• Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Bosciences, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2021 · PGR2021-00088 · APJ John G New · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all five grounds, finding the petition did not show any challenged claim was likely unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board “may not authorize a post-grant review to 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 consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence presently before us, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’908 patent. We consequently deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The Specification expressly teaches that, with respect to the clinical phase 2 trial described in Example 4, “Patients will have overnight [pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics] PK/PD assessments performed at baseline, which include an [sic] pre-dose overnight assessment and a post-dose overnight assessment for PK/PD following administration of the first dose.” Ex. 1001 col. 42, ll. 12–16. This is the same quotation and clinical trial relied upon by Dr. Barnes in his Declaration, and is the only definition of a “baseline” in the ’908 patent. See Ex. 1002, 36–37. We note that placebos were evidently not employed in the phase 2 clinical study of Example 4.3 Given the sole exemplary description of “baseline” in Example 4 of the Specification, we construe the claim term reciting “reduced by at least 10% from baseline” as meaning “a reduction of at least 10% in the level of ACTH (claim 1) or 17-OHP (claim 11) compared to measurements of ACTH or 17-OHP made prior to, and/or at the beginning of, administration of the drug.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “likely than not that independent claims 1 and 11 are anticipated by Grigoriadis. “For a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The single clinical trial taught by Example 6 of Grigoriadis does not establish a baseline value for patients against which to compare the data obtained from patients receiving 300 mg or 600 mg of the test drug, NBI- 77860 (verucerfont). See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 90–94. Specifically, Example 6 does not establish a baseline “which include[s] an [sic] pre-dose overnight assessment and a post-dose overnight assessment for PK/PD following administration of the first dose,” as disclosed by the ’908 patent. See Ex. 1001, col. 42, ll. 12–16. We therefore conclude that Grigoriadis fails to disclose expressly the limitations of claims 1 and 11 severally reciting “wherein [the] … hormone … level in the human is reduced by at least 10 % from baseline.”” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference may anticipate if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed is inherently disclosed because it “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); see also Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question”).” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,849,908
• SAP SE v. Teradata US Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00863 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  Instituted review of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–13, 15, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “1. “Data Temperature” Petitioner argues that the term “data temperature” in claims 2–3, 8–9, and 12–13 “includes any value representing the number or frequency of accesses of particular data in storage, either in absolute or relative terms.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:44–47, 15:37–42, 18:24–27; Ex. 1003 ¶ 34). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. At this stage of the proceeding, and based on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term.” slip op. at 7

