- Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 14, 2024 · IPR2023-00442 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Dixon because Dixon anticipates them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“We adopt the same reasoning here, and conclude that the evidence of record and the Specification of the ’681 patent support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to a patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” (emphasis added). 8 F.4th 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We consequently reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction that the language of the preamble reciting a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder” requires not only an intent to treat, but, additionally, a high degree of efficacy on par with monthly Lucentis. See PO Resp. 9–10.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44. Patent Owner does not expressly dispute Petitioner’s construction, other than to argue that, by 2011, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “initial” and “secondary” doses to correspond to loading doses and “tertiary” doses to correspond to maintenance doses. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66; Ex. 2349, 6–11. Patent Owner contends that the purpose (and expected effect) of loading doses was to achieve visual acuity gains and retina drying, and the goal of less frequent maintenance doses was to maintain the efficacy achieved with loading doses. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66). As we have explained above, we do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the definition of these terms requires a high, or otherwise defined, degree of efficacy. As we stated in the -00881 and -01225 Decisions: Based on those express definitions in the Specification, we do not find cause to construe the terms differently. In particular, we do not find that the Specification requires the “tertiary doses” to maintain any efficacy gain achieved after the initial and secondary doses, or that the term suggests any specific level of efficacy. The Specification unequivocally states that “[t]he terms ‘initial dose,’ ‘secondary doses,’ and ‘tertiary doses,’ refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist.”” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, the second step of the Praxair analysis is to determine whether the printed matter is functionally related to its “substrate.” Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032. Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight. Id. (citing DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850). However, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id. (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). More specifically, printed matter is functionally related to its substrate when the language changes not mere thoughts or outcomes, but provides action steps that the method requires. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the test for printed matter is whether it “merely informs people of the claimed information, or whether it instead interacts with the other elements of the claim to … cause a specific action in a claimed process.”); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that language “is only a statement of purpose and intended result” where its “expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner notes that the Petitioner in the ’00881 IPR proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field. Pet. 17–18 (quoting -00881 IPR, Paper 94 at 9–10). Furthermore, it was asserted that such a person would typically have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D. (or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders, including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Id. at 18 (citing -00881 IPR Paper 94 at 10). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. In the -01225 IPR, we adopted the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the challenged claims of the ’681 patent, concluding that that definition was consistent with the level of skill in the art. See -01225 IPR, Paper 96 at 52–53. Having previously adopted this definition of the level of skill in the art for the claims of the ’681 patent, we do so again in the present proceeding.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,130,681 - Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. / Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/SInstitutedPTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00107 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–10 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, and granted Sun’s motion to join the Mylan IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“The Director set forth in the Interim Procedure that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure, 7, 9. This guidance does not condition or otherwise qualify the effect of a Sotera stipulation on our exercise of discretion to deny the Petition based on any remaining defendants in the parallel litigation that are not subject to the stipulation or any alleged “behind the scenes” participation by Petitioner such as paying for experts, participating in expert reports or deposition preparation “in connection with any of the stipulated grounds.” See Paper 14, 1. Petitioner has filed such a stipulation. See Ex. 1099. Therefore, we will not exercise our discretion to deny the Petition. We also find that with the change of the district court trial date to over two months after the original statutory due date for the Mylan IPR, the Mylan IPR should be completed before a trial in the district court begins. See Mylan IPR, Ex. 1098. This change in trial date, in addition to the lack of complete overlap in the claims asserted here and in the Delaware Litigation, provide further reason for us to refrain from exercising our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) regardless of remaining defendants in the Delaware Litigation that are not bound by any estoppel arising from the Mylan IPR.9” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the Mylan IPR, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable. Mylan IPR, Paper 10, 17–29 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2023). We therefore institute trial as to all challenged claims on all grounds stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should: set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013).” