• Preomics GmbH / Biognosys AG. v. The Brigham And Women’S Hospital, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01473 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Cai; claims 2, 3, 7, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner and again find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art sufficient for the reasons explained in the Decision on institution. See Dec. 8–10. As explained before, the formal training required by Petitioner’s description of a POSA includes understanding of both proteins and analytical techniques for studying them. See Dec. 9. Neither Patent Owner, nor its declarant, Dr. Cimas, clearly articulates a competing POSA description at trial, but both suggest more formal training, e.g., a graduate degree, is required. See Resp. 65–66; Ex. 2023 ¶ 8 (agreeing with our observation that the educational backgrounds of the inventors and authors of Cai, Zaccaria, and Hu “suggests that a graduate degree is more typical for a POSA”) (quoting Dec. 9, n. 5). Even if we were to accept that modification, it would not change our findings herein. Nor does it suggest that Dr. Vargas, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Stanford University and has substantial experience with mass spectrometry and other analytical techniques, is unqualified to testify from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1004 (Vargas CV). Accordingly, our findings and conclusions would be the same, even assuming the perspective of a POSA possessing the higher level of formal training and specific proteomics experience that Patent Owner suggests is appropriate here.5” slip op. at 9

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

    “Ex. 1001, 20:33–39. As Petitioner points out, the first sentence in this passage does not define the term “biological sample,” but rather the term “sample.” Id. According to that sentence, the term “sample” refers to either “a biological sample or a complex biological sample obtained from a subject.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument assumes, without explanation, that the phrase “obtained from a subject” modifies both instances of “biological sample” in the first sentence. Id. But it need not be read that way. Indeed, that sentence is more naturally read to define “sample” as one of two things––either a “biological sample” or a “complex biological sample” with only the latter being “obtained from a subject.” Id. In addition, the second sentence in the passage above supports Petitioner’s view that the term “biological sample” is not limited to a sample obtained directly from a subject. It provides a broad, non-exhaustive list of “[s]uitable biological samples” that specifically includes the types of biological samples, i.e., “cell lysates,” “systemic blood,” “plasma,” assayed in Petitioner’s cited references. Ex. 1001, 20:36–39. It also lists as an example “processed tissue samples,” which would include samples that have been modified (i.e., “processed”) from the form in which they were originally obtained. Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 20:52–57 (describing tissue processing). Given this broad description, we agree with Petitioner that there is no basis in the cited intrinsic evidence for reading in the “negative limitations” Patent Owner seeks to try to distinguish the particular biological samples assayed in Cai, Hu, and Zaccaria. See Reply 3–4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Step 1(a) recites forming coronas around a plurality of particles of “different particle types.” Ex. 1001, 86:53–60. Step 1(b) recites separating a “subset of the plurality of the particles comprising the coronas.” Id. at 86:61–65. As Petitioner correctly observes, as a matter of ordinary English parlance, “there is no requirement whatsoever that the ‘subset’ have all of the same characteristics as the set from which it is separated.” Reply 10. By way of analogy, consider a jar containing a plurality of coins of different coin types, e.g., nickels and dimes. One can separate out a “subset” of that plurality of coins (plural) by removing any two coins from the jar—this is true even if the two coins are both nickels or both dimes. In the same way, nothing in the ordinary meaning of the claim language requires the subset in step 1(b) to include particles with coronas representative of each of the different particle types in step 1(a). Nor has Patent Owner identified any other evidence that supports its attempt to read such a requirement into the claims. See Resp. 16, 18 (citing expert testimony that is not inconsistent with the broader, ordinary meaning of the claim language and, even if it was, would not be a proper basis for limiting the same). For these reasons, we reject Patent Owner’s interpretation of “a subset of the plurality of particles comprising the coronas” in step 1(b) as limited to a subset of each type of particle comprising the coronas formed in step 1(a).” slip op. at 15