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

    “At this stage of the proceeding, and based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner’s three proposed constructions of “persistent data temperature” are reasonable and, as discussed further below, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that “persistent data temperature” is disclosed or suggested by the prior art under any of the three constructions. For purposes of institution, we need not determine which of these three proposed constructions is correct; however, the parties may address this issue further if appropriate during the trial. 3. Other Terms We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and two years of industry experience or research working with database and related storage management technologies,” and that “[a]dditional education, such as an M.S. in computer science, could substitute for the industry experience.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). According to Petitioner, the person of ordinary skill would have been familiar with “DRAM cache, flash or other solid-state storage device[s], tape, optical media, and other well-known storage types,” “[c]oncepts of data ‘temperature,’” “[m]ulti-level storage tiers and managing data storage between volatile devices (e.g., cache) and non-volatile devices (e.g., disk) based on temperature,” and “[w]ell-known concepts such as volatile storage, non-volatile storage, and data persistency.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:23–38, 5:65–6:3, 21:33–43, 25:21–62; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 3–4; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 18– 52; Ex. 1001, 8:7–13). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 17. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’623 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “sufficiently established that Morris inherently discloses this element based on the evidence of record. Petitioner does not point to specific portions of Morris that expressly state that storage information associated with storage of data in the disk drive (such as temperature values 420 in Figure 4) are provided to the cache, or that indicate that this step is necessarily present in Morris’s system. For example, it appears that there might be other places for storing temperature information or other ways of providing that information to the cache. Additionally, Dr. Long does not explain why one of ordinary skill would have “necessarily” understood that Morris’s process would have checked data HEADER 410 in Figure 4 to see if it contained a temperature value, and then used this temperature value as part of the Figure 2 steps, rather than obtaining the temperature value from another source. However, we determine that, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that element 1.3 would have been obvious over Morris. Petitioner’s obvious argument is supported by Dr. Long’s testimony that, when using data temperature to determine whether data should be stored in the cache (as reflected in Figure 2), it would have been obvious to “check[] the data ‘HEADER’ (410 in FIG. 4) to see if it contained a ‘temperature value’ (420 in FIG. 4), and then us[e] this temperature value as part of the FIG. 2 steps.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 51. As Dr. Long explains, data objects 400 with headers 410 and temperature values 420 in Figure 4 are “stored on a disk drive.” Id. ¶ 46. Dr. Long further testifies that one of ordinary skill “would have recognized the expressly disclosed ‘temperature value’ variable” 420 stored on the disk “as the best measure of a given data object’s temperature and the first place to check for whether a disk-stored data object had an associated temperature.” Id. “Given the express disclosure of this [temperature value] variable” 420, Dr. Long continues, it “would have been a natural choice” for the person of ordinary skill in the art to use it “when evaluating whether to cache data being read from the disk,” and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Id. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, this testimony provides logical reasons why one of ordinary skill would have provided the temperature value from the disk to the cache, and is not merely “conclusory.” We reach a similar determination as to Petitioner’s obviousness argument based on the process for determining whether data should be deleted from the cache in Morris’s Figure 3. Petitioner’s argument is supported by Morris’s statement that “[t]he data temperature is stored with the data object in the cache,” and Dr. Long’s testimony that it would have been obvious to have “this data temperature in the cache originate[] from the ‘temperature value’ retrieved from the disk when originally storing the data in the cache.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 53; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. Dr. Long further explains that “it would have been obvious to implement the Morris system in this way because the temperature maintained on the disk was the most natural source for the value of the data temperature stored in the cache,” and one of ordinary skill “would have used that approach with a reasonable expectation of success.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. “In fact,” according to Dr. Long, “given that the temperature value was persistently stored with the data on the disk,” the disk “was the only logical source for a reliable temperature value when deciding whether to load the data into the cache,” because “[a]ny other source would have risked being inaccurate or out of date and would have needlessly and redundantly stored the temperature in another location.” Id. This testimony provides logical reasons why one of ordinary skill would have provided the temperature value on the disk to the cache.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,720,623
• SAP SE v. Teradata US Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00861 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 and all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Based on the present record, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed construction supported by the intrinsic evidence. The ordinary meaning of “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” does not require limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage, and Patent Owner does not argue to the contrary. Turning to the language of the other claims, we note that claim 5, which depends from claim 1, specifically includes additional language stating that the data is stored “only in one of two portions of the volatile storage,” but claim 1 does not include such language. The use of this additional limitation in dependent claim 5 suggests that the inventors did not intend it to be included within claim 1’s broader language reciting “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim”). Turning to the ’923 patent specification, the portions of the specification Patent Owner relies on appear to discuss a preferred embodiment of the invention, rather than limiting the invention itself. The portions of columns 14 and 15 upon which Patent Owner relies discuss Figure 3 which, the specification explains, “depicts a volatile storage 300 that uses a persistent temperature-based storage management technique as well as a conventional storage management technique in accordance with one embodiment.” Ex. 1001, 14:48–51 (emphasis added); see id. at 5:5–8 (also describing Figure 3 as being “in accordance with one embodiment” of the invention). Interpreting claim 1 to require maintaining only a single copy of a data portion in either the first portion or second portion, where that language does not exist in claim 1, would be tantamount to reading a limitation from a preferred embodiment into the claims, which would be improper. See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Patent Owner does not identify any portions of the specification suggesting that limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage is a necessary part of the invention, or that the inventors intended to expressly or impliedly define “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” to include this requirement. Consequently, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring that “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” requires “coordinating placement of data into and out of the volatile storage so as to limit the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage.” The parties may further address the meaning of this claim phrase during the trial, if appropriate.” slip op. at 10

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

    “3. Other Terms We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and two years of industry experience or research working 2 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. with database and related storage management technologies,” and that “[a]dditional education, such as an M.S. in computer science, could substitute for the industry experience as it typically involves at least two years of additional study focused exclusively on computer science, as well as a thesis or project spanning several terms to implement a substantial project.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). According to Petitioner, the person of ordinary skill would have “understood the advantages of partitioning a volatile memory into multiple different sections (e.g., buffer pools) and applying multiple different storage management (e.g., cache replacement) policies to those different sections, and known how to implement such designs.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 14. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’923 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Lee discloses this claim element. Paragraph 17 of Lee discloses the use of a temperature-based storage management technique and a non-temperature-based storage management technique (the LRU replacement policy), and that both “may be used to manage a cache.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Based on the present record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Lee’s disclosure of using these techniques “to manage a cache” involves “manag[ing] the storage of data in” the cache, because both techniques operate in order to control what data is stored in the cache. We do not find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive because it is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” to require “limit[ing] the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage,” which we do not adopt. See § II.A.2, supra. Consequently, we determine that, on the record before us, Petitioner’s cited evidence sufficiently supports its contentions regarding this limitation.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,851,923
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 10, 2021 · IPR2021-00880 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 9–12 are anticipated by Dixon or Heier 2009.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Becton-Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) have been satisfied. The evidence of record shows that the Dixon reference before the Examiner consisted of merely the first page of Dixon. See Ex. 1087. The single page of Dixon that 8 Thomas Reuters Integrity, VEGF Trap-Eye Final Phase II Results in Age-Related Macular Degeneration Presented at 2008 Retina Society Meeting, (Sep. 28, 2008). Ex. 2007. was before the Examiner provides no disclosure of the claimed dosing regimen. It would consequently have been impossible for the Examiner to analyze the limitations of the challenged claims in view of the complete teachings of Dixon under these circumstances. We consequently find that the disclosure of Dixon that form the basis of Petitioner’s Grounds I and IV (of which Dixon is the sole reference) were not before the Examiner as prior art during examination (because the relevant disclosures were missing or omitted), and that there could therefore be no overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art.” slip op. at 12

