- Innoscience America, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00010 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–14, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv because the balance of factors favored denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“2. Factor 2: ITC Final Determination Date Fintiv provides that an ITC trial date that is earlier than the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision may favor discretionary denial if the ITC is going to decide the same or substantially similar issues to those presented in the petition. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 8. The Guidance Memo further provides that “the Board is more likely to deny institution where the ITC’s projected final determination date is earlier than the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision.” Guidance Memo 2. Here, the ITC has set the target date for its final determination to March 2, 2026. Ex. 2010, 3 (ITC Order Amending the Procedural Schedule). Our final written decision would be due almost three months later, in late May 2026, should we institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,070,755 - Cipla Limited v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00033 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–13 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“We determine that this factor weighs heavily in favor of exercising discretion to deny the Petition. The trial date in the district court litigation is scheduled for October 6, 2025. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2010). This date is at least six months before our projected statutory deadline should we go forward in this case. Patent Owner points out that this trial date is nine months later than the median time to trial in the District of Delaware, and in Patent Owner’s view, the parties are on track to satisfy the current schedule. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2011).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“1 Patent Owner also asserts that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), but we need not reach this issue because we are exercising discretion under Section 314(a) to deny the Petition. See Prelim. Resp. 2–3.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,744,802 - Beone Medicines USA, Inc. / Beigene, Ltd. v. Pharmacyclics LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 1, 2025 · PGR2024-00009 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 12, and 20 are unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the enablement, anticipation, or obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting and that the terms “optionally substituted fused heterocyclic ring system” and “irreversible” BTKIs should be construed consistent with the definitions provided in the Specification. Pet. 42–45; see also id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 19:57–20:7 (defining “optionally substituted” or “substituted”), 14:51–52 (defining “fused”), 15:66–16:21 (defining “heterocycle”), 14:36–44 (defining “ring” and “ring system”), 26:23–25 (defining “irreversible Btk inhibitor”); PO Resp. 26.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties agree that the preamble of the claims should be limiting” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable
“To satisfy written description for the claimed genus of iBTKIs, the Specification must describe either a representative number of members of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus with enough precision that a POSA can visualize or recognize the members of the genus. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Patent Owner concedes that the Specification does not describe a representative number of members of the genus, stating “this is a common structural features case.” Tr. 65:25–66:3. We, therefore, focus our analysis on whether the Specification adequately describes common structural features of the genus. We find that it does not.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 11,672,803 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,672,803 - Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · May 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00136 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution
Institution of inter partes review was denied for claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we find that on the current record Petitioner has not shown that it has a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on these obviousness grounds. XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5. XIII. CONCLUSION After reviewing the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that, based on the evidence of record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 of the ’841 patent are unpatentable. XIV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds presented in the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 35
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Jansky provide specific data on the record before us showing the actual measured homozygosity of either of the inbred lines, US-W 5309 and US-W 5315. And Phumichai experimentally demonstrates that Dr. Jansky’s assumption that theoretical heterozygosity reduction of 50% per generation is not necessarily accurate, stating the “observed average percentage of reduction of heterozygosity per generation (38.4% or 38.5%) was lower than the theoretically expected value of 50%.” Ex. 1005, 982. Indeed, Phumichai disclosed that the “SOPH [Section-based observed percentage of heterozygosity] decreased steadily from the original 100% in 99H2–1 (S0) to the family means of 62.4% in 3H2 (S1), 37.9% in 3H3 (S2).” Id. at 981. That is, Phumichai experimentally shows that in an S2 generation of a potato line, the heterozygosity was 37.9%, resulting in homozygosity of about 62.1%, below the 75% theoretically expected and the 75% required by claim 1 of the ’841 patent. Therefore, the evidence of record does not show that the S2 generation of potato lines in Jong necessarily satisfies the homozygosity recitation in claim 1 of the ’841 patent, and so cannot establish on the record before us that Jong inherently teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Owner is telling. Petitioner does not refute Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia. On the current record, the objective indicia evidence is compelling. As to long felt need, Patent Owner cited evidence on record before the Examiner that showed a persistent need recognized by ordinarily skilled artisans. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538 (CCPA 1967). For example, Dr. Huang states “This research is the breakthrough we have been waiting for since nearly a century . . . This is crucial for the potato breeding worldwide.” Ex. 2009, 687. There is no evidence that this long-felt need was satisfied by another before Appellant’s invention. See Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved . . . .”). Lastly, Dr. Lindhout explains that this invention satisfies the long-felt need, stating “I have discovered, and disclosed in the present application for patent, how a fertile homozygote in” slip op. at 33
