- Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–12 and 19–28 over Linnarsson, McCloskey, and ordinary skill; claims 13–18 over those references plus McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 16 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 22. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014-00148, Paper 429 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not directly dispute Petitioner’s proposal but does offer its own proposal. PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner proposes that the skilled artisan “would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, molecular genetics, biochemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with 7 Exhibit 1002 is a declaration by Petitioner’s witness, Gregory Cooper, Ph.D. two years of academic, research, or industry experience in the field of genomic or transcriptome sequencing.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶25–268). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’013 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,697,013 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,697,013 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2025 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–4, 6–11, 20, and 23–25 over Linnarsson and McCloskey; claims 5, 12, 21, 22, and 26 with ordinary-skill knowledge; claims 13–19 with McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s in the prior sentence and in the subtitle to the relevant portion of its Objection. Id. requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 29. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014- 00148, Paper 4210 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded 10 Patent Owner actually cited to “Pap.41” of Standard Innovation. PO Mot. To Exclude 4. There is no Paper 41 in the record of that case. We presume Patent Owner intended to cite Paper 42, which is the final written decision in that case. by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 15 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1. That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we find Petitioner’s rationale that a skilled artisan would have made the proposed combination to solve the problem of amplification bias persuasive.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 10,240,197 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,240,197 - Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · PGR2023-00043 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 20–22 are anticipated by Ahmad; claims 3, 5–14, and 16–19 are obvious over the cited prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“As explained in our Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s definition because we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art—both definitions provide for a highly skilled POSA with experience in formulating drugs. Dec. Inst. 8. Petitioner’s counsel confirmed during the hearing that there was no substantive difference between the parties’ definitions. Tr. 7:25–8:5. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. 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))). We, therefore, adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a POSA. Moreover, we find that Dr. McConville, Dr. Bihovsky, and Dr. Davies are all qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as all are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“When read as a whole, however, we find compelling that the Specification consistently identifies (Z)-endoxifen salts as separate from (Z)- endoxifen. Throughout the Specification—including in the Abstract and the Summary of the Invention—the ’334 Patent refers to “(Z)-endoxifen and salts thereof,” suggesting that references to “(Z)-endoxifen” alone do not include the salt forms unless expressly identified as such. See, e.g., id. at Abstract (“The present disclosure provides . . . methods of making (Z)- endoxifen or a salt thereof”), 2:60–62 (Summary of the Invention stating same); 6:4–6 (Summary of the Invention stating “process for manufacturing (Z)-endoxifen or salts thereof”). Moreover, the Specification states that although endoxifen is available commercially as an (E)/(Z) isomer free base mixture, as well as ≥98% (Z)- endoxifen HCL and (Z)-endoxifen citrate salts, “[t]here remains a need for (Z)-endoxifen free base preparations that are sufficiently stable for preparation of pharmaceutical compositions.” Id. at 82:3–5, 82:37–39. Accordingly, the Specification states, “[p]rovided herein in the present disclosure are preparations of endoxifen free base that are . . . at least 90% (Z)-endoxifen free base.” Id. at 82:43–45. Taking the language of the claims and the Specification as a whole, we determine that the intrinsic evidence supports construing the limitation “the compound of Formula (III) is (Z)-endoxifen” to be limited to the (Z)- endoxifen free base form and excludes the salt and solvate forms.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art”). As such, Apple instructs us that a petitioner need not provide evidence in its petition to show a prior art patent is enabling as part of its burden to prove anticipation. Id. at 449–50 (finding the Board erred in shifting the burden to the petitioner to provide evidence in its petition to show prior art patent publication was enabling). Thus, it is Patent Owner’s burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ahmad is not enabling. Before we turn to the substantive grounds, we must first resolve the parties’ disputes over several legal issues regarding enablement. First, Patent Owner asserts that “[w]hile the claims of a prior art patent are presumed enabled, . . . [t]here is no presumption that every prophetic example in the specification is enabled, especially where that prophetic example is not explicitly claimed.” PO Resp. 32 (citations omitted). This is an incorrect statement of the law. The Federal Circuit has clearly stated that “a presumption arises that both the claimed and unclaimed disclosures in a prior art patent are enabled.” Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Patent Owner may rebut that presumption, but that presumption of enablement exists nonetheless for both the claimed and unclaimed disclosures.