- Motif Foodworks, Inc. v. Impossible Foods, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00206 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 and 14–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Giacino, Proulx, and Conrad, with Perret or MacLeod for certain dependent claims; the Board did not reach other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The District Court’s claim construction for the term “compound” is shown below. Ex. 2016, 8–11. Claim Term District Court Construction The “sulfur compound” limitation must be satisfied by a compound that is present compound10 separately from a protein; “compound” will not be construed as being limited to compounds used as flavor precursors The District Court’s claim construction order cites to U.S. Patent 11,013,250 (the ’250 patent”) as representative of the ’096 patent and other related patents involved in the District Court litigation. See Ex. 2016, 7 (“Claim 1 of the ʼ250 patent claims is generally representative for purposes of the parties’ dispute.”). The District Court determined that plant proteins 10 Ex. 2016, 9, 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:26–27).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“24. Pet. 20–26. Focusing on independent claim 1’s limitation “a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamin, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof,” Petitioner asserts Brown’s disclosure of “pea flour” meets this limitation because “pea flour contains cystine, thiamine, and methionine.” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1012 (Brown) ¶ 364; Ex. 1003 (Tarte) ¶¶ 121–125; Ex. 1050/Ex. 1059 (Jahreis), 39, 41, 86; Ex. 1106, 3, 6–7). Petitioner qualifies that its mapping of “pea flour” to this claim limitation is based on the interpretation of “compound” as “not . . . limited to free compounds.” Id. at 22 n.7. Specifically, Petitioner states that the mapping is based on Brown’s “pea flour, which contains proteins having the claimed sugar and sulfur compounds.” Id. at 12; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 105 (reiterating this statement). Brown states, in pertinent part, “[a] muscle replica comprising pea flour, sunflower oil, and glucose.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 364. Dr. Tarté states in his declaration that a person of ordinary skill “would have understood that pea flour includes cystine, methionine, and thiamine.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121–125. On cross-examination, Dr. Tarté stated that this mapping to the claim is based on an understanding that Brown’s proteins satisfy the sulfur compound limitation. Ex. 2032, 33:19–34:12; 98:11–99.9 (“[I]n as much as . . . Patent Owner considers proteins to satisfy the sulfur compound claim, then . . . the pea protein flour of Brown also satisfies the [sulfur] compound claim.”), 117:9–118:8. Patent Owner asserts that the Petition’s anticipation ground must fail if the claimed compound limitation does not extend to proteins. PO Resp. 13. Because we adopt the District Court’s construction of the claim term “compound,” Petitioner’s contention that Brown anticipates the ’096 patent necessarily fails. See Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631 (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). Petitioner concedes that the viability of this ground depends on construing the term “compound” to include whole proteins, and has failed to present evidence in this proceeding that Brown discloses a sulfur compound that is separate from a protein. Tr. 50:21–52:13 (Petitioner’s counsel conceding that the anticipation ground is not viable under the District Court’s claim construction for “compound”). Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Brown.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner
“The analogous-art test requires a showing that a reference is either in the field of endeavor of the challenged patent or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to establish Crane as analogous art under this legal framework. PO Resp. 36–40; PO Sur-Reply 1–2. First, Patent Owner asserts Crane is not “from the same field of endeavor” as the ’096 patent. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 2030 (Qian Decl.) ¶ 86). Based on this record, the ’096 patent is directed to food products while Crane, on the other hand, relates to “methods for producing recombinant functional heme-binding proteins.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–25; Ex. 1014, code (57). As Patent Owner points out, Crane does not even mention food products or any flavor functionality of heme-binding proteins. PO Resp. 37. Petitioner does not address Crane’s field of endeavor in its Petition or Reply. See Pet. 36–50; Pet. Reply 1 (“Petitioner . . . relies on the arguments made in the Petition for Ground 1 and 3A-3D”). We agree with Patent Owner that Crane is not from the same field of endeavor as the ’096 patent. Next, Patent Owner asserts the Petition fails to explain how Crane’s recombinant heme-binding protein is pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’096 patent inventors. According to Patent Owner, the problem solved by the inventors was “to provide meat-like-food products that overcome the limitations of prior-art meat substitutes.” PO Resp. 38. Crane, however, is directed to producing recombinant heme-binding proteins with complete heme incorporation. Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 3–5; Ex. 2030 ¶ 87. Neither Crane nor the Petition addresses how this is relevant to improving meat-associated flavors or aromas in food flavor additives. See generally, Ex. 1014; Pet. 36–50. The Petition asserts that Crane’s recombinant heme-binding protein, if used in place of Conrad’s blood/hemoglobin, which is added to improve taste, “would have produced the proteins with a high degree of purity.” Pet. 47–48. The Petition asserts that the benefit of high purity is greater control over the amount added and consistency in the end product. Id. at 48.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“argument at trial, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s basis for improving the nutritional content of the food product of Giacino is unsupported by the record. Proulx identifies iron deficiency as “a major nutritional problem, affecting over 2 billion people[.]” Ex. 1019, 1518; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93; see also Pet. Reply 25. Based on the evidence in this record, Giacino’s compositions lack a significant source of iron. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 387, 407. Furthermore, like Proulx, Giacino’s composition is intended to be an additive to food products. Specifically, Giacino’s composition is intended to be added to synthetic meat fibers, that may benefit from a source of iron, by mimicking not only the “meaty flavor” or aroma of meat, but the nutritional profile of conventionally sourced beef as well. Ex. 1003 ¶ 410; Ex. 1015, 7:22–26. This reasoning is supported by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Tarté. Ex. 1003 ¶ 410. Patent Owner acknowledges the nutritive aspect of the addition is a “bonus” to the flavor impact. PO Sur-Reply 25–26. Proulx explicitly teaches adding leghemoglobin as an additive to food (“food fortificant”), therefore a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Ex. 1019, Abs.; see id. at 1521 (“added with tortillas”). Even if the addition of Proulx’s leghemoglobin were to produce autooxidation and impact Giacino’s meaty flavor, the benefit of Proulx’s leghemoglobin as an additive to a food composition is not disputed and supports the combination. “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”). Moreover, the evidence of record regarding the asserted negative effect on aroma and flavor due to heme proteins is that this negative impact is merely a possibility. Ex. 2030 ¶ 76 (Dr. Qian states that heme proteins have an “unpredictable effect” and refers to statements made in related patent prosecution that “fortification [with] iron has a potential negative effect on organoleptic quality of maize products, in that soluble forms of iron can cause oxidative rancidity,” quoting Ex. 1148, 2715). Based on the evidence of record, the benefit of adding heme protein taught by Proulx outweighs the potential negative effect that it may have on Giacino’s flavoring additive. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence in this record supports Petitioner’s assertion that a POSITA would have been motivated to nutritionally fortify Giacino’s meat flavoring composition by adding Proulx’s soy leghemoglobin.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,943,096 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,943,096 - Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2020 · PGR2019-00027 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Harden combined with one or more of Varenna 2011, Gatti, and Muratore; the written-description challenge was not proven.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. Varenna 2011 teaches that neridronate “seems to possess an excellent efficacy profile” in treating CRPS. Ex. 1006, 233. In the context of reporting the use of “[n]eridronic acid for the treatment of bone metabolic diseases,” Gatti teaches that “[i]ntravenous high doses of bisphosphonates are increasingly used for the treatment of [CRPS].”13 Ex. 1008, 1305, 1308. Gatti also reports that a clinical trial of neridronic acid “is underway.” Id. Muratore teaches that neridronate was “efficacious in the treatment of [CRPS].” Ex. 1007, 89. Thus, on this record, each of these references sufficiently teaches the efficacy of neridronic acid or its salt in treating CRPS, suggesting that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use neridronic acid in treating CRPS. With respect to the limitation of claim 1 requiring that the neridronic acid be “parenterally administer[ed],” each of Varenna 2011, Gatti, and Muratore teaches intravenous administration of neridronic acid. Ex. 1006, 233; Ex. 1007, 89; Ex. 1008, 1308. Intravenous administration is a type of parenteral administration. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. 13 Gatti uses the terms “reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome” and “algodystrophy.” Ex. 1008, 1308. On the present record, we interpret both of these terms as synonymous with “complex regional pain syndrome,” “CRPS,” “complex regional pain syndrome type I,” “CRPS I,” “reflex sympathetic algodystrophy,” “reflex sympathetic dystrophy,” and “causalgia.” Ex. 1006, 227 (equating “algodystrophy,” “complex regional pain syndrome type I,” and “CRPS I”); Ex. 1007, 89 (using the term “reflex sympathetic algodystrophy”); Ex. 1019, 713 (equating “complex regional pain syndrome,” “CRPS,” “reflex sympathetic dystrophy,” and “causalgia”). Harden teaches that the Budapest Criteria are used as “clinical diagnostic criteria for CRPS” and that they include changes in skin blood flow, by reference to the symptoms of “temperature asymmetry” and “skin color asymmetry.” Ex. 1009, 274 (Appendix II). Further, Harden teaches that 69.4% of patients diagnosed with CRPS were observed on examination to exhibit temperature asymmetry, and 83.9% were observed on examination to exhibit skin color asymmetry. Id. at 271 (Table 2). Thus, Harden teaches that a majority of patient with CRPS suffer from changes in skin blood flow. Because Varenna 2011, Gatti, and Muratore teach that neridronic acid is effective in treating CRPS, the combination of any of those references with Harden14 would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that neridronic acid would be effective in alleviating changes in skin blood flow associated with CRPS. Thus, the combination of Harden and one or more of Varenna 2011,” slip op. at 26
