- Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Biosciences, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · PGR2022-00025 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable because the ’201 patent lacks written description support for the claimed genus of CRF1 receptor antagonists under § 112(a).
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“[A] sufficient description of a genus instead requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus. Id. at 1350 (citing Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568–69). Moreover, “an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials.” Id. (citing Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568 (quoting Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171)). Furthermore, “functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. (citing Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001))). “[M]erely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id.” slip op. at 42
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) “would have a medical degree or a Ph.D. in a field related to endocrinology, and would have knowledge of hormone regulation and disorders, as well as knowledge of the treatment regimens employed to treat such disorders . . . [and] would also have at least three years of experience conducting research concerning endocrine disorders, including CAH or other adrenal disorders.” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34 (Dr. Carey Declaration)). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because Petitioner’s definition of a person of skill in the art appears commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the asserted art in this case as well as the ’201 patent itself, see, e.g., Exs. 1024, 1025, 2003, 2004, 2005, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). C.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, we do not find persuasive the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dobs, that: By describing adjustments of dosing protocols to achieve an A4 reduction from baseline, and describing this use of tildacerfont as just one embodiment of the claimed use of the entire well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class, the specification reasonably conveyed to a POSA that the invention extended to the particularly claimed use of the entire recited class. Ex. 2014 ¶ 82. On the contrary, far from being a “well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class” the prior art teaches a heterogeneous assembly of different classes of small molecule CRF1 receptor antagonists (Type I, Type II, and “atypical”) displaying a very considerable variety of structures, both in terms of the core pharmacophore (e.g., monocyclic, bicyclic, tricyclic, phenolic, cyclohexyl amide, etc.) as well as in the various side groups. Moreover, the challenged claims recite only “a CRF1 receptor antagonist or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,” the scope of which also encompasses the much larger (and, according to Williams) much more effective large-molecule (peptide) CRF1 receptor antagonists, about which the Specification is entirely silent. See Ex. 1029, Abstr., 1065. Furthermore, despite Dr. Dobs’ testimony that “[t]he [prior art] references explain the typical CRF1 antagonist consists of a core nitrogen heterocycle with an aryl substituent adjacent to the core nitrogen atom and a branched alkyl group attached at the opposite end of the core,” Dr. Dobs also acknowledged that the “atypical CRF1 receptors depicted in Figures 11 and 12 of Williams had different structures, and lacked the nitrogen heterocyclic core.” Ex. 1042, 127:9–14, 130:13–131:16; see also Ex. 2014 ¶ 83. Additionally, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cutler, testified, by way of example, in his Reply Declaration that two of the ‘“first-generation CRF1 antagonists’ identified in Figure 1 of the Williams article do not fall within the Figure 2 structure Dr. Dobs relies upon.” Ex. 1047 ¶ 93. Indeed, with respect to the alleged core pharmacophore that Dr. Dobs” slip op. at 54
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“with chemical terminology”; “could not answer questions regarding the chemical structures in the prior art articles”; “did not know whether CRF1 receptor antagonists contained the structural features she deemed ‘essential’ in her Declaration”; and “agreed that tildacerfont has structurally unique features” (see Ex. 1042, 52–53, 125–126, 126–128, 128–130) goes to the weight that we assign to such testimony, but we do not find that such testimony, in light of Dr. Dobs’ extensive qualifications as an endocrinologist set forth above, deems Dr. Dobs unqualified to testify concerning the written description issue in this proceeding. For these reasons explained above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Dobs’ written description opinions in paragraphs 20 and 75–87 of Exhibit 2014 is denied.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 11,007,201 unpatentable§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,007,201 - Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01035 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–6, 8–10, and 22–28, and denied substitute claims 29–44 because Wright ’451 rendered them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 16). Patent Owner took no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. Inst. 6–7. In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that it accepts the Board’s definition for purposes of this proceeding. MTA 24. