• Illumina, Inc. v. Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 15, 2026 · IPR2024-01419 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references failed to disclose the claimed correcting step, and Chee was not prior art to claims 1–3 and 9.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered both parties’ arguments and evidence and determine that Patent Owner has presented sufficient evidence of reasonable the invention to practice every day during the critical period in order to demonstrate reasonable diligence. See Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[D]iligence need not be perfectly continuous—only reasonably continuous.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1331 (2019). The key question is whether, “in light of the evidence as a whole, the invention was not abandoned or unreasonably delayed.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Applying this standard, we determine that Patent Owner sufficiently demonstrates reasonably continuous diligence throughout the critical period.” slip op. at 32

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

    “introduced during said workflow by collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations observed more than once into a single count.” Ex. 1001, 131:46–48 (emphasis added). The “determining step” of claim 2 recites “determining a consensus base call for the target nucleic acid molecule sequences,” but performs “collapsing all sequence reads comprising a same differentiator tag into a single read,” before the “determining step.” Id. at 131:49–53. Patent Owner proposes an interpretation of these “collapsing” and “determining” steps recited in claims 1 and 2 and asserts that they should be construed as distinct steps performed in a particular order in which the “collapsing step” is performed before the “determining step.” PO Resp. 42–45. We agree. First, Patent Owner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “collapsing step” of claim 1 is distinct from, and must occur before, the “determining step” of claim 2 based on the plain language of claims 1 and 2. PO Resp. 42–43. Patent Owner argues that the “collapsing step” and the “determining step” are distinct steps because claims 1 and 2 use different terms to describe these distinct steps that are performed sequentially according to the claim language. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 131:47–54; Ex. 2023 ¶ 133; Ex. 2024, 57:11–58:22). More specifically, Patent Owner explains that claim 1 recites a “collapsing step,” followed by claim 2, which depends from claim 1 and refers to “collapsing” before “determining a consensus base call” such that “claim 2 describes determining a consensus base call from collapsed reads, not performing ‘collapsing’ by determining a consensus base call.” Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 131:47–54). collapsing corrects for skewing, an issue related to over- or under-amplification, which is a separate and distinct problem from the sequence errors that a consensus base call is designed to address.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:47–50, 32:29–34). Patent Owner contends further that “‘[c]ollapsing’ is a different step, performed separately from determining any consensus base call, to provide even greater accuracy when subsequently determining a consensus base call” such that “if one were to collapse by determining the consensus base call, errors from amplification bias could still be represented in the consensus base call generated.” Id. at 43–44 (emphasis omitted, citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 134–37). Second, Patent Owner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “collapsing step” of claim 1 is distinct from the “determining step” based on the specification of the ’730 patent. PO Resp. 43–45. For example, Patent Owner explains that the specification states that “[f]or any target:differentiator tag combination observed more than once, all such reads are ‘collapsed’ into a single read before consensus basecalls are determined. This will cancel the effect of bias on consensus basecall accuracy.” Id. at 43 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 72:63– 73:5) (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 133, 138–142).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We have considered both parties’ arguments and evidence and agree with Patent Owner’s position. As discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1 and the “determining step” recited in claim 2 are two different steps required by the challenged claims such that “collapsing” does not mean determining a consensus base call or sequence, and must occur before any determining step. As a result, we determine Chee’s step of determining a consensus sequence does not disclose the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1 that requires collapsing “target:differentiator tag combinations.” We are also unpersuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Chee’s process of correcting for amplification bias as disclosing the claimed collapsing step. As recognized by Patent Owner, the claim language of the “collapsing step” requires “collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations,” rather than collapsing only differentiator tags. In view of this requirement, Chee does not disclose the “collapsing step” because Chee teaches quantifying the starting nucleic acid molecules using their unique identifiers, rather than target:differentiator tag combinations. As Petitioner admits, “Chee’s technique for correcting amplification bias corrects quantitative errors without correcting sequencing errors” (Reply 15), whereas claim 1’s “collapsing step” corrects both quantitative errors and sequencing errors by using target:differentiator tag combinations. See Ex. 1001, 131:47–49 target:differentiator tag combinations).” slip op. at 41

