• Synthego Corporation v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00402 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable: claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, 18, 20–25, and 27–30 are anticipated; the remaining challenged claims are obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Furneaux, Petitioner contends that a POSA “as of December 3, 2014 (the earliest possible priority date of the ’001 Patent) would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related discipline.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 60). Petitioner further asserts that “[a] POSA would have understood the chemical structure of nucleic acids, such as DNA and RNA, and would have understood the role of such nucleic acids in cellular biology” and been aware of various prior art “methods to chemically modify RNA, including gRNAs for use in gene regulation.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–72, 80). Patent Owner agrees that a POSA would have this educational level. Resp. 24. Patent Owner “also agrees that a POSA would have knowledge of prior art RNA based gene regulating technologies, but disagrees that the teachings of those technologies are relevant in the manner that Dr. Furneaux [and Petitioner] attempt[] to apply them” in the Petition’s grounds. Id. We find the parties’ agreed understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be supported by the record and apply that description in our analysis herein. To the extent the parties may disagree regarding the application of a POSA’s general knowledge of nucleic acids and related prior art techniques to the Petition’s grounds, such disputes are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “Independent claims 1 and 12 recite a guide RNA or crRNA molecule having “gRNA functionality comprising associating with a Cas protein and targeting the gRNA:Cas protein complex to a target polynucleotide.” Ex. 1001, 243:20–22, 244:28–31. This claim language makes clear that the recited “gRNA functionality” requires a molecule that can: (1) associate with a Cas protein, and (2) target that complex to a target polynucleotide. To the extent Petitioner suggests that a gRNA “need only bind to the Cas protein” to have “gRNA functionality,” we disagree because the claims additionally recite the above-quoted targeting functionality. See Reply 17 (emphasis added). At the same time, we agree with Petitioner that “a gRNA need not cleave the target DNA” to have the claimed “gRNA functionality.” Reply 17. The Specification defines “gRNA functionality” as “one or more functions of naturally occurring guide RNA, such as associating with a Cas protein, or a function performed by the guide RNA in association with a Cas protein” and lists various gRNA functions, e.g., “associating,” “targeting,” “binding,” “nicking,” and “cleaving,” that may be present “in certain embodiments” of the invention. Ex. 1001, 6:36–40. However, as noted above, the claims recite “gRNA functionality comprising” only the associating and targeting functions. Thus, while a molecule may have additional functions such as cleaving a target polynucleotide, it need only exhibit the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions to have the “gRNA functionality” in claims 1 and 12. Our determination that “gRNA functionality” requires the recited “associating” and “targeting” functions, but not additional, unrecited functions such as cleaving, is also consistent with the parties’ position that the claim language has its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 17; Resp. 24–25. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other terms, nor do we discern that any further claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad OceanMotor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that it is only necessary to “construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence persuasive. It is well established that “anticipation does not require actual performance of suggestions in a disclosure.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, the Petition need not assert that “gRNA functionality” is inherently disclosed because Petitioner has shown that Pioneer Hi-Bred’s expressly discloses this limitation. Pet. 24–26. There is no additional requirement that this express disclosure be backed by test data in order for the reference to be anticipatory. See, e.g., Novo, 424 F.3d at 1355; Rasmusson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[P]roof of efficacy is not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation.”).” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Second, even if those sequences were truncated, the record does not support Patent Owner’s argument that a POSA would doubt that they have gRNA functionality. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Dr. Marshall’s testimony that these sequences “are truncated to a point that would render them nonfunctional. Ex. 2025 ¶ 200. But the references he cites do not support that position. