• Tricklestar LLC v. Embertec Pty Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01336 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over EP ’379 and EP ’752.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. See Ex. 1001, 1:14–15 (“The invention relates to aspects of the monitoring of electrical power supply to electrical equipment.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to a method and system to provide power saving for electronic devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in use, particularly for a setting accommodating multiple electronic devices especially in the end-user sector.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to an automatic means switch device used to disconnect a load from” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that we do not need to expressly construe “input” (claim 1), “electrical input” (claim 9), “sensor” (claims 1 and 9), and “alert device” (claim 5) to determine whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 9 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “EP ’379 was published April 22, 2009. Ex. 1002, [43]. Because EP ’379 was published before the earliest possible invention date of record in this proceeding, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that EP ’379 is prior art to claims 1–4, 7, and 9 of the ’099 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Pet. 16. As illustrated above, Petitioner adds red ovals around what it contends, and with which we agree, correspond to the claimed sensor and microprocessor: infrared receiver unit 10 and microprocessor 12. Id. EP ’379 discloses that infrared receiver unit 10 is coupled to microprocessor 12 and that the infrared receiver unit monitors wireless output signals from a remote control. Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 24, 26. Specifically, EP ’379 discloses that “the signals of the remote controls of electronic devices connected to the subject controller [are] sensed, identified, and interpreted by the controller.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 26 (stating that “the remote control signals controlling the devices connected to the controller can also be sensed by the controller”). According to EP ’379, “[t]he controller unit identifies as to which electronic device’s remote control the user has depressed by means of the signal receiver (10) on itself.” Id. ¶ 24. EP ’379 also discloses that the microprocessor terminates power supplied to the external electrical device based upon the absence of detection of signals from the remote control. Id. ¶ 26. EP ’379 states the following: The controller can be set to a predetermined time period in order to save power, and if no signal is received within this time period from a remote control of any device connected to it, the controller can turn OFF such devices in turn or at the same time according to a predetermined power saving rule. Id. EP ’379 adds an example of a user setting the automatic turn-off period to three hours. Id. Under this example, according to EP ’379, “if the user does not depress any key on any remote control of any electronic device connected to the controller, or if no signal is sensed by the controller within three hours, the controller may power off the electronic devices connected to itself in sequence according to an automatic turning-off rule.” Id. In sum, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,106,099 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,106,099
• Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2017 · IPR2016-01123 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner failed to explain adequately why or how a skilled artisan would combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “continuous noise detection algorithm” and “power distribution filter algorithm.” Pet. 24–28. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms. Prelim. Resp. 8–11. After analyzing the claims and supporting specification of the ’726 patent, we determine that we need not provide express constructions for the disputed claim terms in order to reach our decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Williams’ testimony. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys (“Dr. Forys”), however, proffers his own assessment regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’726 patent. According to Dr. Forys, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 29. Dr. Forys does not address Dr. Williams’ testimony in this regard or otherwise indicate whether his analysis would change if Dr. Williams’ proffered level of ordinary were adopted. Id. We have reviewed the ’726 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’726 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Williams and Dr. Forys (who mostly agree as to the level of skill of an ordinarily skill artisan). Based on our review, we adopt and apply Dr. Williams’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for purposes of this Decision. In addition, our analysis would not change if Dr. Forys’ proffered level of ordinary skill were adopted.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “time of the ’726 patent would likely understand the relationship between power and energy. We also agree that there is a relationship between power and energy, and that it is possible to derive information about one from the other. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25:8; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Based on the evidence of record, we do not agree, however, that power and energy “are essentially equivalent and can be used interchangeably” as asserted in the Petition. See id.; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 174–177). Nor do we agree one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the Gupta energy threshold is the same as the power level threshold disclosed in Li. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding Gupta’s disclosure that “[a] minimum energy threshold may be programmed to [the cadence tone’s] required power level for a valid signal on a line” is equally unpersuasive. Ex. 1009 ¶ 181 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:41–44). We are unpersuaded because neither Petitioner nor Dr. Williams explains sufficiently how Gupta’s minimum energy threshold relates to a required power level or how it relates to Li’s power estimator and the purpose of Li’s power estimators. Given the lack of equivalence between power and energy, we find Petitioner fails to present sufficient evidence explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have switched from detecting a power threshold, such as that described in Li and required by the challenged claims, to detecting an energy threshold as disclosed in McNitt and Gupta. Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)).” slip op. at 30

