues that it timely objected to the exhibit as an improper duplicate of Exhibit 2304. Mot. Exclude 7. Petitioner responds that Exhibits 2304 and 1052 are the transcripts of Petitioner’s expert. Opp. Mot. Exclude 4. Although acknowledging that the party taking the deposition normally files the transcript, Petitioner asserts that its Reply cites to Ex. 1056, and Patent Owner does not cite to either exhibit. Id. Patent Owner replies that Exhibit 2304 also contains Dr. Kimball’s signed errata sheet and is, thus, the more complete of the two documents. Reply Mot. Exclude. 3. Patent Owner asserts that the citations in Petitioner’s Reply can be updated to reflect the correct exhibit number, if necessary. Id. Given the posture of this proceeding, that is, it is at final written decision, and as Patent Owner notes, the two documents are not exact duplicates, we decline to exclude Ex. 1056, but will allow both Exhibit 1056 and 2034 to remain in the record.” slip op. at 44
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“the unrebutted evidence of commercial success further supports the patentability of the challenged claims. Looking at the entire record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of challenged claims 1‒8 by a preponderance of the evidence over the combination of Pink Sheet and Chang. E. Motion to Amend As discussed above, because we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated the obviousness of the claims by a preponderance of the evidence, we need not reach the merits of Patent Owner’s contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 24). We, thus, dismiss the motion a moot.” slip op. at 44
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“biotechnology and medical device companies.” Id. The press release does not even mention Dr. Stein. Thus, there is nothing in the press release suggesting that the ordinary artisan in the cardiovascular/cardiac field, or interested in MTP inhibitors, should attend the presentation. We, therefore, decline to credit Dr. Mayersohn’s testimony that “[a]person of ordinary skill in the art interested in the development of MTP inhibitors could apparently have attended the meeting or accessed the presentation itself via webcast or on the PPD website shortly thereafter” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 25 (citing the PPD Press Release)), as there was nothing in the press release discussing MTP inhibitors. That finding informs our analysis of the factors set forth in Klopfenstein. Thus, although the ordinary artisan may have been able to copy the presentation, and although there may have been an expectation that the materials could be copied, Petitioner does not provide any evidence establishing that the target audience would have been an ordinary artisan in the relevant field.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,932,268 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,932,268 - Coalition For Affordable Drugs Viii, LLC v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01835 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the prior art did not establish a reasonable expectation of success substituting lomitapide into Pink Sheet’s dosing protocol.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Based on the record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has failed” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“under 35 U.S.C. § 102 “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation not foundMixed
“Although we find this issue to be very close, we find that the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the ordinary artisan would have looked at other MTP inhibitors, such as lomitapide as taught by Chang, that could be used in the dosing protocol taught by Pink Sheet. Specifically, Pink Sheet teaches a dosing method with the MTP inhibitor, implitamide, wherein, as discussed above, the dosing schedule meets the dosing schedule required by claim 1. Ex. 1013. In addition, Pink Sheet discusses MTP inhibitors generally, and notes that they may have efficacy in situations where high-dose statins are ineffective or inadequate, such as homozygous and severe heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Id. Pink Sheet also acknowledges that the toxicity seen with MTP inhibitors may have been due to the high doses used during the clinical trials. Id. Chang discusses the clinical efficacy of MTP inhibitors, including implitapide (BAY-13-9952) and lomitapide (BMS-201038). Ex. 1015, 566. Specifically, Chang discusses the clinical efficacy of CP-346086, and then notes that similar efficacy was reported for implitapide and lomitapide. Id. Given that implitapide and lomitapide are from the same class of therapeutics, that is, MTP inhibitors, and that they are known to have similar clinical efficacy, based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable basis as to why the ordinary artisan would have substituted lomitapide as taught by Chang for implitapide in the method of Pink Sheet.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner
“Initially, we note that Petitioner does not contest that Juxtapid is a commercial success, and, thus, in view of the unrebutted evidence provided by Patent Owner, we find that Patent Owner has established that Juxtapid is a commercial success. As to Petitioner’s argument that the Juxtapid website does not suggest a forced titration, as set forth in our section on claim construction above, we decline to construe independent challenged claim 1 as requiring a forced titration. Moreover, as shown in the table below, the dosing schedule of independent claim 1 encompasses the dosing method that is given to doctors on the Juxtapid website (Ex. 2301, 1):” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,618,135 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,618,135 - Swiss Pharma International AG v. Biogen IdecRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2017 · IPR2016-00912 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Swiss Pharma’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–16, 21, and 22 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Patent Owner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“however, that the variable to be optimized had to be recognized as a result effective variable. Id. at 620. In the instant case, Petitioner only suggests changing the concentration of the antibody to allow it to be stored in known vials. Petitioner does not explain, however, how merely adding a sufficient concentration of natalizumab to a known vial is a result effective variable. As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 40), Dr. Brod testified that “the concentration of natalizumab is not important from the stand-point of administration as partial, single or multiple vials can be added to an intravenous bag in order to provide the proper dose.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 27. Thus, although the testimony may be read as demonstrating that the concentration is not critical, it also demonstrates that the concentration of the antibody in terms of its storage was not recognized as a result effective variable.