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Ex. 1033 (“Fu”); Ex. 2044 (“Cencic”); and Ex. 2045 (“Mali”)). To the contrary, Fu evidences that “truncated gRNAs, with shorter regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” are functional and that truncation to 17 nt is beneficial. Ex. 1033, Abstr.; see also id. at 283 (“[W]e found that [truncated] gRNAs with 17 or 18 nucleotides of complementarity generally function efficiently at the intended target site and have improved specificities.”). Cencic and Mali likewise do not suggest that a 17 nt VT domain would lack gRNA functionality. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 202 (citing Cencic as showing 11 Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Furneaux “adopted the definition of ‘truncated gRNAs’ as those with ‘regions of target complementarity <20 nucleotides in length” in paragraph 79 of his opening declaration. Sur-reply 8 n. 1. We disagree. The testimony in paragraph 79 refers to the particular results in Fu. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 79 (citing Ex. 1033). We see nothing there that suggests Dr. Furneaux agrees with Patent Owner’s position that any gRNA with a VT region of less than 20 nt is truncated. “truncated gRNA tests showed that a guide sequence of only 16 nucleotides” abolished cleavage activity); Ex. 2045, Supp. Fig. 10 (“1-3 bp 5’ [gRNA] truncations are indeed well tolerated, but larger deletions lead to loss of activity”). Accordingly, we credit Dr. Furneaux’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 79, Ex. 1059 ¶¶ 73–75) over the competing testimony offered by Dr. Marshall on these points.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,337,001 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,337,001
• Slayback Pharma LLC v. Eye Therapies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00142 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious over Gil, Norden, Dean, Alphagan, and Federal Register; anticipation over Gil and Walters was not shown for claims 1–2.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the parties disagree as to the specific qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ experts agree that their Ex. 1049 ¶ 6 (Sher); Ex. 2020 ¶ 28 (Noecker); Ex. 2021 ¶ 34 (Williams); Ex. 2022 ¶ 23 (Davies). Both parties’ proposed definitions and the prior art of record indicate a high level of skill in the relevant art. Because the parties’ respective experts agree that any dispute as to the level of ordinary skill in the art is not material to their opinions, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition as consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 28–31; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “We are not persuaded. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Sher, who explains that because of the “high degree of imprecision of Figures 2 and 6,” a POSA would be unable to reach any quantitative conclusions from the figures or “clinically distinguish” between brimonidine concentrations that differ by only five-thousandths of a percent. Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 10–18. For example, as Dr. Sher notes, there are no incremental hash marks that indicate where any non-enumerated concentrations such as 0.02% or 0.025% would fall. Id. ¶¶ 11–12. Moreover, the x-axis of both figures appears to be neither linear nor logarithmic. Id. The uncertainty of the scale of the x-axis calls into question the assumption by Dr. Noecker that the blue dot on the x-axis of Figure 6 is necessarily 0.025% as opposed to, for example, 0.02%, which is specifically called out in the Specification’s description of Figure 6 as a preferred concentration. See Ex. 1001, 19:57 (stating Figure 6 demonstrates that “the net effectiveness of brimonidine as a decongestant is greatest between about 0.01% and about 0.03%; preferably between about 0.012% and about 0.02%”) (emphasis added). Moreover, like Dr. Sher, we question the accuracy of Dr. Noecker’s statement that concentrations less than 0.03% have no rebound hyperemia. See Ex. 1049 ¶ 19 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶ 94). As seen by a magnified portion of Figure 2, reproduced below, the dark gray, solid line indicating rebound hyperemia appears to show at least some amount of rebound hyperemia below 0.03%: That is, the magnified portion of Figure 2 depicts the dark gray rebound hyperemia curve between 0.01% and 0.03% to be above the x-axis, indicating—on its face—that some rebound hyperemia occurs, contrary to Dr. Noecker’s testimony. Id. We, therefore, credit the reasoning of Dr. Sher, who explains that, in light of the imprecision of the figures, a POSA would not rely on the figures to discern when rebound hyperemia begins, but would rather rely on the Specification, which states “rebound hyperemia begins at around 0.03%.” Id. We are persuaded that those words of approximation suggest that rebound hyperemia could begin either a little less than, at, or a little more than 0.03% brimonidine. See Ex. 1049 ¶ 25. Thus, we agree with Dr. Sher that “a POSA would read the ’742 patent’s description of Figure 6 and reasonably conclude that ‘at around 0.03%’ includes 0.025%.” Id.” slip op. at 25

