- L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 30, 2019 · PGR2018-00025 · APJ Timothy G Majors · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13, 19–23, 29, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 14–16, 18, and 24–28 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“combination of Pratt and Tanabe teaches or suggests all of claim 1’s limitations, and that the skilled artisan had a sufficient reason to combine the art as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the bleaching method that is claimed. Before reaching a conclusion of obviousness, however, we consider the parties’ argument and evidence related to alleged objective indicia of nonobviousness. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 35
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“those exhibits) as discussed above in the context for which they were offered (objective indicia of nonobviousness as to alleged unexpected results and industry skepticism). We gave the exhibits little weight on those issues for the reasons explained, and ultimately found in Petitioner’s favor—that objective indicia of nonobviousness did not outweigh the evidence of obviousness on this record. Thus, excluding this evidence would not change the result. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 2038 and 2041 as moot.” slip op. at 85
Patent outcomesUS 9,668,954 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,668,954 - Flir Systems, Inc. / Flir Maritime US, Inc. (F/K/A Raymarine, Inc.) v. Garmin Switzerland GmbHSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 10, 2018 · IPR2017-00946 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 28, 29, and 45 were held unpatentable; claims 1–7, 12–23, 25–27, and 41–44 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 73 and 74 were allowed.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“C. Legal Principles 1. Anticipation A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if “the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We analyze the ground based on anticipation in accordance with the above-stated principles.” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“and agree with Patent Owner that the terms “re-routing the course” and “re-route the course” mean “to change at least a portion of the route of the course relative to a previous routing.” That is, there must be a first routing of a course and that routing must be changed by performance of the marine route calculation algorithm to avoid preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints. The construction is consistent with the words of the claims. The claims do not merely require routing a course, but “re-routing the course.” The ordinary meaning of the prefix “re” is that something is being done again. See Tr. 18 (Petitioner agreeing that “if you put R-E in front of a word, normally that means it’s occurring a second time”). Although the claims do not explicitly recite both an original “routing” of a course that is changed by “re-routing the course,” the original “routing” is implicitly required by the use of the prefix “re.” See Tr. 34 (Patent Owner agreeing that although the claims do not explicitly require an initial routing, the initial routing is implicit in the use of “re-routing”), 44–45 (Petitioner agreeing that “re-routing” ordinarily implies an initial routing).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“proposed construction of “course” as “the path of intended travel of a craft with respect to the earth.” Instead, we need only focus on the words recited in the claim. Claim 1, which is representative, recites that performing the marine route calculation algorithm to “route a course between a first location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions,” where such performance includes “identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. The other independent claims recite similar limitations. See Ex. 1001, claims 12, 20, 27. Based on the limitation recited in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of routing a “course” encompasses the identification of one or more non-user selected waypoints between a first location and a potential waypoint. No further construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the person of ordinary skill in the art need not have first-hand experience with marine navigation devices and systems. Pet. Reply 25–26. The ’703 patent explicitly defines “marine navigation” broadly, noting that “the use of the word ‘marine’ in the embodiments of the present invention (including the claims) could be replaced with the phrase ‘non-street based.’” Ex. 1001, 1:57–67 (emphasis added). Such non-street based navigation is broad enough to encompass avionic navigation. See Pet. Reply 25–26; cf. Ex. 1003, 4–7 (demonstrating Dr. Braasch’s experience in avionic navigation). We find that Petitioner’s definition is supported by the testimony of its expert, Dr. Braasch, and, for the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded that the person of ordinary skill in the art necessarily would have had first-hand experience in marine—as opposed to non-street based— navigation. We, therefore, determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner’s proposed definition correctly states the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we apply it for purposes of this Decision.7, 8” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,268,703 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,268,703 - Parrot S.A. / Parrot, Inc. v. Drone Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00730 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5, 10–14 anticipated by Smith; claims 6–7 and 8–9 obvious over Smith with Barr and Fouche, respectively. Claims 4 and 15 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“construe “difference of motion” in claim 4 as relative motion. Pet. Reply 5– 6. Petitioner in its Reply does not, however, provide a persuasive explanation with respect to how the signal sent by the remote controller in Smith, or its “target motion signal” in the terms of claim 4, may contribute to getting the relative motion between the remote controller and the remotecontrolled device.2 Petitioner submits that “[i]t bears noting, moreover, that the ‘target motion signal’ (STAR3) of Fig. 5 of the ’071 Patent, also is a combination of the remote-controller’s measured orientation and the angle of the joystick, just as in Smith. Ex. 1001, 6:39-51. In that embodiment, it is ‘STAR3’ that is used to calculate the ‘difference of motion.’” Pet. Reply. 