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,335,462 - Kelonia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Interius Biotherapeutics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 17, 2024 · PGR2024-00008 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable over Perkins or the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we agree with Patent Owner that Perkins is prior art to the ’366 patent only to the extent that the subject matter disclosed in Perkins is likewise described in the Perkins Provisional. Accordingly, we do not consider Petitioner’s arguments that rely on subject matter unsupported by the Perkins Provisional. For example, support for Petitioner’s argument that Perkins discloses “mutant VSV-G envelope protein containing only four mutations at N180, I182, T352, and E353” is not found in the Perkins Provisional and is therefore not considered. Pet. 73 (quoted with Petitioner’s emphasis). Thus, insofar as Petitioner is suggesting that Perkins describes a list of mutations that is narrowed to four positions including a mutation at I182, rather than a listing of thirteen potential positions for mutations (and various combinations thereof with hypothetical mutations at a variety positions), we find no such narrower listing in the Perkins Provisional. Compare Ex. 1005, 22:2–5, with Ex. 1006, 17–18.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“genus even if the species are not themselves recited.” Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also, Atofina, 441 F.3d at 999 (“[A] very small genus can be a disclosure of each species within the genus.” (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d at 682)). In Petering, for example, the prior art disclosed a small genus of only 20 compounds that included the claimed species. In re Petering, 301 F.2d at 682. In its discussion concluding that a small genus may anticipate a species of that genus, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals explained that “it is not the mere number of compounds in this limited class which is significant here, but rather, the total circumstances involved, including such factors as the limited number of variations for R, only two alternatives for Y and Z, no alternatives for the other ring positions, and a large unchanging parent structural nucleus.” Id. at 681–682. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we do not find that Perkins discloses a limited class as exemplified in Petering. To begin, while it is undisputed that Perkins discloses a class of mutant VSV-G envelope proteins that encompasses the recited I182E or I182D mutations, it is also undisputed that Perkins does not disclose the I182E or I182D mutations. Prelim. Resp. 22. Furthermore, and by contrast to the limited class of compounds at issue in Petering, Perkins discloses a class of mutant VSV-G envelope proteins defined as proteins containing one or more of 20 possible mutations or alterations, a class that includes at least 254 proteins. Ex. 1006, 17–18; Prelim. Resp. 26–27. Furthermore, as Patent Owner correctly points out, “[t]he Perkins Provisional does not include any disclosure of the specific mutations to be made at any of these locations. That is, the Perkins Provisional does not indicate the other amino acid(s) to be substituted at the listed locations.” Prelim. Resp. 26. Thus, Perkins fails to provide a POSA with a “‘pattern of preferences’ that serves to narrow the genus.” See, e.g., Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“there is no such clear ‘pattern of preferences’ [as found in Petering] that serves to narrow the genus in claim 2 to a narrow class that includes clopidogrel bisulfate”).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A conclusion of obviousness is appropriate where the prior art “contain[s] detailed enabling methodology for practicing the claimed invention, a suggestion to modify the prior art to practice the claimed invention, and evidence suggesting that it would be successful.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also, In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359 (KSR “actually resurrects [the Federal Circuit]’s own wisdom in In re O’Farrell”). However, to render a claim obvious, prior art cannot be “vague” and must collectively, although not explicitly, guide an artisan of ordinary skill towards a particular solution. Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). That is, when a field is “unreduced by direction of the prior art,” and when prior art gives “no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,” an invention is not obvious. Bayer Schering, 575 F.3d at 1347 (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903). Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we are not persuaded that Perkins discloses a finite set or limited class of 19 mutations. Pet. 66. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Perkins discloses a large genus of mutant VSV-G polypeptides containing at least 254 species—“Perkins Provisional discloses mutations at I182 among a group of 20 other possible locations for modifications[,] . . . [13] of these 20 positions are specific amino acids that . . . can be changed to any of the 19 other natural amino acids” —each species combinable to create a vast number of species. Prelim. Resp. 32. Perkins does not indicate any preference among the 13 disclosed mutations, does not indicate any preference among the 19 other amino acids, and does not indicate any preference as to which mutations should be combined to successful effect. Ex. 1006, 17–18. Thus, while Perkins discloses that one or more mutations “inhibit the envelope protein’s ability to bind its native target, while preserving the envelope protein’s fusogenic properties,” beyond that, a POSA would have no direction for selecting the route to create the I182E or I182D mutations specified by the challenged claims among the various unpredictable alternatives suggested by Perkins. Ex. 1006 at 16; Ex. 1002 ¶ 193. We do not find this to be the easily traversed, small or finite number of alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402. slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,767,366 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionGranted
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46
- ExcludeOther
