- Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 9, 2018 · IPR2017-01256 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted Incyte’s rehearing request and instituted review of claims 1–15 on Ground 3, finding it had applied overly restrictive standards for lead compound analysis and combining references.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Having considered the Request for Rehearing, the current record, and our Decision denying institution, we are persuaded that we applied an overly restrictive standard for the lead compound analysis and for the reason to combine the cited references. See Reh’g Req. 2–12. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and concurrently issue a decision granting institution on Ground 3. Paper 14.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Having considered the Request for Rehearing, the current record, and our Decision denying institution, we are persuaded that we applied an overly restrictive standard for the lead compound analysis and for the reason to combine the cited references. See Reh’g Req. 2–12. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and concurrently issue a decision granting institution on Ground 3. Paper 14.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,249,149 - Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Apotex Technologies, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 11, 2018 · IPR2017-01446 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting review because the record showed a reasonable likelihood of inherent anticipation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Patent Owner “submits that the evidence of record fails to show that” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. As also noted in the decision on institution, we have considered both the Petition and Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and determined that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to the challenged claims. Dec. 2. Therefore, we applied the correct threshold standard for instituting the inter partes review.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundOther
“We agree with Patent Owner on the legal standard for inherency. As we acknowledged in our Decision, “[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l. Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” Dec. 14. However, we remain persuaded at this stage of the proceeding on the current factual record based on Hoffbrand 1998 and the Mehta Declaration, that Petitioner established a “reasonable likelihood” that Hoffbrand 1998 necessarily disclosed treatment of patients with “an iron overload condition of the heart” with a therapeutically effective amount of deferiprone. See Dec. 16–20; 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Patent Owner does not identify a definition of the phrase “iron overload condition of the heart” in the ’328 patent Specification that distinguishes the claimed patient population from Hoffbrand’s disclosure of “10 patients [that] had a liver iron content above 15.0 mg/g dry weight, ie, falling within the range that has been associated with cardiac disease.” Ex. 1007, 297. The reasonable understanding of Hoffbrand’s teaching of this association between liver iron content and cardiac disease is that all ten patients with the elevated iron levels also necessarily fell into the spectrum of having “an iron overload condition of the heart.” Indeed, Patent Owner’s Declarants do not rebut Hoffbrand’s teaching that liver iron content above 15.0 mg/g identifies patients with cardiac disease, and, therefore, with “an iron overload condition of the heart.” Dr. Coates simply notes that Hoffbrand 1998 reports five treated “patients suffered fatal complications. . . . Four of the five reported fatalities resulted from congestive heart failure.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 37. Cf. Pennell Decl. Ex. 2003 ¶ 37. That statement supports the position that Hoffbrand 1998 treated patients who inherently had an ultimately fatal “iron overload condition of the heart” with 75 mg of deferiprone, acknowledged by claim 15 of the ’328 patent as a therapeutically effective amount. Ex. 1007, 295; Ex. 1001, 28:33–37. We recognize that Dr. Pennell stated that “a patient with a liver iron content above 15 mg/g dry weight is at risk of developing cardiac disease not that such liver iron content definitely establishes cardiac disease.” Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 50–51, citing Exhibits 2007, 2015, and 2016. The Exhibits cited by Dr. Pennell do not identify evidence showing a single patient with a liver iron content that exceeds 15.0 mg/g but failed to display an “iron overload condition of the heart.” See Ex. 2003 ¶ 51. Exhibit 2007 states “while whole liver iron levels >15 mg/g dry weight . . . have been shown to predict patients at highest risk of cardiac death, it is not known how these variables relate to cardiac iron deposition.” Ex. 2007, 1. No specific patient data is provided in Exhibit 2007 comparing liver iron levels of particular patients with “iron overload.” See id. Similarly, Exhibits 2015 and 2016 also do not identify any patients with elevated liver iron content >15 mg/g dry weight with normal cardiac iron levels. Therefore, the evidence currently of record in Hoffbrand 1998,” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Regarding the second argument, Dr. Mehta relied upon specific facts within the Olivieri Abstract 1995 itself to support the conclusion that “lower TRT values indicate cardiac disease due to iron overload. Ex. 1010 (Olivieri Abstract 1995).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 75. In particular, Olivieri Abstract 1995 states “MRI demonstrates changes consistent with reduction in cardiac iron in L1 [deferiprone]-treated pts, in who baseline T2 relaxation time (TRT of 23.9±6.4 msec (normal >32) has increased to 32.4±9.3msec.” Ex. 1010. Olivieri Abstract 1995’s identification of the value of “32” as normal for TRT levels with lower values such as “23.9±6.4” as associated with elevated cardiac iron levels that require treatment with deferiprone, provides factual support for Dr. Mehta’s conclusion that patients with these lower TRT values inherently have “an iron overload condition of the heart.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 75.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,049,328 - PTAB · Jan 11, 2018 · IPR2016-01102 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Rehearing
