- Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2026 · PGR2025-00030 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 6–30 are unpatentable under §112(a) for lack of written description and lack of enablement; the §103 ground was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner filed a Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 42), Petitioner opposed the motion (Paper 44), and the Board denied the motion (Paper 47).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“of the ’758 patent supports an understanding that some activity is required for a polypeptide to be a “modified PH20 polypeptide,” and it is the enzymatic activity of hyaluronidase specifically that is the most frequently identified activity recited in the Definitions section of the ’758 patent. Indeed, both the definitions of “PH20” and “modified PH20 polypeptide” require hyaluronidase activity. See Ex. 1001, 45:54–55, 50:39–41 (“PH20 refers to a type of hyaluronidase that . . . is neutral-active” and “neutral active refers to the ability . . . to enzymatically catalyze the cleavage of hyaluronic acid at neutral pH”); 48:43–46 (“A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.”). Similar language is used later in the definition of a “conjugate” to explain that even when the modified PH20 polypeptide is linked to another polypeptide or chemical moiety it “retains hyaluronidase activity.” Id. at 63:39–46. In contrast, the discussion regarding the potential use of “modified PH20 polypeptides that are inactive” as antigens in contraception vaccines appears only in non-definitional sections of the ’758 patent. Id. at 72:63–65, 75:60–62. Accordingly, we find that this disclosure does not modify the definition’s explicit requirement that the claimed “modified PH20 polypeptide” exhibit hyaluronidase activity. Id. at 48:38–46.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“this testimony to at most describe a research plan (i.e., a “tool to engage in further modification”16) for finding the recited polypeptides rather than demonstrating the inventors were in possession of the full scope claimed. This is particularly so given the limits of the then-available analytical tools noted above and the fact that the structural connections and three dimensional modeling Patent Owner’s experts attempt to make (see, e.g., Ex. 2070 ¶¶ 129–213; Ex. 2068 ¶¶ 123–125) do not appear in the written description itself. To the extent the experts disagree on this point, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts over that of Patent Owner’s. See Ex. 1133 ¶¶ 111–251 (identifying problems with the approaches proposed by Patent Owner’s experts). For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence of record better supports a finding that in the 2011–2012 timeframe, it would have been unpredictable to identify which multiple mutants retained hyaluronidase activity, even with the single substitution data provided by the ’758 patent.” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 12,054,758 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,054,758 - Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2026 · PGR2025-00024 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6–15, and 17–30 are unpatentable under §112(a) for lack of written description and enablement; the §103 ground was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“this testimony to at most describe a research plan (i.e., a “tool to engage in further modification”16) for finding the recited polypeptides rather than demonstrating the inventors were in possession of the full scope claimed. This is particularly so given the limits of the then-available analytical tools noted above and the fact that the structural connections and three dimensional modeling Patent Owner’s experts attempt to make (see, e.g., Ex. 2070 ¶¶ 129–213; Ex. 2068 ¶¶ 123–125) do not appear in the written description itself. To the extent the experts disagree on this point, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts over that of Patent Owner’s. See Ex. 1133 ¶¶ 111–250 (identifying problems with the approaches proposed by Patent Owner’s experts). For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence of record better supports a finding that in the 2011–2012 timeframe, it would have been unpredictable to identify which multiple mutants retained hyaluronidase activity, even with the single substitution data provided by the ’590 patent.” slip op. at 56
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“6. Analysis Petitioner has the burden to identify how the Specification allegedly” slip op. at 75
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“4. Analysis Based on the evidence of record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided any persuasive reason to particularly target the leucine at position 307 of a PH20 polypeptide for modification as recited in claim 1 of the ’590 patent. It is undisputed that neither of the cited prior art references, the ’429 patent or Chao, specifically identifies or discusses position 307 of the PH20 polypeptide. See, e.g., Pet. 88‒109; PO Resp. 86‒ 93. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that multiple sequence alignments identify amino acids that are tolerated at particular positions (see Pet. 99‒109), because tolerance is not a positive reason to make a substitution. “It is not enough, even after KSR, to support a determination of obviousness that a reference includes a broad generic disclosure and a common utility to that in the claims and other prior art references—there must be some reason to select a species from the genus.” Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool Int’l A/S, 788 F. App’x 728, 733 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Dr. Park identified 379 positions in PH20 (i.e., ~85% of the protein) with evolutionary variation, that is, where “homologous proteins have tolerated different amino acids at those positions.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 31. Dr. Park distributes the twenty standard amino acids into four categories depending on their roles in forming secondary structure such as alpha helices or beta sheets, with each category having a minimum of six members. See id. ¶ 70. Nothing in the prior art or Dr. Park’s analysis directs the ordinary artisan to position 307 itself. Although Dr. Hecht asserts that the ’429 patent suggests conservative mutations generally, Petitioner did not point us to any specific teaching or” slip op. at 126
- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner filed a Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 41), Petitioner opposed the motion (Paper 43), and the Board denied the motion (Paper 46).” slip op. at 3
Patent outcomesUS 12,060,590 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,060,590 - Merck Sharp And Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 25, 2026 · PGR2025-00039 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 7–11 are unpatentable because the challenged claims lack written-description support and are not enabled.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“1 Although the Petition was directed to claims 1–11 of the ’185 patent, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 5 and 6 prior to institution, leaving just claims 1–4 and 7–11 at issue. See Ex. 2003.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“B. Claim Construction In a post-grant review, we interpret a claim “using the same claim” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence” slip op. at 59
Patent outcomesUS 12,104,185 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,104,185 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00147 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1–6 and 8–20 not shown unpatentable under three obviousness grounds, principally because the proposed combinations did not establish a feasible curved battery or transparent potting encapsulating the components.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, e.g., sensor system design, including inertial and other motion sensor system design, and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 25. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’124 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need not reach the issue of whether the preamble is limiting for purposes of determining patentability of the challenged claims. Even were we to agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting and the claims are limited to a finger-worn ring wearable computer device, Petitioner has relied on Schröder in each ground to disclose a “wearable computing device configured to be worn around a finger of a wearer.” Pet. 22 (Ground 1), 45 (Ground 2, relying on Yuen for adding the functionality of light sources with a photodetector, temperature sensors, and varying the sampling frequency of sensor data acquisition), 56 (Ground 3). We agree with Petitioner that Schröder discloses such a device. Thus, no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and find that Patent Owner has the better position for several reasons. First, the record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “would have to be reduced in size on the 6 There is no Exhibit 2022 in the record of this case. magnitude of 5-10x from its current size to fit in a ring of Schröder.” Resp. 38 (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Second, Petitioner relies on evidence in the Reply that Petitioner failed to specifically identify in the Petition. Compare Reply 3–5 (citing Ex. 1369 ¶¶ 7–14; Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 47, 71; Ex. 2022, 138:7–143:1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96, 337; Ex. 2021, 12–13, 307:7–17; Ex. 2020, 212:6–214:13; Ex. 1081, 130:18–131:14; Ex. 1010 ¶ 168), 9 (referring back to Section § II.B.2) with Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 157, 163, 168, 201, Fig. 6). More specifically, while the portion of Dr. Anthony’s Declaration cited in the Petition (see Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99)) mentions the Technology Background Section V of his Declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–147), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Anthony sufficiently explains what evidence supports his opinion that it was feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices into finger-rings, or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have miniaturized a curved battery for incorporation into Schröder’s ring. Ex. 1002 ¶ 196 (describing that rechargeable batteries powering wearable electronic devices were “well-known by 2013” and “had also undergone significant advances in terms of miniaturization and energy density [that] made it feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices such as supercapacitors into smaller form factors, such as finger rings, without sacrificing functionality” such as “lithium-polymer (Li-Po) batteries and solid-state batteries.”). Moreover, some of Petitioner’s citations in the Reply appear to be incorrect as there is no Exhibit 2022 of record in this case, as noted above. These issues undermine the strength of Petitioner’s showing by making it difficult to follow its reasoning, much less identify where in the record that reasoning finds support. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Third, even considering Petitioner’s new Reply arguments and” slip op. at 27
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony over Dr. Anthony’s and agree that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to account for the constraints of a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 140. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’124 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’124 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 140). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 141. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura patent), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 74–84. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 85. We also agree with Dr. Mercier that Dr. Anthony’s testimony lacks evidence or a technical analysis of the power requirements for the various sensors he suggests including in a wearable device and the capacity of the proposed GMBPow battery. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 210, 214–17; Ex. 2018 ¶ 97. Moreover, Dr. Anthony does not address the issues with the batteries that are identified in the references he discusses. For example, Dr. Anthony does not address Lee’s disclosure that “direct coating of electrode slurry onto plain paper led to the occasional internal-shorting of the device due to the leakage of the electrode material through a large-sized hole in the paper.” Ex. 1019, 2415. In contrast, Dr. Mercier discusses the pitfalls the skilled artisan faced in developing finger-ring devices. See, e.g., Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 77–79 (discussing the issues Rhee’s and Asada’s large rings), 83 (identifying power requirements as a design constraint). For example, Dr. Mercier explains that “flexible or curved batteries include flexible packaging materials such as aluminum laminated films that house the electrodes and electrolyte” such that “once the battery packaging is added to a battery such as GMBPow and then placed within a housing (e.g., external housing shell and internal potting), the resulting device would have dimensions that are not suitable for a finger-worn ring.” Id. ¶ 96 (citing Ex. 2026).” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 11,188,124 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,188,124 - PTAB · Apr 15, 2026 · IPR2025-00104 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–18 based on all presented grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds 1A and 1B.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The petitioner ultimately bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability of each challenged claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) would have “had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and two years of experience in the field [of] consumer electronics, with exposure to digital camera technology and wireless communications.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 94–95).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We find it unnecessary to construe any claim term to decide whether Petitioners satisfy the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“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 the claimed invention pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103; 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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness.10 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness determination requires finding a reason to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the challenged patent. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,904,030 - PTAB · Aug 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00147 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 8–20 after finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prove at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and the preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we grant the Petition and institute an inter partes review of claims 1‒6 and 8‒20 of the ’124 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, there is no dispute about the level of ordinary skill in the art.7 Based on the testimony of Dr. Anthony, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also been familiar with, for example, sensor system design, including inertial and other motion sensor system design, signal processing, and human-machine interfaces. A higher level of education or skill can substitute for less experience, and vice versa. Ex. 1002 ¶ 29. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted above is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’124 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the limited record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached
“We need not reach the issue of whether the preamble is limiting for purposes of determining institution. Even were we to agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting and the claims are limited to a fingerworn ring, at this stage Petitioner has demonstrated that the cited art teaches or suggests such a limitation. That is, Petitioner relies on the fingerring of Schroder for the claimed form factor of a “wearable computing device configured to be worn around a finger of a wearer.” Pet. 22 (Ground 1), 45 (Ground 2, relying on Yuen for adding the functionality of light sources with a photodetector, temperature sensors, and varying the sampling frequency of sensor data acquisition), 56 (Ground 3). Further, to the extent Petitioner contends that Yuen’s toe band or earring is structurally and functionally equivalent to a finger-ring (Pet. 45, 57), Patent Owner has not, at this stage of the proceeding, structurally distinguished a device configured to worn around a finger from a toe band or earring. For instance, Patent Owner has not explained how a device to be worn around a finger differs in size, configuration, or design from a toe band or earring. And the ’124 patent recognizes that “a human being’s finger can come in various different sizes and so should the [wearable computing device].” Ex. 1001, 12:64‒65. For instance, challenged dependent claim 10 recites that the width of the external housing of the wearable computing device is within a range of 3 mm to 8 mm and a thickness of the device is within a range of 1.5 to 3 mm. Id. at 35:8‒12. Should Patent Owner pursue this argument during the proceeding, the record would benefit from further development on the structural similarities and dissimilarities between a fingerworn ring and a toe band.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner’s showing of reasons to combine Mestas and Schröder is sufficient for purposes of granting institution of an inter partes review. Although general similarities between the references are usually not by themselves sufficient to show a reason to combine particular teachings, Petitioner here also provides more particularized contentions, such as “[i]mplementing Mestas’s device in Schröder’s ‘finger-ring’ form factor would ensure a tighter fit than a device worn, e.g., on the user’s arm or wrist, reducing motion artifacts, providing better shielding against ambient light, and permitting higher quality reading from device sensors (e.g., accelerometer, heart rate, temperature)” and that Mestas’s concern with “slippage around a user’s wrist or other body part” would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art “to consider placing the device on the finger, as in Schröder, to improve traction and prevent slippage.” Pet. 19‒20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 169; Ex. 1010 ¶ 152). These reasons are sufficient to present a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to at least one challenged claim based on the proposed combination of Mestas and Schroder for purposes of institution. Patent Owner will have an opportunity to further address Petitioner’s reasoning during the proceeding.