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

    “Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)). We agree with Petitioner that the cited references do not need to be physically combinable to render claim 1 obvious. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Obviousness, however, “may not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Additionally, it is impermissible for Petitioner to “use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, Petitioner must set forth clearly in the Petition which references it is relying on for each specific limitation and how those combined teachings would render the challenged claims obvious. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,630,726 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,630,726
• Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Medicine, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2017 · IPR2017-01170 · APJ Richard J Smith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving instituted review of claims 65, 66, 72, 73, 75–77, and 80–85 based on its reasonable-likelihood determination.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “DISCUSSION When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “According to the ’830 patent, the term “bait” is defined as including “a nucleic acid molecule . . . which can hybridize to (e.g., be complementary to), and thereby allow capture of a target nucleic acid.” Ex. 1001, 28:47–50. Patent Owner acknowledges that “both primers and baits hybridize to a complementary portion of the target nucleic acid.” Req. Reh’g. 3 (citing Prelim. Resp. 30). However, Patent Owner does not explain or otherwise persuasively address why the subject nucleic acids in Shah are not included within that definition of “bait.” We did not overlook Patent Owner’s explanation of why, in its view, “primers” are not “baits.” Rather, at this stage of the proceeding, we found such explanation unpersuasive as we stated in the Decision. Dec. 13. (stating “we are not persuaded that the definition of the term ‘bait,’ as set forth in the ’830 patent, does not include primers”). Moreover, because we did not overlook Patent Owner’s explanation, we find no basis to reconsider the disclosures of Shah.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successDecided for petitioner

    “We did not overlook and/or misapprehend Patent Owner’s argument. We expressly addressed that argument with respect to bait sets (i) and (ii) by stating that “we find that choosing bait sets that select somatic mutations that appear at a frequency of about 5% or less and at a frequency of about 10% or higher is taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Levin and Shah.” Dec. 17 (emphasis added); see also Dec. 20 (“Having considered the arguments and evidence, we are persuaded at this stage of the proceeding that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the limitations of claim 65 are taught or suggested by, or would have been obvious in view of, the combined teachings of Levin and Shah.”). Moreover, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the fact that the Decision may not recite the words “used together” does not indicate that we overlooked and/or misapprehended Patent Owner’s argument. See Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating “this court has said on multiple occasions that failure to explicitly discuss every issue or every piece of evidence does not alone establish that the tribunal did not consider it”) (citing cases).” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Decided for petitioner

    “We did not overlook and/or misapprehend Patent Owner’s argument; rather, we considered it and found it unpersuasive. See Dec. 13 (stating “on this record, we find that Levin’s disclosure of multiple baits would include multiple bait sets”). In particular, we found that Levin teaches the use of multiple bait sets, not one bait set as argued by Patent Owner. See id. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s argument that all of the baits in Levin were “designed in precisely the same way” was based on Levin’s statement that “[b]aits were designed in a tiling fashion with minimal overlap to span the entire protein-coding region of each transcript.” See Prelim. Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1010, 2). However, that statement suggests the design of multiple different baits that would include multiple different bait sets.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,340,830
• Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2017 · IPR2017-01177 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution

  Instituted review of claims 1–20: claims 1–6 and 8–15 on obviousness over Otto, and claims 7 and 16–20 on obviousness over Otto, Gainsboro, and San Martin.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–20 of the ’250 Patent are unpatentable. The Board has not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of these claims. The Board’s final determination will be based on the record as developed fully during trial.” slip op. at 25