7. Petitioner refers to no evidence of record, however, to establish that this “third operation mode” described by the ’071 patent necessarily sends, as in Smith, a target motion signal that is the summation of the terrestrial magnetism signal and the orientation of the joystick relative to the remote 2 Although we did not institute trial on the alternative ground that claim 4 would have been obvious over Smith and Fouche (or the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art) (Pet. 29), the alternative ground for obviousness would suffer from the same deficiency as the anticipation ground. controller. Although attorney arguments are helpful when directing us to evidence in the record, the arguments themselves do not constitute evidence. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See, e.g., Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable as anticipated by Smith.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The ’071 patent, thus, makes clear that, in the preferred embodiment of the invention, “detecting” the remote controller’s motion is detecting the change in terrestrial magnetism relative to the horizontal ground surface as the controller is moved or rotated, with the resulting terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG changing accordingly. The “terrestrial magnetism” of the Earth “directs to a fixed direction parallel to the horizontal ground surface.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 63–65. Detecting the orientation of a remote controller with respect to magnetic North is, at the least, within the scope of “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as claimed. “A claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.’” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“in orientation.” Pet. 17. As Petitioner indicates (id.), the ’071 patent does not provide a definition of the relevant terms different from the ordinary meaning of the words. At the preliminary proceeding stage, we interpreted “difference of motion” simply to mean, under the required broadest reasonable interpretation, relative motion. Dec. on Inst. 10. That interpretation is consistent with the language of claim 4. Claim 4 recites that the “calculated result” — the calculated current motion of the remote-controlled device — is compared with the target motion signal to get the “difference of motion” (relative motion) between the remote-controlled device and the remote controller. In relation to Petitioner’s proffered interpretation, because a change in orientation is a type of motion, relative orientation would be a type (or species) of “difference of motion.”” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Thus, “detecting” the remote controller’s motion is detecting the change in terrestrial magnetism relative to the horizontal ground surface as the controller is moved or rotated, with the resulting terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG changing accordingly. Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’071 patent of the remote controller storing a previous orientation for comparison with a present orientation to effect “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as claimed. We, therefore, remain convinced that detecting the orientation of a remote controller with respect to magnetic North — which Patent Owner admits Smith to disclose — is, at the least, within the scope of “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as claimed.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,584,071 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,584,071 - Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited / Apotex, Inc. et al. v. Novartis AG And Mitsubishi Pharma Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 24, 2015 · IPR2014-00784 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Chiba and Aulton; the motion to amend with proposed claims 33–64 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“institute an inter partes review of claims 1–32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 B2 (“the ’283 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).1 On December 1, 2014, the Board instituted trial to review patentability of the challenged claims. Paper 11 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Apotex, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Apotex,” or, together with Torrent, “Petitioners”) filed a separate Petition also seeking to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–32 of the ’283 patent. IPR2015-00518, Paper 1 (“IPR-518 Pet.”). This second Petition was accompanied by a motion seeking joinder with the trial that had been instituted in IPR2014-00784. IPR2015-00518, Paper 2 (“IPR-518 Joinder Mot.”). On February 17, 2015, the Board instituted trial in IPR2015-00518 and joined the proceedings in IPR2014-00784 and IPR2015-00518. IPR2015-00518, Paper 8 (“IPR-518 Dec.”).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“unexpired patent according to its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1276–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under that standard, absent any special definitions, we assign claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For this reason, we do not construe several terms for which constructions were proposed in the Petition but about which the parties do not disagree.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Where the prior art teaches the claimed invention, a claim is not rendered patentable by virtue of being motivated in the inventors’ minds by a newly-discovered advantage of the prior-art combination; allowing such a claim to stand “would remove from the public that which is in the public domain.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022 (CCPA 1979); see also Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”). Here, Patent Owners argue that the newly discovered low-dose instability of fingolimod when mixed with common excipients motivated the inventors’ choice of the allegedly less common mannitol as an excipient. PO Resp. 12–15 (citing Ex. 2043 ¶¶ 14–19, 22, 24–36). As explained above, though, it does not matter that the prior art failed to recognize this advantage of a fingolimod-mannitol combination. “[T]he motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the [patentee] to establish obviousness.” In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 8,324,283 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,324,283 - Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited / Apotex, Inc. et al. v. Novartis AG And Mitsubishi Pharma Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 24, 2015 · IPR2015-00518 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Chiba and Aulton; Patent Owners’ motion to amend with claims 33–64 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“discovered a new advantage of a combination of prior-art ingredients is not sufficient to render the claims of the ’283 patent patentable, as long as there was some reason to combine the prior-art teachings that those ingredients should be