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,188,124 - Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. The Johns Hopkins UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00240 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–42 are unpatentable: claims 1–42 are anticipated by the MSR, and the Board also finds the challenged claims obvious over the MSR and cited combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“claims a method of treating a human patient with colorectal cancer having certain characteristics using pembrolizumab and the main prior art reference cited by Petitioner discloses testing pembrolizumab to treat human patients. (See Ex. 1001, 25:40–50, Ex. 1005; see Decision 8–9.) Accordingly, the relevant field of Patent Owner’s claims is treating human patients, as well as testing existing compounds. Neither party directs us to evidence of the level of skill in the art beyond what we considered for institution of trial. In the Decision to institute trial, we determined that the level of skill in the art relevant to the claims of the ’393 patent is not limited to knowledge of and experience with conducting research relating to oncology or developing and conducting clinical trials. (See Dec. 8–9.) We determined that the level of skill also includes knowledge of and experience with treating colorectal cancer patients with immunotherapy compounds, identifying the conditions these patients may have, and understanding the literature regarding clinical trials for such colorectal cancers and the associated conditions and immunotherapy. (See id.) Because the parties do not present additional evidence or argument, we maintain that determination.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“what one of ordinary skill in the art would have known and understood at the relevant time. Specifically, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Alfred L. Neugut, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.3 (Ex. 1003) and Paul E. Oberstein, M.D. (Ex. 1150). Patent Owner relies on the testimony of Nils Lonberg, Ph.D. (Ex. 2001) and Richard Goldberg, M.D. (Ex. 2090).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1 requires a causal relationship wherein the patient must be tested for MSI-H and, if he or she is determined to be MSI-H or dMMR, then the patient is treated with 10 mg/kg of pembrolizumab every 14 days. We further agree that this relationship is different than the use of the term “after” in claims 7, 20, and 27, wherein patients must be treated with a different cancer therapy, and wherein the cancer must have later progressed for the treatment to be within the scope of these claims. (Ex. 1001, 25:66–7, 26:44–46, 26:63–64.) In claim 1, a biological sample from the patient must be tested to determine if the cancer is MSI-H and, if so, the patient is treated with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab. For this reason, if the prior art teaches the limitations of 1) testing a biological sample obtained from a patient having colorectal cancer to determine that the patient’s colorectal cancer is microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient, and 2) treating the patient with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab if the patient’s colorectal cancer is determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, the art anticipates claim 1. We are not persuaded that claim 1 requires or excludes anything else because nothing else is recited in the claim.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Microsatellite Unstable (MSI) Tumors.” (Ex. 1005, 2.) The parties’ witnesses agree that MK-3475 is pembrolizumab, the compound recited in claim 1. (See Neugut Decl., Ex. 1003 ¶ 37; see Lonberg Decl., Ex. 2001, ¶ 65.) Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion that the MSR was published on a government web site on June 10, 2013, more than two years before the priority date of the ’393 patent on July 10, 2015. (See Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1005, 3, Ex. 1003 ¶ 35).)” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,591,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,591,393 - Cipla Limited v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00033 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–13 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“We determine that this factor weighs heavily in favor of exercising discretion to deny the Petition. The trial date in the district court litigation is scheduled for October 6, 2025. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2010). This date is at least six months before our projected statutory deadline should we go forward in this case. Patent Owner points out that this trial date is nine months later than the median time to trial in the District of Delaware, and in Patent Owner’s view, the parties are on track to satisfy the current schedule. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2011).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“1 Patent Owner also asserts that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), but we need not reach this issue because we are exercising discretion under Section 314(a) to deny the Petition. See Prelim. Resp. 2–3.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,744,802 - PTAB · May 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00028 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 and 17–22 on all asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Shapero and Delseny render claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“To accord substantial weight to evidence of secondary considerations, it “must have a nexus to the claims, i.e., there must be a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence and the patented invention.” Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (instructing that “the Board, in considering the evidence of unexpected results, should determine whether there is a nexus between the unexpected [results] and aspects of the claimed invention not already present in the prior art”). Moreover, “when unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Laboratories, 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). On this record, it is unclear what Dr. Brooks considered to be the closest prior art when he alleged unexpected results. See Ex. 1002, 2013–17. We also find no persuasive evidence in either Brooks Declaration or the Examiner’s analysis on the requisite nexus. See id., 2055–56. As a result, we agree with Petitioner that “the Examiner erred in exclusively relying on Dr. Brooks’ declaration” to withdraw the obviousness rejection based on Jones and Tucker. See Pet. 58.