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “As quoted by Patent Owner, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) addresses whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” To evaluate this criterion, we examine what arguments and art were presented to and considered by the Examiner during prosecution. Although Otto was considered by the Examiner (Ex. 1004, 243 indicates Otto was included in an Information Disclosure Statement by the Applicant), the Examiner did not rely on Otto in any rejection of the issued claims in view of Otto. We are further persuaded that the Examiner has not been shown to have considered Otto in the instant context, i.e., with claims 10 being argued as being obvious over Otto and with declaration testimony opining that the claims would have been obvious over Otto (Ex. 1002). Patent Owner also faults Petitioner for not distinguishing Otto from San Martin (Prelim. Resp. 7), but it is not necessarily incumbent on a petitioner to distinguish the disclosures of newly applied and previously applied prior art references. Patent Owner points out similarities in the disclosures of Otto and San Martin (id. at 6–7), but does not demonstrate what similar portions of Otto and San Martin would have been considered in finding certain claims allowable. See Ex. 1004, 219. Such a consideration is important because Patent Owner incorporated the allowable subject matter into the independent claims to gain allowance. See Ex. 1004, 290. At this stage of the proceedings, we are persuaded that that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of the independent claims are taught or suggested by Otto, and as discussed below, we are not persuaded that the disclosures of Otto and San Martin are necessarily cumulative.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that such a person “would have held at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar field, and had at least two years of experience (or the academic equivalent) working with speaker-dependent voice recognition in the context of telecommunications.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–41). Patent Owner does not offer an alternate characterization at this time. As such, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “Hence, we determine that “match” would have been understood as determining whether two data items are identical or finding a data item that is identical to a key. See Ex. 3001. Furthermore, we determine that “substantially” would have been understood as to a great or significant extent, or for the most part or essentially. See Ex. 3002. Therefore, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, consistent with and in 7 the context of the specification, of “substantially matches” is “determining whether two data items are for the most part or essentially identical.” See also Verve v. Crane Cams, 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Expressions such as “substantially” are used in patent documents when warranted by the nature of the invention, in order to accommodate the minor variations that may be appropriate to secure the invention.”)); see, e.g., Ecolab Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “like the term ‘about,’ the term ‘substantially’ is a descriptive term commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter”) (citation omitted). Although Petitioner does not proffer an explicit construction for the claim term “substantially matches,” Petitioner does argue that the prior art discloses “both exact matches and matches that deviate from exact matches by predetermined amounts.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). Therefore, we are persuaded that Petitioner is implicitly applying a claim construction of “substantially matches” that comports with the broadest reasonable construction determined herein.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,521,250
• Coherus Biosciences, Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2017 · IPR2017-01009 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 16–19 and 24–30 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over the cited combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying that standard, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “that, as of November 30, 2007, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an advanced degree in biology, biochemistry, or chemistry (or related discipline)” and “at least two years of experience preparing formulations of proteins suitable for therapeutic use.” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 62–63). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which we adopt for purposes of this decision. See Prelim. Resp. 13 (“For the limited purpose of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We also find, for purposes of this decision, that the prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner proposes that we construe the phrase “does not comprise a buffering system.” Pet. 23–24. Although Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction at this stage of the proceeding (see Prelim. Resp. 13), neither party identifies a dispute that turns on the meaning of the phrase “does not comprise a buffering system.” See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. Thus, we determine that no claim term requires construction for purposes of this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “buffer system of the 2003 HUMIRA formulation based on Fransson’s teachings, we find that Fransson neither discloses nor suggests removing the buffer system from a formulation. To the contrary, as Patent Owner points out, Fransson describes all of its formulations as including a buffer. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. Specifically, Fransson states that the tested formulations “were prepared by mixing disodium phosphate, monosodium phosphate, and sodium chloride in water for injection to give isotonic solutions of different pH and buffer concentration. hIGF-I was added to some of the solutions by ultrafiltration.” Ex. 1304, 1012–13. Petitioner does not explain adequately how that express teaching of buffered formulations, with no disclosure of any tested formulations without a buffer, would have prompted the ordinary artisan to eliminate buffer from the 2003 HUMIRA formulation. Moreover, in summarizing the results of its study, Fransson explains that although an intermediate phosphate buffer concentration of 10 mM resulted in less injection pain than a higher buffer concentration of 50 mM, further reducing the phosphate buffer concentration to 5 mM “did not reduce pain further.” Id. at 1014. In other words, Fransson teaches that reducing the buffer concentration below a particular threshold concentration provides no additional pain reducing benefit. That disclosure fails to support Petitioner’s assertion, and Dr. Radtke’s testimony (Ex. 1302 ¶ 86), that Fransson would have prompted the skilled artisan to eliminate Humira’s buffer system to reduce injection site pain.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,085,619
• Coherus Biosciences, Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2017 · IPR2017-01008 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 16–19 and 24–30 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either asserted §103 combination would succeed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying that standard, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner contends that, as of November 30, 2007, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an advanced degree in biology, biochemistry, or chemistry (or related discipline)” and “at least two years of experience preparing formulations of proteins suitable for therapeutic use.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶ 64). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which we adopt for purposes of this decision. See Prelim. Resp. 15 (“For the limited purpose of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We also find, for purposes of this decision, that the prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner proposes that we construe the phrase “does not comprise a buffering system.” Pet. 22–23. Although Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction at this stage of the proceeding (see Prelim. Resp. 15), neither party identifies a dispute that turns on the meaning of the phrase “does not comprise a buffering system.” See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. Thus, we determine that no claim term requires construction for purposes of this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “buffer system of the 2003 HUMIRA formulation based on Fransson’s teachings, we find that Fransson neither discloses nor suggests removing the buffer system from a formulation. To the contrary, as Patent Owner points out, Fransson describes all of its formulations as including a buffer. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. Specifically, Fransson states that the tested formulations “were prepared by mixing disodium phosphate, monosodium phosphate, and sodium chloride in water for injection to give isotonic solutions of different pH and buffer concentration. hIGF-I was added to some of the solutions by ultrafiltration.” Ex. 1219, 1012–13. Petitioner does not explain adequately how that express teaching of buffered formulations, with no disclosure of any tested formulations without a buffer, would have led the ordinary artisan to eliminate buffer from the 2003 HUMIRA formulation.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,085,619
• Coherus Biosciences Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2017 · IPR2017-00823 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 16–19 and 24–30 because Petitioner did not show Gokarn ’011 anticipated them.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “2. Analysis Anticipation requires that “each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear” slip op. at 9