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

    “We credit Petitioner’s showing above and agree that Cai discloses a method comprising all of the steps in claim 1. Beginning with step 1(a), Cai discloses contacting two different particle types, i.e., MWCNT and CB, with HeLa cell lysate (i.e., a biological sample) to form protein coronas around those particles. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 199–206; Ex. 1005, Abstr. (describing MWCNT and CB as distinct “forms of carbon nanoparticles” that bind “vastly different sets of proteins”). Cai’s results show the coronas formed around the MWCNT and CB particles comprise overlapping and distinct proteins as recited in step 1(a). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 216–222; Ex. 1005, 587 (“a small number of CB-binding proteins also bind to MWCNTs”). A subset of the proteins from the coronas on these particles is then prepared by eluting the bound proteins and analyzing them with SDS-PAGE in a MWCNT and CB “pull-down,” which reads on step 1(b). Ex. 1005, 586 (Fig. 1A–B depicting scheme for “pull-down experiment” and describing other “pull-down experiments” used with SILAC media in Fig. 3), 588 (Fig. 3). Regarding step 1(c), Cai discloses assaying the proteins in those subsets using LC-MS/MS with SILAC encoding to characterize and quantify the relative abundance of the proteins that bind to each type of particle.11 Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229; Ex. 1005, 586–587 (describing “systemic characterization of carbon nanoparticle-protein corona”), 588 (Fig. 3). Cai’s results show “the relative abundance of the MWCNT-binding proteins spread over 8 orders of magnitude” and that “some of the proteins with the highest binding efficiencies” are actually “low abundance proteins” in the lysate, meaning that that Cai’s method selectively enriches such proteins for detection. Ex. 1005, 587. We credit Dr. Vargas’s testimony that these results demonstrate that Cai’s method achieves the “dynamic range” recited in step 1(c). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,435,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,435,360
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, sensor system design and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 26. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’178 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring-type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,868,178
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01434 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 15 are unpatentable over Chung and Olmos-based obviousness grounds; claims 10–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach the claimed complementary relationship.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “improperly incorporates-by-reference 12 pages of expert testimony via a single sentence.” PO Sur-reply 16 n.2 (citing Pet. Reply 17, which in turn cites Ex. 1026 (Hatch Decl.) ¶¶ 49–66). We find that many of the paragraphs within the cited range (i.e., Hatch Declaration paragraphs 49–66) appear to have a tenuous connection to the proposition for which Petitioner cites these paragraphs. See Pet. Reply 17. That said, we find that paragraphs 53–55 directly relate to Petitioner’s proposition in the Reply, i.e., that “Petitioner’s experts explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would rely on a cross-sectional view over a perspective view for making the determination in question, because only the cross-sections provide the needed side view directly orthogonal to the positions of the yellow expansion portion and the end of the dovetail.” Id. Accordingly, we find that paragraphs 53–55—the only paragraphs we cite from Petitioner’s range in reaching our conclusion—are not improperly incorporated by reference into Petitioner’s Reply.” slip op. at 66

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “provide Petitioner an opportunity to respond under the new construction, and decline to strike Petitioner’s relevant argument and evidence. Cf. Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1383 (“[W]hen the Board adopts a new claim construction following institution, an IPR petitioner must have adequate notice and an opportunity to respond under the new construction.”). Like in Axonics, in its new arguments on Reply, Petitioner here relies on the same embodiment from the same prior art reference that it relies on in the Petition to support the same legal argument, i.e., that Olmos’s Figure 16 embodiment discloses the “complementary with one another” limitation of challenged claims 10– 14. See Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1384; see also Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (permitting petitioner to elaborate in reply on an unpatentability theory presented in the petition). Moreover, we permitted Patent Owner to file (and it indeed did file) a sur-reply brief and expert declaration that addressed Petitioner’s new obviousness theories. Accordingly, both parties had adequate notice of our preliminary construction and an opportunity to respond under that new construction. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to strike.” slip op. at 124

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “from the expansion portion. We agree with Patent Owner that the wording of this limitation as a whole requires that the “extension necessarily must protrude beyond a longitudinal end of the expansion portion.” Id. at 11. We also agree with Patent Owner that “[u]nder Petitioner’s tenuous theory, an extension in any direction except 90 or 180 degrees would satisfy the claim language since any such direction has a so-called ‘longitudinal component.’” Id. at 13. For these reasons, we disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the purported “longitudinal component” of Chung’s extension satisfies limitation 1[h].” slip op. at 55

