• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2023 · IPR2022-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1, 14–20, 23–33, 35, and 41–44 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood claim 1 is obvious over Gottschalk and Kramer.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “Memo states that it may be useful to compare a trial date with evidence of a median time to trial. Director’s Memo 8. The purpose of doing so is to ascertain the likelihood of the scheduled trial date actually occurring on or around that date. Id. at 8 (“Stakeholders correctly noted that scheduled trial dates are unreliable and often change[,]” and a “scheduled trial date . . . is not by itself a good indicator of [when] the district court trial will occur.”). The Director’s Memo does not state that median time-to-trial statistics are themselves a trial date, or otherwise replace consideration of a trial date under Fintiv factor 2. And, in the circumstances here, where the case was transferred from the Western District of Texas, the usefulness of the median time to trial statistics is less clear. Ultimately, though, we will not speculate on when a trial may be scheduled. Accordingly, factor 2 favors not exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 18

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “sufficiently address all the challenged claims” of the ’068 patent. Notice 1. According to Petitioner, Gentex asserted a large number of claims in the parallel litigation “that are distinct from one another, that collectively comprise several thousand words of claim language.” Id. Petitioner ranks this Petition as “A” and the Petition in IPR2022-01303 as “B.” Id. at 1–2. Petitioner also explains its reasoning for the grouping of the claims challenged in each petition and that the only overlap between the two petitions is claim 1, from which a large number of claims depend. Id. at 3–4. Patent Owner did not file a response to the Notice. Nor did Patent Owner otherwise dispute Petitioner’s contentions that two petitions are necessary. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the present record, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to deny institution of either petition on the basis of Petitioner filing two petitions to address the large number of claims asserted in the related litigation. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59 (Nov. 2019)10 (recognizing that one circumstance in which more than one petition may be necessary is when a patent owner asserts a large number of claims in related litigation).” slip op. at 21

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

    “In this case, claim 1 recites mounting “a sourceless orientation tracker on a user’s head.” Ex. 1001, 15:5–6. There is no further reference to “sourceless orientation tracker” in claim 1. Id. Claim 11 recites “[t]he method of claim 1 in which the sourceless orientation tracker comprises an inertial sensor”; claim 12 recites “[t]he method of claim 1 in which the sourceless orientation tracker comprises a tilt-sensor”; and claim 13 recites “[t]he method of claim 1 in which the sourceless orientation tracker comprises a magnetic compass sensor.” Id. at 15:35–40. The parties have not identified and we do not discern anything in the language of the claims that suggests we should deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning of “sourceless orientation tracker.” We now turn to the Specification of the ’068 patent. The Specification states that “[v]irtual reality (VR) systems require tracking of the orientation and position of a user’s head and hands with respect to a world coordinate frame.” Ex. 1001, 1:11–13. The Specification also describes “a variety of mechanical, acoustic, magnetic, and optical systems” used for such tracking and states that “[t]hese systems require propagation of a signal between a fixed ‘source’ and the tracked ‘sensor,’” which “limit[s] the range of operation.” Id. at 1:15–20. The Specification describes that “‘[s]ourceless’ orientation trackers have been developed based on geomagnetic and/or inertial sensors.” Id. at 1:26–27. And, the Specification explains that “the invention features a sourceless orientation tracker including an inertial sensor, a tilt-sensor, or a magnetic compass sensor.” Id. at 2:6–8.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,068
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2023 · IPR2022-01298 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2–12, 16–18, and 38 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be obvious over Gottschalk and Kramer.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “Memo states that it may be useful to compare a trial date with evidence of a median time to trial. Director’s Memo 8. The purpose of doing so is to ascertain the likelihood of the scheduled trial date actually occurring on or around that date. Id. at 8 (“Stakeholders correctly noted that scheduled trial dates are unreliable and often change[,]” and a “scheduled trial date . . . is not by itself a good indicator of [when] the district court trial will occur.”). The Director’s Memo does not state that median time-to-trial statistics are themselves a trial date, or otherwise replace consideration of a trial date under Fintiv factor 2. And, in the circumstances here, where the case was transferred from the Western District of Texas, the usefulness of the median time to trial statistics is less clear. Ultimately, though, we will not speculate on when a trial may be scheduled. Accordingly, factor 2 favors not exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11