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

    “Given this claim interpretation requiring collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations, it is undisputed that McCloskey, who uses unique barcodes alone, does not teach this limitation. Petitioner does not rely on Bignell as teaching this collapsing step. Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Bignell and McCloskey teaches the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1. Because claims 4 through 6 depend from claim 1, they also require the “collapsing step” of claim 1 that is not taught by the combination of Bignell and McCloskey.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 11,840,730 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,840,730
• Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v. Olink Proteomics ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01353 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness grounds failed, including because Kanan and Neri did not teach selecting the claimed cis-reactive cells.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, for purposes of this decision we adopt Petitioner’s proposal of a person of ordinary skill in the art, with the following changes noted in italics below: A person with “an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., in organic chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related field; and about two years of experience in industry and/or laboratory experience relating to small molecules and proteins and would have been familiar with nucleic acid chemistry and conventional hybridization techniques; and (b) access to one or more team members having an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., in organic chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related field; and about two years of experience in industry and/or laboratory experience relating to high throughput screening techniques such as nucleic acid sequencing. A person could also have qualified as a POSA with less formal education and more technical or professional experience.11 We emphasize, however, that our decision would not change if we instead used Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSA.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Because the parties have placed the limitation “selecting all cis- reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace” into controversy, we construe the term below, but only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase, in light of the language of the claims, the Specification, and the prosecution history of record, requires “selecting all of the [molecular complexes or structures] meeting the defined criteria for [cis-reactive cells (CRCs)] and exhibiting the detectable trace.” Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 94, 98–119). We further agree that cis-reactive cells should be construed to mean “an association of at least two interactor moieties, joined by an associated oligonucleotide.” (PO Resp. 9 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:35-37)). Accordingly, we determine that, properly construed, the claims require that what is “selected” at step 1(d) — what is differentiated or set apart from other molecular complexes or structures in the reaction mixture at the conclusion of step 1(d) — to be “an association of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide” that exhibits the detectable trace.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Kanan and Neri teaches “selecting all cis-reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace,” as we have construed that phrase above. In particular, we determine that, properly construed, the limitation requires the selection of “all associations of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide and exhibiting the detectable trace.” Instead, as described in Kanan, what is “selected” is the molecules of interest joined by bond formation, with only one of the molecules of interest coupled to a nucleic acid moiety. Thus, the selected molecular complex or structure does not comprise two interactors (i.e., two molecules of interest coupled to NAMs). Moreover, to the extent there are two interactors, they are joined by the bond between the molecules of interest rather than an associated oligonucleotide.” slip op. at 35

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Patent Owner moved to exclude Exhibit 1008, on the ground that it contains settlement statements and that Rule 408 of the Federal Rule of Evidence prohibits Petitioner from using the statements to impeach or contradict Patent Owner. Mot. 5. Because we do not rely in our analysis on this exhibit, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 7,883,848 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,883,848
• Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01261 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach the claimed predetermined cycle for controlling distal fluid flow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(1) a person with a B.S. in engineering or an equivalent field, with two-four years of academic or industry experience in aspiration embolectomy and thrombectomy or comparable industry experience who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including a physician, to develop embolectomy or thrombectomy devices; or (2) an interventional neurosurgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in embolectomy or thrombectomy procedures, and who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including an engineer, to develop such a medical device. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 48). Petitioner also contends that, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner states that for purposes of its PO Response, it “accepts ¶ 44). We adopt Petitioner’s characterization because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’402 patent and the cited prior art. 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 8

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

    “specification explicitly includes sensors similar to those in the prior art in support of their argument that the claimed “predetermined cycle” must not exclude the use of such sensors. Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:55–33:7, 40:66–41:5, 44:9–29). We reviewed the portions of the specification cited by Petitioner. We agree with Patent Owner that one excerpt discussing sensor use appears to be directed to triggering the predetermined cycle rather than causing timing changes during the cycle itself (Ex. 1001, 32:55–66) (describing use of a pressure sensor to “determine when the vacuum channel 3 is clogged by a thrombus and automatically perform the unclogging procedures described herein”), while another excerpt discusses a sensor that Petitioner that the ’402 patent discusses the use of sensors to “tune” the system and that such “tuning” can be done statically (setting the cycle timing in advance) or dynamically (adjusting the timing during the cycle itself). See Ex. 1001, 48:19–49:50. Overall, we find that these disclosures involving sensors demonstrate that sensors may be used in various ways in different embodiments. However, none of these disclosures explicitly discuss the use of sensors in conjunction with a “pre-determined cycle.” Therefore, we find that the ’402 patent specification’s discussion of “sensors” are not particularly informative as to the appropriate construction of a “predetermined cycle” and do not outweigh the other explicit disclosures of “predetermined cycle” in the patent. We next turn to the other intrinsic evidence discussed by the parties — the prosecution history. As discussed by Patent Owner, in the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner found that Garrison did not teach or suggest a “predetermined cycle” because Garrison’s controller “changed the cycle of opening and closing the valves based on feedback from sensors.” Ex. 1004, 86. We acknowledge that the patent applicant filed subsequent comments during prosecution in which they stated that they “do[] not concede that the Examiner’s characterizations of the terms of the claims and the prior art are correct.” Id. at 29. However, we agree with Patent Owner that the importance of the Examiner’s statement in the Notice of Allowance does not rely on it being an express disclaimer (a standard which it does not meet). PO Sur-reply 8. We also considered Petitioner’s contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of Garrison may have been in error (PO Resp. 16); however, even if this were true, the Examiner’s statement still provides helpful insight into how the Examiner was interpreting the term sensors to change the opening and closing of valves during a cycle was not a “predetermined cycle.” Id. at 86. In sum, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the usage of the term “predetermined cycle” in the ’402 patent specification and prosecution history. Thus, after considering all of the cited evidence, we construe “predetermined cycle” to mean that “the timing of the sequence of valve operations in the cycle is determined beforehand, i.e., fixed, rather than varying based on feedback after operation begins.”” slip op. at 14