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears to be consistent with the 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 › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although neither party expressly proposes a construction for the term “conversion,” the parties appear to differ in their interpretations of that term. Petitioner interprets “conversion” to mean the percent conversion of the 1- alcohol. See Pet. Opp. RMTA 6–7 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of remaining 1-alcohol); Ex. 1040, 109:2–11. Patent Owner, on the other hand, interprets “conversion” to mean the total percentage of alkenes that have been produced. Ex. 2010 ¶ 123 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of total alkenes). During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner conceded that “conversion can mean either.” Tr. 27:18–28:13. Without the benefit of briefing by the parties, we decline to expressly construe the term “conversion,” as our Decision would be the same under either interpretation, as discussed further below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Moreover, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said claimed invention pertains. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Objective evidence of nonobviousness may include” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded. “[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must, therefore, first consider what results were expected to determine what a POSA would have considered to be unexpected. Id. As seen by the table below, Wright ’451’s disclosure fully encompasses the temperature ranges and purported unexpected results recited by substitute claim 29 and shown in Table 2 of the ’048 Patent: Reference Reaction Calcination Conversion Regioselectivity Rate13 Temperature Temperature Wright ’451 about 220 °C about 200 °C greater than about 90% to to about to 600 °C about 95% about 99% 440 °C Substitute 240 °C to about 420 °C at least 95% to about Claim 29” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,995,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,995,048 - Jeisys Medical Inc. v. Serendia, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00463 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 2–6, 8, 9, 13–16, and 18, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claims 2, 8, and 13 are anticipated by Mehta.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Videndum clarified the Board’s application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. For instance, in Ford, the Director explained that “[u]nder existing Office policy and precedent, the Board does not recognize a ‘significant relationship’ between parties [i.e., serial petitioners] having different accused products that merely engage in court-ordered pretrial coordination.” Ford, at 9 (emphasis added). And, in Videndum, the Director further explained that where “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum, at 6–7. Thus, per Ford and Videndum, we will not discretionarily deny a later petition in view of an earlier petition where the earlier and later petitioners are neither the same party nor have a significant relationship. After reviewing the record, we find that no significant relationship exists with Cartessa to justify application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. Contrary to Serendia’s assertions about the joint submissions of Jeisys and Cartessa in the parallel ITC proceeding (see Prelim. Resp. 8–10), the relevant facts and circumstances here are akin to those in Ford. More specifically, like the “court-ordered” coordination of the petitioners in Ford, the collaboration of Jeisys and Cartessa as co-respondents in the ITC proceeding was mandated by the rules of the ITC proceeding, and, thus,” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We agree with Jeisys. Mehta is not substantially the same as Mehta ’705. What Mehta ’705 omits, but Mehta includes, is an embodiment comprising “graphical user interface 320” and “tissue characteristic indicator 350” that allows a user to monitor the needle’s “location” in the tissue so as to decide when the needle is placed at a “desired depth.” Ex. 1006, 32:46– 13 US 8,540,705 B2, issued Sep. 24, 2013 (Ex. 1011). 14 Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). 33:29, Figs 10A–10F. Nowhere do we discern a similar embodiment in Mehta ’705. At best, Mehta ’705 discloses a “display screen” for displaying a “variety of information to the physician . . . such as treatment delivery settings, electrode impedance, electrode temperature, tissue temperature, treatment duration, power delivered, energy delivered, etc.” Ex. 1011 (Mehta ’705), 29:44–58, Figs. 10A, 10B. But, notably lacking from Mehta ’705 is any disclosure of determining the “depth” and “location” of the needle’s placement in the tissue, let alone means for doing so, which Mehta discusses at length and upon which Jeisys relies to meet the “desired distance” limitation. See Ex. 1006, 32:46–33:61; Pet. 27–28. Because Mehta includes disclosure relevant to the disputed “desired distance” limitation that is absent from Mehta ’705, Serendia fails to satisfy the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Wolfspeed, Inc. v. The Tr. of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761, Paper 13, at 7–8 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2023) (Vidal, K.) (reference not “substantially the same prior art” when it includes disclosure relevant to unpatentability grounds not present in references previously before the Office). And to the extent Serendia makes a similar argument with respect to the asserted secondary references of Na, Lee, and Livneh, it is of no consequence given Serendia’s failed showing with respect to the primary reference of Mehta.15 Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Jeisys proposes, and Serendia agrees, that we should adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as defined in the parallel ITC proceeding, that is, (1) 7–10 years of experience with developing and/or using treatment systems for delivery of electromagnetic radiation energy to skin or other tissues, and (2) a related graduate engineering degree or M.D. . . . [and] may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also would have taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others on the team when solving a technical problem. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005, at 14); Prelim. Resp. 33 (accepting Jeisys’s definition of the level of skill in the art). For purposes of this proceeding, we see no reason to depart from that definition, as it appears consistent with the level reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need not formally construe the “desired distance” limitation in order to resolve whether institution is appropriate. That is because, on the current record, the asserted prior art satisfies the “desired distance” limitation regardless of which parties’ proposed construction we adopt. 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)). Nonetheless, the parties are free to further explore the appropriate construction of “desired distance” at trial, in particular, whether the plain language of the claims limits their scope to extendable needles (as opposed to fixed needles), and whether construing the “desired distance” limitation as being based on a user’s selection improperly reads a preferred embodiment into the claims.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,869,812 - Jeisys Medical Inc. v. Serendia, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00383 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 13 and 14, finding a reasonable likelihood that Mehta anticipates them.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“At the outset, we note that the Director’s decisions in Ford and Videndum clarified the Board’s application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. For instance, in Ford, the Director explained that “[u]nder existing Office policy and precedent, the Board does not recognize a ‘significant relationship’ between parties [i.e., serial petitioners] having different accused products that merely engage in court-ordered pretrial coordination.” Ford, at 9 (emphasis added). And, in Videndum, the Director further explained that where “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” See Videndum, Paper 12, 6–7. Thus, per Ford and Videndum, we will not discretionarily deny a later petition in view of an earlier petition where the earlier and later petitioners are neither the same party nor have a significant relationship. After reviewing the record, we find that no significant relationship exists with Cartessa to justify application of the General Plastic/Valve framework. Contrary to Serendia’s assertions about the joint invalidity defense of Jeisys and Cartessa in the parallel ITC proceeding (see Prelim. Resp. 9–10), the relevant facts and circumstances here are akin to those in Ford. More specifically, like the “court-ordered” coordination of the petitioners in Ford, the collaboration of Jeisys and Cartessa as co-respondents in the ITC proceeding was mandated by the rules of the ITC proceeding, and, thus, does not alone create the type of “significant relationship” contemplated by Valve. See Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ford, at 3; Exs. 1028, 1029); see also Prime Time Toys LLC v. Spin Master, Inc., IPR 2023-01339, Paper 12, at 19–20 (Vidal July 9, 2024) (“Prime Time Toys”) (“The parties’ collaboration as co-respondents in the ITC investigation does not by itself support a finding of a “significant relationship.”). As such, Jeisys’s knowledge of the prior art asserted in the ITC proceeding and its collaboration with Cartessa on a joint invalidity defense does not create a significant relationship where such knowledge and collaboration arises from the rules of the ITC proceeding itself.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Jeisys proposes, and Serendia agrees, that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had (1) 7–10 years of experience with developing and/or using treatment systems for delivery of electromagnetic radiation energy to skin or other tissues, and (2) a related graduate engineering degree or M.D. . . . [and] may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also would have taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others on the team when solving a technical problem. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 48); see also Prelim. Resp. 33 (accepting Jeisys’s definition of the level of skill in the art). For purposes of this proceeding, we adopt the parties’ assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We need not formally construe the “desired distance” limitation in order to resolve whether institution is appropriate. That is because, on the current record, the asserted prior art satisfies the “desired distance” limitation regardless of which parties’ proposed construction we adopt. 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)). Nonetheless, the parties are free to further explore the appropriate construction of “desired distance” at trial, in particular, whether the language of the claims limits the scope of claims 13 and 14 to “extendable” needles, and whether construing the “desired distance” limitation as being based on a user’s selection improperly reads a preferred embodiment into the claims.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We disagree with Serendia’s analysis of Mehta. As Jeisys correctly explains, Mehta discloses the “desired distance” limitation even assuming Serendia’s construction of that limitation, i.e., that the needles are extendable to a depth selected by the user. See Pet. 26–27. Indeed, although Mehta may not use the term “desired distance” expressly, it comes about as close as one would expect from an anticipatory disclosure. For example, as Jeisys notes, Mehta discloses an embodiment that includes “depth markings” on the needles (i.e., probes) that allow the user to determine a desired depth of the needles— The electrodes of the probe array can also include any number of visually distinguishing features (e.g., depth markings, colors, shades, etc.) that enable a physician to observe proper placement. . . . This ensures that the probe is not driven too far into tissue. Alternatively, the probe can be marked with one or more features that allow the physician to determine the depth of insertion of the probe.