  • Parallel petitionsDenied

    “sufficiently address all the challenged claims” of the ’648 patent. Not. 1. According to Petitioner, “Patent Owner, via an exclusive licensee,” asserted a large number of claims in co-pending litigation “that are distinct from one another, that collectively comprise several thousand words of claim language.” Id. Petitioner ranks this Petition as “A” and the Petition in IPR2022-01301 as “B.” Id. at 1–2.” slip op. at 14

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

    “obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.” Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the record presently before us, which includes Petitioner’s strong showing regarding claim 1 and Patent Owner’s weaker evidence of nonobviousness, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Gottschalk and Kramer would have rendered the subject matter of claim 1 of the ’648 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 6. Summary of Claim 1 For all the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Gottschalk and Kramer.” slip op. at 37

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with computer implemented tracking systems, virtual reality systems, and/or augmented reality systems” but that “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 48–49). For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. Patent Owner further states, “[h]owever, for any other purpose, Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner at least that such [person of ordinary skill in the art] would be limited to a maximum of five years of experience.” Id. at 6. And, Patent Owner further “reserves the right to offer an alternative definition based on expert evidence in the event the Petition is instituted.” Id. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’648 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,301,648
• Apotex Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2023 · IPR2022-01524 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  Institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 and 26–30 were unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). An inter partes review may be instituted if the information presented by Petitioner in the Petition, in view of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and the preliminary record, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 19

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “As an initial matter, we find Petitioner has insufficiently addressed the issue of inherent anticipation by Dixon (or any other prior art) and has done so in a merely conclusory manner. There is no dispute that Dixon (as well as the other asserted prior art) discloses angiogenic eye disorder treatment using the same drug (aflibercept), at the same dose (2 mg), administered in the same way (intravitreal injection), and administered at the same dosing regimen (an initial, a secondary, and a tertiary dose), as required by all challenged claims. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. Petitioner relies on these facts, and the results of a phase 2 clinical trial that followed a different dosing protocol (one not claimed) to establish that the results limitations of claims 1, 26, and 29 are inherent to the phase 3 clinical trials (VIEW 1 and 2) with a dosing regimen that is claimed. See Pet. 38–39. Petitioner calls the claimed results limitations mere newly discovered results of a known process. Id. (citing Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1381). As Patent Owner identifies, it is not so simple. The evidence of the results of the VIEW 1 and 2 trials itself (found in the ’572 patent) shows that some, but not all, patients treated with the claimed dosing regimen achieved “a gain in visual acuity” as recited by claim 1, “a gain in visual acuity” that is “as effective” “as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab” as recited by claim 26, or “maintaining visual acuity” “as effective[ly]” “as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab” as recited by claim 29. See Ex. 1001, 13:5–38 (Table 1). As Patent Owner points out, the ’572 patent’s described studies 1 and 2, when following the claimed dosing regimen (2Q8), were not always effective treatments––achieving mere maintenance (as opposed to improvement or “gains”) of vision 95.1% and 95.6% (respectively) of the time. Id.; see Prelim. Resp. 34–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:8–27; Ex. 1014, 4, 6; Ex. 1030, 9; Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 109–111; Ex. 2022). Thus, the evidence shows that, although most would, about 4–5% of patients (or, possibly, an even higher number based on Patent Owner’s cited evidence––Ex. 1030, 9) would not see the gains in visual acuity required by claims 1 and 26 or the maintenance in visual acuity required by claim 29. It is well established that “[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities” and “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re. Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)). Here, the evidence shows that the claimed results limitations may typically flow from the claimed method, but not necessarily.” slip op. at 33