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

    “2. Other Terms The parties also provided proposed constructions for the limitations of “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” and “control[ling] fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” See Pet. 15–16; Pet. Reply 1–8; PO Resp. 22–24; PO Sur-Reply 2–6. However, having evaluated the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing 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 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor Mr. Brown propose any combination of Yang and Mullins that does not include Mullins’s pressure sensor in order “to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Indeed, in addressing the “predetermined cycle” limitation, Mr. Brown contends that Mullins discloses a “cycling controller that ‘varies aspiration pressure according to sensed pressure within the catheter lumen.’” Ex.1005 ¶¶ 131–32 (citing, e.g., Ex.1008, 27:40–28:20 (“[a] novel aspect of this pump system is the incorporation of feedback into the pump algorithm in order to produce more effective pressure cycling”)). This use of a sensor to change pressure during a cycle, is not a “predetermined cycle” under our construction. combinations is its discussion of distal end flow control, not for its sensors.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 83). However, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds rely on the combination of Yang and Mullins, especially with regard to Mullins’s disclosure of “a controller” in order “to control fluid flow in and out.” As discussed above, Mullins relies on the sensor-feedback approach in order to control flow and we find that Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence of how the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins would control flow without using Mullins’s sensor feedback approach. See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (error to “consider[] … references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in [them] … that diverge from and teach away from the invention”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of Yang and Mullins discloses or renders obvious “a controller configured to open and close the vacuum valve and the vent valve in a predetermined cycle to change a level of vacuum at the distal end of the catheter and to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective evidence and arguments, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’402 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Yang and Mullins.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,406,402 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,406,402
• Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29

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

    “Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,906,508
• Illumina Inc. v. Molecular Loop Innovations LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2026 · IPR2024-00964 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable over either asserted §103 combination because the prior art did not teach the discarding step or establish a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “specification to interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the specification into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[T]he line between construing terms and importing limitations”, however, “can be discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if [our] focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms.” Id. Ultimately, we construe claim terms to “capture the scope of the actual invention more accurately than either strictly limiting the scope of the claims to the embodiments disclosed in the specification or divorcing the claim language from the specification.” Id. at 1324. Here, we are tasked with resolving the dispute between the parties as to the scope of the source of the claimed cross-over error. See Sur-reply 2. Although claim 1 does not explicitly recite cross-over error is created during cluster amplification, the specification shows otherwise. It repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively describes cross-over errors as arising from the formation of chimeric molecules during the amplification step of the sequencing workflow. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, 4:29–52 (describing “improper molecular overlap via formation of a heteroduplex between patient A’s nucleic acid template and patient B’s nucleic acid template” “[w]hen the amplification process begins”), 5:29–58 (the same), 6:25–44 (the same), 6:64–7:23 (the same).” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had (i) a Ph.D. in molecular biology, genetics, bioinformatics, or a related field and at least two years of experience in high-throughput sequencing technologies or (ii) a Master’s degree in one of the same fields with at least four years of experience in high-throughput sequencing technologies.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–20). Patent Owner states that it adopts Petitioner’s proposal for a POSA for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–22). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skill level as it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We find both Dr. Spellman and Dr. Adalsteinsson are qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSA, because each has at least ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 4–9.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 9 Because, as explained below, we find Petitioner has not met its burden to show reasonable expectation of success, we do not need to address whether Petitioner has shown sufficient reason to combine the asserted references. 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (stating that “failure to consider the appropriate scope of the . . . patent’s claimed invention in evaluating the reasonable expectation of success . . . constitutes a legal error”). Here, the claimed invention is a method for reducing template cross-over error. Thus, we must determine whether, in December 2010, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably expected that the combination of Parameswaran and Gloor would reduce template cross-over error. slip op. at 26

