• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Celltrion, Inc. et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00881 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioners proved claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain that Petitioners’ definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’338 patent and the prior art of record. On the other hand, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be inappropriately limited to those having “firsthand experience” regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, as explained by Dr. Do. See Ex. 2051 ¶ 28. While it may be that the claimed methods would be performed an ophthalmologist, a person having ordinary skill in the art need not be limited to those more appropriately considers that knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders, may be possessed by other professionals that are not ophthalmologists. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioners’ definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Insofar as Patent Owner relies on the extrinsic testimony of Drs. Do and Brown for that description, we do not assign that testimony persuasive weight as it lacks sufficient evidentiary support. As discussed above, we find Dr. Do’s testimony at odds with the Specification. In particular, for the reasons discussed above regarding the Specification description of the amount of VEGF antagonist administered to the patient, we find troubling not be a treatment.” Ex. 2051 ¶ 46. Additionally, we find much of her testimony regarding the a so-called “high level of efficacy” based on an asserted existing standard of care for angiogenic eye disorder is supported by little more than evidence relating to FDA approvals for Macugen and Lucentis. Dr. Brown’s testimony cited by Patent Owner to support the asserted efficacy requirement, simply relies on Dr. Do’s testimony without discussing any additional evidentiary support.” slip op. at 22

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

    “preamble of method claims 1 and 14, i.e., “[a] method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” is limiting. Although we agree with Petitioners that the preamble sets forth “‘a statement of purpose or intended’ use for the claimed dosing regimen,” see Pet. 17, that does not the end our inquiry. As noted in the Institution Decision, the Federal Circuit has explained that its case law does not support a “binary distinction between statements of mere intended purpose on the one hand and limiting preambles on the other.” Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Rather, as the Federal Circuit reiterated, “there is no ‘litmus test’ for determining whether a preamble is limiting.” Id. (citing Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2006) and Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). As the Court instructed, we consider whether to treat a preamble as a claim limitation based upon “the facts [in this] case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Id. (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “We begin by noting that the claims do not recite any dosage amounts or that the administered doses are “therapeutically effective” separately or cumulatively. Instead, the claimed method focuses on treating an angiogenic eye disorder with a specific compound, i.e., a VEGF antagonist, based on a specific temporal regimen, i.e., sequentially administering an initial dose, followed by a prescribed time frame for secondary and tertiary dose(s). As discussed above, we determined that the preamble limits the claims in terms of requiring the doses of VEGF antagonist administered to be for the purpose of treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. We find that the intrinsic evidence supports finding that it is the administration of the VEGF antagonist to such patient for the purpose of providing an improvement of or beneficial effect on their angiogenic eye disorder that satisfies the “treating” portion of the preamble. regarding the “Amount of VEGF Antagonist Administered.” See Ex. 1001, 6:29–7:14. In that discussion, the Specification explains, The amount of VEGF antagonist administered to the patient in each dose is, in most cases, a therapeutically effective amount. As used herein, the phrase “therapeutically effective amount” means a dose of VEGF antagonist that results in a detectable improvement in one or more symptoms or indicia of an angiogenic eye disorder, or a dose of VEGF antagonist that inhibits, prevents, lessens or delays the progression of an angiogenic eye disorder. Id. at 6:48–55 (emphasis added). That description, along with the absence of the phrase “therapeutically effective” in the claims,11 signals for us the inventors’ intention to not limit the claims to the administration of doses that ultimately prove to be therapeutically effective in a given patient. Instead, the Specification describes administration of VEGF antagonist doses for treating angiogenic eye disorder in a manner that encompasses doses that result in disclosed improvements and benefits, referred to as “therapeutically effective amounts,” and doses that do not. Indeed, as guidance, the Specification discloses that “a therapeutically effective amount can be from about 0.05 mg to about 5 mg,” without any guarantee that any particular dosage regimen administered within that range of dosage amounts will necessarily be “therapeutically effective,” and without limiting the treatment methods based upon such results. Ex. 1001, 6:55–58 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,254,338 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,254,338
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Celltrion, Inc. et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00257 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 8–12 are unpatentable: Dixon anticipates claims 1 and 9–12 and claim 8, and the Board also finds the claims obvious over Dixon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “On February 9, 2022, we instituted an inter partes review in IPR2022- 00257 and granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00880, adding Celltrion, Inc. as a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 35. On the same date, we also instituted an inter partes in IPR2022-00301 and likewise granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00880, adding Apotex, Inc. as a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 36. We refer to Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celltrion, Inc. and Apotex, Inc., collectively, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 3