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

    “c. Analysis We conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in prevailing at trial on Grounds 1 and 2, and that Patent Owner’s arguments are insufficient, based upon the current record, to overcome that likelihood of success. Petitioner’s claim chart maps out the correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 and the disclosures of Dixon and Heier 2009 in a manner that persuasively demonstrates that the disclosures of both references disclose all of the limitations. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing that the references anticipate, with three exceptions. We address each of those arguments in turn.” slip op. at 30

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

    “Ex. 1006, 4 (emphasis added). Dixon thus expressly discloses that patients were treated on a “p.r.n. basis” (i.e., an “as needed basis”) for additional doses, and details the criteria by which the physical symptoms were assessed to determine whether another dose was warranted. It is true that Dixon does not expressly state that it is a physician who performs this assessment of the patient in question. But we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by Petitioner, would understand that the preforming of diagnostic procedures and analysis, and the prescription of the appropriate medication, would necessarily need to be performed by a physician or other qualified medical professional licensed by 12 Patent Owner also argues that, contra Petitioner’s assertion, this limitation is a positive limitation of the claim that should be afforded patentable weight. See Prelim. Resp. 20–24. For the purposes of this Decision, we accept Patent Owner’s contention that the limitation reciting “assessed by a physician or other qualified medical professional” is entitled to patentable weight. As we explain, however, Patent Owner’s argument that this limitation is not disclosed by the cited prior art is unpersuasive. the state. That is, almost by definition, the practice of medicine, and is certainly well known in this art. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that the teachings of a reference may be taken in combination with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in possession of the claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even though the patent does not specifically disclose certain features); see also Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (holding that anticipation requirement that every element of a claim appears in a single reference accommodates situations where the common knowledge of “technologists” is not recorded in a reference, i.e., where technical facts are known to those in the field of the invention). We therefore find that a person of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by Petitioner, would understand that only a licensed physician could competently perform the procedures disclosed by Dixon in the quoted passage.” slip op. at 31

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (1) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders (such as AMD), including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (2) treating of angiogenic eye disorders (such as age-related macular degeneration (“AMD”)), including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Pet. 25 (citing Ex.1002 ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response, although Patent Owner contends that such a skilled artisan could not necessarily perform the limitation of claim 1 reciting “based on visual and/or anatomical outcomes as assessed by a physician or other qualified medical professional.” See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 28. We address Patent Owner’s contentions with respect to this limitation in our analysis below. For the purposes of this decision, because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1020), and in the absence of a different proposed definition of the level of skill in the art by Patent Owner, we consequently adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,669,069
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 10, 2021 · IPR2021-00881 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “during the prosecution of the ’338 patent, the Examiner was presented with the information disclosed in the 2008 Press Release for “VEGF Trap-Eye final phase II results in age-related macular degeneration presented at 2008 Retina Society Meeting.” Applicant included the Thomson Reuters description of the press release on the IDS, Ex. 1017, 60–61, along with the submission of the Thomson Reuters publication, Ex. 2007, referenced therein. The Thomson Reuters publication expressly identified the press release by name and date as the “Reference” for the information described in the publication, as well as by the title of the press release. Ex. 2007. Importantly, the Thomson Reuters publication also provided a summary description of the contents of the press release, in a form that resembles an abstract. The contents of the Thomson Reuters publication provides the regimen for VEGF Trap-Eye as each of the cited references relied upon by Petitioner for its anticipation and obviousness challenges.” slip op. at 13

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018). Upon considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 of the ’338 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had (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, including the publications discussed herein. Typically, such a person would 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 (such as AMD), including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists.” slip op. at 15