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

    “Relating to the claim construction, the Federal Circuit found that patent at issue was “clear” that the tissue fibrosis, recited by the claim as arrested or regressed by the otherwise recited treatment, was not the same as and did not necessarily accompany the symptom of erectile disfunction (taught in and the focus of the relied-upon prior art), although the former (fibrosis) may frequently result in the latter (disfunction). Id. at 1059. The Federal Circuit held that the “arresting or regressing” clause was more than a mere statement of intended result, but was a limitation carrying patentable weight because the phrase was drafted as a part of a separate step of the method rather than of the preamble, the “arresting or regressing” language demanded efficacy, and the efficacy was linked to specific treatment minimum duration and dosage. Id. at 1060–61. The patients exhibiting these two issues were not necessarily the same. In part because the Board did not consider the arresting/regressing result limitation in its unpatentability analysis, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patent owner that the Board’s findings were insufficient. Id. at 1064, 1067. The Federal Circuit found that that prior art reference relied upon in the Board’s decision for teaching the claimed treatment, and also relied upon to link the condition of fibrosis with the symptom of erectile dysfunction, did not teach treating a population of patients suffering from erectile dysfunction only because of a fibrosis condition and, even though such patients may have had fibrosis, it was not certain; and further found that other cited prior art did not make certain a link between fibrosis and such dysfunction. Id. at 1065–66. This, the Federal Circuit found, was error. We find in agreement with Patent Owner that the results limitations of the challenged claims are limitations and must be given patentable weight for the same reasons arresting or regressing a tissue fibrosis was a limitation in Los Angeles Biomed. Similarly, here the claims are directed to expressly required results of the administration of aflibercept to patients at 2 mg at an initial dose, in at least one secondary dose 4 weeks later, and in at least one tertiary dose 8 weeks later. Therefore, we find that in claim 1, “wherein the patient achieves a gain in visual acuity within 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation. Further, in claim 26, “wherein the method is as effective in achieving a gain in visual acuity as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab by intravitreal injection in human subjects with age-related macular degeneration at 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation. And, in claim 29, “wherein the method is as effective in maintaining visual acuity as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab by intravitreal injection in human subjects with age-related macular degeneration at 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation.” slip op. at 17