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the challenged Exhibits are not authenticated. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 sets a relatively low bar for authentication. See Comcast, 2020 WL 4687062, at *28. Rule 901(a) states: “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). By way of example, Rule 901(b)(1) states that a witness with knowledge can provide authenticating testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be. Fed. R. 901(b)(1).” slip op. at 15

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “We deny the motion to exclude the referenced argument in Petitioners’ Reply, as well as the invitation to consider the motion as one to strike the argument. As Patent Owner notes in the motion, Patent Owner raised this issue previously in this proceeding. PO Mot. Exclude 5. At that time, we denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to strike the referenced argument in the Reply. It is improper for Patent Owner to now seek to strike the argument in a motion to exclude. A motion to exclude is not the proper vehicle to address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of a reply. See USPTO, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (2019) at 79, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf?MURL= (last visited October 27, 2022) (“CTPG”). Moreover, as Petitioners correctly assert, Patent Owner has failed to satisfy the prerequisite for filing a motion to exclude by failing to timely file an objection. See 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1); CTPG 78–79. Patent Owner has not been left without an opportunity to address the Reply argument. When we denied authorization to file a motion to strike, we authorized Patent Owner to file, with its Sur-Reply, a table identifying any portion of the Reply that Patent Owner considers to have exceeded the scope of the Reply. Further, we explained that Patent Owner, alternatively, may address that contention, or the merits of any newly-raised arguments or evidence in its Sur-Reply. Indeed, Patent Owner addressed the issue in its 26 Sur-Reply for our consideration. Thus, Patent Owner had sufficient opportunity to identify in its Sur-Reply its contentions regarding Petitioners’ allegedly inappropriate Reply argument and took advantage of that opportunity. That is sufficient for us to consider the issue and determine whether such argument should be disregarded. See CTPG 80.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s definition is the better definition for purposes of this proceeding. We acknowledge that the claims of the ’069 patent are directed to a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” 29 and that the actual practice of the method would therefore seem to be limited to those who have the ability to treat patients, i.e., physicians, etc. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be unduly limiting. Individuals who are involved in drug development or sub-clinical level testing of drugs for treating eye disorders may be extremely knowledgeable about the development of the treatment of eye disorders and drug development, and able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Pet. 25. Such individuals might not possess an M.D. degree, but instead possess a Ph.D. in a “biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field,” or a lesser degree with a corresponding increased depth of experience, as suggested by Petitioner. We agree that such individuals should be considered persons of ordinary skill in the art. We also find that Petitioner’s definition is commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the prior art. See, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1010, 1030, 1033; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We consequently adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art has having an M.D. or Ph.D. or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field, and having practical academic or medical experience in developing treatments 30 for angiogenic eye disorders or treating angiogenic eye disorders including through the use of VEGF antagonists.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,669,069 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,669,069
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Celltrion, Inc. et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00301 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 8–12 are unpatentable: Dixon anticipates them, including claim 8 through its disclosure of a comparable VEGF Trap-Eye dosing regimen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “We deny the motion to exclude the referenced argument in Petitioners’ Reply, as well as the invitation to consider the motion as one to strike the argument. As Patent Owner notes in the motion, Patent Owner raised this issue previously in this proceeding. PO Mot. Exclude 5. At that time, we denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to strike the referenced argument in the Reply. It is improper for Patent Owner to now seek to strike the argument in a motion to exclude. A motion to exclude is not the proper vehicle to address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of a reply. See USPTO, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (2019) at 79, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf?MURL= (last visited October 27, 2022) (“CTPG”). Moreover, as Petitioners correctly assert, Patent Owner has failed to satisfy the prerequisite for filing a motion to exclude by failing to timely file an objection. See 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1); CTPG 78–79. Patent Owner has not been left without an opportunity to address the Reply argument. When we denied authorization to file a motion to strike, we authorized Patent Owner to file, with its Sur-Reply, a table identifying any portion of the Reply that Patent Owner considers to have exceeded the scope of the Reply. Further, we explained that Patent Owner, alternatively, may address that contention, or the merits of any newly-raised arguments or evidence in its Sur-Reply. Indeed, Patent Owner addressed the issue in its 26 Sur-Reply for our consideration. Thus, Patent Owner had sufficient opportunity to identify in its Sur-Reply its contentions regarding Petitioners’ allegedly inappropriate Reply argument and took advantage of that opportunity. That is sufficient for us to consider the issue and determine whether such argument should be disregarded. See CTPG 80.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s definition is the better definition for purposes of this proceeding. We acknowledge that the claims of the ’069 patent are directed to a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” 29 and that the actual practice of the method would therefore seem to be limited to those who have the ability to treat patients, i.e., physicians, etc. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be unduly limiting. Individuals who are involved in drug development or sub-clinical level testing of drugs for treating eye disorders may be extremely knowledgeable about the development of the treatment of eye disorders and drug development, and able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Pet. 25. Such individuals might not possess an M.D. degree, but instead possess a Ph.D. in a “biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field,” or a lesser degree with a corresponding increased depth of experience, as suggested by Petitioner. We agree that such individuals should be considered persons of ordinary skill in the art. We also find that Petitioner’s definition is commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the prior art. See, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1010, 1030, 1033; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We consequently adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art has having an M.D. or Ph.D. or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field, and having practical academic or medical experience in developing treatments 30” slip op. at 29