Petitioners’ rehearing requests concerning joinder of claim 7 were dismissed as moot because claim 1 was not proven unpatentable and claim 7’s grounds depended on claim 1.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision of the Board may file a request for rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“7 of the ’772 patent, which depends from claim 1 that is at issue in the instituted inter partes review IPR2016-00084. In our Decision denying joinder of claim 7, we determined that the joinder Petitions had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to claim 7, based on Petitioners’ unpatentability arguments as to claim 1 made in IPR2016-00084. IPR2016- 01059, Paper 19, 10–12. Nevertheless, we declined to exercise our discretion to grant joinder. Id. at 15–18. It is of this latter determination that Petitioners request rehearing.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,665,772 - PTAB · Jan 11, 2018 · IPR2016-01059 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Rehearing
The Board dismissed Petitioners’ rehearing requests as moot because claim 1 was not proven unpatentable and no separate unpatentability ground was advanced for claim 7.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision of the Board may file a request for rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“7 of the ’772 patent, which depends from claim 1 that is at issue in the instituted inter partes review IPR2016-00084. In our Decision denying joinder of claim 7, we determined that the joinder Petitions had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to claim 7, based on Petitioners’ unpatentability arguments as to claim 1 made in IPR2016-00084. IPR2016- 01059, Paper 19, 10–12. Nevertheless, we declined to exercise our discretion to grant joinder. Id. at 15–18. It is of this latter determination that Petitioners request rehearing.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,665,772 - PTAB · Jan 11, 2018 · IPR2016-01103 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Rehearing
The Board dismissed Petitioners’ rehearing requests as moot because claim 1 was not proven unpatentable, leaving no basis to find dependent claim 7 separately unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedOther
“A party dissatisfied with a decision of the Board may file a request for rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“7 of the ’772 patent, which depends from claim 1 that is at issue in the instituted inter partes review IPR2016-00084. In our Decision denying joinder of claim 7, we determined that the joinder Petitions had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to claim 7, based on Petitioners’ unpatentability arguments as to claim 1 made in IPR2016-00084. IPR2016- 01059, Paper 19, 10–12. Nevertheless, we declined to exercise our discretion to grant joinder. Id. at 15–18. It is of this latter determination that Petitioners request rehearing.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,665,772 - Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. / Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. v. Novartis AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2018 · IPR2016-00084 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 8–10 were not proven unpatentable because the proposed obviousness analysis did not show that the choices leading to everolimus were finite, small, or easily traversed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The facts of the case at hand provide a stark contrast. As we have found above, while the prior art recognized rapamycin as a promising immunosuppressant, it was only one among many possible lead compounds. Furthermore, the prior art shows that chemists were pursuing a number of avenues to increase solubility, including making derivatives but also other approaches such as formulation techniques or prodrugs. And most tellingly, in contrast to Bristol-Myers Squibb where the experts agreed on the type and location of the potential substituents, here the experts diverge significantly. As discussed above, we credit the testimony of Novartis’ experts over Par’s, and find that the options of substituent and substituent position would not have been as narrow as those proposed by Par. In sum, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been faced with a large number of decision points along the lead compound analysis proposed by Par. The number of potential compounds encompassed by this decision tree is unclear, but would be far larger than the three compounds Dr. Jorgensen discusses. Only by making the “right” choice at each step would the skilled artisan arrive at everolimus, the compound of claim 10 and the basis of Par’s obviousness challenge. In light of these facts, we cannot conclude that the options faced would have been—in the words of the Federal Circuit—finite, small, or easily traversed. We, therefore, cannot conclude that the compound of claim 10, and by extension, the compounds of claims 1–3, would have been obvious to one of skill in the art as of October 1992.” slip op. at 35