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

    “As an initial matter, we agree with the parties that the preamble of the claims is limiting. “Whether to treat a preamble as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021). And where, as here, the claims are directed to methods of using a composition for a specific purpose (i.e., reducing eye redness), and the method comprises a single step of administering that composition, the Federal Circuit “has generally construed statements of intended purpose in such method claims as limiting.” Id. at 1340. agree with Petitioner that it does not and find Eli Lilly to be instructive. In Eli Lilly, the preambles of the claims recite a “method for reducing incidence of or treating at least one vasomotor symptom in an individual” and a “method for treating headache in an individual.” 8 F.4th at 1335. There, the Federal Circuit held that the preambles “are not merely statements of effect but rather statements of the intentional purpose for which the methods must be performed.” Id. at 1342. Thus, the Federal Circuit did not require proof of actual clinical results from performing the claimed method, even though the claims also recited an “effective amount.” Id. The Federal Circuit held that because the specification defined an “effective amount” as an “an amount sufficient to effect beneficial or desired results” and provided examples of such results in the context of prophylactic or therapeutic uses, the claims “encompass a clinical result, [but] they do not require such a result.” Id. Here, similarly, the ’742 patent claims simply recite administering the brimonidine composition (at a concentration range) and do not recite any efficacy requirement, nor even the “effective amount” of note in the Eli Lilly claims. But, like Lilly and as explained below, the “ocular conditions” of the claims encompass prophylactic reduction of hemorrhage and hyperemia in addition to therapeutic uses. See Ex. 1001, 12:13–19. We, therefore, find the claims here do not require actual redness reduction and, thus, no clinical result is required to satisfy the claimed method. Thus, having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we determine that the preamble of the claims is limiting and requires that the claimed brimonidine composition be administered with the actually reduced.” slip op. at 10

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

    “evidence presented at trial, we agree with Petitioner that the term “about 0.025%” includes 0.03%. Our construction is supported not only by intrinsic evidence, but also by extrinsic evidence that demonstrates the alleged criticality of the “about 0.025%” limitation. terms of a specific numerical range. We must, therefore, determine how broadly a POSA reading the ’742 Specification would extend the numerical range around 0.025%. In doing so, we consider the described criticality of “about 0.025%” brimonidine and its purpose to the claimed invention. See Cohesive, 543 F.3d at 1368. The ’742 patent makes clear that the purpose of the “about 0.025%” limitation in the claims is to use “low doses of highly selective a-2 adrenergic receptor agonists to achieve vasoconstriction with significantly reduced hyperemia.” Ex. 1001, 2:39–41. Furthermore, the Specification explains that there is a need for methods that provide “safe and long term vasoconstriction with reduced or minimized side effects, such as rebound hyperemia.” Id. at 2:30–33. There is no dispute that both 0.025% and 0.03% constitute low doses of brimonidine, as described by the Specification. See id. at 3:60–65 (defining “low concentrations” as “between about 0.0001% to about 0.05%”). Thus, the question is whether there is a critical distinction between the two concentrations and their ability to provide vasoconstriction with reduced rebound hyperemia. Patent Owner argues they are clinically distinct, whereas Petitioner argues they are not. In light of the intrinsic evidence discussed below, we agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,293,742 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,293,742
• Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01565 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–10, 12–22, and 24 as anticipated by Kaiser, and claims 1–24 as obvious under the listed grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Considering argument and evidence of record, we define a person of ordinary skill in the art as a member of a multidisciplinary team consisting of at least (1) a person (“Engineer POSA”) with either (a) a bachelor’s or master’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or a similar field, as well as two or more years of work experience with catheters or similar medical devices, or (b) a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field; working with (2) a person with an M.D. or analogous degree and five or more years of work experience in interventional cardiology, hemodynamics or a similar discipline (“Clinician POSA”); or an Engineer POSA receiving assistance from a Clinician POSA; or a Clinician POSA receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA; or a single person with the qualifications of both an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA. With respect to the parties’ proffered declarants, the record before us demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 32

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 32

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

    “activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at pages 11–12 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 31–32 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 44