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

    “Patent Owner does not propose claim construction positions for these terms because construction of these terms is not necessary to resolve the arguments presented in Mylan’s Petition. PO Resp. 8 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). We agree that it is unnecessary to construe these claim terms in view of the express definitions set forth in the Specification. DePuy, 469 F.3d at 1014. Because the claim terms are undisputed, we adopt the definition of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose” as expressly defined by the Specification of the ’069 patent. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 32

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. The test for whether a reference inherently anticipates a claim is whether a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed “is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). Patent Owner has made multiple acknowledgements that the VEGF Eye-Trap used in the VIEW 1/VIEW 2 test disclosed by Dixon possessed the amino acid sequence recited in claim 1 of the ’069 patent.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 9,669,069 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,669,069
• Twinstrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00747 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 were obvious over the cited art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the argument and evidence presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of any claim of the ’858 patent on any ground.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(i) a Ph.D. in molecular biology, genetics, bioinformatics, or a related field, and have at least about two years of experience in the use and development of sequencing technologies; or (ii) a Master’s degree in one of the same fields with at least about five years of the same experience.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner sets forth proposed constructions for “a number of double- stranded cfDNA molecules that map to the mappable base position,” recited in claims 22 and 24. Pet. 19. Petitioner asserts that a “POSA would understand that the number of double-stranded cfDNA molecules that map to the mappable base position will vary, depending on the number of haploid genome equivalents (HGEs) in the sample.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133– 136). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s constructions. Prelim. Resp. 24. that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art must have had a reasonable expectation of success of doing so. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,889,858
• Twinstrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00746 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–28 would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the argument and evidence presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–29). Patent Owner does not offer a proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that the prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Having considered the parties’ respective arguments, we determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Although Meyer teaches that its particular protocol results in 40–60% tagging efficiency, Petitioner fails to sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Meyer’s tagging efficiency to apply to Schmitt’s DCS method when used with Murtaza’s sequencing of cfDNA. For example, Petitioner fails to address the differences between Meyer’s adapters and Schmitt’s adapters, and how those differences affect the tagging efficiency. Meyer’s barcodes comprise “single self-hybridized palindromic oligonucleotides, carrying an Srf I restriction site in the middle (GCCCGGGC), a sequence tag at the 3’ end and the reverse complementary tag sequence at the 5’ end.” Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. Schmitt, on the other hand, teaches a “hybrid method” of tagging that uses a combination of the sheared” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,801,063
• Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH / Miltenyi Biotec Inc. v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00853 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art had been presented to the Office and no material examination error was shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that: A POSA is a person skilled in the art of administering CAR T-cell therapies. The person would possess a relatively high level of skill and have at least an MD, together with several years of experience in administering CAR T-cell therapies. The person would also have experience designing CARs. The POSA would have knowledge of the scientific literature pertaining to immunology, including CARs and methods for utilizing CARs before the priority date. A POSA would also be knowledgeable about laboratory techniques related to engineering and testing the function of CAR T-cells. A POSA would also be knowledgeable about designing clinical trials, including selecting dose ranges, that evaluate CAR T-cell therapies. Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not presently contest this definition. Although Petitioner’s definition generally comports with our understanding of the high level of skill in the art, we are not persuaded all of the asserted qualifications must be embodied in a single person. For example, it seems unduly limiting to require that the person of ordinary skill in the art have “at least an MD” degree, and “be knowledgeable about laboratory techniques related to engineering and testing the function of CAR T-cells,” as Petitioner suggests. Accordingly, we provisionally adopt Petitioner’s definition with the caveat that the asserted qualifications may be shared among multiple individuals working as part of a multidisciplinary team. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached