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Par contends, supported by the testimony of Dr. Jorgensen, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would generally have a Ph.D. in organic chemistry or medicinal chemistry or physical chemistry or a related field, or a Masters or Bachelor degree in chemistry or a related field and at least three years’ experience in drug discovery and design. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Novartis’ experts, with insubstantial exceptions, agree with Dr. Jorgensen’s recitation. Ex. 2092 ¶ 22 (Klibanov); Ex. 2093 ¶¶ 47–48 (Roush). We adopt the level of skill recited by the parties for purposes of our analysis herein.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Based on our review of the entirety of the record, we cannot conclude, as Par contends, that the C40 hydroxyl group would be the obvious, optimal, or preferred location for substitutions to rapamycin. Dr. Jorgensen’s testimony to that effect is premised on his assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have first narrowed the group of possible substitution positions to the C10, C28, or C40, because those are the hydroxyl groups of rapamycin. Ex. 1003 ¶ 142 (“person of ordinary skill in the art would have focused on hydroxyl groups on rapamycin as initial targets for modification.”). This statement, however, is based only on Dr. Jorgensen’s statement that the reactions of hydroxyl groups are “among the most fundamental and elementary reactions taught in beginning organic chemistry courses.” Id. Dr. Jorgensen provides no objective, documentary evidence that would indicate that starting with hydroxyl groups was an accepted rule followed by medicinal chemists in the field. To the contrary, Dr. Roush testifies that Dr. Jorgensen’s focus on rapamycin’s hydroxyl groups is inconsistent with the prior art as a whole, and provides multiple citations to the documentary evidence in the record supporting his testimony. Ex. 2093 ¶¶ 197, 206–216 (citing prior art modifications at the C9, C26, C27, C28, and C32 positions). For example, Ondeyka14 discloses demethylation of the methoxy group at rapamycin’s C29 position, while Caulfield15 discloses oxime substitutions at C32.16 We have weighed the testimony of Drs. Jorgensen and Roush on this point, and find Dr. Roush’s to be the more credible. While we agree with Par that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered rapamycin’s C40 position as a candidate for substitution, that site must be evaluated as one potential substitution site among many that were being modified in the field at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“obviousness challenge. In light of these facts, we cannot conclude that the options faced would have been—in the words of the Federal Circuit—finite, small, or easily traversed. We, therefore, cannot conclude that the compound of claim 10, and by extension, the compounds of claims 1–3, would have been obvious to one of skill in the art as of October 1992. With respect to the second ground of unpatentability, pertaining to the method of treatment claims 8 and 9, Par’s obviousness arguments are premised on the conclusion that everolimus would have been obvious. See Pet. 48–51 (“claims 8 and 9 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the art that makes the 40-O-2- hydroxyethyl-rapamycin derivative obvious”). As we conclude that everolimus has not been shown to be obvious, we reach the same conclusion as to the methods of claims 8 and 9. The addition of Hughes to the ground of unpatentability does not provide any of the teachings we found lacking from the art asserted in the first ground of unpatentability. As we have concluded that Par’s articulated lead compound analysis is insufficient to establish the obviousness of any of the challenged claims, we need not reach, and do not evaluate, the objective indicia of obviousness submitted by Novartis. PO Resp. 60–68.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 5,665,772 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,665,772 - Luye Pharma Group Ltd. / Luye Pharma(Usa) Ltd. et al. v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2017 · IPR2016-01096 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 17–23 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove the claimed viscosity was necessarily present in either obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In that regard, we note that Petitioner must “meet a high standard in order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis—the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d at 1195‒ 96.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Institution Decision, we determined that none of the terms in the challenged claims require express construction at that time. Dec. Inst. 6 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that only claim terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy)); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner offers explicit constructions of several claim terms (Pet. 19‒22), as did Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response (Prelim. Resp. 9‒12). In its full Response, Patent Owner states that there is no need to expressly construe any of the claim terms. PO Resp. 13‒14. On the present record, we agree with Patent Owner and determine that none of the claim terms require explicit construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelOther
