• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00728 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 15–18, and 20–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Schaffer with Hartley or Eller; claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 15–18, and 21–24 are also obvious over Hartley and Eller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks specificity. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person may qualify as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2033 ¶ 61. We find that a POSA would also have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:16–54 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had first-hand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1037 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing” hemostasis valves or aspiration catheters is not necessary, but “general experience with vascular devices and procedures” is required). Further, as Dr. Zalesky testified, the POSA’s experience related to developing such devices “could be as simple as bench testing and looking at clinical data.” Id. at 74:5–75:1. Lastly, a POSA would have understood such devices’ design requirements as determined by the needs of the physician, patient, and procedure, which understanding may be informed by work experience or study. Ex. 2030, 24:5–21.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “above (supra Section III.C), a filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes that feature in its valves. Instead, Patent Owner persuades us that Schaffer describes “rigid U-shaped actuating members—not a ‘filament.’” PO Resp. 23–24.13 We find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more credible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being substantially rigid structures. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 91–100 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton testifies that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have simply purchased pre-made [and flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Such testimony invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed.” slip op. at 28

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner cites intrinsic evidence in support of its interpretation, which include claim 1’s recitation of an “active tensioning mechanism” comprising the filament and the Specification’s description of a filament that can be both “loosened” and “tightened.” PO Resp. 14–17 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:36–37, 9:53–56 (teaching “the filament 150 is tightened” when the actuator buttons are released and “the filament 150 is loosened” when the buttons are pressed to open the valve)); see also Ex. 2025, 1288 (defining “tension” as to “tighten to a desired or appropriate degree”). These descriptions from the patent are more consistent with the view that the filament is characteristically flexible, not rigid. 10 We reached the same conclusion, based on substantially the same records, in the Institution Decision and the Final Written Decisions in the 1157, 156, and 289 IPRs. Inst. Dec. 14–18; Ex. 1042, 14–24; Ex. 1048, 16–23; Ex. 1049, 14–17 (noting the parties’ agreement at oral hearing that there was no additional argument or evidence about whether a filament requires flexibility that was not already addressed in related matters). After we construed the “filament” term to require flexibility at institution, Petitioner provided no further argument or evidence on this issue in its authorized trial briefing or at oral hearing. See generally Pet. Reply. embodiments (where the filament forms one or more loops like depicted and described in Figures 6–7) require a flexible structure. See, e.g., Ex. 2032, 15–16 (explaining that the device would not work to constrict the tubular sidewall and lumen (analogous to the elongate member defining a lumen of the claims here) if the filament forming the loop(s) was inflexible); Ex. 1001, Figs. 6–7 (filament 150, with sub-filaments 150-A and 150-B). Although flexibility of the filament in the patent’s “bight” embodiments (e.g., as shown in Figures 8 and 9) is less clear, there is a dearth of evidence from Petitioner—either intrinsic or extrinsic to the patent—showing why a POSA would have understood the bights as embracing rigid structures. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 8–9. Moreover, as admitted by Petitioner’s expert, that a filament may be made from various materials described in the patent (e.g., synthetics or metals) does not, absent more information, lead to a conclusion that a filament is “rigid.” Ex. 2030, 125:2–126:4 (testifying “the relative stiffness or rigidity is not clear from those . . . materials without knowing much more information”).” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Schaffer anticipates claim 1 or any of the other challenged claims, each of which requires at least one “filament.” We are unpersuaded above (supra Section III.C), a filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes that feature in its valves. Instead, Patent Owner persuades us that Schaffer describes “rigid U-shaped actuating members—not a ‘filament.’” PO Resp. 23–24.13 We find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more credible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being substantially rigid structures. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 91–100 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton testifies that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have simply purchased pre-made [and flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Such testimony invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,844,921 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,844,921
• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00289 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–15 under Grounds 2 and 3, and claim 10 under Ground 4; Ground 1 did not establish unpatentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “We have construed the “filament” term in multiple related proceedings and agreed with Patent Owner that the claimed filament requires flexibility. See Ex. 1050 (Final Written Decision in 156 IPR); IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 (Final Written Decision) at 15–24. Specifically, we determined that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s position that “a POSA would have understood the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed ‘filament’ as a flexible length of material (e.g., one or more string(s), wire(s), tape(s)).” See, e.g., Ex. 1050, 23. We maintain that construction in this Decision for the reasons given by Patent Owner (see PO Resp. 24–32; PO Sur-reply 6–8), we disagree with Petitioner’s argument to the contrary (Pet. Reply 27–31), and we incorporate our analysis concerning the meaning of the filament term from the related proceedings identified above, which applies equally here.13 Ex. 1050 (Final Written Decision in 156 IPR); IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 (Final Written Decision) at 15–24. The parties agreed at the oral hearing that there is no additional argument or evidence 13 Although the ’005 patent is not directly related to the patents at issue in the 1157 and 156 IPRs, the ’519 Application that the ’005 patent purports to incorporate for providing all relevant disclosures about the filament term is a parent application to the challenged patents in the 1157 and 156 IPRs (see supra n.3). SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). We also construed the filament term consistently in other ongoing proceedings on related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1045 (Institution Decision in the 728 IPR), 12–18; Ex. 1046 (Institution Decision in the 989 IPR), 13–21. already addressed in those related matters. Tr. 6:13–23, 23:19–26.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in August 2018 “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline and 2–4 years of catheter design experience.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). Although Patent Owner states that it “disagrees” with Petitioner’s POSA definition, Patent Owner nevertheless applies that definition in this case. PO Resp. 32–33; see Tr. 22:23–23:5 (Patent Owner is “not disputing” Petitioner’s definition, asserting the definition “doesn’t make any difference in this case”).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “We credit Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer on whether the POSA would have understood Schaffer as describing rigid actuating members. Dr. Zalesky testifies, for example, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosures about the actuating members being “machined” from metal or plastic, that such actuating members would be rigid. Ex. 2026 ¶ 101 (explaining “machining is a manufacturing process in which the desired part . . . is created using the controlled removal of bulk material” to produce a “rigid material”); Ex. 1005 ¶ 82 (“The actuating member 55 and the actuating button 261 is machined from aluminum” and “[i]n another example, the actuating member 55 and the actuating button 261 are machined from plastic”); Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 102–103 (testifying the disclosed valve assembly technique in Schaffer (Ex. 1005 ¶ 83) also indicates that “rigid” actuating members are used). Mr. Thornton opines (without citation to any persuasive supporting disclosure) that a POSA “would have understood that Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members would have preferably been formed from a thin, flexible material.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 113. But, at deposition, Mr. Thornton conceded that machined plastics and aluminum, like disclosed in Schaffer, are rigid. Ex. 2005, 168:2–6 (“Q. And you said that plastic that would be machined would be rigid, correct? A. I think that’s a fair statement.”). Although Mr. Thornton opines that Schaffer’s actuating members would “preferably”” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed