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

    “A prior art reference without express reference to a claim limitation may anticipate by inherency. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” Id. (quoting MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,253,572
• Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · PGR2021-00114 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: they lack written description support and are anticipated by Hinga; the Board also found the challenged dependent claims obvious over the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “As explained in our Institution Decision (Dec. Inst. 5–6), we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner states a POSITA must have one to two years of postdoctoral research experience and Patent Owner’s definition requires at least five years of “research experience,” Patent Owner’s definition does not indicate a specific time for that research (i.e., it could include research during or after a doctoral program). Neither party addresses or contests the other party’s definition in their post-institution papers. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. 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))). Moreover, we find that Dr. Shaner and Dr. Somers are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 5–11, App’x A; see also Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F. 4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “amount.” Pet. Reply 14. Patent Owner, however, argues that we erred in our construction because the Specification explicitly defines “effective amount” to mean “the amount of herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional [i.e., wild, non-mutant] rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” PO Resp. 10 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:34–37). Because the inventors served as their own lexicographers, Patent Owner asserts the Specification’s express definition controls. Id. at 10–11 (citing Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“When a patentee explicitly defines a claim term in the patent specification, the patentee’s definition controls.”)). Nevertheless, Patent Owner acknowledges that the “less than 10% injury” language “is indeed a limitation of the ’346 Patent claims.” Id. at 11. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the inventors acted as their own lexicographer to define “effective amount” and that that definition governs its meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1316 (“[O]ur cases recognize that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”). We, therefore, construe the term “effective amount” to mean “the amount of an herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” As explained further below, however, whether incorporated into the construction of “effective amount” or not, the claim language itself further requires that the “effective amount” encompass a specific range of amounts of herbicide (i.e., 14 g AI/Ha to 40 g AI/Ha of quizalofop) and cause “less than 10% injury” to the mutant rice. See Ex. 1001, claim 1.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “Mankin would derive the herbicide range suggested by Patent Owner and Dr. Somers from the “rules of thumb,” that range is much broader than the claimed range. Claim 1 recites that the effective amount is 14 g AI/Ha–40 g AI/Ha of quizalofop, but, according to Dr. Somers’s calculations from the Assure II herbicide label, a POSITA would understand the effective amount to be 19.25–154 (or 19.25–184.8) g AI/Ha. Ex. 2036 ¶ 54; PO Resp. 38. Patent Owner does not identify anything in the specification that would allow a POSITA to “immediately discern” the specific range limitations of the claims. See General Hospital, 888 F.3d at 1372. As the Federal Circuit has stated, “one cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention.” Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326. Thus, we are not persuaded that the disclosure of a broad range of effective amounts via the Assure II herbicide label coupled with Dr. Somers’s undisclosed “rules of thumb” provide written description support for the narrower range limitations of the claims. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is impermissibly working backward from the claimed ranges to determine whether Dr. Somers’s “rules of thumb” can be used to re-create the claimed range from the herbicide label. Pet. Reply 15. That is not the test for written description. Written description “requires a statement of an invention, not an invitation to go on a hunting expedition to patch together after the fact a synthetic definition of an invention.” Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., 18 F. 4th 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Dr. Somers’s “rules of thumb” applied to the extrinsic herbicide label would be understood by a POSITA as a description in Mankin of the range limitation of the claims. Rather, as Dr. Somers concedes, his “rules of thumb” in conjunction with the herbicide label represent a starting point for a POSITA to test plants to determine what the effective amount range should be. See Ex. 2036 ¶ 53 (referring to a “dose response analysis” between 0.5x and 4x). But “a ‘mere wish or plan’ for obtaining the claimed invention is not sufficient.” See Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” slip op. at 30