used. Patent Owners argue that Petitioners have failed to prove such a reason to combine, PO Resp. 41–49, but the record establishes otherwise. First, Chiba teaches that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to identify or easily determine excipients that would have been compatible with fingolimod. Ex. 1006, 11:24–28 (“pharmaceutically or physiologically acceptable carriers or excipients for use with the . . . compounds noted herein are known in the art or can be readily found by methods and tests known in the art”). Second, Aulton teaches that mannitol is not only a known diluent for direct compression manufacturing, but also commonly used in wet granulation, which Aulton teaches is “the most widely used method for pharmaceutical materials.”12 Ex. 1021, 39–41, Table 18.1. This combination of teachings already strongly suggests that mannitol likely would have been a target of investigation for a person of ordinary skill in the art interested in finding an excipient compatible with fingolimod, but there is additional evidence of the reason to combine fingolimod and mannitol.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsDecided for petitioner
“and mannitol shows unexpected results. “It is the established rule that ‘objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971)). This is as true for evidence of unexpected results as it is for any other type of objective evidence of non-obviousness. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the applicant’s showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed range”); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980) (“In order to establish unexpected results for a claimed invention, objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.”). The evidence of unexpected results made of record is not commensurate in scope with claim 19. First, according to Patent Owners, the claimed combination was stable at low doses of fingolimod, even though combinations of fingolimod and other excipients were unstable at those same low doses. PO Resp. 54; see also id. at 11–15 (citing Ex. 2042 ¶¶ 39–40; Ex. 2043 ¶¶ 14–19, 22, 24–36) (describing difference in results between low-dose fingolimod-mannitol mixtures and mixtures of low doses of fingolimod with other excipients). But, as Petitioners note, Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶ 85; Ex. 2271, 50:21– 51:919), claim 19 is not limited to any particular dose or dose range of fingolimod. Instead, claim 19 recites only a solid oral dosage form containing mannitol and either fingolimod or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of fingolimod. Ex. 1001, 18:7–10. Thus, even if the stability of the mannitol-fingolimod combination at low doses was unexpected, it is insufficient to support a legally significant finding of unexpected results. Second, Patent Owners argue that the stability achieved with mannitol “is superior to other choices [of excipient] to a surprising extent,” given that “mannitol preserves 4.5 to 11 times as much fingolimod as lactose, microcrystalline cellulose, and starch.” PO Resp. 54 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 12– 13). This evidence of unexpected results suffers from the same flaw discussed above. See Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶ 85). Not only is this evidence limited to low doses of fingolimod, it is limited to a single, specified dose, 0.25 mg. Ex. 2007, 5 (stating that testing was performed using 25 µL of a 10 mg/mL drug substance solution). As such, it is evidence of unexpected results only across a tiny portion of the unlimited dose range 19 A public version is available at Ex. 2276, 50:21–51:9. of claim 19, which is insufficient to support a finding of unexpected results.20” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioners’ argument persuasive. If objective indicia of nonobviousness are “due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.” Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing commercial success). Here, the evidence of long-felt need shows that there was a need merely for a solid oral multiple sclerosis medication, not specifically for a medication of the form recited in claim 19. But the general need for a solid oral multiple sclerosis medication was 21 Patent Owners are reminded that 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) requires a Response to “comply with the content requirements for motions,” and 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) requires motions to include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” satisfied in the prior art. In 1999, Chiba itself suggested treating multiple sclerosis using a solid oral form of fingolimod. Ex. 1006, 6:26–49, 8:19–26. In addition, teriflunomide, marketed in solid tablet form as Aubagio®, was known in the prior art at least by April 1, 2002, when it was disclosed to be useful for treating multiple sclerosis when administered in tablets or capsules. Ex. 1037, at [22], 1:19–30, 2:60–3:2, 5:1–21; Ex. 2045 ¶ 63.22 Similarly, a capsule form of dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, marketed as Tecfidera™, Ex. 1070, 2, was disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,509,376 B1, issued January 21, 2003. Ex. 1097, at [45], 2:64–67, 4:25–27, 4:31–33. Because the prior art contained solid oral multiple sclerosis treatments using active ingredients other than fingolimod, the fingolimod claimed in claim 19 was not necessary to satisfy any long-felt need for a solid oral multiple sclerosis treatment. Nor was the mannitol recited in claim 19: the evidence of record shows that sugar alcohols were not necessary to make even fingolimod suitable for oral administration. Ex. 2271, 250:10– 251:15.23 Accordingly, claim 19 did not solve any need for a solid oral multiple sclerosis treatment that was not already solved in the prior art.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Skepticism / industry praiseObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Industry praise must be linked to the patented invention. Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Again, if objective indicia of nonobviousness are “due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.” Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at 1369. Here, the evidence shows that what was praised about Gilenya was not the specific formulation recited in claim 19, but rather the general fact that Gilenya was a solid oral multiple sclerosis medication. As discussed above, however, a solid oral multiple sclerosis formulation was known in the prior art, so there is no nexus between the claimed invention and the industry praise.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,324,283 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,324,283
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.