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

    “Thus, on this record, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Parameswaran’s “unexpected perfect pairings of unmatched forward and reverse barcodes” are not cross-over error. PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 116–123). In addition, as Petitioner acknowledges, Parameswaran merely “distinguished,” but did not “discard” sequences with mismatches. Pet. 34. Parameswaran states that “[t]he low false-discovery rate for perfect matches strengthens the argument that any sequence with both 5’ and 3’ barcode motifs will be placed with reasonable accuracy into the correct bin.” Ex. 1004, 8. But, because Parameswaran achieved a “remarkably low misassignment rate,” it did not discard, but included any sequence with a matched barcode. Id. Indeed, Parameswaran explains that “[f]or our purposes, all sequences with a match to one of the two expected sequence motifs were considered as true members of the corresponding dataset.” Id. In its Reply, Petitioner emphasizes Parameswaran’s language “[f]or our purposes.” Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 8). According to Petitioner, “[a] POSA would have understood from Parameswaran that chimeric sequences could be kept or discarded, depending on the sequencing ‘purpose.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1054 ¶¶ 79–82). Petitioner is asking us to deem unpatentable a claim based on its reading of “for our purposes,” a broad, undefined statement, to mean something specific—a suggestion to discard perfect unexpected pairings, which Parameswaran explicitly did not do. See Ex. 1004, 8. Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence and persuasive argument for us to do so.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,041,852 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,041,852
• Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00580 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claim 8 not shown unpatentable under each of three §103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish motivation to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had at least a Ph.D. in biochemistry, molecular biology, or a related field and between one and four years of post-doctoral experience in the field of gene therapy. Alternatively, a POSA would have had at least a Master’s or Bachelor’s Degree in biochemistry, molecular biology, or a related field, with a corresponding number of additional years of experience in the field of gene therapy. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–115). Patent Owner states that it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 10. On this complete record, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’274 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the ’274 patent “does not specify a particular program or set of program parameters that should be used to align sequences and calculate percent identity for purposes of determining whether a particular test sequence falls within the scope of the claims.” Pet. 21. Petitioner asserts that it analyzed the percent identity claim elements, as Patent Owner did in the parallel District Court litigation, Penn-II, “using the Clustal program at default settings to generate amino acid sequence alignments and calculate percent identity values.” Id. at 21–22. Petitioner, however, does not ask for any particular construction of any claim term. See id. Patent Owner states that it “does not challenge Petitioner’s articulation of the lack of a need for claim construction.” PO Resp. 10. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary to reach our decision. 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)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. v. Matal, 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., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “According to the import of the complete recitation of paragraph 250 of the ’772 Publication set forth above that Petitioner relies upon for the motivation to improve efficient gene transfer in liver, AAV8 already fulfills this need. See Tr. 28:15–18. We do not read the ’772 Publication as calling for a search for a more efficient variant to improve efficient gene transfer in liver. We credit Dr. Samulski’s testimony that supports this view of the teachings of the ’772 Publication. Dr. Samulski testifies: Additionally, when the inventors compared AAV8’s expression in the liver against new serotypes AAVrh2, AAVrh10, AAVrh13, and AAVrh21, they found that AAV8 remained superior: EX1007, ¶ 253. Notably, AAV8 was shown to have over fifty percent (50%) greater expression in liver than AAVrh10. As I discuss more below, a skilled artisan in 2005 would not have expected a single amino acid substitution to significantly alter tropism in order to target to a different tissue. Thus, in my opinion, in 2005, a skilled artisan with the goal of targeting the liver would have selected the best known vector for delivery to liver at that time—AAV8. Ex. 2027 ¶ 42. We also agree with Dr. Samulski’s opinion that a POSA would have selected the best vector for liver, AAV8, instead of modifying another vector to increase tropism to liver. Dr. Samulski testifies: In my opinion, a skilled artisan in 2005 would not have looked solely to modify a vector to try to improve tropism to a particular tissue. As discussed throughout this declaration, changing tropism is difficult to predict, and a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation that changes could be made to improve or alter tropism. A skilled artisan would also have been concerned that changes, even small ones, could negatively impact other properties of the capsid protein. Therefore, rather than seek to modify a vector, a skilled artisan” slip op. at 29