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We find Petitioner has the better position. Ahmad itself provides the reason to combine Ahmad’s formulation with Cole’s enteric coating, stating in the stomach” and to “prevent release of medication before it reaches the small intestine.” Ex. 1003, 18:19–24. It was known that endoxifen could be susceptible to degradation in the acidic conditions of the stomach, and a POSA would have been motivated to use an enteric capsule to avoid acidic degradation and improve bioavailability. Ex. 1031 ¶ 6 (citing Ex. 1019, 1353). We credit Dr. McConville’s testimony that applying enteric coatings would have been routine (Ex. 1020 ¶ 71; Ex. 1031 ¶ 5), which is consistent with Ahmad’s disclosure that the enteric coating “can be done as methods known in the art.” Ex. 1003, 18:27–29. Similarly, the ’334 Patent states that “enteric tablets, enteric caplets, or enteric capsules of the present disclosure may be prepared by techniques known in the art.” Ex. 1001, 39:28–30. Moreover, the fact that Cole uses paracetamol as a model drug and not endoxifen is of no concern to our obviousness analysis. We credit the formulation expertise of Dr. McConville, who explains that “[i]n the case of an enteric coated capsule, it is the degradation of the enteric coating and the capsule that will control the release of the drug, not the nature of the drug itself.” Ex. 1031 ¶ 7 (citing Ex. 1008, 84). Thus, a POSA would have understood that the capsule in Cole would have the same benefits for use with other drugs, such as endoxifen. Id. Patent Owner and Dr. Davies identify certain complications that may plague enteric-coated endoxifen formulations and HPMC capsules, such as “potential interactions between enteric coatings and pharmaceutical compositions” and “variations in release profiles.” PO Resp. 63–64; Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 164, 166. But we are not persuaded by that argument, because we agree with Dr. McConville that Patent Owner and Dr. Davies fail to cite any credible evidence of such complications between enteric coatings and interactions. Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 8, 10. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we find that the combination of Ahmad and Cole teaches each limitation of claims 5–8, 16, and 17 and that a POSA would have had a reason to use the enteric coating and HPMC capsules of Cole with the (Z)- endoxifen formulation of Ahmad to reach the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 84–97; Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 5–16.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 11,572,334 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,572,334 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00312 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after abandonment, entering judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–28.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. “Abandonment of the contest” is considered to be a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Here, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–28 of the ’432 Patent, and Patent Owner has abandoned the contest in this proceeding. Accordingly, we consider Patent Owner’s abandonment of the contest as a request for adverse judgment, and we grant that request.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,486,432 - PTAB · Jan 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00845 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of the remaining challenged claims across three patents, granted EndyMed’s joinder motions, joined the proceedings, and terminated the three original IPRs.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“More importantly, as shown in the above comparison, the underlying premise of Serendia’s arguments here and in the 383 IPR remains substantially the same. Thus, for the same reasons discussed in our decision instituting the 383 IPR, we find that EndyMed demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of challenged claims 13 and 14 of the ’774 patent. See 383 IPR, Paper 17, 11–18. That is not to say, however, that Serendia may not ultimately persuade us at trial of the deficiency of EndyMed’s showing based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Here, there is no dispute that EndyMed’s petition is materially identical to the petition in the 383 IPR. Instead, Serendia argues that joinder should be denied due to EndyMed’s “unreasonable and unjustifiable delay” in filing the petition and seeking joinder with the 383 IPR, despite being aware of the ’774 patent and Jeisys’s petition for “more than 7 months” before filing. PO Opp. 1–2. We disagree. EndyMed need not justify its delay where, as here, EndyMed satisfies the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the 383 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, per our rules, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” (emphasis added)). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’774 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Serendia also argues that joinder should be denied due to duplicative efforts with the parallel Delaware litigation, which involves the same parties and patent as here. See PO Opp. 3–4. That argument fails for the simple reason that EndyMed submits a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the Delaware litigation the same grounds that are asserted in the petition here or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised here. See Pet. Reply 1–2. And because a Sotera stipulation mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts, we decline to discretionarily deny institution where a petitioner makes such a stipulation. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7–8. Thus, we will not discretionarily deny the petition or joinder on the basis of the parallel Delaware litigation.6 Also, to the extent Serendia contends EndyMed should not be permitted to join and continue an IPR that would otherwise be terminated due to Serendia’s settlement with Jeisys, we disagree for several reasons. First, this is EndyMed’s first (and only) petition challenging the ’774 patent. As such, there is no risk of “repeated attacks” by the “same petitioner,” as was the case in Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00854, Paper 9, 5– 13 (October 28, 2020) (precedential), where joinder was denied because the 6 To the extent Serendia also relies on duplicative efforts with the pending ITC investigation, the Director has expressly stated that the Board “will not” discretionarily deny a petition based on a parallel ITC proceeding. See Director Memo, at 7.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,869,812 - PTAB · Jan 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00844 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of the remaining challenged claims, granted EndyMed’s joinder motions, joined the proceedings, and terminated the three new IPRs.