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “would have been motivated to add an extension to the Figure 16 embodiment because “an integrally-formed extension advantageously requires fewer parts, which facilitates both manufacturing and use.” Pet. 118. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument is unavailing. PO Resp. 50. Petitioner’s combination entails adding an extension (from Figure 8) to an embodiment lacking one (Figure 16). We agree with Patent Owner that adding a new component (whether separately or integrally) can in some instances complicate manufacturing/assembly and increase costs. See id. (citing Ex. 2013 (Culbert Decl.) ¶ 115). Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed combination in this instance would reduce complexity or facilitate the manufacturing process. Accordingly, we do not rely on this argument offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 106

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,731 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,731
• Tide International (USA), Inc. v. Upl Na Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2022 · IPR2020-01113 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Misselbrook, CN ’588, and JP ’902; claims 7–12 were not shown unpatentable because the grounds did not establish motivation to add a disintegrating agent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “relevant to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the type of problems encountered in the art and prior art solutions to those problems. See Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The prior art itself may also reflect an appropriate level of skill. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We also adopt the parties’ position that the preamble of claims 1 and 7 is not limiting beyond the term “granule.” Claims 1 and 7 each recite “[a] chemically stable dry flow, low compact, dust free soluble phosphoramidothioate granule consisting of” the set of ingredients recited in body of those claims. Ex. 1001, 7:44–45, 8:19–20. While the wherein clause describing the dimensions of “said granule” relies on “granule” in the preamble for antecedent basis, none of the other preamble language appears to be necessary to breathe life and meaning into the claim, and the claim body recites a structurally complete invention. See Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that a preamble is limiting if it is “necessary to give live, meaning, and vitality to the claim,” but “is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body”) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, we agree with the parties, and the district court in the related litigation, that the preamble language other than “granule” is not limiting.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Moreover, we agree that the transitional phrase “consisting of” in claims 1 and 7 creates a “very strong presumption that the claim element is ‘closed’ and therefore exclude[s] any elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim.” Pet. 5; Resp. 12 (both quoting Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Neither party seeks to overcome that presumption, nor do we see any basis for doing so based on the record before us. Accordingly, we construe the challenged claims to be limited to granule compositions containing only those ingredients recited in the claims. There are no other terms that need to be construed to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding. Therefore, we do not construe any additional terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “demonstrating that the “general conditions” regarding the use of these ingredients in such compositions was known. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that any overlap between the claimed and disclosed ranges serves to disclose the “general conditions” of the claim). “Such overlap itself provides sufficient motivation to optimize the ranges.” Id. Moreover, we credit Mr. Geigle’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood because the concentration of acephate was increased the concentration of the other ingredients would necessarily decrease and that a POSITA would have been able optimize these amounts using standard techniques and testing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–113. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated that these ingredient concentrations are result-effective variables that would have been obvious to optimize through routine experimentation.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,473,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,473,685
• Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C. / Douglas Dynamics, Inc. v. Meyer Products LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01839 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 28–31, 36, 38, 39, 43, and 44 are unpatentable under § 103(a); claims 8, 32, 33, and 48–54 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The disclosure of the ’829 patent is expressly addressed to the problem of, and a solution for, unreliable and vulnerable electrical connections caused by splicing auxiliary lights into OEM headlight wiring. The Background of the Invention explains that “[t]raditionally, the auxiliary lights were spliced into the existing wiring for the headlights of the vehicle.” slip op. at 11

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

    “As an initial matter, we observe that whether or not the preamble term “light circuit” is limiting has little bearing on the ultimate disposition of this inter partes review, as it is undisputed that Douglas has identified, for each asserted ground of unpatentability, disclosure of a light circuit. See PO Resp. 11–12. Furthermore, we agree with Douglas that “light circuit” does not connote any structure beyond that explicitly recited in the body of the claims. Indeed, it is unclear that either Meyer or Mr. Ricca disputes such conclusion. For example, Meyer states in its Patent Owner Response that” slip op. at 18

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

    “As a general rule, the words “a” or “an” in a patent claim carry the meaning of “one or more.” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008). That rule is particularly applicable 15 where, as here, those words are used in combination with the open-ended antecedent “comprising.” See, e.g., Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “An exception to the general rule that ‘a’ or ‘an’ means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.” Baldwin Graphic, 512 F.3d at 1342–43. We discern no such exception here. First, Meyer has not identified, and we do not discern, any requirement in the language of the claims to support the conclusion that the recited “an auxiliary light connector to connect an auxiliary light” must be a single auxiliary light connector.” slip op. at 15

