• Mara Renewables Corporation v. DSM IP Assets, B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01167 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “When asserting unpatentability under obviousness, the patent challenger must show a reasonable expectation of success, that is, “the likelihood of success in combining references to arrive at the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, “[t]he reasonable-expectationof-success analysis must be tied to the scope of the claimed invention.” Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., 18 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the trial court’s failure to consider the appropriate scope of the claimed invention in evaluating the reasonable expectation of success constitutes a legal error). Relevant to our Decision here, claim 3 requires its microbial lipid to have, among others, at least 60% by weight DHA in the triglyceride fraction and an AV of 0.5 to 26.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the skill level because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill at the relevant time. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “We emphasize that our finding is not on lack of reasonable expectation of success per se. Instead, we merely find neither the Petition nor the Curtis Declaration persuasively addresses “the expected differences in the oxidizability and oxidation rate—and their expected impact on anisidine values—of an oil containing 42% ARA (for which Schaap discloses limited experimental data) versus one containing 60% DHA in the triglyceride fraction (for which Schaap does not).” See id. at 27. In sum, we find Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan, based on the teachings of the asserted prior art, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for the appropriate scope of the claimed invention (that is, a microbial lipid having at least 60% DHA in the triglyceride fraction and an AV of 0.5 to 26). As a result, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in this challenge.” slip op. at 13

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,392,578
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00532 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach Grounds 2–6.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Decision. See Ex. 3001, 12–23. As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s reliance on Sanofi and Eli Lilly. See PO Resp. 9. In Sanofi, a non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that the preamble to the claims at issue, reciting “[a] method of increasing survival comprising administering to a patient in need thereof” was limiting upon the claims, in conformance with the court’s prior decisions in Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Sanofi, 757 F. App’x at 992–93. Furthermore, the court held that, because the preamble was limiting, and recited a “method of increasing survival” the proposed claims would now clearly require “increasing survival.” Id. at 994. The preamble to claim 1 of the ’681 patent, however, recites no such “increase” with respect to efficacy, but merely recites “A method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient,” and the remainder of the claim requires no specific efficacy requirement. Nor does Eli Lilly support Patent Owner’s position. In Eli Lilly, the court upheld the Board’s conclusion that the preamble reciting “a method for treating headache in an individual” was limiting upon the claims. Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. However, it noted, in upholding the Board’s conclusion, the Board also “found that while the claims encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Id. (emphasis added). We also find that the similar language of the preamble to challenged claim 1 of the ’681 patent, although encompassing clinical efficacy, does not require it, let alone a “high degree of efficacy.”” slip op. at 33

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

    “the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating” requires a high level of efficacy. In the -00881 Decision, the Board rejected Patent Owner’s similar argument because it required improperly importing limitations into the claims. See Ex. 3001, 22. Specifically, the Board found that: [W]hen the Specification explains that “[t]he amount of VEGF antagonist administered to the patient in each dose is, in most cases, a therapeutically effective amount,” and discloses that “a therapeutically effective amount can be from about 0.05 mg to about 5 mg,” we find that a POSA would have understood that any dosage amount within that range administered according to the invention may, in some cases, result in a detectable improvement in “one or more symptoms or indicia of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or be one that “inhibits, prevents, lessens or delays the progression of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or it may not. In either event, the VEGF antagonist would have been administered for the purpose of treating the eye disorder. In other words, the method of treating the patient with the eye disorder is performed upon administration of the VEGF antagonist to the patient for the purpose of achieving an improvement or beneficial effect in the eye disorder, regardless whether the dosage amount administered actually achieves that intended result. Id. at 21–22 (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Board found that: Patent Owner proposes that the claims require not only achieving a therapeutically effective result, but more specifically, achieving a “high level of efficacy that was noninferior to the standard of care by the time the patent was filed in 2011.” In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner describes a “highly effective treatment for angiogenic eye disorders” as “one that is on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin and can produce visual acuity gains, not just slow vision losses.” The Specification refers to “a high level of efficacy” in one instance, i.e., in the “Background” section. The Specification does not describe there, or elsewhere that “treating,” in the context of the claims or in the art, requires achieving a “high level of efficacy” or providing results “on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin.” Id. at 22 (citations omitted). We adopt the same reasoning here, and find that, for the purposes of this Decision, the evidence of record and the Specification support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to such patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. We consequently reject” slip op. at 35