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“however, that the variable to be optimized had to be recognized as a result effective variable. Id. at 620. In the instant case, Petitioner only suggests changing the concentration of the antibody to allow it to be stored in known vials. Petitioner does not explain, however, how merely adding a sufficient concentration of natalizumab to a known vial is a result effective variable. As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 40), Dr. Brod testified that “the concentration of natalizumab is not important from the stand-point of administration as partial, single or multiple vials can be added to an intravenous bag in order to provide the proper dose.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 27. Thus, although the testimony may be read as demonstrating that the concentration is not critical, it also demonstrates that the concentration of the antibody in terms of its storage was not recognized as a result effective variable.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We disagree. We noted in our decision that similarly to Soberra, Gordon also taught a 3 mg/ml infusion, and used a 5 mg/ml formulation. Dec. 12‒13. We then looked at the references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich in establishing that formulations were available in stoppered vials in a number of different volumes. Id. at 13. We noted that only one antibody solution was referenced by Dr. Schöneich, and that antibody solution contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. Id. The other references were directed to small molecule drugs, and we noted that Dr. Schöneich did not explain why the ordinary artisan would look to those references when formulating an antibody solution. Id. The fact that Petitioner may not agree with our consideration of the evidence does not mean that we overlooked that evidence, or that we misapprehended it.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,815,236 - Swiss Pharma International AG v. Biogen IdecRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2017 · IPR2016-00915 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Swiss Pharma’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–4 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Patent Owner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As noted in our Decision, however, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the adjustment of the concentration of natalizumab would have been only routine optimization. Dec. 11. Gordon teaches a 5 mg/ml formulation of natalizumab. Id. The other references relied upon by Petitioner to establish that “IgG formulations containing between 5 and 50 mg/ml were known in the art” do not relate to natalizumab, nor are they limited to the claimed excipient, and Petitioner does not address our concern as to how the concentrations of those antibodies could be extrapolated to natalizumab in the claimed excipient. Id. at 10‒12 (quoting Pet. 27). In fact, the references relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed excipient, contained 10 mg/ml (van Oosten) or 5 mg/ml (Zenepax) of antibody. Id. at 10. Moreover, Petitioner does not address our concern that two of the three references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich to establish that stoppered vials in different sizes were known related to small molecule drugs, and the one that related to antibodies, Zenepax, contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. See Dec. 12‒13.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“The court held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Id. at 456. The court noted, however, that “changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.” Id. In concluding that the patentability of the claims was not demonstrated, the court noted that “[a]ny chemist reading the article could logically assume that higher yields might be obtainable, and by experimentally varying the conditions of temperature and acidity could find the most productive conditions.” Id. at 458. In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), the court noted, however, that the variable to be optimized had to be recognized as a result effective variable. Id. at 620. In the instant case, Petitioner only suggests changing the concentration of the antibody to allow it to be stored in known vials. Petitioner does not explain, however, how merely adding a sufficient concentration of natalizumab to a known vial is a result effective variable. As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 40), Dr. Brod testified that “the concentration of natalizumab is not important from the stand-point of administration as partial, single or multiple vials can be added to an intravenous bag in order to provide the proper dose.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 27. Thus, although the testimony may be read as demonstrating that the concentration is not critical, it also demonstrates that the concentration of the antibody in terms of its storage was not recognized as a result effective variable.” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“37 C.F.R. § 42.108 relates to institution of inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) states: Sufficient grounds. Inter partes review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless the Board decides that the petition supporting the ground would demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. The Board’s decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response in accordance with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such request must make a showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c), therefore, applies to those situations in which patent owner submits testimonial evidence to support its preliminary response. In those situations where that testimonial evidence creates an issue of material fact, the evidence will be considered in the light most favorable to the petitioner. Patent Owner did not submit any such testimonial evidence in support of its Preliminary Response in the instant proceeding. Moreover, the rule does not relieve Petitioner of its burden of demonstrating in its Petition a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, such that inter partes review may be instituted. In the instant proceeding, for the reasons discussed in the Decision, we determined that the Petition failed to make such a showing.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,349,321 - Swiss Pharma International AG v. Biogen IdecRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2017 · IPR2016-00916 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding the obviousness showing insufficient.