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded. Given the state of the art in 2017, and the known availability of the G2096S seeds at that time, we find the ’346 patent specification enables the claims. The ’346 patent specification clearly describes the G2096S mutant ACCase rice and its use in the claimed method for treating rice. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:37–45, 57:51–61. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the ’346 patent specification has not omitted the G2096S herbicide tolerant rice. Rather, the ’346 patent specification expressly identifies the G2096S mutant rice that possesses the phenotype of tolerance to the effective amounts of herbicides, and describes the method for treating that mutant rice with those effective amounts. See, e.g., id. at 8:8–12; 57:51–61. Thus, we are not persuaded that we erred in relying on Hinga’s seed deposits to determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to prove that the ’346 patent specification fails to enable the challenged claims. Cf. Wands, 858 F.2d at 736 (stating “[n]o deposit is necessary if the biological organisms can be obtained from readily available sources.”).” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 11,096,346 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,346
• Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · PGR2021-00113 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: they lack written-description support, and claims 1–3, 7, and 11–15 are anticipated by Hinga or Hinga2013.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “As explained in our Institution Decision (Dec. Inst. 6–7), we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner states a POSITA must have one to two years of postdoctoral research experience and Patent Owner’s definition requires at least five years of “research experience,” Patent Owner’s definition does not indicate a specific time for that research (i.e., it could include research during or after a doctoral program). Neither party addresses or contests the other party’s definition in their post-institution papers. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. 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))). Moreover, we find that Dr. Shaner and Dr. Somers are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–15; Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 5–11, App’x A; see also Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F. 4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the inventors acted as their own lexicographer to define “effective amount” and that that definition governs its meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1316 (“[O]ur cases recognize that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”). We, therefore, construe the term “effective amount” to mean “the amount of an herbicide required to achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional rice (e.g., red rice) in field applications.” As explained further below, however, whether incorporated into the construction of “effective amount” or not, the claim language itself further requires that the “effective amount” encompass a specific range of amounts of herbicide and cause “less than 10%” injury to the mutant rice. See Ex. 1001, claim 1. We determine it is unnecessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, 642 F.3d at 1361.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “labels is akin to relying on literature that clearly provides, on its face, the missing disclosure, as in Falkner. Id. On the contrary, Patent Owner’s argument makes clear that the herbicide labels, by themselves, are insufficient to describe the claimed range limitation. Specifically, because the label ranges do not align with the claimed ranges, Dr. Somers had to make additional assumptions and inferences to support Patent Owner’s written description argument. For example, to calculate the potential effective amount range of herbicides, Dr. Somers applied several different “rules of thumb,” none of which are disclosed in the Mankin specification. See Ex. 2036 ¶¶ 34, 54. According to Dr. Somers, to determine the effective amount for a plant with an unknown response to an herbicide, a POSITA “would naturally test the lowest label (1X) rate of the herbicide, along with a few rates below (starting at about half-X) and above the 1X rate (up to 4X) of the herbicide, to determine the effective dose for this ‘uncharacterized’ plant.” Id. ¶ 34. Dr. Somers refers to this as a “dose response analysis.” Id. ¶ 53. In other words, to determine what the actual effective amount of herbicides should be, Dr. Somers explains that a POSITA would have to test the plants at these “rule of thumb” amounts to determine the effective range. Id. ¶ 34. Given the additional assumptions and inferences that must be made to the herbicide labels to arrive at the range limitations, we are not persuaded that relying on the extrinsic herbicide labels for written description support is proper in this case. That said, even if we were to allow Patent Owner to rely on the herbicide labels and the “rules of thumb” for determining the effective herbicide dose, Patent Owner admits that the ranges calculated from the herbicide labels are broader than the range limitations of the claims. See PO Resp. 39. As Petitioner notes, however, the Mankin Application does not provide any guidance as to whether the effective amount range of herbicide would include a 0.5x dose, a 2x dose, or the 4x dose, such that a POSITA could immediately discern the claimed range from the herbicide label.17 Pet. Reply 16.” slip op. at 30