    “Patent Owner points out that the structure of independent claim 1 here is similar to those addressed in Eli Lilly. Prelim. Resp. 18. And, as in Eli Lilly, the Specification of the ’140 patent underscores the centrality of the method recited in the preamble. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, codes (54), (57), 1:55– 57). Unlike in Eli Lilly, however, the body of independent claim 1 does not recite merely “an effective amount” but “an anti-tumor effective amount” of the composition administered. Petitioner argues that whereas the preambles in Eli Lilly “provide the only metric by which one practicing the claim could determine whether the amount administered is an ‘effective amount,’” the term “anti-tumor effective amount” in independent claim 1 “is well-defined by the specification and provides sufficient guidance for determining effectiveness.” Prelim. Reply 3 (citing Eli Lilly at 1342). On balance, Petitioner appears to have the better argument. Nonetheless, even if we were to construe the treatment language of the preamble to mean “reducing the frequency or severity of at least one sign or symptom of cancer” as Patent Owner proposes, this definition is coextensive with, if not subsumed by, the term “anti-tumor effective amount,” discussed below. As such, the outcome of this proceeding does not turn on whether the preamble is limiting.” slip op. at 17

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

    “As we understand it response, Patent Owner does not appear to contest that “anti-tumor effect” can comprise a decrease in the number of tumor cells, but argues that the claim term requires “a palpable therapeutic effect,” which is more than “just the death of a single cancer cell or handful of cells.” Prelim. Resp. 19–23; Prelim. Sur-reply 4–5. In support, Patent Owner points to the ’140 patent’s express definition of “[a]n ‘effective amount’” as meaning “an amount which provides a therapeutic or prophylactic benefit.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:53–54). Relatedly, we note that the Specification also teaches that a “‘therapeutically effective amount’ includes that amount of a compound that, when administered, is sufficient to prevent development of, or alleviate to some extent, one or more of the signs or symptoms of the disorder or disease being treated.” Ex. 1001, 18:12–15. Patent Owner further contends that “[t]he specification teaches that ‘an antitumor effective amount’ is an amount to be administered that is “determined by a physician” as part of determining ‘[t]he optimal dosage and treatment regime for a particular patient . . . by monitoring the patient for signs of disease and adjusting the treatment accordingly.’” Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 37:53–38:5). Considering the argument and evidence of record, we agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand an “anti- tumor effective amount” as used in claim 1 to require more than the killing of a single tumor cell. Accordingly, we provisionally construe “anti-tumor effective amount” as any amount of CAR T-cells administered to a patient in need of cancer treatment that reduces the frequency or severity of at least one clinically relevant sign or symptom of the disease. To the extent this functional limitation is satisfied, claim 2 indicates that an “anti-tumor effective amount” may be limited to between 104 to 109 CAR T-cells/kg body weight. At this stage of the proceeding, no other term requires construction.” slip op. at 19