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

    “The ’772 Publication, however, does not indicate as Petitioner asserts that a new variant is necessary to improve the efficiency of gene transfer to liver; the ’772 Publication indicates that AAV8 fulfills that need. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 250. In the paragraph that Petitioner relies upon for the alleged need to improve the efficiency of gene transfer to the liver, the ’772 Publication states in full: The tropism of each new vector is favorable for in vivo applications. AAV2/7 vectors appear to transduce skeletal muscle as efficiently as AAV2/1, which is the serotype that confers the highest level of transduction in skeletal muscle of the primate AAVs tested to date. Importantly, AAV2/8 provides a substantial advantage over the other serotypes in terms of efficiency of gene transfer to liver that until now has been relatively disappointing in terms of the numbers of hapatocytes stably transduced. AAV2/8 consistently achieved a 10 to 100-fold improvement in gene transfer efficiency as compared to the other vectors. The basis for the improved efficiency of AAV2/8 is unclear, although it presumably is due to uptake via a different receptor that is more active on the basolateral surface of hepatocytes. This improved efficiency will be quite useful in the development of liver-directed gene transfer where the number of transduced cells is critical, such as in urea cycle disorders and familial hypercholesterolemia. Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). According to the import of the complete recitation of paragraph 250 of the ’772 Publication set forth above that Petitioner relies upon for the motivation to improve efficient gene transfer in liver, AAV8 already fulfills this need. See Tr. 28:15–18. We do not read the ’772 Publication as calling for a search for a more efficient variant to improve efficient gene transfer in liver. We credit Dr. Samulski’s testimony that supports this view of the teachings of the ’772 Publication. Dr. Samulski testifies: Additionally, when the inventors compared AAV8’s expression in the liver against new serotypes AAVrh2, AAVrh10, AAVrh13, and AAVrh21, they found that AAV8 remained superior:” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 11,680,274 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,680,274
• Gene Company Pty Ltd v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00313 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–54 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combinations; objective indicia also supported non-obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “As to the first issue, we agree with Patent Owner that defining the level of skill in view of the solution described in the patent risks improper hindsight. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 18 (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a . . . lens through which . . . the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention,” which “prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or . . . hindsight[] to gauge obviousness.”). We therefore do not include “practical knowledge about . . . the deuterium isotope effect, including the patents and publications discussed [in the Petition],” as part of our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” in an obviousness analysis, we give some weight to Dr. Guengerich’s testimony. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that “motivation to combine may be found. . . in . . . the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill”). Nevertheless, even if we were to agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have seen the 1,5-shift in NRPE in Mata’s A2E biosynthetic pathway as a particularly desirable location for intervention, we are not persuaded that such a person would have been motivated to substitute C20 deuterated vitamin A for the vitamin A in Ortho Pharma’s composition and method, because Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that such an artisan would have reasonably expected the substitution to retard the accumulation of A2E or to treat macular degeneration.” slip op. at 42

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the preamble of claim 28 as limiting. Inst. Dec. 30–31. Petitioner did not take issue with our construction, or dispute Patent Owner’s construction of the preambles of claims 1 and 29 as also limiting. After consideration of the full trial record, we maintain our construction of the preamble of claim 28 as limiting for the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision. For similar reasons and the reasons set forth in Patent Owner’s Response, we further construe the preambles of claims 1 and 29 as limiting. See PO Resp. 12–14. We further determine that we do not need to construe any other claim term in order to resolve the controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 26