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

    “the current record, that the preamble reciting “[a] method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” is limiting. Although we agree with Petitioner that the preamble sets forth “‘a statement of purpose or intended’ use for the claimed dosing regimen,” the Federal Circuit has recently articulated 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). Indeed, the Federal Circuit reiterated that “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 determine 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)). With that said, the Court explained that “while there is no bright-line rule, it is instructive that this court has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound.” Id. at 1342. a VEGF antagonist for the specific purpose of treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. The Specification repeatedly characterizes the method as one that is useful for treating angiogenic eye disorders in patients. See Ex. 1001, 1: 18–20, 63–66, 2:23–27; 3:19–20; 5:11–13. Apart from the preamble, the independent claims do not elsewhere recite or indicate the usefulness of the method steps. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the preamble sets forth the essence of the invention. Prelim. Resp. 32. In Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Federal Circuit explained that “preamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise,” and that this principle frequently holds true for method claims. Id. at 1345 (citing Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We also agree with Patent Owner that the preamble provides antecedent basis for claim terms “the patient” recited in the body of each independent claims, and “angiogenic eye disorders” recited in dependent claims 6, 7, 18, and 20. Prelim. Resp. 34–35. As Patent Owner asserts, without the preamble, it would be unclear to whom the doses of VEGF are administered. See id. at 35. Thus, in view of Federal Circuit case law regarding statements of intended purpose in claims directed to method of using compositions, and in view of the evidence of record, namely, the claim language and the written description of the ’338 patent, we preliminarily find that the preambles of claims 1 and 14 are limiting.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,254,338
• Netflix Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00646 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable because Kaku was not established as analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot shown unpatentableNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The field of endeavor test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–27. A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for three claim terms, including the term “trick play functionality.” Pet. 22–23. Patent Owner argues for construction of the related claim term “the first and second indexes enabling trick play functionality.” See PO Resp. 41–49. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of those claim terms because construction of the proposed terms does not impact our determination that Petitioner has not shown that one of the prior art references is analogous to the claimed invention. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached

    “Under the particular circumstances in this case, we need not assess the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. As discussed above, we have determined that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance that Kaku is analogous prior art to the ’792 patent and do not reach Petitioner’s arguments on the motivation to combine Kaku with Zetts or Seo. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 34

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “As discussed above (supra § III.E.4.a), Petitioner’s papers fail to link Dr. Reader’s declaration testimony on the level of ordinary skill in the art to the analogous art inquiry and fail to identify a field of endeavor for the ’792 patent. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s demonstrative slide 53 presents improper new arguments that have not been previously made. See Paper 38, 2 (“The parties may only rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments that have been previously made in the submitted papers. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the hearing.”), 5 (“Demonstratives are not a mechanism for making new arguments.”). We therefore sustain Patent Owner’s objections. We note, however, that demonstratives are not evidence. See id. at 5 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the hearing are not evidence, nor will they be relied upon as evidence. Rather, demonstratives are visual aids to a party’s oral presentation regarding arguments and evidence previously presented and discussed in the papers”); CTPG 84 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the final hearing are aids to oral argument and not evidence.”). In this Final Written Decision, we rely solely on the arguments properly presented in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record, not on the demonstratives.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,472,792 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,472,792
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on all petition grounds for claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 44

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

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 Petitioner 6 As noted above, Petitioner raises a second claim construction issue in its Rehearing Request. See Req. Reh’g 12–15 (asserting that the claims require only one instance of copying information from a formatted message to a response message based on which formatted message was received). Petitioner did not raise this issue in the Petition, Patent Owner has not had an contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “VI. ANALYSIS Legal Standards – Anticipation “[A] claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Anticipation is a question of fact, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009), assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00201 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable; the cited combinations did not teach or suggest a stationary map.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that 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) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’698 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “through 14, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently7 that the map shown Figure 13b is stationary, as recited in claim 1. Petitioner does not rely upon Roussos as teaching the “stationary map” recited in claim 1 or assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kim in light of Roussos to satisfy this claim limitation. See, e.g., Pet. 27–30 (relying upon Kim); see also id. at 26 (discussing the proposed combination as including Roussos’s coordinate system). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Roussos teaches or suggests a stationary map as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,836,698
• Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00200 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied on all challenged claims because the petition did not show that Kim, alone or in combination, disclosed or suggested the required stationary map.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the following reasons, we find Patent Owner’s assertions have merit because Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing Kim discloses or suggests a background image of a stationary map, which is a necessary limitation in each of the challenged independent claims. Because this deficiency is dispositive and leads us to the conclusion that the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’545 patent, our discussion below focuses on Petitioner’s contentions regarding Kim’s disclosure of a stationary map.” slip op. at 12

  • Other 314aNot reached

    “V. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Prelim. Resp. 3–12. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s argument. See Paper 12 (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request to File Preliminary Replies to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses), 3 (noting that Petitioner requested authorization to file a preliminary reply to respond to Patent Owner’s argument regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a)). Because we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ’545 patent is unpatentable, we need not reach the issue of discretionary denial pursuant to § 314(a).” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’545 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNot reached

    “Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,545
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01613 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 and 5–15 unpatentable over Milewski, or claims 1–3, 7–9, and 12 obvious over Milewski and Heijden.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 3–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience in the fields of messaging systems, and wireless communication devices, or an equivalent advanced education in the field of messaging systems, including wireless communication devices. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308

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.