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

    “reasonable expectation of success in light of the unpredictability of cancer therapy and the “uninspiring” results and failures of earlier CAR-T clinical trials. Prelim. Resp. 23–28 (citing e.g., Ex. 2037, 1036; Ex. 2010, 1824– 1825; Ex. 2032, 1250–1251). In support, Patent Owner points to OSI Pharms. as “directly on-point.” Id. at 24 (citing OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The claims at issue in OSI Pharms., were structurally similar to those at issue here and directed to a method of treating non-small cell lung cancer (“NSCLC”) in a mammal using a therapeutically effective amount of erlotinib, which had previously been shown to inhibit the epidermal growth factor receptor (“EGFR”) in vitro. 939 F.3d at 1378–79. The court stated: Cancer treatment is highly unpredictable. Even though the EGFR was identified in some cancers as a drug target, the in vitro (i.e., in a test tube) effectiveness of a drug in inhibiting the EGFR turned out to be a poor proxy for how effective that drug actually was in treating cancer in vivo (i.e., in the body). Numerous EGFR inhibitors that showed promising in vitro activity failed for a variety of reasons. Id. at 1377; see also id. at 1386 (“1,630 other new drug compounds that, like erlotinib, targeted NSCLC and were studied in Phase II trials. The failure rate for these compounds was 99.5%”). Against this backdrop, the court reversed the Board over its unsupported reading of the two cited references, finding that: the asserted references do not disclose any data or other information about erlotinib’s efficacy in treating NSCLC. The record does not contain any clinical (human) data or preclinical (animal) data. It does not even include in vitro (test tube) data regarding erlotinib’s effect on NSCLC. Id. at 1384. Considering the promising in vitro data presented in Campana and Jensen, Petitioner here has a somewhat better position than the Appellees in OSI Pharms. At core, Grounds 1 and 2, require us to find a reasonable expectation of success in treating a human cancer based on in vitro experiments, the mere existence of a clinical trial, and absent any of the “clinical (human) data or preclinical (animal) data,” highlighted by the court. See id. Considering the inherent unpredictability of the field and the history of failures of similar technology documented by Patent Owner, we do not find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive. As such, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that any claim of the ’140 patent is unpatentable under Grounds 1 and 2.” slip op. at 40

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,464,140
• Sabinsa Corporation v. Franco CavaleriInstituted
  PTAB · Jun 15, 2022 · PGR2022-00015 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR of claims 1–7 on all petition grounds; the Board found claims more likely than not indefinite because the claimed curcumin percentages lacked a clear measurement basis.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 324; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the Petition and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has 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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) “would comprise an individual with a Ph.D in pharmaceutical sciences, pharmaceutics, chemical engineering, or a related field, or an M.S. or B.S. degree in pharmaceutical sciences, pharmaceutics, chemical engineering, or a related field, with an additional 3–5 years of practical experience in pharmaceutical or nutraceutical product development of characterization.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 94 (Dr. Amiji Declaration)). Because Petitioner’s definition of a person of skill in the art appears commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the asserted art in this case as well as the ’970 patent itself, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the term “about” in relation to the percentages of curcumin I, II, and III in claims 2 and 5 of the ’970 patent “should be given its ordinary meaning of ‘approximately’ rather than a particular numerical range.” Pet. 18. On this record, we agree with Petitioner that “about” generally means “approximately,” but how much this term numerically affects the express boundaries for ranges set forth in the claims that the term “about” modifies is not clarified by the proposed construction. See Ortho-McNeil Pharmas., Inc. v. Caraco Pharma., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Although both parties and the district court seem to agree that the term “about” means “approximately,” the parties and the district court disagree over the numerical limits that that term imparts to the limitation “1:5” in this case.”).” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteInstituted