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,140,841 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01419 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–9 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Chee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with these principles to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that Petitioner has shown sufficiently a reasonable likelihood of succeeding with respect to at least claim 1 challenged in Ground I. Petitioner provides sufficient support on the record before us to provide a reasonable likelihood of succeeding in showing that claim 1 is anticipated by Chee.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“tags,” and “locus of origin” need be addressed at this stage of the proceeding. We determine that no express construction of “consensus base call” is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). 1. “Set of [Unique] Differentiator Tags” Petitioner asserts that both “set of differentiator tags” as used in claim 1 and “set of unique differentiator tags” as used in claim 9 should be given the same construction—“set of prepared tags where each tag includes a unique sequence as compared to the other tags.” See Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 89; Ex. 1001, 28:25–29, 28:53–57). Petitioner further asserts that “[t]hese unique differentiator tags are associated with target nucleic acids so that each nucleic acid is uniquely identifiable.” Pet. 16. Petitioner also points to the prosecution history of the ’730 patent in which Petitioner asserts the Patent Owner argued and the Board acknowledged that each differentiator tag is unique. Id. at 16–17. Petitioner concludes that “[a]n interpretation of ‘differentiator tags’ to include non-unique tags is not possible, and if it were, Applicant disclaimed any interpretation that would allow non-unique tags.” Id. at 17.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that Petitioner has shown sufficiently a reasonable likelihood of succeeding with respect to at least claim 1 challenged in Ground I. Petitioner provides sufficient support on the record before us to provide a reasonable likelihood of succeeding in showing that claim 1 is anticipated by Chee.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,840,730 - Lam Research Corp. v. Inpria Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 18, 2025 · IPR2024-00033 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’888 Publication; Patent Owner’s motion to add substitute claims 13–23 is granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“priority issue are based on the cited disclosures of the ’867 application discussed above. Ex. 2009 ¶ 29. For the reasons discussed above, we do not view the cited disclosures as sufficiently supporting Dr. Banerjee’s conclusion that the ’867 application provides support for claim 1’s average thickness range (id.) and, therefore, give this testimony little weight. Stated somewhat differently, Dr. Banerjee’s advances an opinion (really a legal one) that is not supported by the facts and not in line with the caselaw discussed in this section (such as RAI).” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“priority issue are based on the cited disclosures of the ’867 application discussed above. Ex. 2009 ¶ 29. For the reasons discussed above, we do not view the cited disclosures as sufficiently supporting Dr. Banerjee’s conclusion that the ’867 application provides support for claim 1’s average thickness range (id.) and, therefore, give this testimony little weight. Stated somewhat differently, Dr. Banerjee’s advances an opinion (really a legal one) that is not supported by the facts and not in line with the caselaw discussed in this section (such as RAI).” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d) Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a” slip op. at 30
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“For these reasons, Patent Owner has met its burden to show by a” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,823,564 unpatentable§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,823,564 - PTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01498 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple obviousness grounds, while declining institution under Ground 9 at the preliminary merits stage.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the information presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of claims 1–19 of the ’752 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“summarized above, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1 and 4–14 are obvious over the combination of Native and Bianchi ’254. In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the combination of Native and Bianchi ’254 discloses a deodorant stick comprising each element of claims 1 and 4–14. Pet. 41–50. We also find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently on the record before us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to implement Bianchi ’254’s hardness range in Native’s formula. Here, we credit Dr. Michniak-Kohn’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to adjust hardness using the structurants in a deodorant composition. Ex. 1002 ¶ 41, 191–192.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“biased testimony from an employee” and the Petition therefore lacks sufficient evidence to establish the images provided in the Squatch declaration as containing prior art printed publication material. Id. at 27–28 (citing Finnigan Corp. v. ITC, 180 F.3d 1354, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he law has long looked with disfavor upon invalidating patents on the basis of mere testimonial evidence absent other evidence that corroborates that testimony.”); Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“corroboration is required of any witness whose testimony alone is asserted to invalidate a patent, regardless of his or her level of interest.”). 3. Discussion Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we find Patent Owner to have, at this stage of the proceeding, the better position.. Accordingly, we determine that there is insufficient evidence to indicate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that that claims 15–19 would have been obvious over the combination of Squatch and Sturgis for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Response and summarized above. However, we will make our final determination on these issues on the full record developed during this proceeding. See Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29, 11 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (“To prevail in a final written decision in an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication.”).” slip op. at 30
