- PTAB · Oct 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00739 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 10–12, 18, 19, 21, and 26–28 are obvious over the 2009 Press Release and Shams.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Release nor Shams expressly teaches the dosing regimen of “2 mg approximately every 4 weeks for the first 5 injections followed by 2 mg approximately once every 8 weeks or once every 2 months,” as recited in the independent claims. However, the question guiding our analysis is not one of anticipation, but of obviousness. Specifically, the question is whether the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. We therefore turn to that analysis.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We conclude that, on the record as presently developed, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dosage regiment of the 2009 Press Release by adding a single dose at week twelve, in view of the teachings of Shams, to arrive at the claimed invention. We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered this addition of a single dose to be routine optimization to ensure, as Dr. Chaum relates, “to determine the optimal number of initial injections, before moving to eight-week dosing.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 151. Furthermore, and at this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the 2009 Press Release dosing protocol to include an additional dose at week twelve to ensure sufficient “drying” of the inner wall of the retina prior to increasing the interval of the doses two eight weeks/two months.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“claimed method. A reference teaches away when “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Patent Owner points to Shams’ Example 1, which it cites as representing Genentech’s PIER Phase IIIb study. See Prelim. Resp. 18. The PIER study, argues Patent Owner involved three monthly loading doses of a different VEGF antagonist (ranibizumab) followed by quarterly dosing, and, according to Patent Owner, was widely perceived as a failure. Id. Patent Owner contends that, based upon this single example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from following the teachings of Shams. Id. We disagree. As we have explained above, the disclosures of Shams encompass a larger variety of regimen options than merely that embodied in Example 1. Shams is directed expressly to “methods including administering … a number of first individual doses of a VEGF antagonist, followed by administering … a number of second individual doses of the antagonist, wherein the second individual doses are administered less frequently than the first individual doses.” Ex. 1010, 4–5; see also id., claim 1. Furthermore, Shams expressly teaches that “[t]he doses may be administered according to any time schedule which is appropriate for treatment of the disease or condition.” Id. at 22. We find that these broad teachings of Shams would, rather than discouraging a skilled artisan from following its teachings, encourage a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of first and second individual doses to maximize the therapeutic effect of the regimen of VEGF antagonist dosage administration. Shams places no express limits upon the number of first individual doses and, as we have explained above, the addition of a single additional dose at week twelve would fall well within the scope of Shams’ disclosures.” slip op. at 38
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“A method for treating….” Petitioner initially accepts, for the purposes of this Decision, that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, and agrees with the Board’s prior rejection, in the related IPR2021-00881 Final Written Decision, of Patent Owner’s position that the preamble requires a particular level of efficacy. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–91). Specifically, Petitioner notes that the Board found that administering a compound—the recited VEGF antagonist—“to [a] patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect on their angiogenic eye disorder” satisfies the “treating” portion of the preamble. Id. at 17 (quoting Ex. 1025, 19; and citing id. at 23; Ex. 1053, 9– 10; Ex. 1054). Patent Owner states that, for the purposes of this Decision only, it does not contest Petitioner’s proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 11. Therefore, for the same reasons we explained in the Final Written Decision in related IPR2022-00881 concerning a related patent having claims with language similar to the presently challenged claims, and for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a method for treating….” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,888,601 - PTAB · Oct 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00724 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by WO421 and Lovshin and obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“The Examiner’s statement that NCT657 “does not teach or disclose a higher amount of 1 mg semaglutide” is incorrect and also fails to consider the teachings of the dosing ranges of WO421 and Lovshin, and the maximum dose of 1.2 mg of semaglutide taught in NCT773. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated a material error on the part of the Examiner, and we therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 15
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDecided for petitioner