“We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00073 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under §103: the Board found the asserted combinations taught the limitations, with motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The claim language, “forming” an “adhesion layer on a back surface,” suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of the claims of the ʼ879 patent does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a preformed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 21–23 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’879 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’879 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Mostafazadeh, could overflow.” PO Resp. 41, 42 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 121). According to Patent Owner, the downward pressure during mounting “could cause adhesive to squeeze out.” Id. at 41. We find that Patent Owner’s argument and the corresponding testimony of Mr. Elenius are speculative and do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness. The overflow issue was recognized and addressed by Mostafazadeh. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Mostafazadeh provides explicitly that its adhesive layer “covers an entire mounting surface 190 of the selected integrated circuit dies 182 and does not extend beyond a boundary of the mounting surface 190.” Ex. 1003, 10:6–9 (emphasis added). Additionally, Mostafazadeh teaches that when “the adhesive layer is rolled on, it is exactly the same size as the mounting surface and is quite even. Thus, when the die is attached to its supporting surface the adhesive does not extend beyond the mounting surface of the die.” Id. at 9:15–18. Further, Mostafazadeh teaches that its process avoids the adhesive jutting around the edges of the die. Id. at 2:26–28. These teachings support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully applying Mostafazadeh’s die attachment method to Ball’s multichip device while avoiding adhesive overflow. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination would fail” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond connections with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 25–28. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,352,879 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,352,879 - PTAB · May 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00009 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–8, 12, and 20 on all asserted grounds, finding the petition showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 20. Although defining a person of ordinary skill in the art as a “team” of individuals is not conventional, because Patent Owner does not dispute the definition at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it appears to be 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” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner “agrees that the preamble is limiting as a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method is performed—treating patients with CLL or SLL.” Prelim. Resp. 18. But Patent Owner disagrees with an “attempt to rewrite an express definition in the specification” and adds a safety requirement that is not recited in the definition of “therapeutically effective amount” in the Specification. Id. at 19. Patent Owner contends “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification to mean “a sufficient amount of an agent or a compound being administered which will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms [of a] B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (BCLD) . . . [or] reduction and/or alleviation of the signs, symptoms, or causes of BCLD.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 24:58–63). Notwithstanding its proposed construction, Patent Owner posits that “a precise construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount’ is not necessary to resolve the dispute here” and “[e]ven under Petitioner’s flawed construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount,’ Petitioner fails to meet its burden to warrant institution.” Id. at 20. Having considered the parties’ respective arguments at this stage of the proceeding, we agree that the preamble is limiting as a statement of intentional purpose. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound”). Moreover, we find Patent Owner has the better position that the term “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification and not according to the separate and distinct definition of “effective amount,” as Petitioner suggests. That is, we decline to import a safety limitation to the term “therapeutically effective amount” that only appears in the definition for “effective amount.” Compare Ex. 1001, 24:58–62 with id. at 24:66–25:2” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“an “attempt to rewrite an express definition in the specification” and adds a safety requirement that is not recited in the definition of “therapeutically effective amount” in the Specification. Id. at 19. Patent Owner contends “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification to mean “a sufficient amount of an agent or a compound being administered which will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms [of a] B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (BCLD) . . . [or] reduction and/or alleviation of the signs, symptoms, or causes of BCLD.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 24:58–63). Notwithstanding its proposed construction, Patent Owner posits that “a precise construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount’ is not necessary to resolve the dispute here” and “[e]ven under Petitioner’s flawed construction of ‘therapeutically effective amount,’ Petitioner fails to meet its burden to warrant institution.” Id. at 20. Having considered the parties’ respective arguments at this stage of the proceeding, we agree that the preamble is limiting as a statement of intentional purpose. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound”). Moreover, we find Patent Owner has the better position that the term “therapeutically effective amount” should be construed according to its express definition in the Specification and not according to the separate and distinct definition of “effective amount,” as Petitioner suggests. That is, we decline to import a safety limitation to the term “therapeutically effective amount” that only appears in the definition for “effective amount.” Compare Ex. 1001, 24:58–62 with id. at 24:66–25:2 amount” but not “therapeutically effective amount”). Thus, we construe the term “therapeutically effective amount” to mean “a sufficient amount of an agent of a compound being administered which will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms [of] B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (BCLD).”” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,672,803 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00009 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–10 on all petition grounds, declined discretionary denial, and granted joinder with IPR2023-00724.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Director Vidal set forth in the Interim Procedure that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure, 7, 9. This guidance does not condition or otherwise qualify the effect of a Sotera stipulation on our exercise of discretion to deny the Petition based on any remaining defendants in the parallel litigation that are not subject to the stipulation. Petitioner has filed such a stipulation. Reply 2 (“Petitioners stipulate that, if instituted, they will not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the Petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised therein”). Therefore, we will not exercise our discretion to deny the Petition. We also find that with the change of the district court trial date to over two months after the current statutory due date for the Mylan IPR, the Mylan IPR should be completed before a trial in the district court begins. See Ex. 1098. This change in trial date, in addition to the lack of complete overlap in the claims asserted here and in the Delaware Litigation, provide further reason for us to refrain from exercising our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) regardless of remaining defendants in the Delaware Litigation that are not bound by any estoppel arising from the Mylan IPR.10” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the Mylan IPR, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable. Mylan IPR, Paper 10, 17–29 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2023). We therefore institute trial as to all challenged claims on all grounds stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter parties review under section 314. As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should: set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013).” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,335,462 - Mara Renewables Corporation v. DSM IP Assets, B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00070 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 were anticipated by Radianingtyas or obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an 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). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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). Under this standard, we construe the claim term “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.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding that the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application”). Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any claim term.” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not provide a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent Owner also states that any differences between the parties’ proposed definition of the skill level would not impact its arguments. Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the skill level because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill at the relevant time. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“triglyceride, DHA, and heptadecanoic acid content recited therein. In order to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). A reference, however, can anticipate a claim “even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). As explained below, here, Petitioner has not shown Radianingtyas discloses a microbial oil comprising the required triglyceride, DHA and heptadecanoic acid content. Specifically, although the exemplified strain ONC-T18 produces oil that meets the claimed triglyceride fraction and heptadecanoic acid level, Petitioner has not shown the same oil contains the recited DHA level.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,207,363 - Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 25, 2024 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR of claims 1–24 on all asserted grounds; the Board found the §103 challenges more likely than not to render claim 1 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Skill Each party puts forth a characterization of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of the claims of the ’795 patent. (See Pet. 13 (citing Crowley Decl., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 90–91); see Prelim. Resp. 3–4.) The parties’ proposed characterizations of the ordinarily skilled artisan are sufficiently similar that adoption of either would lead to the same result, institution. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision only, we adopt Patent Owner’s characterization of the ordinarily skilled artisan as having a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as, chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least two years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations, and access to one or more team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals, or, in the alternative, at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations, and access to one or more team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Prelim. Resp. 3–4.) We also note that the level of skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan is revealed by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error “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, 225 USPQ 34, 38 (Fed.Cir.1985)).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner puts forth constructions of certain terms used in the claims of the ’795 patent. (See Pet. 14–19.) Patent Owner does not dispute any of these constructions specifically, but at this point, argues that we need not construe any terms “to resolve the present controversy.” (Prelim. Resp. 2.) We agree that an express construction is not required at this point in the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, at this point in the proceeding, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because it does not address the teachings in the prior art that Petitioner asserts would render the formulations claimed in the ’795 patent obvious.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,617,795
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.