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Although Kaiser exemplifies in detail a method involving IVC occlusion, its disclosure makes clear that the method is also applicable to the SVC. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 6:60–64 (“the adjustable component may create a pressure gradient by . . . adjusting blood flow impedance through the superior vena cava”), 5:64–6:2 (disclosing “systems and methods may be provided to create a pressure differential” using “balloons . . . to increase a pressure drop through the . . . superior vena cava”), Claim 5 (reciting a “flow impedance device implantable within a patient’s inferior vena cava”), Claim 17 (“The method of claim 10, wherein the body lumen within which the adjustable component is positioned is . . . a superior vena cava.”), 6:31–36 (positioning pressure sensor in the superior vena cava); see also Ex. 1010, 19–22 (claims of provisional application directed to reducing blood flow through the superior vena cava); see also Pet. 29–34, 36–39; Reply 14–16; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 152–153, 156–159, 165, 167–176 (Dr. Day’s testimony regarding the SVC positioning elements). Considering the arguments and evidence of record, including our own reading of Kaiser (see supra Section I.I.1), we find that Kaiser expressly discloses the contested element of Ground 1 relating to use of the restrictor in the SVC.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 10,639,460 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,639,460
• Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01564 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–13, and 15–24 are anticipated by Gelfand, and claims 1–24 are also obvious under Grounds 2–8.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Considering argument and evidence of record, we define a person of ordinary skill in the art as a member of a multidisciplinary team consisting of at least (1) a person (“Engineer POSA”) with either (a) a bachelor’s or master’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or a similar field, as well as two or more years of work experience with catheters or similar medical devices, or (b) a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field; working with (2) a person with an M.D. or analogous degree and five or more years of work experience in interventional cardiology, hemodynamics or a similar discipline (“Clinician POSA”); or an Engineer POSA receiving assistance from a Clinician POSA; or a Clinician POSA receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA; or a single person with the qualifications of both an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA. With respect to the parties’ proffered declarants, the record before us demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at a minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”).” slip op. at 31

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

    “normal intravascular pressure at or near the region of intervention. To the contrary, the Specification repeatedly discloses the creation and maintenance of low-pressure zones at or near the catheter apparatus restrictors during the course of treatment. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:33–36 (“control module 200 can include multiple feedback loops to adjust performance of the system 10 to create and maintain a low pressure zone while the lymphatic fluid is cleared”) (emphasis added), 13:2–7 (“A pressure sensing lumen, which is positioned proximately to the catheter suction port within the isolated area, can be used to control the rate of suction by maintaining the pressure of the isolated area between about 2–5 mmHg and thus prevent collapse of the thoracic duct due to excessive suction and ensure optimized lymph drainage.”) (emphasis added), 17:52–63 (“[T]he pressure gradient across the proximal restriction is achieved by the pressure reduction within the area between the two restrictions. Actuation of the pump helps to create a low pressure zone in the vicinity of the junction of the jugular vein and the subclavian vein by withdrawing fluid in this region, recirculating it through the pump, and discharging the fluid downstream of this region. Because the outflow of the thoracic and lymphatic ducts is located in this region, the lower pressure will facilitate drainage of lymphatic fluid.”) (emphases added). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’460 Patent “teaches activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at pages 11–12 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 31–32 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 43

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Considering the posture of this case, it is Patent Owner’s burden to overcome the presumption that Gelfand is enabled. See, e.g., Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1354–55. This requirement is not excused in IPR proceedings. See Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 F. App’x 443, 450 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]egardless of the forum, prior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Considering all the argument and evidence of record, we find that Patent Owner has not overcome the presumption with respect to Gelfand for at least the reasons set forth on pages 13–25 of Petitioner’s Reply, which we adopt in full and briefly summarize below.” slip op. at 48