“We conclude that, for practical purposes, there is little difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions of the ordinary artisan. Thus, our analysis would be the same under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition. In addition, the level of ordinary skill in the art in this case is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“Patent Owner argues also that objective indicia of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results and commercial success support the patentability of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 59‒61. As we conclude that the preponderance of evidence of record does not support Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, we need not address Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary indicia.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 6,667,061 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,667,061 - Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., And Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 8, 2017 · IPR2016-01027 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over McGinity, Joshi, and Palermo.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“DISCUSSION A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’976 patent would have “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, polymer chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical technology, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacology, and/or a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex.1009 ¶ 17). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 26. We, therefore, apply that skill level in our analysis, with the understanding that the level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The Specification teaches the following: The term “sustained release” is defined for purposes of the present invention as the release of the opioid analgesic from the oral dosage form at such a rate that blood (e.g., plasma) concentrations (levels) are maintained within the therapeutic range but below toxic levels over an extended period of time, e.g., from about 12 to about 24 hours as compared to an immediate release product. Preferably the sustained release is sufficient to provide a twice-a-day or a once-a-day formulation. Ex. 1001, 4:56–64. The use of “e.g.” in the above definition for “sustained release” plainly indicates that a 12 to about 24 hour time period is exemplary. Thus, we decline to limit the claim term as Patent Owner would have us do. Rather, we construe “extended release” as “release of the opioid analgesic from the oral dosage form at a rate such that blood (e.g., plasma) concentrations (levels) are maintained within the therapeutic range but below toxic levels over a period of time longer than that of an immediate release of the opioid analgesic.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Claim 1 is drawn to a dosage form—a composition. Patent Owner does not point out how the recitation of “abuse deterrent” in the preamble modifies the structurally complete dosage form recited in the body of claim 1. See Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A] preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’”) (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed.Cir.1997)). We conclude, therefore, that the term “abuse deterrent” is a goal of the invention, that is, it is merely a statement of intended use that is not entitled to patentable weight.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner
“iv. “core matrix” The parties agree that the broadest reasonable construction of “core matrix” is “a blended mixture having: (a) PEO having a molecular weight of from about 300,000 to about 5,000,000 daltons, (b) magnesium stearate, and (c) oxycodone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of oxycodone.” Ex. 3001. We adopt that agreed-upon construction for purposes of this Decision. v.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 9,060,976 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,060,976 - PTAB · Nov 3, 2017 · IPR2016-00452 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Daikin’s rehearing request, leaving in place its finding that claims 1–4, 7, and 8 were not shown unpatentable over Miller and the ARI Standard.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 2
- ExcludeOther
“exclude all of Dr. Sun’s experiments. Paper 32. In the Motion, Petitioner urged us to exclude Dr. Sun’s experiments 1–4 from the record “because they are irrelevant to any ground upon which trial was instituted and include[] information whose probative value (if any) is substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.” Id. at 2 (emphasis added) (citing Paper 23 ¶ 6). Petitioner continued: “the compounds HCFC-123 and HFC-236ea that were used in Experiments 1–4 are not relevant to the issues in this trial. These compounds were not used in [Miller’s example 1].” Id. (citing Ex. 1066 ¶¶ 65–68). In reply to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner further argued that Dr. Sun’s experiments 1–4 demonstrate that “HCFC-123 and HFC-236ea behave completely differently from HFC-245cb.” Paper 37, 2 (emphasis added). Petitioner made those same arguments in the Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Reply 12–14. As we explained in the Final Decision (Final Dec. 21–22), and reiterate here, Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Sun’s experiments 1–4, and the results thereof, is inconsistent with Petitioner’s arguments that Dr. Sun’s experiments 1–4 are irrelevant, prejudicial, and should be excluded from the record. Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary in the Request for Rehearing express mere disagreement with our determination in the Final Decision and weighing of the evidence. As we explain above, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to reargue positions with which we disagreed in our Final Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner”) filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 43, “Reh’g Req.”) of the Final Written Decision (Paper 42, “Final Decision” or “Final Dec.”), in which we concluded that Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,147,709 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’709 patent”) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Miller1 and the ARI Standard.2 slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,147,709 - Topgolf International, Inc. v. Amit AgarwalRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00928 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left in place institution of inter partes review of claims 1 and 6 based on the reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Bertoncino and Foley.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“most end located at the forward portion of the target green ha[s] an elevation that is significantly lower than at its rearmost end.” We note that the term “significantly lower” is a relative term, and Patent Owner does not offer a construction of that term.1 Nor does Patent Owner point us to anything in the prosecution history as providing a construction for that term. In addition, we note further that the Specification of the ’389 patent also does not define the relative term “significantly lower.” The Specification of the ’389 patent, however, teaches that each target green includes a target flag and a receptacle hole that is located near the front section of the green. Ex. 1001, 4:29‒32. According to the Specification of the ’389 patent, the target green is sloped downhill and has the general shape of a concave surface so that the receptacle hole is at the lowest portion of the green. Id. at 4:32‒35. Figure 4C of the ’389 patent is reproduced below: 1 We acknowledge that the ’389 patent expired as of September 2012, and we are, thus, guided by the principle that the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citation omitted). But, “[i]n determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Figure 4C shows a cross-sectional view of a target green. Id. at 3:28‒29. As taught by the ’389 patent, “[t]arget green 30 would appear to the golfer at the teeing area to have a sudden drop off near the front portion of the green, and then a gradual slope upwardly toward the back of the green.” Id. at 4:37‒40. Thus, at best, the Specification of the ’389 patent appears to support a construction of the claim limitation of a target green profile whose “forward most end located at the forward portion of the target green ha[s] an elevation that is significantly lower than at its rearmost end” as a green that has a sudden drop off near the front portion of the green and then a gradual slope upward toward the back of the green.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“established sufficiently a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were rendered obvious by the combination of Bertoncino and Foley. Dec. 22. In particular, as to the limitation that the target green has a profile whose “forward most end located at the forward portion of the target green ha[s] an elevation that is significantly lower than at its rearmost end,” for purposes of institution, we determined: that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that this claim limitation is rendered obvious by Bertoncino. In particular, Figure 5 of Bertoncino clearly shows that the front ends of the target green on the driving range are substantially lower than the back ends. Ex. 1004, Fig. 5. In addition, we determine that to the extent they are not, Petitioner has reasonably demonstrated that Bertoncino makes such a green obvious by teaching that the ability to see the lie of the ball is dependent on the ability to visually follow the path of the ball (id. at 1:26‒ 29), as well as teaching a “sloped driving range” (id. at 4:12‒ 13; see also id. at 5:37‒39 (“Each target . . . preferably comprises a surface generally sloped towards the tee stands area)). Id. at 19.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 49. Figure 5 of Bertoncino, as addressed above, is a schematic perspective of a sloped driving range of Bertoncino. Petitioner also relied on its version of Figure 4 of Bertoncino, which was altered in line with the teaching of that reference that the target green may have only the inner section 22 (Ex. 1004, 6:61–65), and including the slope of the driving range shown in Figure 5 of Bertoncino, reproduced below: Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 92). Figure 4 of Bertoncino is a cross-sectional view of the sloped circular target of Figure 3. Ex. 1004, 4:8‒9. That is supported by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Robbins, who declares that “[a] person of skill in the art would interpret Bertoncino to disclose a range with a plurality of target greens, each of which is composed of a single section with the slope profile of inner section 22” as depicted above. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92. Thus, as we concluded in the Decision on Institution (Dec. 17‒18), Petitioner in its Petition has established reasonably that Bertoncino teaches a target green having a profile wherein the “profile’s forward most end located at the forward portion of the target green having an elevation that is significantly lower than at its rearmost end.” That is, Petitioner has established reasonably for purposes of institution that the target green of Bertoncino meets the “significantly lower” limitation as construed above, as it has as a green that has a sudden drop off near the front portion of the green due to the concave shape of the target green and then a gradual slope upward toward the back of the green. See Ex. 1004, 6:3‒11, 12:6‒12, Figure 4.” slip op. at 12
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,370,389
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.