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“More importantly, as shown in the above comparison, the underlying premise of Serendia’s arguments here and in the 383 IPR remains substantially the same. Thus, for the same reasons discussed in our decision instituting the 383 IPR, we find that EndyMed demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of challenged claims 13 and 14 of the ’774 patent. See 383 IPR, Paper 17, 11–18. That is not to say, however, that Serendia may not ultimately persuade us at trial of the deficiency of EndyMed’s showing based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Here, there is no dispute that EndyMed’s petition is materially identical to the petition in the 383 IPR. Instead, Serendia argues that joinder should be denied due to EndyMed’s “unreasonable and unjustifiable delay” in filing the petition and seeking joinder with the 383 IPR, despite being aware of the ’774 patent and Jeisys’s petition for “more than 7 months” before filing. PO Opp. 1–2. We disagree. EndyMed need not justify its delay where, as here, EndyMed satisfies the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the 383 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, per our rules, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” (emphasis added)). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’774 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Serendia also argues that joinder should be denied due to duplicative efforts with the parallel Delaware litigation, which involves the same parties and patent as here. See PO Opp. 3–4. That argument fails for the simple reason that EndyMed submits a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the Delaware litigation the same grounds that are asserted in the petition here or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised here. See Pet. Reply 1–2. And because a Sotera stipulation mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts, we decline to discretionarily deny institution where a petitioner makes such a stipulation. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7–8. Thus, we will not discretionarily deny the petition or joinder on the basis of the parallel Delaware litigation.6” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for petitioner
“identical to the petition in the 383 IPR. Instead, Serendia argues that joinder should be denied due to EndyMed’s “unreasonable and unjustifiable delay” in filing the petition and seeking joinder with the 383 IPR, despite being aware of the ’774 patent and Jeisys’s petition for “more than 7 months” before filing. PO Opp. 1–2. We disagree. EndyMed need not justify its delay where, as here, EndyMed satisfies the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the 383 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, per our rules, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” (emphasis added)). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’774 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,320,536 - PTAB · Jan 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00843 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 13 and 14 of the ’774 patent, granted EndyMed’s motion for joinder with IPR2024-00383, and terminated IPR2024-00843.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“More importantly, as shown in the above comparison, the underlying premise of Serendia’s arguments here and in the 383 IPR remains substantially the same. Thus, for the same reasons discussed in our decision instituting the 383 IPR, we find that EndyMed demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of challenged claims 13 and 14 of the ’774 patent. See 383 IPR, Paper 17, 11–18. That is not to say, however, that Serendia may not ultimately persuade us at trial of the deficiency of EndyMed’s showing based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Here, there is no dispute that EndyMed’s petition is materially identical to the petition in the 383 IPR. Instead, Serendia argues that joinder should be denied due to EndyMed’s “unreasonable and unjustifiable delay” in filing the petition and seeking joinder with the 383 IPR, despite being aware of the ’774 patent and Jeisys’s petition for “more than 7 months” before filing. PO Opp. 1–2. We disagree. EndyMed need not justify its delay where, as here, EndyMed satisfies the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the 383 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, per our rules, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” (emphasis added)). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’774 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Other
“Serendia also argues that joinder should be denied due to duplicative efforts with the parallel Delaware litigation, which involves the same parties and patent as here. See PO Opp. 3–4. That argument fails for the simple reason that EndyMed submits a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the Delaware litigation the same grounds that are asserted in the petition here or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised here. See Pet. Reply 1–2. And because a Sotera stipulation mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts, we decline to discretionarily deny institution where a petitioner makes such a stipulation. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7–8. Thus, we will not discretionarily deny the petition or joinder on the basis of the parallel Delaware litigation.6 Also, to the extent Serendia contends EndyMed should not be permitted to join and continue an IPR that would otherwise be terminated due to Serendia’s settlement with Jeisys, we disagree for several reasons. First, this is EndyMed’s first (and only) petition challenging the ’774 patent. As such, there is no risk of “repeated attacks” by the “same petitioner,” as was the case in Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00854, Paper 9, 5– 13 (October 28, 2020) (precedential), where joinder was denied because the 6 To the extent Serendia also relies on duplicative efforts with the pending ITC investigation, the Director has expressly stated that the Board “will not” discretionarily deny a petition based on a parallel ITC proceeding. See Director Memo, at 7.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,775,774 - Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Biosciences, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · PGR2022-00025 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable because the ’201 patent lacks written description support for the claimed genus of CRF1 receptor antagonists under § 112(a).