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

    “415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this framework, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS RE47,045 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Twinstrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2024 · IPR2022-01400 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds because the prior-art combinations did not teach key limitations of claims 1, 17, and 29.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered these arguments on the full trial record, we find Patent Owner has the better position because Petitioner’s showing that element 1(b) is taught by Schmitt is unpersuasive. We begin with Patent Owner’s argument concerning the distinction between the cfDNA molecules and the duplex tag comprising the molecular barcode found in the text of claim 1. Element 1(a) recites “a population of cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) molecules.” Ex. 1001, 61:7–9. Element 1(b) recites “tagging a plurality of the cfDNA molecules in the population” of element 1(a) “with duplex tags comprising molecular barcodes to produce tagged parent polynucleotides . . . wherein the duplex tags are attached to both ends of a added). We agree with Patent Owner and credit the testimony of its declarant that this claim language distinguishes the duplex tags from the ends of the cfDNA molecule to which they are attached. Resp. 8; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 38–39, 60, 61. That is, the duplex tag is not part of the cfDNA molecule itself, but rather is “attached to both the ends” of that molecule by “tagging” it as recited in element 1(b). We also agree with Patent Owner that given this distinction, claim 1 does not encompass Schmitt’s hybrid embodiment. Resp. 18–20. As Petitioner notes, “[i]n Schmitt’s hybrid-tag embodiment, the strands are grouped based on the combination of the short n-mer barcode and the end of the target DNA.” Pet. 11; see Resp. 17 (“[T]he combination of the endogenous shear sequence and exogenous 3-mer sequence together provide the SMI used for grouping and matching in Schmitt’s DCS process.”). Petitioner and its declarant illustrate the grouping in Schmitt’s hybrid embodiment with the following diagram. Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96–98. Petitioner’s diagram shows the PCR products produced from sequencing a “Target DNA” molecule that has been tagged with 3-mers X and Y according to Schmitt’s hybrid embodiment. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 98 (describing diagram). A portion of the endogenous sequence of the DNA molecule labeled L and R is used in combination with the 3-mer sequence to group the resulting strands into two families labeled the “X+L→R+Y Family” and the “R+Y→X+L Family.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 98; Ex. 2015 ¶ 62 (explaining that Petitioner’s diagram shows that “the relied upon hybrid SMI sequences of Schmitt include sequence from the sample DNA molecule not contained in the adapter or the duplex tags”). SMIs, differently label the strands and therefore are the recited “duplex tags.” See Pet. 27–28 (“duplex tags comprise both the fragment DNA end sequences and a shorter n-mer tag”) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted). However, we credit Dr. Quackenbush’s testimony that end sequences L and R are not “attached to both ends” of the cfDNA molecule by “tagging” it as recited in element 1(b). See Ex. 2015 ¶ 59–62 (explaining that Schmitt’s hybrid SMI sequences include a portion of the sample DNA molecule, which is “not contained in adapter molecules or duplex tags that are attached to the DNA molecules”). Rather, end sequences L and R are the pre-existing, endogenous ends of that molecule. Id. Thus, Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability does not account for the distinction the claim language draws between the cfDNA molecule and the duplex tags. Petitioner’s argument that the ’306 patent defines “duplex tag” as a” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “That is, although Meyer teaches that its particular protocol results in 40–60% tagging efficiency, Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Meyer’s tagging efficiency to apply to Schmitt’s DCS method when used with Narayan’s sequencing of cfDNA. For example, the Petition does not address the differences between Meyer’s adapters and Schmitt’s adapters and how those differences affect the tagging efficiency. Meyer’s barcodes comprise “single self-hybridized palindromic oligonucleotides, carrying an Srf I restriction site in the middle (GCCCGGGC), a sequence tag at the 3’ end and the reverse complementary tag sequence at the 5’ end.” Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. Schmitt, on the other hand, teaches a “hybrid method” of tagging that uses a combination of the sheared ends of the DNA fragments and a “shorter n-mer tag (such as 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or more degenerate or semi degenerate bases) in the adaptor.” Ex. 1083 ¶ 30. sticky-end adapter-DNA litigation to be even more efficient than Meyer’s blunt-end adapter-DNA ligation” is also unpersuasive. See Pet. 60–61. The KAPA data sheet discloses sticky-end adapter DNA ligation, but KAPA teaches that only 0.5 to 15% tagging efficiency is expected when the starting sample is 100 pg–100 ng of “high quality DNA.” Ex. 1015, 4. Thus, the KAPA data suggests that the use of sticky-end adapters, such as what Schmitt discloses, does not in and of itself teach or suggest the tagging efficiency limitations. Moreover, the record shows that tagging efficiency depends on a variety of other factors, including the quality of the input DNA. The KAPA data sheet states that tagging efficiency “can be significantly lower for DNA of lower quality.” Ex. 1015, 4. Fisher also explains that “the efficiency of adaptor ligation varies between samples, probably because of variation in input DNA quality.” Ex. 1031, 5–6. Petitioner’s argument that the DNA the KAPA data sheet refers to as “lower quality” is “from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (‘FFPE’) samples (well known for having chemically damaged DNA)” is unavailing. See Reply 25–26 (citing Ex. 1098 ¶¶ 96–98). First, neither Petitioner, nor its declarant, address the similar teaching in Fisher. Second, even if the specific type of lower quality DNA in the KAPA data sheet is different, the salient point, i.e., that tagging efficiency depends on DNA quality, remains unrebutted. This is significant because Petitioner does not sufficiently address how the quality of the cfDNA of Narayan compares to the quality of the genomic DNA samples of Meyer and Schmitt or how that would affect the expected tagging efficiency. Petitioner’s assertion that “significant quantities of cfDNA could be isolated from blood samples” (see Reply 26), fact that a significant quantity of cfDNA could be obtained does not show that the quality of that DNA is similar such that a POSA using such would have expected to achieve a tagging efficiency similar to that in Meyer.” slip op. at 40