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

    “The terms “initial dose,” “secondary doses,” and “tertiary doses,” refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist Thus, the “initial dose” is the dose which is administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen (also referred to as the “baseline dose”) ; the “secondary doses” are the doses which are administered after the initial dose; and the “tertiary doses” are the doses which are administered after the secondary doses. The initial, secondary, and tertiary doses may all contain the same amount of dosing regimens, but will generally differ from one another in terms of frequency of administration. Ex. 1001, col. 3 ll. 34–44. Petitioner also notes that the Specification further explains that “the immediately preceding dose” means “in a sequence of multiple administrations, the dose of VEGF antagonist which is administered to a patient prior to the administration of the very next dose in the sequence with no intervening doses.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 54–59; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–45). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “As Petitioner states, Patent Owner relies upon these Exhibits as objective secondary evidence of non-obviousness. See, e.g., PO Resp. 65– 69. However, and as we explain below, because we find that the challenged claims are anticipated by Dixon, we do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments that the claims are non-obvious (Grounds 4–6) or its contentions regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness. See Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that “secondary considerations are not an element of a claim of anticipation”). Consequently, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the Financial Documents as moot.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2022-01225 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Here, the claims are directed to methods of administering, i.e., using, a VEGF antagonist for an intended purpose of “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” The Specification repeatedly characterizes the method as one for treating angiogenic eye disorders in patients. Apart from the preamble, the independent claims do not elsewhere recite or indicate any other use for the method steps comprising the administration of a VEGF antagonist. Thus, we determine that the preamble sets forth the essence of the invention—treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. Additionally, we find that the preamble provides antecedent basis for claim terms “the patient” recited in the body of each independent claim, and “angiogenic eye disorders” recited in dependent claims 6, 7, 18, and 20. Indeed, without the preamble, it would be unclear to whom the doses of VEGF are administered. Thus, …in view of the evidence of record, namely, the claim language and the written description of the ’338 patent, we find that the preambles of method claims 1 and 14 are limiting insofar as they require “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” Id. at 17–18 (citations omitted). We adopt this same reasoning here and find that the preamble of claim 1 reciting “[a] method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” is limiting.” slip op. at 34

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

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44.” slip op. at 37

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

    “If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, the next step in the Praxair analysis is to determine whether the printed matter is functionally related to its “substrate.” Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032. Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight. Id. (citing DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850). However, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id. (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). More specifically, printed matter is functionally related to its substrate when the language changes not mere thoughts or outcomes, but provides action steps that the method requires. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the test for printed matter is whether it “merely informs people of the claimed information, or whether it instead interacts with the other elements of the claim to … cause a specific action in a claimed process.”); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that language “is only a statement of purpose and intended result” where its “expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 46

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field. Pet. 28. Petitioner asserts that such a person would typically have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D. (or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders, including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1020), we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-01312 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–18 on the Fraser anticipation and listed obviousness grounds, granted Samsung’s joinder motion, and joined the proceeding with IPR2023-00462.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In view of these representations by Petitioner, and having reviewed the petition in the Celltrion IPR, we determine that, under the current circumstances, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to institute inter partes review of the challenged claims based upon the same grounds authorized, and for the same reasons discussed in, our institution decision in the Celltrion IPR. See Celltrion IPR, Paper 11.” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner timely filed its Motion within one month of the institution of the Celltrion IPR, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In the Motion, Petitioner asserts that “[j]oinder is appropriate in this case because it is the most expedient way to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the two related proceedings,” the Samsung Petition “is identical with respect to the grounds instituted in the Celltrion IPR,” and “[j]oinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review in a timely manner and would have no impact on the Celltrion IPR schedule.” Mot. 5–6. Having considered the unopposed Motion for Joinder, and in light of our decision to institute on the same grounds as in the Celltrion IPR, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively established that joinder is appropriate and will have little to no impact on the timing, cost, or presentation of the trial in the Celltrion IPR. Thus, in consideration of the foregoing, and in the manner set forth in the following Order, the Motion for Joinder is GRANTED.” slip op. at 5

  None
  Patents in suitUS 10,464,992
• Microbiotica, Limited v. Board Of Regents, The University Of Texas SystemInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · PGR2023-00026 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–19 were unpatentable, including because the proposed prior-art combination lacked a sufficient reason to select Ruminococcus for skin …

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”1 35 U.S.C. § 324; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “7 Patent Owner requested that we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Prelim. Resp. 11–49. Because we determine on the merits that no post-grant review should be instituted, we will not address Patent Owner’s arguments concerning Section 325(d).” slip op. at 44