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Assuming that “October 2011” is hearsay, it is still admissible evidence under Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Opp. Mot. 3–4 (asserting this hearsay exception). Under Rule 807, a statement “is not excluded,” even if it is hearsay, if it meets two requirements. First, the statement must be “supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness— after considering the totality of circumstances under which it was made and evidence, if any, corroborating the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(1). Second, the statement must be “more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.” Id. at 807(a)(2). Here, both requirements are satisfied. The statement “October 2011” on the face of Varenna 2011 is offered to prove that Varenna 2011 was published in October 2011. This statement is accompanied by several guarantees of trustworthiness. The statements “Received on July 15, 2011” and “Accepted on August 30, 2011,” when offered as corroboration of the October 2011 publication date, are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801 (statement is hearsay only if offered in evidence “to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement”). Accordingly, they may be admitted for this purpose, and they corroborate a publication in October 2011. Moreover, Exhibits 1038 and 1040 also provide some evidence that Varenna 2011 was published in October 2011. Ex. 1038, 1 (article with same title as Varenna 2011 published in “Fascicolo 5 2011”); Ex. 1040, 1 (“Fascicolo 5 2011” published in 2011). Thus, the record contains sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness of Varenna 2011’s statement that Varenna 2011 was published in October 2011. See Opp. Mot. 3 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39–40). We find that Varenna 2011’s statement, indicating that the reference was published in October 2011, is “more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.” Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(2). It is difficult to imagine evidence more probative of the publication date of a journal article than the article’s own contemporaneous statement about when it was published.19 See Opp. Mot. 2–4 (for well-supported arguments on point). Accordingly, we determine that the exception of Rule 807 applies, and we conclude that the statement “October 2011” in Varenna 2011 should not be excluded.” slip op. at 48
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“regardless of whether the preambles are limiting. Even if the preambles are limiting, their scope is so broad as to be hardly different from no limitation at all. The specification of the ’774 patent defines “treating” as “includ[ing] any kind of treatment activity, including the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, or any activity that otherwise affects the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” Ex. 1002, 7:43–47. This definition exhibits “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and is “‘set out . . . within the patent disclosure’ so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, we give effect to this definition of “treating.” Under the definition of “treating” in the specification of the ’774 patent, “[a] method of treating” changes in skin blood flow (claim 1) or abnormal sudomotor activity (claim 16) “associated with complex regional pain syndrome” means a method of diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or preventing that condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome, or otherwise affecting the structure or any function of the body of someone suffering from the condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome. To the extent that this requires carrying out the method on a patient suffering from changes in skin blood flow (claim 1) or abnormal sudomotor activity (claim 16) associated with complex regional pain syndrome, this is already part of the method recited in the body of the claims, Ex. 1002, 90:33–40, 91:14–21, so the preambles provide no additional limitation. To the extent that the preambles require some particular result to be brought about, that result could be the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of the symptom in question, or it could be any effect at all on the structure or any function of the patient’s body. Thus, even when construed as limiting, the preambles provide little, if any, further restriction on the scope of the challenged claims beyond that set forth in the body of the claims.