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

    “2. Analysis Anticipation requires that “each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “skill in the art of pharmaceutical antibody formulation would have had an advanced degree in biology, biochemistry, or chemistry (or related discipline) with at least two years of experience preparing formulations of proteins suitable for therapeutic use. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 61–62). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 10. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming applicability of broadest reasonable construction standard to inter partes review proceedings). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 9,085,619
• Coherus Biosciences, Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2017 · IPR2017-00822 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Coherus did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 16–19 and 24–30 were anticipated by Gokarn PCT or obvious over Gokarn PCT and the Humira Label.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying that standard, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner proposes that we construe the phrase “does not comprise a buffering system,” which appears in independent claim 16, to encompass formulations that have a de minimis amount of buffer components. Pet. 19– 20. Although Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction at this stage of the proceeding, it suggests that construction of this term is unnecessary at this stage. See Prelim. Resp. 11. Because Petitioner does not identify a dispute we need to resolve that turns on the meaning of the phrase “does not comprise a buffering system,” see generally Pet., we determine that no claim term requires construction for purposes of this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only 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

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an advanced degree in biology, biochemistry, or chemistry (or related discipline)” and “at least two years of experience preparing formulations of proteins suitable for therapeutic use.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 61–62). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which we adopt for purposes of this decision. See Prelim. Resp. 11 (“For the limited purpose of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We also find, for purposes of this decision, that the prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 7