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner counters that Petitioner has set the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art too low. Prelim. Resp. 9–11; Ex. 2001 ¶ 25. Patent Owner asserts that a POSA would have a more advanced degree than a bachelor of science and would have more specific work experience. Id. For instance, Patent Owner asserts: A POSA for the ’838 Patent typically would have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or a Ph.D., with experience and training in oncology, have several years of experience with administering oncology treatments to subjects and evaluating results of such treatments, and have experience or knowledge in microbiome science and its modulation, inclusive of studies that involve stool microbiome profiling, as well as experience in, or knowledge of, related research and development of bacterial-based cancer treatments. A POSA may also have worked as part of a multi-disciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others in the team, to solve a given problem. For example, such a team may include a clinician, an immunologist, microbiologist, bioinformatician, molecular biologist, manufacturing specialist, and/or pharmaceutical formulator. Prelim. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner concludes that by applying the inappropriately low level of skill of a POSA, “Petitioner overstates the amount of guidance needed in the specification to describe and enable the claimed methods.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner confirms, however, that all arguments on all grounds presented in the Preliminary Response “apply regardless of which party’s POSA definition is used.” Prelim. Resp. 11 n.2. We disagree with Patent Owner that a POSA is required to have a” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner acted as its own lexicographer and expressly defined “isolated” and “purified” as follows. The term “isolated” encompasses a bacterium or other entity or substance that has been (1) separated from at least some of the components with which it was associated when initially produced (whether in nature or in an experimental 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IndefinitenessMemo.pd f?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email& utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=. setting), and/or (2) produced, prepared, purified, and/or manufactured by the hand of man. Isolated bacteria may be separated from at least about 10%, about 20%, about 30%, about 40%, about 50%, about 60%, about 70%, about 80%, about 90%, or more of the other components with which they were initially associated. In some embodiments, isolated bacteria are more than about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, about 91%, about 92%, about 93%, about 94%, about 95%, about 96%, about 97%, about 98%, about 99%, or more than about 99% pure. As used herein, a substance is “pure” if it is substantially free of other components. The term “purify,” “purifying” and “purified” refer to a bacterium or other material that has been separated from at least some of the components with which it was associated either when initially produced or generated (e.g., whether in nature or in an experimental setting), or during any time after its initial production. A bacterium or a bacterial population may be considered purified if it is isolated at or after production, such as from a material or environment containing the bacterium or bacteria population, and a purified bacterium or bacterial population may contain other materials up to about 10%, about 20%, about 30%, about 40%, about 50%, about 60% about, 70%, about 80%, about 90% or above about 90% and still be considered “isolated.” In some embodiments, purified bacteria and bacterial populations are more than about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, about 91%, about 92%, about 93%, about 94%, about 95%, about 96%, about 97%, about 98%, about 99%, or more than about 99% pure. In the instance of bacterial compositions provided herein, the one or more bacterial types present in the composition can be independently purified from one or more other bacteria produced and/or present in the material or environment containing the bacterial type. Bacterial compositions and the bacterial components thereof are generally purified from residual habitat products. Ex. 1001, 28:40–29:11. In reviewing the express definitions of “isolated” and “purified,” it is not surprising that the two similar terms, “isolated” and “purified,” may have overlapping definitions. We agree with Patent Owner that such overlap does not mean the definitions lack “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” that would inform a POSA with reasonable certainty about the scope of claim 1. We also agree with Patent Owner that a POSA would understand the two parts of the definition of “isolated” set forth above.” slip op. at 30

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,395,838
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/SInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00723 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–6 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence (1966). In analyzing the obviousness of a combination of prior art elements, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of skill in the art “to combine . . . known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of a challenged claim is not necessary to establish obviousness. Id. Rather, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. Accordingly, a party that petitions the Board for a determination of unpatentability based on obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that “[t]he claimed subject matter falls within the medicinal chemical and pharmacological arts and encompasses the skills, education, and expertise of a team of individuals working together to develop and formulate GLP-1 analogs to treat patients having type-2 diabetes or related conditions.” Pet. 7. The persons of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) making up the team would have an M.D., Pharm.D., or doctoral degree(s) in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical sciences, chemical engineering, biochemical engineering or related fields, peptides or proteins, and experience with the development, design, manufacture, formulation, or administration of therapeutic peptides or proteins, and the literature concerning protein or peptide formulation and design or diabetes treatments. Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 27; Ex. 1022 ¶ 27; Ex. 1024 ¶ 21; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 25–26). 13 Patent Owner does not offer a different level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the current record, and for the purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’343 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11