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,775,774 - PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00313 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–54 on all three obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Under our precedent, where there is no time bar or estoppel implication with respect to alleged unnamed real parties-in-interest, the Board need not address, for the purposes of institution, whether such parties should be so named. SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020- 00734, Paper 11, 18–20 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential) (“SharkNinja”). In this case, Patent Owner has not alleged that either Lin BioScience or Belite Bio is barred or estopped from this proceeding. Patent Owner suggests that “Belite Bio’s status as a publicly traded company with a vested interest in the outcome of this Petition, and the Petition’s failure to disclose Belite Bio as a [real party-in-interest,] raise concerns about its motivations.” Prelim. Resp. 75. However, Patent Owner has not pointed to any evidence tending to show beyond speculation that Petitioner purposefully omitted these parties to gain an unfair advantage. SharkNinja at 19. Accordingly, on this record, we will not consider whether Lin BioScience and Belite Bio must be named as real parties-in-interest and” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had an advanced degree (e.g., Ph.D., M.D., M.S., or equivalent), in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceutical science, medicine, or a related field. This individual may have worked in consultation with a team including, e.g., a practicing physician who diagnoses and treats macular degeneration. Moreover, skilled artisans would have had practical knowledge about biological studies, pharmaceutical formulation, and the deuterium isotope effect, including the patents and publications discussed herein.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“First, the Federal Circuit “has not hesitated to hold preambles limiting when they state an intended purpose for methods of using a compound.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021). And where, as here, the claims are directed to methods of using a compound for a specific purpose (i.e., treating a macular degeneration), and the method comprises a single step of administering that compound in an 30 effective amount, the Federal Circuit “[has] generally construed statements of intended purpose in such method claims as limiting.” Id. at 1340. Moreover, “[w]hen limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th at 1341. In this case, claim 28 recites “[a] method of treating a macular degeneration, comprising administering an effective amount of a substituted C20-D1-3-retionoid to a patient in need thereof.” The preamble of “treating a macular degeneration” is necessary to understand the patients to whom the substituted C20-D1-3-retionoid should be administered; thus, it limits the claim. See Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th at 1341–42 (citing Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding the preamble to be limiting in a claim directed to “[a] method for treatment of sleep apneas comprising administration of a therapeutically effective amount of a [recited] compound . . . to a patient in need of such treatment,” because otherwise “the phrase ‘to a patient in need of such treatment’ would not have a proper antecedent basis”). Thus, we construe the preamble of claim 28 as limiting and give patentable weight to the phrase “method of treating a macular degeneration.” To the extent either party disagrees with our construction, the parties are welcome to further address this issue at trial.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“The Petition points to Mata’s express suggestion of “‘[p]harmacologic inhibition of one or more steps in the A2E synthetic pathway’ as ‘an effective treatment strategy for other macular degenerations associated with lipofuscin accumulation.’” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1010, 7159) (alteration in original). The Petition, again relying on Dr. Guengerich’s testimony, further explains Mata taught that deprotonation at C-20 of retinal — involving cleavage of a carbon-hydrogen bond — was “a pre-requisite for undesirable A2E formation,” and that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that this deprotonation likely was a rate-limiting step in A2E formation” such that slowing the deprotonation “would slow A2E formation,” i.e., lower the production of a toxic reaction product. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 259– 260). Moreover, although the evidence of record may suggest that, at least as of 1999, “there are no drugs on the market that contain deuterium in the molecule,” Ex. 1046, 85, left col., Petitioner has also provided evidence, for instance in the form of Dr. Calman’s testimony, that “there was significant interest in making deuterated versions of known therapeutics in order to slow rates of undesirable reactions.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 96; see also Pet. 15 (stating that “it was known before 2007 to . . . use deuterium to slow undesirable reaction”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 123; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 96–102). 18 Kushner et al., Pharmacological Uses and Perspectives of Heavy Water and Deuterated Compounds, 77 CANADIAN J. PHYSIOLOGY & PHARMACOLOGY 79 (1999) (Ex. 1046, “Kushner”). 37 Finally, we note that claim 1, at least, is not directed to a method of treating any particular disease, but only a method of retarding the accumulation of particular compounds (i.e., lipofuscin pigments). We are persuaded, at least at this stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a skilled artisan would have had a reason to use C20-deuterated vitamin-A in the manner suggested in the Petition, with a reasonable expectation of success, based on alleged similarities between the use of deuterated compounds in the claimed method and use of such compounds to, e.g., lower production of toxic metabolites.