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

    “As set forth above, Möller explicitly teaches the incorporation of microprocessors and microcontrollers to improve relay-circuitry-based vehicle electronics systems. Ex. 1006, 4:41–48. Contemporaneous prior art 33 references, including Gould and COP8, disclose advantages obtained through the incorporation of microprocessors and microcontrollers into relay circuitry for controlling end devices, further underscoring that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to modify the relay circuitry of Knepel with the microprocessors and microcontrollers of Möller. See Ex. 1010, 9, 11; Ex. 1011, 14. Moreover, Dr. Neuhalfen testifies, without challenge, that it was well-known at the time of invention of the ’829 patent to use microprocessors to control original vehicle lights, as well as auxiliary lights, and identifies numerous advantages that the proposed combination would afford. Ex. 1014 ¶ 59. Indeed, Meyer’s expert, Mr. Ricca, agrees that it would not have been difficult for an ordinarily skilled artisan to supplement the circuit of Knepel to provide microprocessor control of the relays in that circuit. Ex. 1033, 182:6–11. In view of the teachings of Möller itself, and the contemporaneous prior art, as well as the testimony of Dr. Neuhalfen and Mr. Ricca, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the value of using known elements, i.e., microprocessors and microcontrollers, as taught by Möller, to improve the relay circuitry for controlling original vehicle lights and auxiliary lights of Knepel. We likewise find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the microprocessors of Möller could be incorporated into, i.e., used to supplement, the relay circuitry of Knepel. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,265,829 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,265,829
• Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2015-01490 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 10–15, 23, 25, 27, 30, and 41–43 are unpatentable; claims 17 and 47 were not shown unpatentable; claims 28 and 29 were cancelled.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “based on the complex as a whole, rather than just the carbohydrate component, as Fishbane related to iron dextran complexes. Reply 10. We agree with Petitioner that the language of the term “substantially non-immunogenic carbohydrate component” itself only requires an assessment of the immunogenicity of the carbohydrate component, and disagree with Patent Owner that the claims require an assessment of the immunogenicity of the iron carbohydrate complex as a whole. In that regard, we note that the Specification of the ’702 patent supports our construction that the “substantially non-immunogenic carbohydrate component” is limited to the carbohydrate component as opposed to the iron carbohydrate complex as a whole. Specifically, the Specification teaches in the background section that previously available iron dextran products suffered from a “high incidence of anaphylactoid reactions . . . believed to be caused by the formation of antibodies to the dextran moiety,” while “[o]ther parenteral iron products (e.g., iron sucrose and iron gluconate) do not contain the dextran moiety, and the incidence of anaphylaxis with these products is markedly lower.” Ex. 1001, 1:53–57; see also id. at 11:3‒4 (“non-immunogenic carbohydrate component; no cross reactivity with anti-dextran antibodies”). Moreover, the language of independent claim 1 itself does not require a non-immunogenic complex, but only specifies that the “iron carbohydrate complex has a substantially non-immunogenic carbohydrate component.” Moreover, we decline to limit the term “substantially non- immunogenic carbohydrate complex” to require an incidence level of lower than 0.6%. Rather, what is supported by the claim language and the Specification is a low risk such that the incidence of adverse events of the carbohydrate complex is lower than dextran. See, e.g., Tr. 53‒54 (counsel for Patent Owner acknowledging that Fishbane was not incorporated by reference, and that it was only cited as a “see generally”).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “We do not find a significant different between the requirements for the ordinary artisan proposed by Petitioner and Patent Owner. We agree with Petitioner (Pet. 14) that the best evidence of the level of skill in the art are the references themselves, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and, thus, we need not explicitly adopt either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art. Moreover, we note that the result of the analysis regarding the patentability of the claims would be the same under the requirements for the ordinary artisan proposed by either Petitioner or Patent Owner.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableInherency foundUnpatentable