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“regardless of whether the preambles are limiting. Even if the preambles are limiting, their scope is so broad as to be hardly different from no limitation at all. The specification of the ’774 patent defines “treating” as “includ[ing] any kind of treatment activity, including the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, or any activity that otherwise affects the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” Ex. 1002, 7:43–47. This definition exhibits “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and is “‘set out . . . within the patent disclosure’ so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, we give effect to this definition of “treating.” Under the definition of “treating” in the specification of the ’774 patent, “[a] method of treating” changes in skin blood flow (claim 1) or abnormal sudomotor activity (claim 16) “associated with complex regional pain syndrome” means a method of diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or preventing that condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome, or otherwise affecting the structure or any function of the body of someone suffering from the condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome. To the extent that this requires carrying out the method on a patient suffering from changes in skin blood flow (claim 1) or abnormal sudomotor activity (claim 16) associated with complex regional pain syndrome, this is already part of the method recited in the body of the claims, Ex. 1002, 90:33–40, 91:14–21, so the preambles provide no additional limitation. To the extent that the preambles require some particular result to be brought about, that result could be the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of the symptom in question, or it could be any effect at all on the structure or any function of the patient’s body. Thus, even when construed as limiting, the preambles provide little, if any, further restriction on the scope of the challenged claims beyond that set forth in the body of the claims. Moreover, as discussed below with respect to the asserted grounds of obviousness, Petitioner directs us to evidence that the prior art teaches or suggests the subject matter of the preambles, even when those preambles are construed as limiting in accordance with the meaning of “treating” provided in the specification.8 Thus, whether or not we treat the preambles as limiting, the outcome does not change. Given this circumstance, we treat the preambles of the challenged claims as limiting and assign them a meaning consistent with the specification’s definition of “treating.”” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,039,774 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,039,774 - Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2020 · PGR2019-00026 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Harden and one or more of Varenna 2011, Gatti, and Muratore; the written-description challenge fails.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“INTRODUCTION A. Background Grünenthal GmbH (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting a post-grant review of claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,931,352 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’352 patent”). Antecip Bioventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. We instituted review of all challenged claims on each of the grounds asserted in the Petition. Paper 6 (“Dec. Inst.”).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingOther
“regardless of whether the preambles are limiting. Even if the preambles are limiting, their scope is so broad as to be hardly different from no limitation at all. The specification of the ’352 patent defines “treating” as “includ[ing] any kind of treatment activity, including the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, or any activity that otherwise affects the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” Ex. 1001, 7:43–47. This definition exhibits “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and is “‘set out . . . within the patent disclosure’ so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, we give effect to this definition of “treating.” Under the definition of “treating” in the specification of the ’352 patent, “[a] method of treating” hyperalgesia (claim 1) or edema (claim 17) “associated with complex regional pain syndrome” means a method of diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or preventing that condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome, or otherwise affecting the structure or any function of the body of someone suffering from the condition associated with complex regional pain syndrome. To the extent that this requires carrying out the method on a patient suffering from hyperalgesia (claim 1) or edema (claim 17) associated with complex regional pain syndrome, this is already part of the method recited in the body of the claims, Ex. 1001, 90:39–43, 91:23–27, so the preambles provide no additional limitation. To the extent that the preambles require some particular result to be brought about, that result could be the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of the symptom in question, or it could be any effect at all on the structure or any function of the patient’s body. Thus, even when construed as limiting, the preambles provide little, if any, further restriction on the scope of the challenged claims beyond that set forth in the body of the claims. Moreover, as discussed below with respect to the asserted grounds of obviousness, Petitioner directs us to evidence that the prior art teaches or suggests the subject matter of the preambles, even when those preambles are construed as limiting in accordance with the meaning of “treating” provided in the specification.8 Thus, whether or not we treat the preambles as limiting, the outcome does not change. Given this circumstance, we treat the preambles of the challenged claims as limiting, and assign them a meaning consistent with the specification’s definition of “treating.