    “We agree with Dr. Amiji’s analysis and determine, based on the present record, that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that claims 1–7 are indefinite. Claims 1–7 are unclear because these claims do not specify how the percentages of curcumin I, II, or III, are to be measured, but instead only provide raw percentages for each curcumin species. See Ex. 1001, 14:10–49. The Specification of the ’970 patent mentions a weight-by-volume measure for curcumin species for only Examples 6 through 8, but as Dr. Amiji testifies, these Examples are formulated as capsules with optional fillers that may be liquid including water. See id. at 13:15–19, 34–38. The remaining Examples 4 and 5 setting” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,945,970
• Rimfrost As v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AsNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01534 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the petitioner did not establish that Bottino II taught the claimed free fatty acid limit.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To prove collateral estoppel, a party must show the following: (1) that in the prior action the party against whom estoppel is sought had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue: (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the controlling facts and applicable legal rules were the same in both actions; (4) resolution of the particular issue was essential to the final judgment in the first action; and (5) the identical issue was decided in the first action. See Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan Corp., 49 F.3d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). In considering collateral estoppel of adjudicated patent claims, the patent claims do not have to be identical; rather, “it is the identity of the issues that were litigated that determines whether collateral estoppel should apply.” Ohio Willow Wood, 735 F.3d at 1342. Here, Petitioner provides us with an overview of the similarity of the art used in the previous cases before us involving related patents to the ’567 patent and a general overview of the various components of allegedly “virtually identical krill oil compositions” without addressing a comparison of specific unpatentable claims of these related patents as compared to the specific claims at issue here. See Pet. 42–44. Notably, this overview of similar components of claimed krill oil compositions in the related patents does not address free fatty acids that are at the center of the dispute in this case. Id. Most notably, Petitioner fails to address the five criteria that we have listed above to establish that collateral estoppel applies in this case. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that this is a fatal flaw. Nowhere in the Petition does Petitioner provide an analysis of a previous Board decision where the issue of whether Bottino II teaches an extract with less than 3% free fatty acids w/w of said krill oil (an issue central to resolution of the case here) was litigated, resolved by the Board, and essential to the judgment in that previous case. See Pet. 42–44. Therefore, Petitioner cannot show that the identical issue was decided in any previous case before us. Petitioner’s discussion of the similarity of art previously applied and a generalized overview of different components of various challenged claims of related patents is insufficient. Because Petitioner failed to apply the correct framework, we find that collateral estoppel does not preclude Patent Owner from addressing the issues raised in this inter partes review.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner makes arguments for the first time at oral hearing concerning our alleged previous reliance on Table 2 of Bottino II in finding claims of related patents unpatentable and provides new evidence of Patent Owner’s alleged failure to challenge the reliability of Table 2 of Bottino II. See Tr. 8:7–9:3; Petitioner’s Demonstratives, slide 8. We find that these belated arguments and evidence are inappropriately raised for the first time at oral argument, and we need not consider them. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019) (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Jaczynski, accepted Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, see Ex. 2001 ¶ 8, and further commented that “[t]he relevant field for the ’567 patent includes extraction of lipids from natural sources,” see id. ¶ 7. Dr. Jaczynski further stated that he considers himself to be an expert in the relevant field. Id. We find that Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the asserted prior art references, and apply it for purposes of this decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). We also find that both Dr. Tallon and Dr. Jaczynski are qualified to opine about how one of skill in the art would view the teachings of the asserted combinations of art in Petitioner’s challenges to the claims. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7–21, Appendix D (Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Tallon); Ex. 2002, Appendix A (Curriculum Vitae of Dr.Jaczynski).” slip op. at 11

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

    “At this final stage of the proceeding, we again determine that no construction of any claim term for which Petitioner has proposed a 13 Petitioner points out that Dr. Tallon testified that his constructions would be the same under the Phillips standard. Reply 6, n.2 (citing Ex. 1086 ¶ 6). definition is necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties here as the limitation upon which we resolve this case does not involve these claim terms.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,010,567 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,010,567
• Human Power Of N Company v. Heartbeet LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · PGR2022-00004 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for post-grant review.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Determining whether a patent is subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA, and therefore eligible for post-grant review, is straightforward when the patentee filed the application from which the patent issued before March 16, 2013, or when the patentee filed the application on or after March 16, 2013, without any priority claim. The determination is more complex, however, for a patent that issues from a “transition application,” that is, an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date. See MPEP § 2159.04 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). Entitlement to the benefit of an earlier date under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 121, or 365 is premised on disclosure of the claimed invention “in the manner provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode)” in the earlier application. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e), 120. Thus, a patent that issues from a transition application is not available for post-grant review if the claimed subject matter complies with the written description and enablement requirements of § 112(a) for an ancestor application filed prior to March 16, 2013.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “B. Legal Standard The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” based on an “objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). If this test fails, the application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledDecided for patent owner