    “Petition (Pet. 22–27), we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Geisser teaches all the limitations of claim 1, either inherently or explicitly. That is, we agree with Petitioner that Geisser teaches a method of treating a disease characterized by an iron deficiency, specifically iron deficiency anemia (Pet. 23; Ex. 1003, Abstract, 1:4‒7, 2:4‒7, 9:30‒31). We further agree that Geisser teaches a method of administering an iron carbohydrate complex, that is, iron carboxymaltose, in a single dosage form of at least 0.6 grams of elemental iron, as Geisser teaches administering iron carbohydrate complexes as a single dose of 500‒ 1000 mg of iron. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:26‒4:1, 8:7-10, 10:14‒17). In that regard, we credit the testimony of Dr. Linhardt that Geiser discloses iron carboxymaltose, and that Geisser describes a general synthetic method that is nearly identical to the method described in the ʼ702 patent. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8‒10, 13. In addition, as Geisser teaches one of the iron carbohydrate complexes explicitly recited by claim 1, that is, iron carboxymaltose, it would inherently meet the limitation that the carbohydrate component is substantially non-immunogenic and would have substantially no cross-reactivity with anti-dextran antibodies. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.”). The teachings of Geisser support that finding, as Geisser specifically teaches that the complexes have low toxicity and a reduced danger of anaphylactic shock. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:26‒ 2:1, 8:7‒10); see also Ex. 1001, 12:12‒14 (noting that as “[t]he iron carboxymaltose complex (e.g., VIT-45) generally does not contain dextran and [it] does not react with dextran antibodies.”).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,754,702 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,754,702
• Dermira, Inc. v. Purepharm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01594 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hays or obvious over the listed combinations; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable for lack of a reason to add another sweating therapy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In interpreting claim terms, the claims themselves provide substantial guidance. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, claim 1, from which claims 2–8 depend, recites the dosed amount of glycopyrrolate in solution as “an amount ranging from 3.0 wt. % to 4 wt. %.” Because claim 1 describes the dosed amount by the strength/concentration, it supports our conclusion that term “dosed amount” is not limited by the volume of the glycopyrrolate solution.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenMixed

    “Petitioner may well be correct that preferring a non-anticholinergic does not necessarily exclude administering “another oral and/or topical therapy for reduction of sweating,” as required by challenged claim 4. Petitioner, however, does not point to any credible evidence or otherwise explain why an ordinary artisan would have chosen another therapy to reduce sweating to be administered in combination with glycopyrrolate. Without some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as to why an ordinary artisan would have added a second therapeutic for reducing sweating to the transdermal patch of Bodor, which uses the anticholinergic to eliminate the formation of an aqueous layer between the delivery system and the skin to enhance the penetration of the transdermal drug being delivered, Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating that claim 4 20 would have been obvious over the combination of Bobrove and Bodor. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 20

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

    “(citing Ex. 1009, 1821). Hays instructs that glycopyrrolate solutions should be carefully applied while avoiding the mouth, nose, and eyes. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 1798, 1809). For example, it discloses applying a cotton applicator dipped in the glycopyrrolate solution to the skin while holding the hair up out the way to treat patients with gustatory sweating in the hairline. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Dr. Guy testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood the cotton applicator in Hays “as being any of a cotton ball, a cotton pad, a cotton swab, or having a cotton component as a part of a larger applicator.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 72. According to Hays, glycopyrrolate in concentrations of 0.5%, 1.0%, and up to 4% provided effective control of gustatory sweating with no significant side effects. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hays discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Bobrove specifically teaches applying a “roll on” glycopyrrolate solution. Ex. 1008, 6:26–27, 6:36–37. It, however, also generally teaches that glycopyrrolate is administered topically. Id. at 4:1. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to look for other means to apply glycopyrrolate. As Dr. Guy testifies, “[t]here are a limited number of ways to topically deliver a drug to a patient’s skin.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 16. In addition, Bobrove suggests to avoid the eyes, nose, and mouth during the topical administration. Ex. 1008, 5:37–39. Given these considerations, Bodor provides an effective alternative: a cotton cloth to absorb the drug and rub it on the skin. Ex. 1030, 15:39–54; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 17 (explaining that, at the time of the invention, an ordinary artisan would have known that use of medicated pads “allowed for topical application of a solution, for example to a subject’s face, while excluding application to sensitive areas such as the eyes or mucous membranes”). Thus, we conclude Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ordinary artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Bobrove and Bodor. In sum, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ordinary artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Bobrove and Bodor, and that the combination teaches each and every limitation of claims 1 and 2. Claims 4, 5, and 8” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,252,316 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,252,316
• Dermira, Inc. v. Purepharm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01593 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–10 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hays or obvious over the stated combinations; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable for lack of a reason to add another sweating therapy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In interpreting claim terms, the claims themselves provide substantial guidance. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, the challenged claims recite the dosed amount of glycopyrrolate in solution as “an amount ranging from 1.0 wt. % to 6 wt. %” (claim 1); “an amount ranging from 2.0 wt. % to 6.0 wt. %” (claim 9); and “an amount ranging from 2.0 wt. % to 4.0 wt. %” (claim 10). Because the claims describe the dosed amount by the strength/concentration, they support our conclusion that term “dosed amount” is not limited by the volume of the glycopyrrolate solution.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties disagree over the level of ordinary skill.8 See Pet. 17–18; PO Resp. 3; Reply 9. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to resolve this dispute because the prior art itself reflects an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “not qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art because he is not a clinician, physician, or pharmacist. PO Resp. 3–4. We disagree with Patent Owner on this issue. All asserted references relate to topical administration of pharmaceutical compositions. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 4:1; Ex. 1010, 2:35–38; Ex. 1030, 3:60–61. In addition, the challenged ’524 patent relates to the topical delivery of glycopyrrolate to reduce excessive sweating and minimize side effects. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:13–21. Dr. Guy has over 30 years of experience in fields including topical drug delivery, transdermal” slip op. at 16