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied

    “We are not persuaded. First, this is an inappropriate new argument. The Petition presents a different mapping, alleging that the “duplex tag” comprises both the endogenous end sequence of the cfDNA molecule and the 3-mer barcode of Schmitt’s hybrid tag embodiment. Pet. 27 (“the duplex tags comprise both the fragment DNA end sequences and ‘a shorter n-mer tag’ to serve as ‘unique molecular identifiers’”) (quoting Ex. 1083 ¶ 30, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162–163); see also Tr. 62:13–63:19 (Petitioner’s counsel noting he was unaware of any explicit statement in the Petition that Schmitt’s duplex tag comprised just the 3-mer without the end sequence). Nor did Petitioner regarding element 1(b). See Reply 8–10. Rather, consistent with the mapping in the Petition, the Reply identifies “Schmitt’s hybrid tags,” i.e., the combination of the endogenous end sequence and the n-mer, as the duplex tags in element 1(b). See Reply 8 (urging that “duplex tags” are “tags that differently label the complementary strands,” which “is precisely what Schmitt’s hybrid tags do”). Because this argument was not previously presented, Patent Owner has not been afforded a sufficient opportunity to address it. Thus, Petitioner’s new argument excluding the end sequences in Schmitt’s hybrid tag embodiment from the alleged “duplex tags comprising molecular barcodes” has been waived. Second, even if we were to consider it on the merits, Petitioner’s new mapping for element 1(b) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s allegations for element 1(e). Element 1(e) recites “reducing or tracking redundancy” in sequence reads “using at least sequencing information from the molecular barcodes of the duplex tags to determine distinct cfDNA molecules.” Ex. 1001, 61:26–30. For these limitations, the Petition points to Schmitt’s grouping of reads into families based on their SMI and asserts that Schmitt determines distinct cfDNA molecules based on “the complementary nature of the SMI on the two strands of the duplex.” See Pet. 30–32 (internal quotations omitted). Thus, like Petition’s mapping for element 1(b), Petitioner’s allegations for element 1(e) rely on a duplex tag that includes both the 3-mer and the end sequence of the cfDNA molecule. Petitioner has not sufficiently explained, much less shown by a preponderance of the evidence, that Schmitt teaches or suggests the limitations in element 1(e) based on its new mapping of the 3-mer alone as duplex tags.” slip op. at 25

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We do not rely on any of these exhibits in rendering our decision on Petitioner’s grounds. Therefore, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1069, 1074, 1078, 1079, and 1085–1088.” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 11,149,306 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,149,306
• Streck, Inc. / Streck LLC v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01577 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 55–61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89–92, 94, 126–130, 132, and 133 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “III. MOTIONS Motion to Strike (Paper 50) Petitioner filed a motion to strike portions of Patent Owner’s Sur- Reply. Paper 50. Patent Owner opposes the motion. Paper 53. Petitioner contends Patent Owner raised new argument about Exhibit 1014 (a paper authored by Dr. Patterson), which was submitted with the filing of the Petition but only cited by Patent Owner for the first time in its Sur-Reply. Paper 50, 1–3; PO Sur-Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1014). According to Petitioner, Patent Owner presents new argument about the reversibility of certain crosslinks caused by formaldehyde, cites new experimental data (in Ex. 1014, Fig. 2.1), and argues such matters would have been known before any possible priority date of the ’277 patent. Paper 50, 1–3. Moreover, Petitioner argues, the untimeliness of Patent Owner’s arguments about Exhibit 1014 prevented the exhibit’s author, Dr. Patterson, from addressing them to provide explanation or context. Id. at 2–3. For the reasons given below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to strike. First, we find that Patent Owner’s arguments on Exhibit 1014 are, on balance, responsive to issues raised by Petitioner in its Reply. It is true that Petitioner submitted Exhibit 1014 with its Petition and that Patent Owner did not cite it until its Sur-Reply. However, the points raised by Patent Owner about Exhibit 1014 respond to certain of Petitioner’s arguments raised for the first time in its Reply. For example, Petitioner argued a POSA would not have been concerned about formaldehyde’s use (such as cross-linking disclosed in Heinmoller that Patent Owner cited in its Response) and that those concerns arose only after the supposed priority date of the ’277 patent. 88 Pet. Reply 8–9. Patent Owner’s citation of Exhibit 1014 is responsive on such points (e.g., it discusses cross-linking with formaldehyde’s use), it published in 2000 and is thus earlier than some references Petitioner argued were too late to evidence a POSA’s knowledge, and, lastly, it was authored by Dr. Patterson and arguably called into question the credibility of rebuttal opinions he offered about the state of a POSA’s knowledge on such issues. Second, Exhibit 1014 does not, ultimately, help Patent Owner as we do not rely on the portions of Exhibit 1014 cited by Patent Owner or Patent Owner’s argument about them. As discussed in our analysis, if cross-linking (as reported in Heinmoller or, for that matter, Exhibit 1014) was a perceived problem, Dr. Patterson provides a credible explanation how it could be and likely was addressed by Pertl.54 Supra Section II(G)(3) (citing Ex. 1047).” slip op. at 88

  • ExcludeDenied

    “by the non-designating party. See generally Paper 60. We nevertheless reviewed the designated testimony. The objections are overruled, but were also considered during review.” slip op. at 90

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

    “evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on grounds advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 93