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“[A] sufficient description of a genus instead requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus. Id. at 1350 (citing Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568–69). Moreover, “an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials.” Id. (citing Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568 (quoting Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171)). Furthermore, “functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. (citing Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001))). “[M]erely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id.” slip op. at 42
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) “would have a medical degree or a Ph.D. in a field related to endocrinology, and would have knowledge of hormone regulation and disorders, as well as knowledge of the treatment regimens employed to treat such disorders . . . [and] would also have at least three years of experience conducting research concerning endocrine disorders, including CAH or other adrenal disorders.” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34 (Dr. Carey Declaration)). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because Petitioner’s definition of a person of skill in the art appears commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the asserted art in this case as well as the ’201 patent itself, see, e.g., Exs. 1024, 1025, 2003, 2004, 2005, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). C.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, we do not find persuasive the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dobs, that: By describing adjustments of dosing protocols to achieve an A4 reduction from baseline, and describing this use of tildacerfont as just one embodiment of the claimed use of the entire well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class, the specification reasonably conveyed to a POSA that the invention extended to the particularly claimed use of the entire recited class. Ex. 2014 ¶ 82. On the contrary, far from being a “well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class” the prior art teaches a heterogeneous assembly of different classes of small molecule CRF1 receptor antagonists (Type I, Type II, and “atypical”) displaying a very considerable variety of structures, both in terms of the core pharmacophore (e.g., monocyclic, bicyclic, tricyclic, phenolic, cyclohexyl amide, etc.) as well as in the various side groups. Moreover, the challenged claims recite only “a CRF1 receptor antagonist or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,” the scope of which also encompasses the much larger (and, according to Williams) much more effective large-molecule (peptide) CRF1 receptor antagonists, about which the Specification is entirely silent. See Ex. 1029, Abstr., 1065. Furthermore, despite Dr. Dobs’ testimony that “[t]he [prior art] references explain the typical CRF1 antagonist consists of a core nitrogen heterocycle with an aryl substituent adjacent to the core nitrogen atom and a branched alkyl group attached at the opposite end of the core,” Dr. Dobs also acknowledged that the “atypical CRF1 receptors depicted in Figures 11 and 12 of Williams had different structures, and lacked the nitrogen heterocyclic core.” Ex. 1042, 127:9–14, 130:13–131:16; see also Ex. 2014 ¶ 83. Additionally, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cutler, testified, by way of example, in his Reply Declaration that two of the ‘“first-generation CRF1 antagonists’ identified in Figure 1 of the Williams article do not fall within the Figure 2 structure Dr. Dobs relies upon.” Ex. 1047 ¶ 93. Indeed, with respect to the alleged core pharmacophore that Dr. Dobs” slip op. at 54
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“with chemical terminology”; “could not answer questions regarding the chemical structures in the prior art articles”; “did not know whether CRF1 receptor antagonists contained the structural features she deemed ‘essential’ in her Declaration”; and “agreed that tildacerfont has structurally unique features” (see Ex. 1042, 52–53, 125–126, 126–128, 128–130) goes to the weight that we assign to such testimony, but we do not find that such testimony, in light of Dr. Dobs’ extensive qualifications as an endocrinologist set forth above, deems Dr. Dobs unqualified to testify concerning the written description issue in this proceeding. For these reasons explained above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Dobs’ written description opinions in paragraphs 20 and 75–87 of Exhibit 2014 is denied.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 11,007,201 unpatentable§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,007,201 - Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Biosciences, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · PGR2021-00088 · APJ John G New · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 are unpatentable because the ’908 patent lacks written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach Grounds 1–3 or 5.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“To the extent that Dr. Dobs has admitted that she is “not comfortable with chemical terminology”; “could not answer questions regarding the chemical structures in the prior art articles”; “did not know whether CRF1 receptor antagonists contained the structural features she deemed ‘essential’ in her Declaration”; and “agreed that tildacerfont has structurally unique features” (see Ex. 1038, 52–53, 125–126, 126–128, 128–130), we will weigh her testimony regarding those matters accordingly. However, for the reasons explained above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Dobs’ written description opinions in paragraphs 19 and 80–91 of Exhibit 2014 is denied.” slip op. at 10