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

    “water base and a vanishing cream base in 0.5 to 1% concentration. It completely controls gustatory sweating for several days or more.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1009, 1821). Hays instructs that glycopyrrolate solutions should be carefully applied while avoiding the mouth, nose, and eyes. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 1798, 1809). For example, it discloses applying a cotton applicator dipped in the glycopyrrolate solution to the skin while holding the hair up out the way to treat patients with gustatory sweating in the hairline. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Dr. Guy testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood the cotton applicator in Hays “as being any of a cotton ball, a cotton pad, a cotton swab, or having a cotton component as a part of a larger applicator.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 90. According to Hays, glycopyrrolate in concentrations of 0.5%, 1.0%, and up to 4% provided effective control of gustatory sweating with no significant side effects. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hays discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,679,524 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,679,524
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00529 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 10–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the INOmax label, Bernasconi, Loh, and Goyal; claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 are also anticipated and obvious over the INOmax label.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “method of providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas requires providing information to the medical provider to safely administer the nitric oxide gas,” thus “confirm[ing] that the ‘providing . . . information’ step is functionally related to the steps in the claimed method.” PO Resp. 31–33. As an initial matter, whether the claims should be interpreted as requiring such a functional relationship is a legal conclusion. See PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner’s conclusion regarding functional relationship between claim terms is based, at least in part, on an overly-limited reading of “pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas,” as discussed above. See PO Resp. 27. Further, we do not read the transcript testimony relied on by Patent Owner as clearly admitting a functional relationship between the steps of “providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas” and the information of (ii). See PO Resp. 31–32 (citing Ex. 2022, 78:15–80:4, 81:11–22, 111:2–17)). To the contrary, Dr. Beghetti appears to have testified that the claim elements are not directly related. Ex. 2022, 86:10– 25. Although Patent Owner points to In re Distefano, 808 F.3d at 848, as evidence that a “printed matter analysis includes ‘factual findings’” (PO Sur Reply 4, n.6), which inform the ultimate legal conclusion, we do not find the evidence as a whole compelling.” slip op. at 19

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther

    “IV. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner moves to exclude certain portions of Ex. 2024 on the grounds that they “are declarations and supporting materials submitted during patent examination . . . in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a)” and “lack foundation (FRE 602) and authentication (FRE 901) and constitute impermissible hearsay (FRE 901).” Paper 31, 2–3. Petitioner likewise moves to exclude Exhibit 2029 as not relied on in the Patent Owner Response or by Patent Owner’s expert. Id. at 3. As we do not rely on the objected-to materials in this opinion, we dismiss the motion as moot.” slip op. at 45