    “[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Undue experimentation is analyzed by applying the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988).5 Nothing more than objective enablement is required, and therefore it is irrelevant whether this teaching is provided through broad terminology or illustrative examples. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971); see also In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 105 (CCPA 1981) (“An inventor need not, however, explain every detail since he is speaking to those skilled in the art.”). slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an M.D. degree or a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry, pharmacology, nutrition chemistry, exercise physiology, or kinesiology, and at least two years of 2 This chart repeats the grounds as presented in Petitioner’s chart at Pet. 4. 3 Brunton, An Address on Blood Pressure in Man: Its estimation and indications for treatment, The British Medical Journal, pp. 64-67 (July 10, 1909) (Ex. 1032 “Brunton”). 4 Brunton et al., An Address on Longevity and the Means of Attaining It, The Lancet, Vol. 168, Issue 4342, pp. 1330–1355 (Nov. 17, 1906) (Ex. 1033 “Brunton 2”). post-doctoral research or clinical experience with physiology, biochemistry, or dietary supplements and formulation.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not challenge this definition at this time. Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition as it is consistent with the level of skill presented in the ’747 patent and applied art. We also note that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention may be reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,083,747
• Laboratoire Francais Du Fractionnement Et Des Biotechnologies S.A. v. Novo Nordisk Healthcare AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2022 · IPR2017-00028 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not shown unpatentable under the remaining Tolo anticipation and Eibl ’023 combination grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was granted in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “We agree that a motion to exclude is not the appropriate vehicle for consideration of whether a party has improperly raised new arguments. Our Trial Practice Guide delineates between a motion to exclude and a motion to strike, indicating that a motion to strike is the preferred mechanism “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply . . . .” See Trial Practice Guide Update 17 (Aug. 2018); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 80 (Nov. 2019).10 Although a motion to exclude is pre-authorized in the Scheduling Order, see Paper 64, 4 (Supplemental Scheduling Order), a motion to strike is not, and Patent Owner did not request prior authorization to file its motion to strike. Petitioner did, however, have an opportunity to respond and did so respond to Patent Owner’s contentions that the allegedly new evidence and argument exceeded the proper scope of a reply. See Paper 87, 3–8. Therefore, we find that Petitioner had an appropriate opportunity, of which it took advantage, to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the alleged new arguments and evidence. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner is not prejudiced by our consideration of Patent Owner’s motion to exclude as, in effect, a motion to strike.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Owner’s proposed levels of skill in the art to be somewhat deficient. Paper 53, 8. We found that Petitioner’s proposed skill level does not address the specific problems concerning the nanofiltration of FVIIa that is the subject of the ’762 patent at issue in this proceeding. Id. We also found, however, that we were unaware of any basis in the record for Patent Owner’s contention that the hypothetical skilled artisan must be a “team” of scientists and engineers with two different areas of “expertise.” Id. Nonetheless, based on our consideration of the record, we found that the skilled artisan would need skills and knowledge with respect to both the biochemistry of coagulation factors (particularly FVII/FVIIa) and separation/purification/processing techniques used in the biotechnology industry for such proteins (particularly nanofiltration). Id. We agreed with both Petitioner and Patent Owner that such skills and knowledge may be obtained through some combination of education and industry/laboratory experience, wherein a skilled artisan with a doctorate degree (Ph.D.) could have fewer years of experience than required for a skilled artisan with a Master’s or Bachelor’s degree. Id. In general, we found that the “ordinary skill” level of a scientist or engineer in this art is relatively high. Id. As explained by Dr. Chtourou, “[e]xtensive academic training and laboratory experience are necessary for producing recombinant coagulation proteins and removing viruses from compositions of such proteins.” Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 27). We further took into account that this level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and we found that the parties’ declarants in this proceeding meet the requirements for this skill level. Id. at 8–9. The parties have not challenged these findings and we see no reason to depart from them for our analysis in this Decision.” slip op. at 22

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

    “As we stated in our Final Written Decision, Petitioner offered constructions for the following claim terms: “cell culture supernatant” and “Factor VII polypeptides.” See Paper 53, 9 (citing Pet. 10–15). We noted that Patent Owner did not disagree with Petitioner’s proposed construction for “cell culture supernatant,” and asserts that “Factor VII [poly]peptide[]” is expressly defined in the Specification of the ’762 patent. PO Resp. 6; see also Paper 67, 4. We previously found that no explicit construction of any claim term was necessary to resolve the issues in this case. No new claim construction issues have been raised in this proceeding, and we again find no explicit construction of any claim term is necessary in this proceeding. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 24

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

    “First, we begin with the unassailable fact that Tolo does not disclose expressly or inherently any particular concentration of FVII. See Ex. 1006, 7:25–34 (only mention of Factor VII in Tolo with no express statement concerning a concentration for FVII). In fact, we found in our Final Written Decision that: The record in this proceeding does not show persuasively that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected that the same concentration disclosed in Example 3 of Tolo for IFN-α (0.04 mg/mL) could be successfully used for the nanofiltration of FVIIa. To the contrary, the evidence shows that IFN-α and FVIIa differ significantly in many respects, including molecular weight, size, and structure, such that the skilled [artisan] would not have necessarily considered them interchangeable in a nanofiltration process. Paper 53, 38 (citations omitted).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,102,762 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,102,762

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.