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we find persuasive Dr. Day’s testimony that, “there is no functional difference between the SVC and the IVC that would preclude a catheter from functioning once in the SVC.” Ex. 2006, 73:21–74:5; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 134 (the “methods of balloon activation and operation are the same regardless of whether the occlusion balloon is placed in the SVC or the IVC”). We likewise find persuasive Dr. Day’s testimony that, “Gelfand’s methods, systems and devices . . . could be used in the SVC without any substantial modification other than the catheter potentially being inserted into a vein upstream of the SVC.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122–126; see also id. ¶¶ 130– 134 (similar testimony specific to element [1e]); Ex. 2006, 93:11–99:16, 71:7–78:15, 86:13–87:19, 88:14–90:9, 97:10–13. But to the extent Gelfand’s device needed to be modified, we find persuasive Dr. Day’s testimony that an Engineer POSA would have found such modifications “routine.” Ex. 2006, 205:8–212:21 (“they’re just different variants or dimensions of the invention”). We, likewise, find persuasive Dr. Garcia’s testimony that “Gelfand discloses occluding the SVC or IVC with a balloon catheter device to reduce blood flow to the heart. Gelfand’s catheter is a type of Swan-Ganz catheter, a commonly used catheter with which I and other clinicians are very familiar, and Gelfand discloses that its catheter can be inserted and placed using conventional techniques.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 60; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 27–31 (Dr. Day’s overview of therapeutic balloon catheters). Referencing Dr. Day’s testimony, Dr. Garcia further states that [f]rom a clinician’s perspective, there would have been no difference in using Gelfand’s device to partially occlude the SVC and in using it to fully occlude the SVC. The device would simply have been inserted percutaneously, advanced so that the balloon is in the SVC, and then operated to inflate the balloon to the inner diameter of the SVC. Id. ¶ 127; see also id. ¶¶ 81–83, 127 (detailed explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would know how “to place the occlusion balloon in the SVC as taught by Gelfand”). As further noted by Petitioner, “Garcia explained that Gelfand discloses, and a POSA would know, that a modified Swan-Ganz catheter like Gelfand’s could be inserted via the right internal jugular vein so as to place the occlusion balloon in the SVC.” Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 73–83 (showing modified version of Gelfand’s Figure 1), 136, 145–159; Ex. 2006, 101:8–103:10); see also id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1032, 51:19–53:23, 204:4–205:22, 206:10–208:24) (Dr. Brecker’s admissions that diameters of Gelfand’s catheter would allow SVC placement via jugular vein and that placement of Swan-Ganz catheters through the SVC via the right internal jugular vein was known).” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 10,639,460 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,639,460
• Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01478 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1–14 and 16 as anticipated by Kaiser, and claims 1–16 as obvious under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Considering argument and evidence of record, we define a person of ordinary skill in the art as a member of a multidisciplinary team consisting of at least (1) a person (“Engineer POSA”) with either (a) a bachelor’s or master’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or a similar field, as well as two or more years of work experience with catheters or similar medical devices, or (b) a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field; working with (2) a person with an M.D. or analogous degree and five or more years of work experience in interventional cardiology, hemodynamics or a similar discipline (“Clinician POSA”); or an Engineer POSA receiving assistance from a Clinician POSA; or a Clinician POSA receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA; or a single person with the qualifications of both an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA. With respect to the parties’ proffered declarants, the record before us demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualifies him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is also an Engineering POSA, or is receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily” slip op. at 33

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “work experience with catheters or similar medical devices, or (b) a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field; working with (2) a person with an M.D. or analogous degree and five or more years of work experience in interventional cardiology, hemodynamics or a similar discipline (“Clinician POSA”); or an Engineer POSA receiving assistance from a Clinician POSA; or a Clinician POSA receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA; or a single person with the qualifications of both an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA. With respect to the parties’ proffered declarants, the record before us demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualifies him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is also an Engineering POSA, or is receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily” slip op. at 34

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

    “Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’871 Patent “teaches activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at page 11 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 30–31 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 46

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “It is Patent Owner’s burden in this proceeding to overcome the presumption that Kaiser is enabled. See, e.g., Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1354–55. This requirement is not excused in IPR proceedings. See Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 F. App’x 443, 450 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]egardless of the forum, prior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Considering all the argument and evidence of record, we find that Patent Owner has not overcome the presumption with respect to Kaiser for the reasons set forth on pages 16–19 of Petitioner’s Reply, which we adopt in full and briefly address below. With respect to enablement of Kaiser’s device, we find persuasive Dr. Day’s testimony that no substantial modification of Kaiser’s IVC embodiment would be necessary to deploy it in the SVC. See Ex. 2006, 218:6–220:13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 109 (annotated version of Kaiser’s Fig. 2 showing that the lead/catheter passes through the SVC to reach the IVC). With respect to enablement of Kaiser’s method in the SVC, Dr. Brecker’s analysis also falls short of overcoming the presumption that Kaiser is enabling. Dr. Brecker asserts, for example, that Kaiser also does not describe what pressure differential would need to be created through the use of a flow impedance device in the SVC in order to successfully perform its method using such a device in the SVC, and does not provide any exemplary pressure recordings demonstrating that its method can be successfully performed using a device in the SVC. Ex. 2005 ¶ 110. We find persuasive, however, Petitioner’s argument that Kaiser discloses representative pressure differentials, including an effective pressure differential for occluding the IVC (3 mmHg), which Dr. Brecker could not say would be ineffective for the SVC— but which a Clinician POSA could test, along with other pressure differentials to see what results they produced if the SVC were occluded. Reply 16–17 (citing Ex. 1007, 14:22, Fig. 4 (table showing exemplary hemodynamic data obtained by creating a pressure differential in the inferior vena cava); Ex. 1032, 190:23– 192:3 (Dr. Brecker’s testimony that a Clinician POSA would know how to measure the pressures such as those disclosed in Figure 4), 193:14–194:17 (at least some information could be derived from animal testing)). At least because Patent Owner has not argued (let alone demonstrated) that such testing would be undue, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden to show non-enablement.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 10,653,871 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,653,871
• Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01477 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 3–16 are anticipated by Gelfand, and claims 1–16 are also obvious over the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s contention that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art may not comprise a multidisciplinary team, but may be “a member” of that same multidisciplinary team, strikes us as a distinction without a difference. See id. Thus, although we disagree with Patent Owner’s analysis, we rephrase part one of our provisionally adopted definition to reference “a member of a multidisciplinary team.”” slip op. at 31