“Petition under Section 314(a), “particularly in light of the significant §325(d) concerns regarding Grounds 1 and 2—which address only claims 1–3—and in view of the substantive infirmities of Ground 3–5.” Prelim. Resp. 66–67. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s assertions that a trial here would most likely conclude before the parallel Delaware litigation, and Petitioner’s stipulation “that if the Board institutes, Petitioner will not pursue in the district court any instituted grounds against the originally-issued claims unless a change in law otherwise permits.” Pet. 65–66 (citing Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp., IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, 12 (PTAB June 16, 2020)). We do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertions concerning Section 325(d) as set forth above, and find nothing here that would warrant the exercise of our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an otherwise meritorious petition.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“VI. CONCLUSION Based on the current record, we determine Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing that at least one claim of the ’462 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute review of all claims challenged on all of the grounds in the Petition. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 64, available at https://www.uspto.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf. At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim. Our view with regard to any conclusion reached in the foregoing analysis could change upon completion of the record. VII. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1–10 of the ’462 patent based on the unpatentability challenges presented in the Petition; and” slip op. at 39
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“Here, we agree with the parties that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. The preamble provides context for the requirement of claim 1 that administration of the semaglutide is “to a subject in need thereof.” See Ex. 1001, 35:42–44. The preamble, when read in the context of the entirety of claim 1, recites a limitation of administering semaglutide to a subject with type 2 diabetes. Based on the constructions of the preamble provided by the parties, it appears they agree that the preamble does not require any particular level of efficacy. We agree. The Specification of the ’462 patent makes clear that “treatment” or “treating” as used in the ’462 patent does not require any particular degree of efficacy as these terms include the “full spectrum” of treatments for a condition. See Ex. 1001, 5. For instance, the Specification of the ’462 patent provides: In one embodiment the term “treatment” or “treating” as used herein means the management and care of a patient for the purpose of combating a condition, such as a disease or a disorder. In one embodiment the term “treatment” or “treating” is intended to include the full spectrum of treatments for a given condition from which the patient is suffering, such as administration of the active compound to alleviate the symptoms or complications; to delay the progression of the disease, disorder or condition; to alleviate or relieve the symptoms and complications; and/or, to cure or eliminate the disease, disorder, or condition as well as to prevent the condition. Ex. 1001, 5:16–27.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,335,462 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/SInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,129,343 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/SInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,536,122 - PTAB · Sep 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00481 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 17, 19, 20, and 22–27 because Hopewell showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Bodor and Stelmasiak.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Analysis: Claim 17 Based on the present record, Petitioner persuades us that it is reasonably likely to prevail in establishing that claim 17 would have been obvious over Bodor and Stelmasiak. We agree with Petitioner’s showing that Bodor teaches or suggests a method for treating MS, including RRMS, by orally administering cladribine tablets over a two-month induction period at a total dose of between 100 mg to 140 mg (equivalent to 1.4–2.0 mg/kg for the average patient) and, thus, satisfies claim 17’s preamble15 and step (i). See, e.g., Pet. 46–51. Bodor also expressly teaches such an” slip op. at 32
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Because we agree that Bodor and Stelmasiak were presented previously to the Office, we turn to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework—whether there was a material error by the Office.” slip op. at 54
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Analogous artInstituted