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Patent Owner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As noted in our Decision, however, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the adjustment of the concentration of natalizumab would have been only routine optimization. Dec. 11. Gordon teaches a 5 mg/ml formulation of natalizumab. Id. The other references relied upon by Petitioner to establish that “IgG formulations containing between 5 and 50 mg/ml were known in the art” do not relate to natalizumab, nor are they limited to the claimed excipient, and Petitioner does not address our concern as to how the concentrations of those antibodies could be extrapolated to natalizumab in the claimed excipient. Id. at 11‒12 (quoting Pet. 27‒28). In fact, the references relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed excipient, contained 10 mg/ml (van Oosten) or 5 mg/ml (Zenepax) of antibody. Id. at 11. Moreover, Petitioner does not address our concern that two of the three references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich to establish that stoppered vials in different sizes were known related to small molecule drugs, and the one that related to antibodies, Zenepax, contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. See Dec. 13.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“that the adjustment of the concentration of natalizumab would have been only routine optimization. Dec. 11. Gordon teaches a 5 mg/ml formulation of natalizumab. Id. The other references relied upon by Petitioner to establish that “IgG formulations containing between 5 and 50 mg/ml were known in the art” do not relate to natalizumab, nor are they limited to the claimed excipient, and Petitioner does not address our concern as to how the concentrations of those antibodies could be extrapolated to natalizumab in the claimed excipient. Id. at 11‒12 (quoting Pet. 27‒28). In fact, the references relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed excipient, contained 10 mg/ml (van Oosten) or 5 mg/ml (Zenepax) of antibody. Id. at 11. Moreover, Petitioner does not address our concern that two of the three references relied upon by Dr. Schöneich to establish that stoppered vials in different sizes were known related to small molecule drugs, and the one that related to antibodies, Zenepax, contained 5 mg/ml of antibody. See Dec. 13.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,900,577 - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2017 · IPR2015-01409 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied AMD’s rehearing request, leaving unchanged its determination that AMD had not shown claim 30 unpatentable over Orenstien, Nicol, and ACPI.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We find Petitioner’s predictable-variation argument is not persuasive because Petitioner did not raise it in the Petition. Instead, when mapping Orenstien to the disputed element, Petitioner merely quoted Orenstien’s separate processor-monitoring and core-shutdown teachings and, without further discussion, concluded “a POSA would have understood Orenstien to teach or suggest that a core of a multi-core processor could be turned off if the total use amount of the processor fell below a prescribed value.” Pet. 41–42; see Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 49, 169, 170; Paper 20, 15–17. That mapping did not address “predictable variations” of Orenstein’s teachings, or suggest that leakage current or power consumption would have motivated one skilled in the art to combine Orenstein’s separate teachings. Id. Accordingly, we did not misapprehend or overlook this argument because Petitioner did not raise it in the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In our Decision, we concluded Petitioner had not met its burden of showing claim 30 would have been obvious over Orenstien,1 Nicol,2 and ACPI.3 Dec. 21–23. Specifically, we determined Petitioner did not show sufficiently that Orenstien discloses “the computer to turn off at least one core . . . when the determined processor use amount is less than a second prescribed value,” as claim 30 requires. Id.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,636,863 - 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Raindance Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 18, 2017 · IPR2015-01558 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 10–17 as obvious over Link, and claims 8–9 as obvious over Link and Nguyen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We accept Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the Petition. Our finding is supported by Dr. Huck’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 12), as well as the prior art references cited by Petitioner, which reflect the level of skill in the art asserted by Petitioner. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 160, 316 (discussing use of aqueous droplets in microfluidic devices as “nanoreactors” for chemical and biochemical reactions and assays); Ex. 1006, 2 (discussing principles of fluid dynamics relevant to droplet formation in microfluidic devices); Ex. 1009,1 2032 (review article addressing fluid dynamics of microfluidic droplets, including for “lab on a chip” applications in which chemical or biochemical reactions are performed in droplets). See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect the level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We construe claim terms only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Construction of claims 1–3 is discussed below in connection with patentability of those claims over Link. Except for the terms of claims 1–3 discussed below, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an explicit construction of any other claim term for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Under a broadest reasonable construction, the phrase, “a reservoir,” in claim 2 means one or more reservoirs. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[A]n indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’”). Applying this construction in context, claim 2 requires that each carrier fluid channel be in fluid communication with one or more reservoirs, all of which apply a same constant pressure to the carrier fluid. Based on that construction, we do not accept Patent Owner’s position that claim 2 requires a common syringe for all of the oil channels in the system. PO Resp. 40.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“droplet formation disclosed in Link relates to the step of “applying a same constant pressure to the carrier fluid in each of the immiscible carrier fluid channels.” Ex. 1001, 16:17–28. More specifically, we find that, although Link teaches controlling pressures applied to the carrier fluid and aqueous fluid channels to regulate droplet size and periodicity (Ex. 1004 ¶ 166), Link does not expressly disclose applying a “same constant pressure” to the carrier fluid in each of the immiscible carrier fluid channels, as recited in the penultimate step of claim 1. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement Link’s disclosures by applying a same constant pressure to the carrier fluid in each of the immiscible carrier fluid channels. This step of claim 1 includes two aspects: (1) applying a same pressure, and (2) applying a constant pressure. We discuss each aspect below.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,658,430 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,658,430
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.