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Somers, however, relies on the label for Fusilade II, which is a different fluazifop-P-butyl herbicide with a different range of 52.98–103.96 g AI/Ha, which—not surprisingly—aligns more closely with the claimed range of at least 56–150 g AI/Ha. Ex. 2036 ¶ 52. We note that Fusilade II does not appear to be one of the listed herbicides in Table 1, whereas Fusilade DX is. Ex. 2034 ¶ 219 (listing “Fusilade, Fusilade 2000, Fusilade DX, ICI-A 00009, ICI-A 00005, SL-236, IH-773B, TF-1169, and Fusion” as examples of synonyms and trade names for fluazifop-P-butyl). Regardless, that the dose range differs for the same herbicide calls into question the credibility of Dr. Somers’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to discern the claimed range limitation by simply looking at the EPA-approved herbicide labels (and applying his “rules of thumb”).18, 19” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 11,096,345 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,345
• Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01274 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–30 were obvious over the proposed prior-art combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art and the ’502 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “in light of the specification. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1279–80 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party offers any express construction for any claim term. See Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 9. We determine that all claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning and that it is unnecessary to make that meaning explicit for any term.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although it is certainly the case that an obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a skilled artisan might glean from the teachings of the prior art (see, e.g., KSR , 550 U.S. at 418), one must be cognizant that “hindsight is not an available analytical mechanism to show obviousness.” See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 483 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Newman, J., dissenting). Indeed, “we patches into something that is the claimed invention.” See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Without the guidance provided by the claims of the ’502 patent, it is difficult to conclude that Petitioner’s postulation as to a particular structure that results from combining the teachings of Lumidigm, Kotanagi, and Scharf is based on an objective assessment of what those teachings would have conveyed to a skilled artisan. It is clear from the Petition, however, that such structural configuration is necessary as the basis for Petitioner’s approach to arriving at the structural requirements of the claims.9 At the outset, we share Patent Owner’s view, and that of its declarant, Dr. Duckworth (Ex. 2002), that none of the prior art on which Petitioner relies discloses a convex protrusion with multiple openings or windows for multiple detectors. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp 28–29; Ex. 2002 ¶ 76. As discussed above, Petitioner attempts to arrive at such structure through a proposed amalgamation of prior art teachings that must include, for instance, arranging a convex protrusion with multiple openings or separate glass windows over Lumidigm’s optical sensors. In our view, however, Petitioner simply does not explain adequately why such configuration results from the actual teachings of the prior art.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,912,502
• Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01273 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–30 because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either proposed obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Based on the record here, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success based on any of the proposed grounds that involve the combined teachings of Mendelson-799, Aizawa, Ohsaki, and Scharf.12” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends the following in connection with a person of ordinary skill in the art: A person of ordinary skill in the art relating to the subject matter of the ’502 Patent as of July 3, 2008 (“POSITA”) would have been a person with a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. The person would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies. Alternatively, the person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23). Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art and the ’502 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1279–80 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party offers any express construction for any claim term. See Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 9. We determine that all claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning and that it is unnecessary to make that meaning explicit for any term.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although it is certainly the case that an obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a skilled artisan might glean from the teachings of the prior art (see, e.g., KSR , 550 U.S. at 418), one must be cognizant that “hindsight is not an available analytical mechanism to show obviousness.” See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 483 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Newman, J., dissenting). Indeed, “we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Without the guidance provided by the claims of the ’502 patent, it is difficult to conclude that Petitioner’s postulation as to a particular structure that results from combining the teachings of Mendelson-799, Aizawa, Ohsaki, and Scharf is based on an objective assessment of what those teachings would have conveyed to a skilled artisan. It is clear from the Petition, however, that such structural configuration is necessary as the basis for” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,912,502
• Genus PLC v. Inguran, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2022 · IPR2021-01027 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Dekkers, Maxwell, Garner, and Kim; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s first portion of the definition, specifically, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least “an undergraduate or graduate degree in genetics, genomics, and/or animal breeding, along with several years of relevant applied research and/or industry work experience in the same fields, including in swine.” PO Resp. 16. Patent Owner, however, objects to the inclusion of the second portion of Petitioner’s definition because it is “improperly injecting a purported knowledge of the claimed invention into the definition of a” person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 17 (citing Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Sur-reply 2–4. Petitioner responds, that its proposed definition reflects the level of skill in the art as supported by the various cited prior art. Pet. Reply. 5. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art unnecessarily recites specific knowledge, whereas the art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner and determine that one of ordinary skill in the art is a person having at least “an undergraduate or graduate degree in genetics, genomics, and/or animal breeding, along with several years of relevant applied research and/or industry work experience in the same fields, including in swine” and this definition is reasonably consistent with the ’734 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Having considered the record as a whole, we determine that Petitioner’s position with respect to the interpretation of “genetic nucleus” is reasonably supported within the record. At oral argument, however, Petitioner acknowledged that omitting the language “wherein certain offspring of the herd are used for breeding within the herd” from the claim construction would not change whether the challenged claims read on the applied references. See Tr. 14:6–16:28. Because the additional language proposed by Petitioner is unnecessary in order to resolve the disputed issues in this case, we do not adopt it here. We, therefore, construe “genetic nucleus” as an animal herd comprising one or more lines and positioned at the top of a multi-level pyramidal hierarchy of herds in a commercial herd breeding structure. 2. Remaining Claim Terms We find that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any remaining claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Ground 1A: Anticipation of Claims 1–5 by Dekkers, as evidenced by either Maxwell or Garner (claims 1–4), or Kim (claim 5)” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that in an anticipation challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Petitioner cannot rely upon specific disclosures in Maxwell or Gardner based on the generic reference to these publications cited Dekkers. Merely citing Maxwell or Gardner in association with sorting sperm as discussed in Dekkers is not incorporation by reference with any level of particularity. See PO Resp. 29 (citing Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (To incorporate matter by reference, “a host document must contain language clearly identifying the subject matter which is incorporated and where it is to be found; a mere reference to another application, or patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything therein.” (internal quote and citations omitted, emphasis in original)); see also Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.”). The disclosure in Dekkers relied on by Petitioner recites: “The technique involves the separation of spermatozoa carrying either X or Y chromosomes (Maxwell et al., 2004; Garner, 2006).” Ex. 1004, 396. We note that Maxwell and Garner are review articles discussing the state of sperm sexting technology generally. See Ex. 1005; Ex. 1006. We agree with Patent Owner that the generic citation to these review articles as set out in Dekkers is not an incorporation by reference of any specific detail from these articles. Unlike the disclosures at issue in Callaway and Cook, Dekkers does not use language such as “reference is made to” (Callaway, 576 F.3d at 1346) or “the disclosure of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference” (Cook, 460 F.3d at 1376) in conjunction with identifying a particular portion of the cited reference that our reviewing court has held to be sufficient to indicate to one of skill in the art that the referenced material is fully incorporated in the host document. Because Dekkers does not incorporate by reference the level of sorting accuracy as required by the claims – at least 80% – the preponderance of evidence of record does not support Petitioner’s position the Dekkers anticipates claims 1–5 of the ’734 patent.” slip op. at 19