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

    “We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Moreover, “the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” In re Abbott 13 We need not consider Petitioner’s similar alternative definitions. See id. at 8–9. v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The parties contend that no claim term requires construction. Pet. 13. Prelim. Resp. 15. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary to reach our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. v. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only 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))). D. Overview of Asserted References” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “On the record before us, however, Dr. Flatt’s assessment of the relative benefit one of ordinary skill in the art would have accorded the higher Ki of mono-substituted compound 3 as compared to the “much longer plasma half-life” of Dong’s bi-substituted compounds is at odds with Dong’s selection of bi-substituted compound 4 for clinical trials. See Ex. 1013, 670– 671 (Table 1). We are also skeptical of Dr. Flatt’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Dong’s substitution of Aib for alanine at position 8 “would complement and work synergistically with liraglutide’s [other] properties,” including the fatty acylation of Lys26. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 181. In this respect, Patent Owner notes that, unlike liraglutide, Dong’s GLP-1 analogs were not acylated, whereas Knudsen 2001 counseled against N-terminal modifications in the context of acylation. Prelim. Resp. 28–30, 46 (citing Ex. 1011, 680–681). In addressing such combinations, Knudsen 2001 states, for example, that “Desamino His7 represents one of the more potent suggestions to a modification giving metabolic stability (81 ). Nevertheless, as seen when comparing 19 (687 pM) to 5 [liraglutide] (68 pM), considerably more potent compounds could be obtained by not modifying the N-terminus when a combination with acylation was desired.” Id. at 680. As such, we are unpersuaded on the record before us that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the Aib8 modification would be beneficial or otherwise “complement and work synergistically with” the acylated Lys26 of liraglutide or semaglutide. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 181.” slip op. at 30

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,129,343
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/SInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00722 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13, and 15 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving them obvious under any of the three grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that “[t]he claimed subject matter falls within the medicinal chemical and pharmacological arts and encompasses the skills, education, and expertise of a team of individuals working together to develop and formulate GLP-1 analogs to treat patients having type-2 diabetes or related conditions.” Pet. 7. The persons of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) making up the team would have an M.D., Pharm.D., or doctoral degree(s) in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical sciences, chemical engineering, biochemical engineering or related fields, with at least two years of experience in developing therapeutic peptides or proteins, and experience with the development, design, manufacture, formulation, or administration of therapeutic peptides or proteins, and the literature concerning protein or peptide formulation and design or diabetes treatments. ¶ 24).14 Patent Owner does not offer a different level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the current record, and for the purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’122 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 14

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

    “The parties contend that no claim term requires construction. Pet. 16. Prelim. Resp. 16. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary to reach our 14 We need not consider Petitioner’s similar, but alternative, definitions. See id. at 8–9. v. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only 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 15

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

    “For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’122 patent is unpatentable, we do not institute an inter partes review on the Grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); see also Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018).1” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Considering the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the required modification with a reasonable expectation of success. (4) Hindsight and Reasonable Expectation of Success One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to modify liraglutide would need undertake at least four discrete steps to arrive at semaglutide—some of which entail multiple options and decision points (e.g., the selection and placement of di-AEEA, and whether to replace, or add to, the existing γ-glu linker). As discussed above, we find Petitioner’s justification for these individual steps problematic. Taken as whole, and considering the vast number of modifications suggested in the art—and indeed, the large number of amino acids suggested as cites for modification—Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to make all of the identified substitutions and no others. See e.g., Ex. 1010, 4130 (Figure 3) (identifying amino acids available for derivatization (Ser18, Gln23, Lys26, Glu27, Lys34, and Arg36) or modification (Ala8)); Ex. 1011, 680–681 (identifying desamino His7 as “one of the more potent suggestions to a modification giving metabolic stability,”); Ex. 1012 at, e.g., 9:21-19:59; 192:30–60 (Table 1), 193:35–46 (disclosing numerous GLP-1 analogs, including those with greater half-lives or potency than liraglutide, and teaching that each could be further modified, including with amino acid substitutions and/or acylation at multiple positions, numerous the fatty and amino acids); Ex. 1013, 670–671 (disclosing that GLP-1 analogs bearing modifications at both positions 8 and 35 maintain efficacy but “have much longer plasma half-life than mono-substituted compounds”).” slip op. at 43