    “For the reasons above, Petitioner has not established that the claimed “filament” is disclosed in the combination of Garrison and Schaffer and, thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Garrison and Schaffer. Petitioner’s challenge to independent claim 10 (and the claims that depend from claim 1 and claim 10) fails for similar reasons. Each of the challenged claims requires a “filament” and, given our construction of that term and our findings above that Schaffer does not teach or suggest the claimed filament, Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,554,005 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,554,005
• Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00466 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–27 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, including claim 1 over Gwozdz and Meezan.

  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 it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. For reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’786 patent’s challenged claims.1 We institute inter partes review on all challenged claims. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 362–63 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner has made a threshold showing that the ’558 Provisional does not provide written description support for claim 1’s pharmaceutical solution consisting of each of the recited elements, including n-dodecyl beta-D-maltoside. It is true that “n-Dodecyl β-D-maltoside” can be found listed in the SIGMA Catalog. Ex. 1026, 316. But Dr. Donovan’s testimony helps put that listing in context. It is merely one among well over 100 ionic and non-ionic detergents listed in the cited six pages of the SIGMA Catalog. See 1026, 316–321; Ex. 1062 ¶ 50. When further considered in the context of paragraphs 150–152 of the ’558 Provisional, which generically suggest that “enhancer” compounds can be used in “some embodiments”—then introducing at least 15 classes of potential enhancers16 including “preferred” lysophospholipids and acyl carnitines—the listing of n-dodecyl beta-D-maltoside among at least 150 biological detergents in the SIGMA Catalog is even more remote. Moreover, although satisfaction of the written description requirement is not limited to what is exemplified in a priority application, none of the ’558 Provisional’s examples use any “enhancer,” much less any detergent, any alkyl glycoside, or n-dodecyl beta-D maltoside in particular. The 16 The ’558 Provisional suggests that whether “a given compound” will function as an “enhancer” in a formulation requires testing. Ex. 1008 ¶ 150 (indicating “an in vivo or good model test” may “determin[e] whether the uptake of the drug is enhanced to a clinically significant degree”). ethanol. See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 172–174 (Examples 1 and 2). In short, we find no sufficient disclosure of “blaze marks” in the ’558 Provisional that point to the inventors’ possession of a pharmaceutical solution that includes n-dodecyl beta-D-maltoside as claimed. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (analogizing an application’s generic disclosures to a forest of unmarked trees and explaining that, “to satisfy the written description requirement,” there must be “blaze marks directing the skilled artisan to that tree [within the forest that represents the claimed invention]” in the application).” slip op. at 28