“reasonably likely to prevail in establishing that claim 17 would have been obvious over Bodor and Stelmasiak. We agree with Petitioner’s showing that Bodor teaches or suggests a method for treating MS, including RRMS, by orally administering cladribine tablets over a two-month induction period at a total dose of between 100 mg to 140 mg (equivalent to 1.4–2.0 mg/kg for the average patient) and, thus, satisfies claim 17’s preamble15 and step (i). See, e.g., Pet. 46–51. Bodor also expressly teaches such an” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“maintenance period” or a secondary cladribine-free period, we find it logical, credible, and consistent with Dr. Miller’s testimony, that a POSA would have understood Bodor to suggest retreatment and that a POSA would know that retreatment is often needed given the chronic, incurable nature of MS. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 86–87, 100–102 (testifying that a POSA would have thought to readminister cladribine according to Bodor’s initial treatment regimen, disclosed as suitable for MS treatment, and optimize if needed). Moreover, Petitioner provides evidence-backed reasoning supporting why it would have been routine and obvious to “tailor” the dosage, including by starting with a lower dose and “step-wise” increase it until a desired therapeutic effect is achieved. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 24:1–9;16 Ex. 1002 ¶ 93. The POSA would have also been aware, from at least Stelmasiak, that it’s possible to give lower amounts of cladribine in a maintenance phase versus an induction phase, keeping lymphocyte counts in a suppressed state, and providing therapeutic benefits even over extended periods where no cladribine is administered. Ex. 1013, 5–7 (describing a decrease in relapse rate and EDSS improvements over a twenty-four month study period). That, combined with Bodor’s teachings and an expectation that a lower dose and intermittent cladribine-free periods would help manage 16 See also Ex. 1022, 26:2–8 (teaching that dosages are given with concomitant, continuous clinical evaluations by a skilled practitioner to “determine subsequent therapy” and “evaluating whether to increase, reduce or continue a particular treatment dose”). ¶¶ 50–52, 91, 95, 103. Based on Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning, we find it reasonably likely that a POSA would have found it obvious to modify Bodor’s method to arrive at steps (iii) and (iv) of claim 17. We also find that the preliminary record, on balance, supports Petitioner’s contention that the POSA would have reasonably expected success in modifying the art to arrive at the subject matter of claim 17. Bodor discloses a method for treating MS with administration of oral cladribine and provides further guidance for adjusting the dosage or duration as needed to produce a desired therapeutic result. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 22:18–22, 23:15–20, 24:1–9. Stelmasiak further evidences efficacy in treating RRMS with cladribine administration, including in oral and parenteral forms. Ex. 1013, 7. And neither Bodor nor Stelmasiak stands alone; as pointed out by Petitioner and Dr. Miller, several studies predating the ’903 patent describe the use of cladribine for treating MS, including RRMS, and such studies inform the POSA’s background knowledge—a necessary consideration in any obviousness analysis. See Pet. 19–21, 44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–49, 115; Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he knowledge of such an artisan is part of the store of public knowledge that must be consulted when considering whether a claimed invention would have been obvious.”). Indeed, many of these studies are incorporated by reference into Bodor. Ex. 1022, 22:27–23:6 (incorporating, e.g., Romine (Ex. 1031) and Rice (Ex. 1018), after teaching that “various dosage amounts and dosing regimens have been reported in the literature for use in the treatment of multiple sclerosis”). slip op. at 33
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,377,903 - PTAB · Sep 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00480 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 36, 38, 39, and 41–46, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would have been obvious over Bodor and Stelmasiak.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Analysis: Claim 36 Based on the present record, Petitioner persuades us that it is reasonably likely to prevail in establishing that claim 36 would have been obvious over Bodor and Stelmasiak. We agree with Petitioner’s showing that Bodor teaches a method for treating MS by orally administering cladribine tablets over a two-month induction period at a total dose of between 100 mg to 140 mg (equivalent to 1.4–2.0 mg/kg for the average patient) and, thus, satisfies claim 36’s preamble14 and step (i). See, e.g., Pet. 45–49. Bodor also expressly teaches such an induction period is followed by a ten-month cladribine-free period—meeting claim 36’s step (ii) (reciting a cladribine-free period of between about 8–10 months), as argued by Petitioner. Id. at 49–50; Ex. 1022, 23:15–20. Although Bodor does not explicitly describe a subsequent “maintenance period” or a secondary cladribine-free period, we find it logical, credible, and consistent with Dr. Miller’s testimony, that a POSA would have understood Bodor to suggest retreatment and that a POSA would know that retreatment is often needed given the chronic, incurable nature of MS. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 86–87, 100–102 (testifying that a POSA would have thought to readminister cladribine according to Bodor’s initial treatment regimen, disclosed as suitable for MS treatment, and optimize if 13 This paragraph is a high-level summary of Patent Owner’s argument (Prelim. Resp. 1–3, 51); we discuss Patent Owner’s argument in more detail in our analysis below but summarize here to reduce repetition. 14 We need not determine whether the preamble is limiting because, at this stage, there is no dispute that it is taught or suggested in the asserted art. supporting why it would have been routine and obvious to “tailor” the dosage, including by starting with a lower dose and “step-wise” increase it until a desired therapeutic effect is achieved. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 24:1–9;15 Ex. 1002 ¶ 93. The POSA would have also been aware, from at least Stelmasiak, that it’s possible to give lower amounts of cladribine in a maintenance phase versus an induction phase, keeping lymphocyte counts in a suppressed state, and providing therapeutic benefits even over extended periods where no cladribine is administered. Ex. 1013, 5–7 (describing a decrease in relapse rate and EDSS improvements over a twenty-four month study period). That, combined with Bodor’s teachings and an expectation that a lower dose and intermittent cladribine-free periods would help manage potential side effects, supports Petitioner’s challenge. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–52, 91, 95, 103. Based on Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning, we find it reasonably likely that a POSA would have found it obvious to modify Bodor’s method to arrive at steps (iii) and (iv) of claim 36. We also find that the preliminary record, on balance, supports Petitioner’s contention that the POSA would have reasonably expected success in modifying the art to arrive at the subject matter of claim 36. Bodor discloses a method for treating MS with administration of oral cladribine and provides further guidance for adjusting the dosage or duration as needed to produce a desired therapeutic result. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 22:18–22, 23:15–20, 24:1–9. Stelmasiak further evidences efficacy in 15 See also Ex. 1022, 26:2–8 (teaching that dosages are given with concomitant, continuous clinical evaluations by a skilled practitioner to “determine subsequent therapy” and “evaluating whether to increase, reduce or continue a particular treatment dose”). forms. Ex. 1013, 7. And neither Bodor nor Stelmasiak stands alone; as pointed out by Petitioner and Dr. Miller, several studies predating the ’947 patent describe the use of cladribine for treating MS, and such studies inform the POSA’s background knowledge—a necessary consideration in any obviousness analysis. See Pet. 19–21, 44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–49, 115; Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he knowledge of such an artisan is part of the store of public knowledge that must be consulted when considering whether a claimed invention would have been obvious.”). Indeed, many of these studies are incorporated by reference into Bodor. Ex. 1022, 22:27–23:6 (incorporating, e.g., Romine (Ex. 1031) and Rice (Ex. 1018), after teaching that “various dosage amounts and dosing regimens have been reported in the literature for use in the treatment of multiple sclerosis”).” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“interpreted to resolve Petitioner’s challenge. Patent Owner’s interpretation is broader and encompasses Petitioner’s interpretation. Nevertheless, to address the arguments made and give guidance for trial, we determine that the weight of the evidence on this preliminary record supports Patent Owner’s interpretation, and we conclude that the dosing of cladribine given during the “maintenance period” can be same as or lower than the total dose given during the induction period. We explain below. First, the language of the claims supports Patent Owner’s interpretation. Claim 36 expressly recites that the total dose reached at the end of the induction period (step (i)) “is from about 1.7 mg/kg to about 3.5 mg/kg.” See supra Section II(D). Claim 36, step (iii), recites that the total dose of cladribine reached at the end of the maintenance period “is about 1.7 mg/kg.” The plain language of claim 36, thus, indicates that the cladribine dosing given during the induction period and the maintenance period can be the same—each “about 1.7 mg/kg.” Claim 36 also encompasses regimens where the maintenance period dosing (e.g., 1.7 mg/kg) is lower compared to the induction period dosing (e.g., 3.5 mg/kg). But the plain language of the claims does not require a lower total dose in the maintenance period. Petitioner’s construction narrows the claims and, in effect, asks us to rewrite the lower bound of the range recited in claim 36’s induction period step to be some value higher than “about 1.7 mg/kg.” We decline to do so.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“reasonably likely to prevail in establishing that claim 36 would have been obvious over Bodor and Stelmasiak. We agree with Petitioner’s showing that Bodor teaches a method for treating MS by orally administering cladribine tablets over a two-month induction period at a total dose of between 100 mg to 140 mg (equivalent to 1.4–2.0 mg/kg for the average patient) and, thus, satisfies claim 36’s preamble14 and step (i). See, e.g., Pet. 45–49. Bodor also expressly teaches such an induction period is followed by a ten-month cladribine-free period—meeting claim 36’s step (ii) (reciting a cladribine-free period of between about 8–10 months), as argued by Petitioner. Id. at 49–50; Ex. 1022, 23:15–20. Although Bodor does not explicitly describe a subsequent “maintenance period” or a secondary cladribine-free period, we find it logical, credible, and consistent with Dr. Miller’s testimony, that a POSA would have understood Bodor to suggest retreatment and that a POSA would know that retreatment is often needed given the chronic, incurable nature of MS. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 86–87, 100–102 (testifying that a POSA would have thought to readminister cladribine according to Bodor’s initial treatment regimen, disclosed as suitable for MS treatment, and optimize if 13 This paragraph is a high-level summary of Patent Owner’s argument (Prelim. Resp. 1–3, 51); we discuss Patent Owner’s argument in more detail in our analysis below but summarize here to reduce repetition. 