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the skill level insufficient. As Patent Owner recognizes, the challenged claims relate to sequencing methods using a next-generation sequencing (“NGS”) platform. See id. at 8; see also Ex. 1001, 35:56–57 (claim 1 reciting “sequencing the enriched nucleic acid sequence of interest on a massively parallel sequencing platform”). Also, as Patent Owner recognizes, [c]ompared to traditional, Pre-NGS sequencing methods, NGS sequencing utilized a new design that no longer relied upon disassembling and then piecing together a single original template DNA strand. Instead, NGS now allowed for hundreds of thousands of original template strands to be sequenced in the same reaction. With NGS, a user could perform massively parallel sequencing, allowing for elements of the genome to be sequenced in a fast, scalable manner. Prelim. Resp. 5 (internal citations omitted). As such, we disagree with Patent Owner that a POSA only need to have education “in a field related to molecular biology” or experience “in a molecular biology lab,” because an artisan having only experience with pre-NGS sequencing methods would not qualify as a POSA. Instead, for purposes of this Decision, we find a POSA would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, molecular genetics, bioinformatics, biochemistry, or a related field. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. Additionally, the POSA would have had experience with NGS sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned. This definition of a POSA is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’012 patent and prior art. We further note” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any claim term expressly.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“It is true that Delseny recognizes the limitations and challenges of NGS. Ex. 1007, 411, 417. But the language in Delseny that Patent Owner identifies does not amount to teaching away, which requires that prior art references “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Instead, Delseny notes the limitations of hybridization technology in genotyping. Ex. 1007, 417. According to Delseny, “[t]he ultimate resolution is at the base-pair level and NGSTs now open the possibility to genotype a line by sequencing it.” Id. In fact, Delseny specifically teaches that NGS “can substitute for the genotyping microarray strategy because of its higher resolution.” Id.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,036,012 - Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over FR458 with the ’4666 patent and WO133; claims 1–17 are also unpatentable over WO742 with the ’4666 patent and WO133.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ positions about the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar. (See Pet., 13–14; see PO Resp., 10–12.) In light of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations and would have had access to team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Pet. 13–14; see PO Resp. 10–12; see Dec. 6–7.) Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’795 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Although Petitioner puts forth constructions for terms in the claims of the ’795 patent, Patent Owner argues that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the controversy between the parties. (See Pet. 14–19; see PO Resp. 12.) Except as indicated below, we agree that express construction of the claim terms is not required because the parties do not materially dispute the meanings of the terms. 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))). Limitation (c) of claim 1 recites “syrup formulation” once and then “syrup” by itself twice. The parties agree that two recitations of “syrup” by itself mean and are synonymous with “syrup formulation.” (See Tr. 15:16– 19 (counsel for Petitioner: “[T]he term, syrup, by itself, means the formulation. And for that reason, we--it’s our position that it’s the syrup formulation that has the specific viscosity requirements as well as the other features that we discussed.”); 31:17–20 (counsel for Patent Owner: “But those wherein clauses, what it’s referring to, the syrup formulation and the syrup -- it was all to a complete to a final formulation, right, it’s not just the agave syrup. Everybody here recognizes and understands that from that perspective.”).) Thus, the parties agree that the “viscosity of less than 1500 centipoise at about 22 degrees” limits the final “pharmaceutical syrup formulation for oral administration,” not the “agave syrup” limitation in limitation (b) of claim 1.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues further that Dr. Crowley testifies that, “[g]enerally, suspensions having a viscosity in the range of 20 to 150 cP are considered readily pourable,” but that this range is well below the viscosity range of 200–900 cP taught in WO133 and the preferred viscosity range of 1000–3000 cP taught in the ’4666 patent. (See PO Resp. 45 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 59).) Dr. Crowley testifies that “increasing the viscosity of a suspension formulation has been shown to impair the dissolution characteristics of immediate release acetaminophen” and that, “[w]ith respect to suspensions for oral administration, having a higher viscosity is generally not desirable.” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.) According to Patent Owner, this is a “teaching away” because Petitioner’s own expert testimony demonstrates a motivation not to combine the acetaminophen formulation of FR458- Example 1 with the 1000-3000 cP range of the ’4666 patent and the 200-900 cP range of WO133 since by his own admission doing so would yield bad results (i.e., impairing the dissolution characteristics of the acetaminophen) and generally undesirable higher viscosity. (PO Resp. 46 (citing Berkland Decl., Ex. 2009 ¶ 148).) Dr. Crowley’s cited testimony, however, is about general characteristics of suspensions for oral administration, whereas the WO133 refers specifically to sweetened analgesic formulations. (See Ex. 1006, 8:1– 3 (“The viscosity of the acetaminophen composition generally ranges from about 200–900 centipoise, preferably from about 300–700 centipoise.”); see Pet. Reply 8–9.) As Petitioner notes, Dr. Crowley also testifies that the viscosity of 29 commercially available, pediatric liquid oral antibiotic formulations were measured and determined to range from 20 to 1,780 cP” and that “[t]he viscosity of Children’s Tylenol has been reported to be less than 1,000 centipoise at shear rates between 0.05 and 0.2 reciprocal seconds.” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 58.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Crowley’s testimony contradicts the teachings regarding viscosity of analgesic formulations in the cited prior art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,617,795 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,617,795
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.