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “3. Conclusion For the reasons above, we find Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Chiu/Lee discloses “an agent that inhibits cell lysis, if cells are present” as recited in independent claims 55 and 81, and the claims depending therefrom. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that claims 55–59, 61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89, 94, and 126–130 would have been obvious over Chiu and Lee.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,277 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,277
• Illumina, Inc. v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2023 · IPR2021-01271 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 21, 22, and 24–30 were not shown unpatentable because Illumina did not prove that glucose in the cited ACD samples necessarily impeded cell lysis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not expressly contest this definition during trial, noting only that “Dr. Van Ness meets [this] definition” and “confirms [that] his opinions are the same under either party’s definition.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 20–25). To the extent there are minor differences in the above 14 definition and the alternative definition offered by Dr. Van Ness (Ex. 2239 ¶ 23), Dr. Van Ness’s proposal is too broad for at least the reason that it does not require the POSA have experience collecting and analyzing cell-free DNA from blood samples—subject matter relevant to the claims and applied art. Accordingly, we continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition here.13 In any event, the parties’ technical declarants meet or exceed either definition and there is no indication that their opinions would change depending on which definition was applied, and no argument from the parties to the contrary. Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 5–10 (overview of qualifications and experience); Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 4–7 (same).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “presents is whether a claimed agent that inhibits cell lysis may be a chelator used as an anticoagulant. The Specification and prosecution history make clear that at least one anticoagulant chelator—EDTA—is excluded from satisfying the claimed agent as recited in claim 1. As discussed above, the Specification describes an example where a sample processed in a tube with only EDTA is described as processing a sample in the “absence” of an agent that inhibits cell lysis. Ex. 1001, 89:35–57 (describing, in contrast, the EDTA + formalin sample as showing an example in the “presence of inhibitors of cell lysis”). If EDTA alone could be read as meeting the “agent” limitation, that example would make no sense. Petitioner provides no persuasive argument otherwise. The prosecution history buttresses the exclusion of the anticoagulant chelator EDTA from being the claimed “agent.” For example, during prosecution of the related ’277 patent, the Examiner at one point expressly 20 identified the EDTA in the tubes of a prior art reference as satisfying the agent term, prompting applicant’s argument that the Office was “incorrect” in doing so, and further distinguishing EDTA as merely “a well-known chelator of calcium and magnesium” that is added to blood “as an anticoagulant due to its ability to chelate calcium.” Ex. 2064, 1196 (arguing “EDTA is clearly referred to as a chelator in Applicant’s specification, not as a cell lysis inhibitor”); supra Section I(E); Ex. 1001, 32:61–64 (listing EDTA and EGTA as chelators). This, in turn, convinced the Examiner to withdraw the finding that EDTA was an “agent” as claimed and move on to art that disclosed formaldehyde as meeting that claim term. Ex. 2064, 1024 (Examiner interview summary noting that “applicant pointed out [that] EDTA could not be defined as a cell lysis inhibitor but rather was simply an anticoagulant”). This colloquy during prosecution evidences a clear and unmistakable disavowal of EDTA as being the claimed “agent.” Having determined that Patent Owner disavowed EDTA as the claimed “agent,” we next consider whether the disavowal extends more broadly to other anticoagulant chelators and, specifically, to ACD. On this record, we find that it does as explained below. In distinguishing EDTA from being the “agent,” Patent Owner relied not on properties that are unique to EDTA, but on the fact that it was a “well-known chelator” used as an anticoagulant in this technical field. Ex. 2064, 1196. Given Patent Owner’s clear intent to exclude EDTA from the scope of the claimed “agent” on the basis that it was simply an anticoagulant chelator, we find that a POSA would also have understood other anticoagulant chelators as subject to Patent Owner’s disavowal.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “20 Before institution, Patent Owner contested the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on whether Landes was entitled to the priority benefit of the filing date of the Landes provisional application. We disagreed that Petitioner’s showing was insufficient. Inst. Dec. 43–47. Patent Owner did not raise any issue during trial about Landes’s prior art status and, thus, has forfeited any argument that Landes is not prior art. On this record, we determine that Landes is § 102(a) prior art based on its July 31, 2003, publication date. On this record, we do not presume the claims of the ’720 patent are entitled to any earlier priority date of other applications listed in its ancestral chain. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that “there is simply no reason to presume that claims in a [CIP] application are entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application”). That is especially true with the patent’s complex priority chain, involving several CIPs leading back to a provisional application filed 26” slip op. at 26

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

    “Altogether, considering the argument and evidence of record, Petitioner has shown, at best, that it is possible for glucose to help impede cell lysis by reason of isotonicity and providing a nutrient source. But such possibilities are not enough for Petitioner to prevail on its challenge to the claims as anticipated by Landes. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or 41 possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech, 936 F.3d at 1364 (same). Petitioner has not, on this record, met its burden to show that the glucose component of ACD in Landes’s specific method is an “agent that impedes cell lysis” in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,727,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,727,720

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.