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

    “We find that Petitioner has the better position. Here, Patent Owner is identifying the scope of the invention as the commercial tier at the bottom of the pig production pyramid. However, the scope of the claimed invention is directed to the substantially smaller herd sitting at the top of the commercial pig breeding pyramid. As explained in Teva, “[t]he reasonable-expectationof-success analysis must be tied to the scope of the claimed invention. See Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[F]ailure to consider the appropriate scope of the ... claimed invention in evaluating the reasonable expectation of success ... constitutes a legal error ....”); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc., 821 F.3d at 1367.” Teva, 18 F.4th at 1381. Above, we construed “genetic nucleus” as an animal herd comprising one or more lines and positioned at the top of a multi-level pyramidal hierarchy in a commercial herd breeding structure. See above II.C.1. The herd at the top of the pyramid comprises far fewer animals than the multiplication and production tiers. See Ex. 1097 ¶¶ 65 (“the relatively smaller herd size of the genetic nucleus (e.g., hundreds or thousands as compared to millions at the production level) makes the use of sexed semen far easier than in vastly larger multiplier and production herds”), 84; Ex. 1096, 36:21–37:4; Ex. 2004, 39:6–22 (millions of animals at the production level). Petitioner contends that sperm sorting combined with lowdose insemination would have been practical for the much smaller herds found at the genetic nucleus. Pet. Reply 21. Both Maxwell and Garner reasonably suggest that deep-uterine insemination (DIU) allows for the use of sex sorted boar sperm. See Ex. 1005, 88; Ex. 1006, 952. Patent Owner admits that the use of sex-selected semen in the laboratory environment works. See PO Resp. 39. Even if the genetic nucleus (i.e. nuclear herd) comprises in excess of 100 or even 1000 animals it is not clear why using artificial insemination in conjunction with sex-selection would not work at the level of the genetic nucleus as argued by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 39 (“sexed semen has not been implemented outside of a research setting”). Absolute predictability is not necessary to reach an obviousness determination; only a reasonable expectation of success is needed. Pharma Stem Therpeutic, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (2007); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . . For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”). In particular, Dekkers teaches that sorted sperm can be used for artificial insemination. Specifically, acknowledging that “new developments in sperm sexing technology allow for the production of either male or female offspring for sire or dam lines, and this can be very useful for the nucleus and multiplication tiers.” Ex. 1004, 396; Ex. 1002 ¶ 48; see also Ex. 1055, 80 (“The main application by pig producers is for the use of sex-sorting technology in nucleus herds, particularly for producing female lines.”). Here, the evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that given the” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,542,734 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,542,734
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43