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 34

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

    “Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’871 Patent “teaches activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at pages 11–12 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 30–31 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 46

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “F.3d at 1354–55. This requirement is not excused in IPR proceedings. See Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 F. App’x 443, 450 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]egardless of the forum, prior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Considering all the argument and evidence of record, we find that Patent Owner has not overcome the presumption with respect to Gelfand for at least the reasons set forth on pages 12–24 of Petitioner’s Reply, which we adopt in full and briefly summarize below.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 10,653,871 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,653,871
• 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
• Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00107 · APJ Robert A Pollock · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board canceled claim 3, found substitute claim 22 unpatentable as anticipated by Gille503, Gille501, and Mohl996, and granted the motion to amend in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “claims.” 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(3) (“A motion to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.”). Patent Owner proposes the same number of substitute claims as the original challenged claims that are canceled, i.e., a one-to-one substitution of claim 3 with proposed substitute claim 22. MTA 1. “There is a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of substitute claims per challenged claim is one (1) substitute claim.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4. Petitioner does not argue otherwise.” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision we provisionally adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (sometimes referred to herein as a “POSA”) as having “an M.D. or a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or a similar field, as well as two or more years of work experience with catheters or similar medical devices” or would have “a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field.” DI 10 (citing Pet. 15; Ex. 1002 ¶ 72). This definition is uncontested and we continue to apply it here. See MTA 4–5. D.” slip op. at 32

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

    “Patent Owner’s contention that we should read “baseline blood pressure measurement” as limited to a single measurement determined prior to, or at the beginning of a procedure, nothing in claim 22 prohibits the device from recalculating a baseline blood pressure measurement, or comparing current blood pressure to the updated baseline. Proposed substitute claim 22 is not a method claim, but is directed to a device that is agnostic as to when a “baseline blood pressure measurement” is determined, as well as its source. Thus, even if the flow diagrams shown in Figure 11A and 11B of the ’069 Patent do not contain instructions to update the baseline pressures acquired in steps 302 and 354, respectively, this is not forbidden by proposed substitute claim 22 as written, and Patent Owner does not persuade us that such a limitation should be imported into the meaning of “baseline blood pressure measurement.”” slip op. at 34

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “For the reasons discussed above, we do not read the exemplary embodiments described in paragraph 14 of Gille503 as representative of the reference as a whole. Rather, we find more persuasive Dr. Day’s testimony that Gille503 satisfies Element 22[h] because one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “comparisons performed by the feedback loop would detect a change in blood pressure either when current sensed blood pressure ceases to equal the target blood pressure, or when current sensed blood pressure begins to equal target blood pressure after previously not equaling the target pressure.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 114; see generally, id. ¶¶ 111–119. Dr. Leschinsky also opines that the analysis in our Preliminary Guidance fails to satisfy the requirements of claim 22 because “the control module must specifically perform a comparison between a baseline measurement and another measurement.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 69 (emphasis added). We find it self-evident that this function is carried out by a control module, and agree with Petitioner and its expert that one of ordinary skill would understand Gille503 to describe a feedback loop comprising a control module “controlling balloon inflation based on sensor data to achieve a ‘target’ pressure.” Opp. MTA 13; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 120–125. In view of the above, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Gille503 to disclose the “in a vein” and “comparing” limitations of the proposed substitute claim (elements 22[c]/[e] and 22[h], respectively). We have also considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect to the uncontested limitations. Considering the record as a whole, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 22 is unpatentable as anticipated by Gille503. F.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,926,069 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,926,069
• 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

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.