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,536,122
• Osteomed LLC v. Stryker European Operations Holdings LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 8, 2023 · IPR2022-00488 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Arnould and Zahiri, with claim 6 also relying on Myerson; the Board did not reach Grounds 1–3.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “While both parties’ descriptions are similar, we find that Patent Owner’s description is better supported by the record. As Patent Owner points out, the main distinction between the parties’ proposals is that Patent Owner’s description is broader because it includes orthopedic surgeons. The record supports the inclusion of such individuals in the description of a POSITA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 37, 41; Ex. 2009, 38:21–39:7 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that he would “include an orthopedic surgeon that has some experience developing implants as a person of ordinary skill in the art”). Thus, we apply Patent Owner’s description of a POSITA for our analysis.” slip op. at 8

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

    “That said, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the Specification defines “bone plate” as it contends. In the background of the invention, the Specification states that “[t]he invention relates to the technical field of orthopedic implants. More particularly, the invention relates to a plate for arthrodesis or osteosynthesis adapted to be fixed between two bone parts.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–31. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, this passage does not “define” the term “bone plate” nor otherwise suggest that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer. See Resp. 9. Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that the ordinary meaning of “bone plate” requires the plate to be fixed between two bone parts. The medical dictionaries Patent Owner cites do not include such a requirement in their definitions. See Ex. 2012, 1478 (defining “bone plate” as “a metal bar with perforations for the insertion of screws, used to immobilize fractured segments”); Ex. 2013, 241 (defining “bone plate” as “a metal plate used to reconstruct a bone that has been fractured” and “designed to hold the bone fragments in apposition”). Both of these definitions are consistent with Mr. Sherman’s testimony that a bone plate is “not always” placed across the fracture. See Ex. 2009, 52:9–53:1 (identifying particular instances in which a plate is not placed across the fracture). We credit that testimony over the competing testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Leinsing. Ex. 2005 ¶ 34 (referring to the statements from the Specification and dictionary definitions discussed above). For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that the term “bone plate” as recited in the challenged claims has its ordinary meaning and that meaning does not exclude plates located on only one side of a joint or fracture.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We do not agree that the ordinary meaning of “between” is as restrictive as Patent Owner contends. First, Patent Owner’s definition of “between” does not require an object that is “between” two others to lie along the same axis defined by the two other objects. A “space separating two objects” is not so restrictive. Instead, a more expansive ordinary meaning of “between” is evidenced by the intrinsic evidence of the ’751 patent as Petitioner explained with reference to Figure 2 of the ’751 patent, which shows a third hole 1a1 between the other holes even though it is “offset” and in a different plane from the longitudinal axis of the bone plate. Patent Owner attempts to draw a distinction between Arnould’s Figure 2 and Figure 2 of the ’751 patent, by asserting “like Arnould, a hand is in a different plane and offset and its axis is not in relation to the body. In contrast, the angled tab shown in Figure 2 of the ’751 patent is not in a different plane and offset from the plate, and the hole axis forms an angle with the plate.” Sur-reply 8. Patent Owner’s distinction here appears to be whether the third hole lies at an angle below or above the bone plate as shown in Figure 2 of the ’751 patent (which would be “between” according to Patent Owner) versus also being positioned to either side of the bone plate as shown in Figure 2 of Arnould (which in Patent Owner’s view would mean that hole is no longer “between” the others). We see no basis for drawing such a fine distinction regarding the meaning of “between,” especially when the narrower definition Patent Owner seeks is not made explicit in the Specification of the ’751 patent. To the extent any further claim construction is necessary to resolve” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “contends. A reference is considered to be analogous art if it is in the “same field of endeavor” as the patent at issue. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the Specification states that “[t]he invention relates to the technical field of orthopedic implants.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–28. Zahiri falls squarely within this field, describing “fixation devices for compressing bone fractures of a human being.” Ex. 1007, 1:9–11; see also, e.g., id. at Fig. 1 (depicting the use of Zahiri’s plate as an orthopedic implant to fix two bone parts). The differences Patent Owner identifies in Zahiri’s device do not show otherwise. In this regard, we find the testimony of Mr. Sherman (Ex. 1002 ¶ 245) on this point to be more credible than the competing testimony offered by Mr. Leinsing (see Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 121–29, 238). Mr. Sherman persuasively testifies that “Arnould and Zahiri disclose bone plates with diagonal fixation members configured to compress the intersection of a first and second bone,” demonstrating Arnould and Zahiri “are therefore in analogous fields of invention” to the ’751 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶ 245. Mr. Leinsing, on the other hand, continues to assert that Zahiri discloses only “a guide that directs a lag screw at a precise angle into a humeral head, not a bone plate” because it is located on only one side of the joint or fracture. Ex. 2005 ¶ 238. Therefore, Mr. Leinsing concludes that the “Zahiri device is directed to a completely different function than Arnould,” and is non-analogous art. Id. Because we find Zahiri discloses a “bone plate” according to the ordinary meaning of that term, Mr. Leinsing’s testimony is unconvincing. See supra § III.C.i (explaining that the ordinary meaning of “bone plate” does not exclude plates located on only one side of a joint or fracture). But even if we agreed with Patent Owner’s and Mr. Leinsing’s interpretation of bone plate, Zahiri’s plate is still an orthopedic implant and therefore analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor as the ’751 patent.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,993,751 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,993,751
• Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Upl Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Jul 31, 2023 · PGR2023-00017 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1–10 and all asserted grounds because the Board found it more likely than not that Tobler anticipates and renders obvious at least claim 1.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We review the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted unless “it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“Practice Guide”),1 5–6 (Nov. 2019).” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “We disagree. It is unclear which aspect of the Petition that Patent Owner takes issue with. If it is the “multitudinous grounds” presented in the Petition, Patent Owner points to no authority that permits us to deny institution merely because a petition presents numerous grounds. In any event, on the facts of this case, we do not view eight grounds asserted in the Petition to be excessive.6 To the extent Patent Owner urges that we should deny institution because Petitioner’s grounds are “futil[e],” we understand that to be an argument on the merits, and not related to our discretion. See Prelim. 6 The Petition presents five grounds. See generally Pet. We agree with Patent Owner, however, the ground based on Tobler, in fact, encompasses three grounds, and the ground based on De Oliveira, in fact, encompasses two grounds. See Prelim. Resp. 2. Resp. 45. As explained below, we find Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’727 patent are unpatentable over Tobler. See infra Section II.D.2. Because the grounds based on Tobler apply to all challenged claims,7 at least these grounds are not, as Patent Owner asserts, futile. Thus, we decline to exercise discretion to deny the Petition under § 324(a).” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “review, we “may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Our § 325(d) analysis employs a two-prong framework: (1) whether the arguments presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office; and (2) if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in its prior consideration of those arguments. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. 7 The cases Patent Owner cites do not support its argument on discretionary denial under § 324(a). See Prelim. Resp. 45–46. In those cases, the Board exercised discretion to deny institution because the petitions only met the threshold requirement for institution with regard to a small percentage of the challenged claims. See Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9, 11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (stating “instituting a trial with respect to all twenty claims based on evidence and arguments directed to dependent claims 3 and 4 is not an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources”); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7, 2 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (denying institution because the petitioner only “demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to only two of twenty-three challenged claims as to only one of four asserted grounds of unpatentability”). MED-EL Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (“Advanced Bionics”), 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). The parties agree that, during prosecution, the relevant disclosure in Tobler was before the Examiner in U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0216640, which was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”). Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 46. In other words, the first prong of the Advanced Bionics analysis is satisfied. Thus, we must determine whether Petitioner has shown a material error by the Office. We find Petitioner has met its burden on this issue.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties agree that, for purposes of this Decision, all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 18; Prelim. Resp. 13. Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to address the construction of any claim term.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,445,727
• JSR Corporation / JSR Life Sciences, LLC v. Cytiva Bioprocess R&D ABAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00036 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–7, 10–20, and 23–26 unpatentable as obvious over Linhult, Abrahmsén, and Hober; it did not reach the other asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the “type of problems encountered in the art, [the] prior art solutions to those problems, [the] rapidity with which innovations are made, [the] sophistication of the technology, and [the] educational level of active workers in the field.” Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983).” slip op. at 12

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

    “According to the Specification, “a multimeric chromatography ligand (also denoted a ‘multimer’) comprised of at least two Domain C units, or a functional fragments or variants thereof.” Ex. 1001, 7:27–30. The Specification additionally recites that a multimer containing only Domain C units can, however, include linkers. Id. at 7:39–41. In addition, the Specification describes that “the multimer comprises one or more additional units, which are different from Domain C.” Id. at 7:44–45. Based on these disclosures in the Specification, a multimer is composed of at least two or more monomers. Because Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the ’765 patent’s express construction of the term, and because Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s construction, we apply it here.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

  Patent outcomesUS 10,213,765 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,213,765

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.