- Strike new argumentOther
“Analysis Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2020–2026 play no part in our reasoning and were not relied upon by the Board in reaching our Decision. Petitioner’s Motion to strike Exhibits 2020–2026 is therefore dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“typically possess a medical degree or a Ph.D. in a field related to endocrinology, and would have knowledge of hormone regulation and disorders, as well as knowledge of the treatment regimens employed to treat such disorders. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34). Petitioner argues that such a person of ordinary skill would also have at least three years of experience conducting research concerning endocrine disorders, including CAH or other adrenal disorders. Id. Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the demonstrable level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1025, 2003, 2004, 2005), and in the absence of a different proposed definition of the level of skill in the art by Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, we do not find persuasive the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dobs, that: By describing adjustments of dosing protocols to achieve at least a 10% reduction from baseline, and describing this use of tildacerfont as just one embodiment of the claimed use of the entire well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class, the specification reasonably conveyed to a POSA that the invention extended to the particularly claimed use of the entire recited class. Ex. 2014 ¶ 87. On the contrary, far from being a “well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class” the prior art teaches a heterogeneous assembly of different classes of small molecule CRF1 receptor antagonists (Type I, Type II, and “atypical”) displaying a very considerable variety of structures, both in terms of the core pharmacophore (e.g., monocyclic, bicyclic, tricyclic, phenolic, cyclohexyl amide, etc.) as well as in the various side groups. Moreover, the challenged claims recite only “a CRF1 receptor antagonist or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,” the scope of which also encompasses the much larger (and, according to Williams) much more effective large-molecule (peptide) CRF1 receptor antagonists, about which the Specification is entirely silent. See Ex. 1029, Abstr., 1065.” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 10,849,908 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,849,908 - Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01035 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–6, 8–10, and 22–28, and denied substitute claims 29–44 because Wright ’451 rendered them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 16). Patent Owner took no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. Inst. 6–7. In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that it accepts the Board’s definition for purposes of this proceeding. MTA 24. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears to be consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although neither party expressly proposes a construction for the term “conversion,” the parties appear to differ in their interpretations of that term. Petitioner interprets “conversion” to mean the percent conversion of the 1- alcohol. See Pet. Opp. RMTA 6–7 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of remaining 1-alcohol); Ex. 1040, 109:2–11. Patent Owner, on the other hand, interprets “conversion” to mean the total percentage of alkenes that have been produced. Ex. 2010 ¶ 123 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of total alkenes). During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner conceded that “conversion can mean either.” Tr. 27:18–28:13. Without the benefit of briefing by the parties, we decline to expressly construe the term “conversion,” as our Decision would be the same under either interpretation, as discussed further below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Moreover, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said claimed invention pertains. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Objective evidence of nonobviousness may include” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded. “[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must, therefore, first consider what results were expected to determine what a POSA would have considered to be unexpected. Id. As seen by the table below, Wright ’451’s disclosure fully encompasses the temperature ranges and purported unexpected results recited by substitute claim 29 and shown in Table 2 of the ’048 Patent: Reference Reaction Calcination Conversion Regioselectivity Rate13 Temperature Temperature Wright ’451 about 220 °C about 200 °C greater than about 90% to to about to 600 °C about 95% about 99% 440 °C Substitute 240 °C to about 420 °C at least 95% to about Claim 29” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,995,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,995,048
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.