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham - PTAB · Jan 31, 2024 · PGR2023-00043 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR of claims 1–22 on all petitioned grounds, finding at least one claim more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Although Patent Owner’s definition of a POSA includes an additional four to six years of experience, we do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for purposes of our analysis. Both definitions provide for a highly skilled POSA with experience in formulating drugs, and our Decision would be unchanged whether we applied Petitioner’s definition or Patent Owner’s. Nevertheless, on this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition as it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. 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))). To the extent the parties dispute the level of ordinary skill and its impact on the analysis of the challenged claims, we encourage the parties to address this issue further during trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“We determine it is unnecessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Because Petitioner’s construction—with Patent Owner’s addition—is consistent with the Specification, we apply that construction of “enteric capsule” in this proceeding. See Ex. 1001, 39:22–26. We also note that Patent Owner appears to construe the claim phrase “the compound of Formula (III) is (Z)-endoxifen” to be limited to the free base form of (Z)-endoxifen. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 2 (“The ’334 patent claims enteric coated capsule formulations containing at least 90% (Z)- endoxifen free base, methods of delivering such formulations to a patient resulting in specific pharmacokinetic parameters, and methods of treating hormone-dependent breast and reproductive tract disorders.”) (emphasis added). The Specification, however, expressly states “‘a compound’, such as compounds of . . . Formula (III) . . . include the polymorphic salt, free base, co-crystal, and solvate forms of the formulas and/or compounds disclosed herein.” Ex. 1001, 12:48–52; see also id. at 12:52–59 (stating “‘compounds of Formula (III)’ . . . include . . . the free base of the compounds of Formula (III), and/or the gluconate salts as described herein”). To the extent there is any dispute as to the scope of “the compound of Formula (III) is (Z)-endoxifen” in the claims, the parties should address that construction at trial. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the express definition set forth in the Specification. That is, we construe “the compound of Formula (III) is (Z)-endoxifen” to include the polymorphic salt, free base, co-crystal and solvate forms of (Z)-endoxifen. See Ex. 1001, 12:48–59.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,572,334 - Twinstrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,149,306 - PTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2023-01069 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–8 on all three §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We integrate the above considerations into the Advanced Bionics two- part framework in deciding discretionary denial under § 325(d), first considering Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, and if so, evaluating Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, 7–11.” slip op. at 58
- Other 314aDenied
“Patent Owner points to § 314(a)27 as a basis for denying institution but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 2 (citation), 4 (citation), 15 (section heading), 31 (citation in parenthetical). At best, Patent Owner asserts that if we find “that fewer than all three Grounds meet the standard for Section 325(d), institution of Samsung’s petition should still be denied in full, because institution on all three Grounds ‘would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and 27 Under certain circumstances, the Board may apply its discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in light of a parallel district court proceeding involving the same patent. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). But as noted by Petitioner, the patent at issue here “has never been asserted in any litigation.” Pet. 63. 66 resources.’” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative)). Because we decline to exercise our discretion with respect to any of the Grounds under § 325(d), the Board’s Deeper decision is inapposite.” slip op. at 66
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not presently dispute this definition “except to clarify that the POSA would have at least two years of experience in engineering monoclonal antibodies for human therapeutic use, either in the laboratory or industry.” Prelim. Resp. 44–48 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 48–49 (arguing that Petitioner cannot prove unpatentability of the challenged claims under either party’s definition). At this stage in the proceeding, we accept and apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan, as being both unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s additional qualification. In this respect, it appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” encompasses Patent Owner’s proposed modification, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. 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 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,590,189 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01070 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–29 on all twelve asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage in the proceedings, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, as being both generally unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s supplemental definition. It appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” includes Patent Owner’s proposed level of experience. Pet. 17–18. We also take into account the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. 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 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the purposes of this institution decision, we find it unnecessary to construe any claim language because it is readily understandable on its face and there is no dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As the case continues, we may determine that certain claim language should be interpreted.