14 We need not determine whether the preamble is limiting because, at this stage, there is no dispute that it is taught or suggested in the asserted art. supporting why it would have been routine and obvious to “tailor” the dosage, including by starting with a lower dose and “step-wise” increase it until a desired therapeutic effect is achieved. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 24:1–9;15 Ex. 1002 ¶ 93. The POSA would have also been aware, from at least Stelmasiak, that it’s possible to give lower amounts of cladribine in a maintenance phase versus an induction phase, keeping lymphocyte counts in a suppressed state, and providing therapeutic benefits even over extended periods where no cladribine is administered. Ex. 1013, 5–7 (describing a decrease in relapse rate and EDSS improvements over a twenty-four month study period). That, combined with Bodor’s teachings and an expectation that a lower dose and intermittent cladribine-free periods would help manage potential side effects, supports Petitioner’s challenge. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–52, 91, 95, 103. Based on Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning, we find it reasonably likely that a POSA would have found it obvious to modify Bodor’s method to arrive at steps (iii) and (iv) of claim 36. We also find that the preliminary record, on balance, supports Petitioner’s contention that the POSA would have reasonably expected success in modifying the art to arrive at the subject matter of claim 36. Bodor discloses a method for treating MS with administration of oral cladribine and provides further guidance for adjusting the dosage or duration as needed to produce a desired therapeutic result. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 22:18–22, 23:15–20, 24:1–9. Stelmasiak further evidences efficacy in 15 See also Ex. 1022, 26:2–8 (teaching that dosages are given with concomitant, continuous clinical evaluations by a skilled practitioner to “determine subsequent therapy” and “evaluating whether to increase, reduce or continue a particular treatment dose”). forms. Ex. 1013, 7. And neither Bodor nor Stelmasiak stands alone; as pointed out by Petitioner and Dr. Miller, several studies predating the ’947 patent describe the use of cladribine for treating MS, and such studies inform the POSA’s background knowledge—a necessary consideration in any obviousness analysis. See Pet. 19–21, 44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–49, 115; Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he knowledge of such an artisan is part of the store of public knowledge that must be consulted when considering whether a claimed invention would have been obvious.”). Indeed, many of these studies are incorporated by reference into Bodor. Ex. 1022, 22:27–23:6 (incorporating, e.g., Romine (Ex. 1031) and Rice (Ex. 1018), after teaching that “various dosage amounts and dosing regimens have been reported in the literature for use in the treatment of multiple sclerosis”).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“weight-based dosing. Prelim. Resp. 29–30. According to Patent Owner, Stelmasiak remarks on there being “no correlation” between the magnitude of lymphocyte reduction and the drug dose expressed per kg of body weight; similarly, Patent Owner cites Stelmasiak’s disclosure that “there was no indication that a ‘good response’ is related to the actual cladribine dose per body weight.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 6–7) (emphasis omitted). We do not agree that this rises to a teaching away. These cited disclosures relate to Stelmasiak’s attempt to explain the observed variance in lymphocyte counts among its patients, and to identify “any factor” that might have differentiated between those patients that were responders versus the non-responders. Ex. 1013, 6–7. Stelmasiak was “unable” to identify such a factor. But Stelmasiak nowhere teaches that expressing dosages in mg/kg and administering those dosages would result in a less effective or ineffective MS treatment. To the contrary, at most, Stelmasiak suggests that doing so would not have changed the results for its study and patient group. We also note that other technical literature of record describes cladribine studies where dosages are expressed in mg/kg form and recognizes a dose-dependent effect, including on the level of lymphocyte reduction. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91–92 (discussing Rice (Ex. 1018) (noting dose-dependent reduction in lymphocyte counts and lesion volume) and Selby (Ex. 1047)). Patent Owner’s “teaching away” argument is also weakened by Bodor, which, while teaching a regimen based on an alleged “flat” dosing (10 mg/day), defines “effective amount[s]” for MS treatment by referencing dosages expressed on a mg/kg basis—“from about 0.04 to about 1.0 mg/kg/day.” Ex. 1022, 22:17–22, 23:15–20. Whatever distinction Patent Owner seeks to erect between so-called “flat” and “weight-based” dosing is differentiator.” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,713,947 - PTAB · Aug 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00546 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 9–11, 13, 18, 19, and 28–30; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under each asserted Ley and Newman anticipation and obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Quackenbush, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had: 1) an advanced degree (such as an M.D. or the equivalent of a Ph.D. in a life or physical sciences, engineering, or mathematics discipline) . . . 