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “V. OBJECTIONS TO DEMONSTRATIVES The parties also submit competing objections to demonstrative exhibits used at trial. Papers 46, 47. Specifically, both parties object to certain slides as setting forth a new argument not previously made in any paper. Papers 46, 47. The parties are reminded that demonstrative exhibits are illustrative only and are not part of the trial record. Indeed, in accordance with our Order on requests for oral argument, neither party filed its demonstratives with the Board. See Paper 45, 2 (“Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in this proceeding without prior authorization from the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). Demonstrative exhibits are intended to be visual aids to assist a party in making its oral presentation and will not be entered into the record of these proceedings.”). Nevertheless, in this Final Written Decision, we rely on the arguments presented properly in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record and do not consider any new arguments not previously set forth in any paper. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”).” slip op. at 45

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

    “The Applicant amended the preamble of the rejected independent claims to recite “[a] method of providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas,” as presently set forth in claims 1 and 7. Id. at 746–747. Subsequent to the amendment, the Examiner withdrew the objection. Id. at 765; see id. at 733 (“If all the priority issues are resolved then it appears that the primary reference in the 103 rejection will no longer be prior art.” (italics omitted)). On pages 19 and 20 of its Response, Patent Owner argues that the preamble is, therefore, limiting in light of Catalina Mktg. International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002), which holds that “clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates the use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.” Although the prosecution history shows that amendment of the preamble only indirectly distinguished the claims over the prior art by establishing an earlier priority date, we conclude that both the Applicant and the Examiner treated the preamble as a claim limitation. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the preamble language “pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas” is limiting.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,846,112 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,846,112
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2015 · IPR2013-00507 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14–17, and 19–28 are unpatentable as obvious over Frey and Michelson; claim 18 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an implant with a length of greater than 40 mm (e.g., 42 mm) and at least 2.5 times the width, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 9

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

    “the capability for posterolateral TLIF procedure.” PO Resp. 30. However, Frey discloses “spinal surgery from a unilateral posterior approach, a lateral approach, an oblique approach, and through laparoscopic or endoscopic instruments from any of a variety of angles or approaches to the spine.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. Given that Frey discloses spinal surgery performed “from any of a variety of angles or approaches,” and not just from the posterolateral approach, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the “intended purpose” of Frey is to perform spinal surgery from a posterolateral approach, specifically. Rather, Frey discloses that “spinal discs may be displaced or damaged” and “may result in nerve damage, pain, numbness, muscle weakness, and even paralysis.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 3. According to Frey, these issues are addressed by “surgical correction of a collapsed disc space” by “discectomy . . . often followed by restoration of normal disc space height and bony fusion of the adjacent vertebrae to maintain the disc space height.” Id. Hence, the “intended purpose” of the implant of Frey, as explicitly disclosed by Frey, is to correct surgically a collapsed disc space, to restore normal disc space height, and to provide bony fusion of the adjacent vertebrae. We disagree with Patent Owner that incorporating Michelson, which discloses an implant that “engage[s] more of the adjacent vertebrae,” (Ex. 1105, 3:49–50) would have rendered the resulting implant inoperable for Frey’s intended purpose of surgically correcting a collapsed disc space or providing bony fusion of the adjacent vertebrae. Even if the “intended purpose” of Frey is to practice a “TLIF procedure,” as Patent Owner contends, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that an implant measuring greater than 40 mm in length would be inoperable in a “TLIF procedure.” As Petitioner explains, U.S. Patent No. 7,815,682 (the ’682 patent) demonstrates that when performing “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures,” one of ordinary skill in the art may employ a spinal implant with “a length ranging between 20 and 45 mm.” Pet. Resp. 6 (citing, Ex. 1028, 1:37–38; 4:45). The ’682 patent does not disclose that the use of a spinal implant measuring up to 45 mm in length would render the “TLIF procedure” inoperable.” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “We recognize that evidence of secondary considerations must always be considered en route to the determination of obviousness, but its existence alone does not control the conclusion of obviousness. Richardson-Vicks v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The weight given to evidence of secondary considerations is dependent upon whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Even assuming that NuVasive’s CoRoent XL implant experienced “commercial success,” as Patent Owner asserts, Patent Owner has not demonstrated sufficiently that there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. For example, Patent Owner argues that NuVasive “pioneered the market for lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries,” (PO Resp. 44) but fails to demonstrate sufficiently that any of the disputed claims recite “lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries.” We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeOther

    “C. Motion to Exclude In its Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner seeks to exclude the Declaration of Loic Josse (Ex. 1116, “Josse Declaration”). We did not rely on the Josse Declaration in this decision. Therefore, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,187,334 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,187,334

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.