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner, supported by the testimony of Dr. Ravetch, contends that Bowdish is analogous art. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128). In this respect, Dr. Ravetch testifies: A POSA looking for the amino acid sequences encoding eculizumab would have easily found Bowdish, and considered it to be analogous art to Bell and Evans for at least three reasons: (1) it provides express disclosures about the structure of the antibody “5G1.1,” (2) it identifies “Alexion Pharmaceuticals” as the inventors’ addressee that is the same as the assignee for Evans, and (3) it cites to the same Evans patent as does Bell for the structure of 5G1.1. Thus, a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bowdish and Evans in view of Bell to arrive at the claimed sequence. Ex. 1003 ¶ 128. On the present record before us, it appears that Bowdish is both reasonably pertinent and within the same field of endeavor as the ’809 patent for the reasons identified by Dr. Ravetch, because it is directed to the construction of a humanized monoclonal antibody comprising a TPO mimetic peptide graft into the heavy chain CDR3 of antibody framework 5G1, and because it uses “the parental 5G1.1” sequence as a control for FACs analysis of the TPO mimetic antibody. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 191–193. Moreover, it is reasonable that an ordinarily skilled artisan seeking to understand the Alexion anti-C5 antibody disclosed in, for example, Bell or Hillmen or Hill as a treatment for PNH, would look to other Alexion prior art for guidance.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“overarching argument that Petitioner’s positions are fatally flawed by hindsight or that “[a] POSA as of March 15, 2007[,] would have understood that Alexion had developed a humanized antibody named ‘eculizumab,’ . . . [b]ut a POSA at that time would not have known that “eculizumab” had the sequence claimed in the ʼ809 patent.” See Prelim. Resp. 4, 7, 9. It appears that Petitioner’s positions here consider only the disclosures of the prior art and how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have read prior art references in view of one another. Regarding Patent Owner’s foundational preliminary argument that all prior art pointed exclusively to Thomas for the structure of eculizumab, rather than to Evans or Tacken or Mueller PCT, for example, we are unconvinced. We find Patent Owner’s position mischaracterizes Bell’s incorporation of Thomas by wholly ignoring that, in the very same sentence, and preceding the cite to Thomas, Bell also incorporates Evans by reference. Ex. 1007 ¶ 52. Bell incorporates Evans as disclosing “[p]articularly useful anti-C5 antibodies . . . h5G1.1-mAb, h5G1.1-scFv and other functional fragments of h5G1.1,” and “[m]ethods for the preparation” of these. Id. It appears that the ordinarily skilled artisan, like Bell’s inventors, would not have looked solely to Thomas for eculizumab’s structure. Moreover, the ’809 patent itself states that Evans, which is a part of Bell, discloses “a preferred whole antibody (now named eculizumab),” and how to produce it. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 12:34–37. Thus, even the ’809 patent, like Bell, acknowledges that Evans is an important reference regarding eculizumab, its structure, and how to make it.” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,703,809 - PTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00999 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 on all five grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“As such, we find it error for the Examiner to have not expressly considered Tacken in the context of the other references Alexion pointed to as allegedly demonstrating the “consistent teachings as of March 15, 2007 that ‘eculizumab was the IgG4 antibody of Thomas.” Ex. 2102, 14840– 14843, 14854. But for this error, the Examiner would have better appreciated the disclosure of Mueller PCT. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178, 180–182 (Dr. Ravetch’s testimony that “most critically, Alexion failed to provide its own 2005 publication, the Tacken article, that teaches that “eculizumab” contains an IgG2/G4 constant domain”).” slip op. at 62
- Other 314aDenied
“IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner points to § 314(a)27 as a basis for denying institution but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 2 (citation), 4 (citation), 17 (section heading), 32 (citation in parenthetical). At best, Patent Owner asserts that if we find “that fewer than all five Grounds meet the standard for Section 325(d), institution of Samsung’s petition should still be denied in full, because institution on all five Grounds ‘would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources.’” Prelim. Resp. 32 (citing Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative)). Because we decline to exercise our discretion with respect to any of the Grounds under § 325(d), the Board’s Deeper decision is inapposite.” slip op. at 65
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not presently dispute this definition “except to clarify that the POSA would have at least two years of experience in engineering monoclonal antibodies for human therapeutic use, either in the laboratory or industry.” Prelim. Resp. 51 (further arguing that Petitioner cannot prove unpatentability of the challenged claims under either party’s definition). At this stage in the proceeding, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan, as being both unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s additional qualification. In this respect, it appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” encompasses Patent Owner’s proposed modification, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. 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,” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,725,504
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.