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 29–38. In determining whether to deny institution under § 325(d), we use the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). The Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Id. at 9 (referencing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, 17– 18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph)).” slip op. at 32
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,844,752 - Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over FR458 with the ’4666 patent and WO133; claims 1–17 are also unpatentable over WO742 with the ’4666 patent and WO133.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ positions about the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar. (See Pet., 13–14; see PO Resp., 10–12.) In light of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations and would have had access to team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Pet. 13–14; see PO Resp. 10–12; see Dec. 6–7.) Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’795 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Although Petitioner puts forth constructions for terms in the claims of the ’795 patent, Patent Owner argues that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the controversy between the parties. (See Pet. 14–19; see PO Resp. 12.) Except as indicated below, we agree that express construction of the claim terms is not required because the parties do not materially dispute the meanings of the terms. 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))). Limitation (c) of claim 1 recites “syrup formulation” once and then “syrup” by itself twice. The parties agree that two recitations of “syrup” by itself mean and are synonymous with “syrup formulation.” (See Tr. 15:16– 19 (counsel for Petitioner: “[T]he term, syrup, by itself, means the formulation. And for that reason, we--it’s our position that it’s the syrup formulation that has the specific viscosity requirements as well as the other features that we discussed.”); 31:17–20 (counsel for Patent Owner: “But those wherein clauses, what it’s referring to, the syrup formulation and the syrup -- it was all to a complete to a final formulation, right, it’s not just the agave syrup. Everybody here recognizes and understands that from that perspective.”).) Thus, the parties agree that the “viscosity of less than 1500 centipoise at about 22 degrees” limits the final “pharmaceutical syrup formulation for oral administration,” not the “agave syrup” limitation in limitation (b) of claim 1.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues further that Dr. Crowley testifies that, “[g]enerally, suspensions having a viscosity in the range of 20 to 150 cP are considered readily pourable,” but that this range is well below the viscosity range of 200–900 cP taught in WO133 and the preferred viscosity range of 1000–3000 cP taught in the ’4666 patent. (See PO Resp. 45 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 59).) Dr. Crowley testifies that “increasing the viscosity of a suspension formulation has been shown to impair the dissolution characteristics of immediate release acetaminophen” and that, “[w]ith respect to suspensions for oral administration, having a higher viscosity is generally not desirable.” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.) According to Patent Owner, this is a “teaching away” because Petitioner’s own expert testimony demonstrates a motivation not to combine the acetaminophen formulation of FR458- Example 1 with the 1000-3000 cP range of the ’4666 patent and the 200-900 cP range of WO133 since by his own admission doing so would yield bad results (i.e., impairing the dissolution characteristics of the acetaminophen) and generally undesirable higher viscosity. (PO Resp. 46 (citing Berkland Decl., Ex. 2009 ¶ 148).) Dr. Crowley’s cited testimony, however, is about general characteristics of suspensions for oral administration, whereas the WO133 refers specifically to sweetened analgesic formulations. (See Ex. 1006, 8:1– 3 (“The viscosity of the acetaminophen composition generally ranges from about 200–900 centipoise, preferably from about 300–700 centipoise.”); see Pet. Reply 8–9.) As Petitioner notes, Dr. Crowley also testifies that the viscosity of 29 commercially available, pediatric liquid oral antibiotic formulations were measured and determined to range from 20 to 1,780 cP” and that “[t]he viscosity of Children’s Tylenol has been reported to be less than 1,000 centipoise at shear rates between 0.05 and 0.2 reciprocal seconds.” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 58.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Crowley’s testimony contradicts the teachings regarding viscosity of analgesic formulations in the cited prior art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,617,795 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,617,795 - PTAB · Mar 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01406 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 4, 8–13, and 15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Takeuchi anticipates those claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2023). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’202 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 4, 8–13, and 15 of the ’202 patent. A. Real Parties in Interest” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and three to four years of experience, or a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and one to two years of experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13). Petitioner further contends that “[s]uch experience would include a familiarity with thermal fluid delivery devices and/or the components and underlying technology used therein, and a higher level of 1 US 5,249,586, issued Oct. 5, 1993 (Ex. 1004, “Morgan”). 2 EP 0 845 220 B1, published Jan. 26, 1998 (Ex. 1006, “Susa”). 3 US 2005/0205084 A1, published Sept. 22, 2005 (Ex. 1007, “Gupta”). 4 US 6,155,268, issued Dec. 5, 2000 (Ex. 1009, “Takeuchi”). at 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13). Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner maintains that Petitioners’ arguments fail even under Petitioners’ POSA definition.” Prelim. Resp. 13. On this record, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition because it appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’202 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 6