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

    “proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 48

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

    “generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Petiq, Inc. v. Bayer Intellectual Property GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2022 · IPR2022-00304 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 were obvious over Dorn and Reul or Dorn and Choi.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review to be instituted unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review. A.” slip op. at 2

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

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute Miglyol 840 from Reul into the solid preparations of Dorn. Petitioner argues that the similarities between Miglyol 840 and dipropylene glycol pelargonate, and dipropylene glycol pelargonate’s use in the art as a spreading agent, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting the spreading agent in Dorn with Miglyol 840. Pet. 31–32. However, as discussed by Patent Owner, Dorn’s discussion of dipropylene glycol pelargonate (and spreading oils generally) is in the context of adjuvants that may be used in liquid solutions for use as “pour-on and spot-on formulations.” See Prelim. Resp. 10–17, 20–23; Ex. 1004, 7:4– 7, 8:1–2. These pour-on formulations are different than Dorn’s solid preparations, which include shaped articles made of PVC. See Ex. 1004, 7:15–8:10 (discussing solutions for pour-on formulations), 9:9–22:31 (discussing solid preparations). While Dorn also discusses the use of adjuvants that can be used with its solid preparations, this discussion mentions preservatives, antioxidants, colorants, lubricants, and glidants, but does not include the use of spreading agents.5 Ex. 1004, 9:18–22. Thus, Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have swapped out the dipropylene glycol pelargonate from” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “its use as a release-promoting substance or spreading agent. See, e.g., Pet. 31, 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 157; Ex. 1006, 1:44–50, 2:63–3:37). Petitioner does not show that Miglyol 840 is being used as a plasticizer in Reul such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use it in the compositions of Dorn in the amounts specified by Dorn for plasticizers. We credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Jacobs, that a “uniformly accepted definition of plasticizer” is “a substance or material incorporated in a material … to increase its flexibility, workability, or distensibility.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 12 (citing Ex. 2012, 173). In contrast, Reul states that its release-promoting substances (including Miglyol® 840) “either do not affect the mechanical properties of the silicon rubber at all or only to an insignificant extent.” Ex. 1006, 2:38–40. We further credit the testimony of Dr. Jacobs that Reul’s “release-promoting substances … do not function as a plasticizer in silicone rubber, at least under the ‘universally accepted definition’ of a ‘plasticizer’ discussed above.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 39 (further testifying that “Reul does not mention any ‘plasticizer’ in general, and does not teach or suggest that caprylic/capric acid-1,2-propanediol diester or Miglyol® 840 functions as a plasticizer in silicone rubber.”).” slip op. at 18

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

    “from Reul in the solid PVC compositions of Dorn, Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to show that these references teach the presence of Miglyol 840 at the recited weight limitation of “about 5% to about 17.5% by weight of the solid moulded body.” As discussed above, Petitioner relies on Dorn’s disclosure of spreading agents (such as dipropylene glycol pelargonate) in arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting the Miglyol 840 in the compositions of Dorn. See Pet. 31–32. However, Dorn does not disclose any weight percentage for dipropylene glycol pelargonate or any of the disclosed spreading agents. Petitioner instead relies on Dorn’s disclosure of plasticizers in amounts of 10 to 50%, preferably approximately from 25% to 45% by weight, to supply this disclosure. Pet. 41–42. In order for this argument to be persuasive, Petitioner must show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in, substituting the plasticizers of Dorn with Miglyol 840 as disclosed in Reul. For the reasons explained below, we find that Petitioner has failed to do so.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,910,122

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.