2) an understanding of various sequencing and next generation sequencing methods, sample preparation methods, targeted enrichment methods, bioinformatics methods for interpreting sequencing data, and methods for identifying genetic variants in a sample . . . . technology to conditions associated with nucleic acid variation, such as cancer, non-invasive prenatal testing, and transplant rejection . . . [and] 4) an understanding of cancer biology as it relates to mutations associated with tumor diagnosis, progression, and treatment, as well as awareness of the various types of mutations that can occur in and influence the course of a patient’s cancer. Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1061 ¶ 37) (numbering added). Patent Owner does not presently challenge Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 9. Based on the record before us, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill indicated in the cited references and the problems addressed in the ’611 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we provisionally adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Considering the record before us, the preamble of claim 1 merely recites a purpose or intended use for the claimed method. In general, step (a) in the body of claim 1 entails obtaining sequence data from at least one biological sample from a subject. In step (b) the sequence data is used in to identify a set of genetic variants present in the biological sample. Step (c) entails creating a probe set corresponding to identified genetic variants. In step (d) the probe set is used to selectively enrich or amplify those variants if present in a second biological sample from the same or related individual, and thereby create a sequencing library. This library is sequenced in step (e) to identify the presence or absence of at least a subset of the genetic variants identified in step (b). As such, steps (a) through (e) define a complete invention, with the preamble merely stating a 4 To the extent Patent Owner maintains that the preamble is both limiting and distinguishes over the applied prior art, Patent Owner should clearly and explicitly identify during trial how it proposes the preamble should be construed—identifying evidentiary support for such construction according to well-established precedents. out the positively recited steps of the claim. As such, we do not presently view the preamble of claim 1 to be limiting and accord it no patentable weight.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“nucleic acid probe molecules” Claim step 1(c) recites “obtaining a probe set comprising a plurality of nucleic acid probe molecules . . . configured to selectively enrich or amplify sequences.” Relying on the testimony of Dr. Quackenbush and disclosure of the ’611 patent, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the claimed ‘nucleic acid probe molecules’ include PCR primers, hybrid capture baits, and other such nucleic acid probe molecules for selectively amplifying or enriching sequences.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1061 ¶ 98; Ex. 1001, 4:54–55, 5:16–18, 6:64–67). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not address the meaning of “nucleic acid probe molecules.” Although the term is not presently contested, Petitioner’s definition is reasonable in light of the present record, and we provisionally adopt it for clarity. slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,450,611 - PTAB · Aug 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00545 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9, 13–19, and 21–29 on all three grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’783 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on each of the grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); see also Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial) (“Guidance”). C. Real Parties-in-Interest” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Quackenbush, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had: 1) an advanced degree (such as an M.D. or the equivalent of a Ph.D. in a life or physical sciences, engineering, or mathematics discipline) . . . 2) an understanding of various sequencing and next generation sequencing methods, sample preparation methods, targeted enrichment methods, bioinformatics methods for interpreting sequencing data, and methods for identifying genetic variants in a sample . . . . 3) an understanding of clinical applications of sequencing technology to conditions associated with nucleic acid variation, such as cancer, non-invasive prenatal testing, and transplant rejection . . . [and] 4) an understanding of cancer biology as it relates to mutations associated with tumor diagnosis, progression, and treatment, as well as awareness of the various types of mutations that can occur in and influence the course of a patient’s cancer. Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 35) (numbering added). Patent Owner does not presently challenge Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 11. Based on the record before us, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill indicated in the cited references and the problems addressed in the ’783 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we provisionally adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Considering the record before us, the preamble of claim 1 merely recites a purpose or intended use for the claimed method. In general, steps (a) through (c) in the body of claim 1 require the use of “a personalized probe set” to identify the presence or absence of genetic variants in a subject, whereupon this information is used to generate a report in step (d). We presently read the body of claim 1 to define a 7 Pointing to isolated passages in the Specification, Patent Owner further contends that, “methods that existed at the time of invention were specific to a particular disease or cancer rather than personalized to a specific subject’s family genetics,” whereas the claimed method “is directed to personalized genetic testing and is ‘better focused on the personal characteristics of the subject.’” Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:37–47, 31:27–28). We find this argument confusing, as we do not presently read the challenged claims as limited to a “subject’s family genetics.” 8 To the extent Patent Owner maintains that the preamble is both limiting and distinguishes over the applied prior art, Patent Owner should clearly and explicitly identify during trial how it proposes the preamble should be construed—identifying evidentiary support for such construction according to well-established precedents. complete invention, with the preamble merely stating a purpose or intended use, or, in another sense, simply the result of carrying out the positively recited steps of the claim. As such, we do not presently view the preamble of claim 1 to be limiting and accord it no patentable weight.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“2) “nucleic acid probe molecules” Claim 1 recites the use of “nucleic acid probe molecules . . . configured to selectively enrich or amplify sequences.” Relying on the testimony of Dr. Quackenbush and disclosure of the ’783 patent, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the claimed ‘nucleic acid probe molecules’ include PCR primers, hybrid capture baits, and other such nucleic acid probe molecules for selectively amplifying or enriching sequences.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 95; Ex. 1001, 4:60–61, 5:23–25, 7:5–8, 7:25–26). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not address the meaning of “nucleic acid probe molecules.” Although the term is not presently contested, Petitioner’s definition is reasonable in light of the present record, and we provisionally adopt it for clarity.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,299,783 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Bayer Pharma AktiengesellschaftAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2022-01513 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1–2 as anticipated by Foley, claims 1–2, 5, and 8 as obvious over Foley, and claims 3–4, 6–7 as obvious over Foley and Plosker.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner has the better position. We agree with Petitioner and Dr. Zusman that an M.D. with experience treating patients who worked in consultation with a team of specialists would include the qualifications recited by Patent Owner. Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 7–11. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSA, which indicates a high level of skill in the relevant art and is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary 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))). Even if there were a distinction between the parties’ respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weitz, notes that his opinion would not change regardless of which definition is applied. See Ex. 2060 ¶ 26. Moreover, we find both Dr. Zusman and Dr. Weitz qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSA for purposes of this Decision as both possess at least the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 1–11; Ex. 2060 ¶¶ 1–11; see also Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369,” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“3. Remaining Claim Terms Patent Owner also offers constructions for “coronary artery disease,” and the preamble (PO Resp. 23–32, 39–40), but none of these claim phrases 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))). We now turn to the patentability challenges presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for petitioner
“construction and determine that the term “clinically proven effective” is nonlimiting, as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 11; Pet. Reply 8–9, 16. We begin our analysis with the language of the claims, which recite administering rivaroxaban and aspirin in amounts that are “clinically proven effective,” “wherein rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin is administered in an amount of 75–100 mg daily.” Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 5. We are persuaded that a POSA would have understood from a plain reading of the claims that the specific recited “amounts” of 8 We also noted in our Institution Decision that in the Delaware MDL, the parties stipulated that claim 1 “does not require FDA approval.” Dec. Inst. 15 n.6 (quoting Ex. 2019, 2). That is, the independent claims expressly recite that the rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily, and that aspirin is administered in an amount of 75–100 mg daily. Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 5. Because the claims expressly recite the amounts of rivaroxaban and aspirin, further identifying these amounts as “clinically proven effective” is redundant and unnecessary, and does nothing to alter the method steps of administering the pharmaceutical, as otherwise recited by these claims. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding claim term “antineoplastically effective” not limiting where express dosage amounts are material claim limitations that do not change based on the intended result).” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableInherency foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner again, however, misses the point. The question is not whether clinical trials may exist where the disclosed dosing regimen may not be clinically proven effective, or whether a POSA would necessarily recognize clinical proof of efficacy from the COMPASS protocol taught by Foley. Id. at 53–54. On the contrary, the question is whether “the [prior art] disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function.” King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). If it is, the Federal Circuit has held that it is “well-settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.” Id. As such, here, we consider whether the disclosure in Foley is sufficient to show that the natural result of the disclosed dosing regimen would be “clinically proven effective” by the COMPASS study disclosed by Foley. In this case, we know that to be true because the claimed process was confirmed by the same COMPASS study disclosed by Foley. See Bristol- Myers, 246 F.3d at 1376; see also Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc., 471 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding method claims anticipated where prior art method disclosed the same steps in furtherance of the same purpose, and all that was contributed by the patent claims is the the claim term were limiting, we find Foley inherently discloses “clinically proven effective” amounts of rivaroxaban and aspirin. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented at trial, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Foley.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,828,310 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,828,310 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Bayer Pharma AktiengesellschaftAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2022-01515 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1–2 as anticipated by Foley, claims 1–2, 5, and 8 as obvious over Foley, and claims 3–4, 6–7 as obvious over Foley and Plosker.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner has the better position. We agree with Petitioner and Dr. Zusman that an M.D. with experience treating patients who worked in consultation with a team of specialists would include the qualifications recited by Patent Owner. Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 7–11. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSA, which indicates a high level of skill in the relevant art and is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary 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))).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construction and determine that the term “clinically proven effective” is nonlimiting, as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 11; Pet. Reply 8–9, 16. We begin our analysis with the language of the claims, which recite administering rivaroxaban and aspirin in amounts that are “clinically proven effective,” “wherein rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin is administered in an amount of 75–100 mg daily.” Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 5. We are persuaded that a POSA would have understood from a plain reading of the claims that the specific recited “amounts” of 8 We also noted in our Institution Decision that in the Delaware MDL, the parties stipulated that claim 1 “does not require FDA approval.” Dec. Inst. 15 n.6 (quoting Ex. 2019, 2). That is, the independent claims expressly recite that the rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily, and that aspirin is administered in an amount of 75–100 mg daily. Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 5. Because the claims expressly recite the amounts of rivaroxaban and aspirin, further identifying these amounts as “clinically proven effective” is redundant and unnecessary, and does nothing to alter the method steps of administering the pharmaceutical, as otherwise recited by these claims. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding claim term “antineoplastically effective” not limiting where express dosage amounts are material claim limitations that do not change based on the intended result).” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis “A claim is anticipated if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.” Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. ModernaTX, Inc., 65 F. 4th 656, 662 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Federal Circuit explains that “[a]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation.” Monsanto Tech. LLC v. Inherent anticipation requires “merely that the disclosure of the prior art is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught in the prior art would result in the claimed product.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotes omitted).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“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, Petitioner 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) (quotations and citations omitted).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,828,310 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,828,310
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.