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

    “self-buffering proteins, especially in regard to adalimumab. Although Gokarn PCT describes self-buffering protein formulations, it repeatedly emphasizes that empirical data is needed to determine the buffering capacity of any particular protein. See Ex. 1003, 31:14–28 (stating “the buffer capacity of self-buffering protein formulations in accordance with the invention preferably is determined empirically by both acid titration and base titration over a given range of pH change from the desired pH of the composition”); id. at 36:10–14 (stating empirical measurements of protein buffer capacities are preferred); see also id. at 36:29–38:9 (describing determining protein buffer capacity from pH titration curves). Gokarn PCT does describe methods of predicting protein buffer capacity, but cautions that “[s]uch calculations generally will be of less utility and less accurate than empirical determinations of protein buffer capacity, in accordance with the methods described elsewhere herein. But they can be useful to provide rough maximum estimates of the buffer capacity of proteins in solution.” Id. at 40:15–18; see also id. at 38:10–14 (stating while “empirical determinations as described herein are generally a crucial aspect of formulating self-buffering compositions in accordance with various aspects and preferred embodiments of the invention, theoretical and computations methods also can be productively employed to guide the design, manufacture, and use of such compositions (in conjunction with empirical determinations)”). Gokarn PCT explains why empirical data is so crucial in determining protein buffer capacity: Conformational folding typically partitions large polypeptides and proteins in polar solvents into exposed solvent-accessible regions and more or less non-polar core regions that have little or no contact with the ambient environment. Folding produces many environments between these two extremes. Furthermore, the micro environment around a given amino acid side chain in a protein typically is affected by one or more of: solvent effects; binding of ions, chelation; complexation; association with co-factors; and post-translational modifications; to name just a few possibilities. Each of these can influence the pKa of a given amino acid ionization in a protein. The pKas for specific residues in a given protein, thus, can vary dramatically from that of a free amino acid. Id. at 38:26–39:2. No such empirical data is provided for adalimumab. See generally Ex. 1003; Prelim. Resp. 16. Rather, Gokarn PCT only provides examples of four different self-buffering proteins: Ab-hOPGL, Ab-hB7RP1, Ab-hCD22, and Ab-hIL4R. Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1003, 74:19–80:24).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,085,619
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Elm 3ds Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00770 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12, 13, 24, 36, 37, 38, 83, 86, 87, and 132 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted combinations because the evidence did not establish substantial flexibility or motivation for the proposed dielectric substitutions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, with support of its declarant Paul D. Franzon, Ph.D., contends that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the challenge patents “would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, material science, or equivalent thereof, and at least 3–5 years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., semiconductor processing.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53). Dr. Franzon’s testimony as to the level of 12 ordinary skill is based on “the type of problems encountered in the art, 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.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Patent Owner did not propose expressly a particular level of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. At the oral hearing, Petitioner indicatedthat there did not seem to be any dispute as to the correct level of ordinary skill. Tr. 112:11–14 (“I don’t think there was any dispute about whether [Dr. Franzon’s proposed level of ordinary skill] was the correct level of skill, although Patent Owner can correct me.”). Having reviewed the prior art asserted in these proceedings (see, e.g., Exs. 1004–07, 1009, 2160), we determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the referenced prior art, and we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In the context of the Elm 3DS family, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “substantially flexible” is the same as our construction under the Philips standard, which was the standard applied in IPR2016-00386. Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, we presume a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As discussed in detail in the Final Written Decisions in IPR2016-00386, IPR2016-00387, and IPR2016- 00388, the ordinary and customary meaning of “substantially flexible” is “largely able to bend without breaking.” Also as discussed extensively in” slip op. at 14

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

    “same as set forth in IPR2016-00708. Each of the challenged claims in this review require the use of a dielectric having a stress of less than 5 x 108 dynes/cm2 tensile. The evidentiary record in this case with regard to dielectric substitution adds nothing further to the evidentiary record established in IPR2016-00708. For the same reasons set forth in our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00708, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed dielectric substitution.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As noted in our claim construction section, above and as referenced in our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00386, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that, in the context of semiconductor substrates, mere thinning is not the same as flexibility—being able to bend without breaking. 20 Although Petitioner presents arguments attempting to demonstrate thinning, there are no arguments that this thinning necessarily results in flexibility. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate that the required “substantial flexibility.” This reason alone sufficiently supports our conclusion. However, we also conclude, as set forth below that for a second, independent reason, Petitioner has not established that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Petitioner has not sufficiently established that one of ordinary skill would have substituted the dielectric material of Leedy ’695 for the various layers proposed for substitution in Hsu. Therefore we do not credit Leedy ’695 as providing any potential “substantial flexibility” to Hsu.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,907,499 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,907,499
• Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · CBM2016-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–3 and 5 are also anticipated by Riach, and specified claims are obvious over combinations of Riach, Graf, Gustin, and Anderson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “For these reasons, we determine that claim 20—its focus and its” slip op. at 37

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 20 is directed to an” slip op. at 52

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

    “encompasses Riach’s process that copies a portion (but not all) of the original check image data to produce the required modified check image data. Accordingly, we agree that the portion of Riach on which Petitioner relies discloses step (b) of claim 1 that requires, among other limitations, the modified check image data not include at least some visual feature data included in the check image data. Pet. 30 (relying on Ex. 1008, 5:16–30, Figs. 4, 7).” slip op. at 73

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 89

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,163 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,163

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.