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner’s asserted references provides data showing that administering neridronic acid improves the symptoms of CRPS. PO Resp. 18–19. But “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–904 (Fed. Cir. 1988). It is sufficient that Varenna 2011, Gatti, and Muratore would have informed the ordinarily skilled artisan that successful treatment of CRPS and its symptoms was likely; there is no requirement that Petitioner show that the prior art taught that success was certain.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“qualifies as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102. PO Resp. 4–17; PO Sur-Reply 14–21. “To qualify as a printed publication, a reference ‘must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.’” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Id. (quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, there are two ways to show that a reference was sufficiently accessible: show it was disseminated or show it was “otherwise made available to the extent that” interested people of ordinary skill in the art could have located it after exercising reasonable diligence. Id. Here, according to Petitioner, the asserted references “are articles published in periodical journals by an identified and reputable publisher.” Reply 3.11 Petitioner argues that the references were “disseminated on the[ir] stated publication date[s].” Id. at 5. We agree.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,931,352 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,931,352 - Donghee America, Inc. / Donghee Alabama, LLC v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation And ResearchAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2019 · IPR2017-01654 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 7–9, and 12–14 are unpatentable: Borchert anticipates claims 1, 2, 8, and 12–14; Borchert alone or with Van Schaftingen renders claim 7 obvious; Borchert and Kachnic render claim 9 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art, (2) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) considering objective evidence indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18). In an inter partes review, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, to prevail Petitioner must explain how the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. With these standards in mind, we address each challenge below. slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“inventors, Hervé Lemoine and Frédéric Jannot, were obligated to assign their inventions, including the subject matter of both Jannot and the application that led to the issuance of the ’490 patent, to Patent Owner.2 PO Resp. 16–17. Patent Owner proffers testimony from both men that supports its argument. Id. (citing Ex. 2007; Ex. 2008). Messrs. Lemoine and Jannot each testify that at all times while they have been employed by Patent Owner, including the time at which they developed the subject matter claimed in the ’490 patent, they have been obliged to assign to Patent Owner or its predecessor all rights and resulting patent applications for any invention made in the course of their employment. Ex. 2007 ¶ 2–4; Ex. 2008 ¶ 2–4. This testimony is unrebutted. Tr. 12:21–13:7. Petitioner contends that Jannot is prior art under § 102(e). Pet. 16. (noting that the effective filing date of Jannot in the U.S. predates the priority date of the ’490 patent). Patent Owner has established with unrebutted evidence that Messrs. Jannot and Lemoine were obliged to assign rights to the subject matter of both Jannot and the ’490 patent at the time they developed the subject matter of the ’490 patent. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 2–4; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 2–4. Under § 103(c), commonly owned subject matter is removed from the scope of prior art under § 102(e). Accordingly, we” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“a parison that is divided into two parts. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 3). Petitioner concedes that Borchert does not expressly describe cutting a parison “along two diametrically opposed lines” as recited in claim 7. Id. at 37. However, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered doing so to have been obvious. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 65). Dr. Kazmer testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered it obvious to divide Borchert’s parison into two parts with equal width because Borchert’s mold halves 9a and 9b are shown as being the same width. Ex. 1007 ¶ 65. Alternatively, Petitioner relies upon Van Schaftingen as expressly describing “extruding a single parison that is cut over an entire length along two diametrically opposed lines.” Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:15–23). Dr. Kazmer testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Borchert’s process as modified by Van Schaftingen to obtain sheets of equal width for use in Borchert’s equal-width mold halves 9a and 9b and because Van Schaftingen describes its diametrically opposed cuts as being “very particularly preferred.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 68).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,079,490 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,079,490
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.