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“term “wicked into contact” that the Board adopted in a prior inter partes review proceeding that addressed the same term in an earlier, related patent. Pet. 7 (citing IPR2020-01602, Paper 32 at 8–15 (PTAB March 30, 2022)). ‘wicked into contact’ to mean: ‘wicked into contact (1) with the heater, or (2) with an area in close proximity to, and exposed [to] the heat produced by, the heater,’” and “[t]he present Petition adopts this formal construction for purposes of this IPR proceeding.” Id. (citing IPR2020-01602, Paper 32 at 15). Patent Owner also “adopts this construction for purposes of” the Preliminary Response, and argues that “Petitioner’s grounds fail even under its proposed construction of ‘wicked into contact.’” Prelim. Resp. 13. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the Board’s prior construction of “wicked into contact,” namely, “wicked into contact (1) with the heater, or (2) with an area in close proximity to, and exposed to the heat produced by, the heater,” which is undisputed on this record. See Philip Morris Products, S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-01602, Paper 32 at 8–15 (PTAB March 30, 2022). C. Asserted Anticipation by Morgan” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot reached
“To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “A reference may anticipate inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed is ‘necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.’” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that Morgan discloses “a storage compartment . . . being arranged such that the liquid aerosol-forming material can be wicked into contact with the electrical resistance heater to volatilize the liquid aerosol-forming material” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,925,202 - Billerud Aktiebolag (Publ) v. Westrock MWV, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 12, 2025 · IPR2023-01206 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 4–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 25–26 are allowed, while 24 and 27 are denied for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are also not admissible as expert testimony because Mr. Wirén is not “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 703. “To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Mr. Wirén does not meet our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Section II.B, supra. That definition is based on the undisputed testimony of Messrs. Zotterman and Klass. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. Although Mr. Wirén has a Master’s of Science in chemical engineering, he lacks any experience or specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 2011, 12:1–10, 19:6–25, 20:2–7. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are the testimony of Mr. Wirén and should be excluded from evidence because Mr. Wirén is not a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. PO MTE 5–6, 9; Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Unless a patent lawyer is also a qualified technical” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based on the testimony of the parties’ witnesses, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related degree, with three to five years of experience in paperboard manufacturing, or a master’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, or mechanical engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’142 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“A claim construction that excludes a particular element is viewed as a “negative limitation.” Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847 Fed. App’x 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). “[S]uch exclusions must find support either in ‘the words of the claim’ or through an ‘express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.’” Id. (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an intent to define the term.’” Id. (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Similarly, disclaimer or disavowal requires that the specification or prosecution history demonstrate that the invention does not include a particular feature. Id. Here, we find no claim language, lexicography, or disclaimer in the ’142 Patent or its file history that would support defining a “hot-hard calender” as requiring that only one of the two rollers be heated to an elevated temperature.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“a contact surface of said thermo-roller is heated to an elevated temperature of at least 250°F.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the temperature limitation is taught by the combination of Fugitt and Papermaking. Pet. 32–34. Fugitt discloses that “[t]he rolls of the calender may be steam heated.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 26. In a section titled “Heated Rolls,” Papermaking discloses that “Steam can be used up to 170°C [338°F] surface temperature.” Ex. 1010, 95, 98. Petitioner is thus correct that, “[w]hile Fugitt teaches that a hot calender may be steam heated, Papermaking clarifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that steam heated thermo-rollers may reach up to 338°F.” Pet. 36. Based on these disclosures, we are persuaded by Mr. Zotterman’s testimony that it would have been “obvious to heat the thermo-roller of Fugitt to at least 250°F.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 159. combine Fugitt and Papermaking because of Papermaking’s status as a “trusted handbook[],” because both references disclose a method of manufacturing a paperboard structure with hot calendering,” and “because of the known advantages of heated rollers.” Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157, 159, 162. Petitioner’s contention is supported by Papermaking’s disclosures that, for cartonboard, “[p]recalendering is used before the coater to reduce roughness and porosity” and “[h]igh thermo roll temperatures (in some cases over 200°C) result in bulk savings because of the temperature gradient.” Ex. 1005, 80–82; see also Pet. 38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 164 (citing these disclosures). Papermaking’s disclosed range of “up to 170°C [338°F]” for steam- heated rolls (Ex. 1010, 98), overlaps the claimed range of “at least 250°F.” Patent Owner agrees. Tr. 27:11–13. “If the relevant comparison between a disputed claim limitation and the prior art pertains to a range of overlapping values, ‘. . . even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 946 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “[S]uch an overlap creates a presumption of obviousness, and . . . the burden of production falls upon the patentee to come forward with pertinent evidence that the overlapping range would not have been obvious in light of the prior art.” Id. (citing E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,293,142 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,293,142
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.