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “and applying collateral estoppel to vacate a claim construction in an underlying IPR). In an IPR, “a party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel must show: ‘(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against whom collateral estoppel is being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.’” Google LLC v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994)) (alteration in original).14 “It is [also] well established that patent claims need not be identical for collateral estoppel to apply.” Id. at 1381. Instead, “collateral estoppel requires the issues of patentability be identical.” Id. If “the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity, collateral estoppel applies.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming application of collateral estoppel where claims adjudicated as obvious required a “polymeric” gel whereas similar, unadjudicated claims required a “block copolymer” gel). “Collateral estoppel also applies to common issues in actions involving different but related patents.” Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 252 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2001), vacated on other grounds, 353 U.S. 1109 (2002).” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artReference not prior artMixed

    “We agree that at least one portion of Gwozdz is not prior art. To establish that the cited disclosures in Gwozdz are prior art, Petitioner must show support for those disclosures in the Gwozdz Provisional. In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (explaining that “the portion of the application relied on . . . as prior art must be supported by the provisional application”). Petitioner did not establish that Gwozdz’s disclosure of “penetration enhancers” finds support in the Gwozdz Provisional. Pet. 22. Conversely, Patent Owner shows that the phrase is absent in the Gwozdz Provisional. Prelim. Resp. 37.20 Based on this record, we determine that Gwozdz’s mention of “penetration enhancers” is not prior art to the 19 Patent Owner argues this “penetration enhancers” disclosure in Gwozdz is not prior art regardless which of the disputed priority dates (March 28, 2008, or March 27, 2009) one accords to the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 33. 20 We also agree that collateral estoppel does not bar Patent Owner from challenging Gwozdz’s prior-art status in this case. Patent Owner’s apparent concession that Gwozdz was prior art during the 451 IPR does not equate to the issue being actually litigated. Prelim. Resp. 34–35; Ex. 1040, 14 (“Patent Owner does not contest that Gwozdz is entitled to this filing date” of the Gwozdz Provisional). Purdue, 767 F. App’x at 922 (determining “[t]he priority date for the Joshi reference . . . cannot be determined based on collateral estoppel” where patentee could have argued, but did not in fact argue, Joshi’s prior-art status in an earlier matter).” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,793,786
• Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00464 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–22, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Gwozdz and Meezan.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “3. Conclusion For the reasons discussed above and based on the present record, we find that Petitioner has made an adequate threshold showing that the issues presented in this Petition are substantially the same as the issues the Board previously considered in IPR2019-00451 and that Gwozdz’s effective date is March 28, 2008. We therefore determine that Petitioner has shown that it is reasonably likely to prevail in establishing that at least claim 1 would have been obvious over Gwozdz and Meezan. IV. CONCLUSION Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. We institute trial on all challenged claims under the grounds raised in the Petition. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[A POSA] would have been a pharmaceutical scientist, chemist, or biologist involved in the research and development of pharmaceutical formulations and/or delivery, and would have at least a Bachelor’s degree with at least 5 years of experience, or a Master’s, Ph.D. or Pharm.D. degree with several years of experience. In addition, a POSA would have had knowledge of benzodiazepine structure and function, and would further have knowledge and practical experience working with intranasal and transmembrane formulations, including knowledge of the physiology and anatomy of the nasal cavity, with relevant experience in developing intranasal formulations. Pet. 23; Ex. 1062 ¶ 20. Patent Owner “does not dispute” Petitioner’s POSA definition at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 16. We apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition for this Decision, which definition appears to be generally consistent with the cited prior art.” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelMixed

    “As the Board’s decision in the 451 IPR explicitly found written description inadequate for the “alkyl glycoside” limitation in the ’558 Provisional, which is the same issue raised here for the ’546 patent, Petitioner has shown that issue was actually litigated and decided in the 451 IPR. Where the same issue is actually litigated and decided as part of a final adjudication in an earlier action, the test for invoking collateral estoppel in a later action is met. On this record and for the reasons above, we are persuaded that collateral estoppel bars Patent Owner from arguing the challenged claims are entitled to the priority date of the ’558 Provisional.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedMixed

    “We agree that at least one portion of Gwozdz is not prior art. To establish that the cited disclosures in Gwozdz are prior art, Petitioner must show support for those disclosures in the Gwozdz Provisional. In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (explaining that “the portion of the application relied on . . . as prior art must be supported by the provisional application”). Petitioner did not establish that Gwozdz’s disclosure of “penetration enhancers” finds support in the Gwozdz Provisional. Pet. 22. Conversely, Patent Owner shows that the phrase is absent in the Gwozdz 9 Patent Owner argues that as the ’546 Patent claims priority to the ’439 Application, the “penetration enhancers” disclosure in Gwozdz is not prior art because Gwozdz and the ’439 Application were filed on the same day (March 27, 2009). Prelim. Resp. 21–22. 10 Patent Owner argues that the passage in Gwozdz concerning “penetration enhancers” is relevant solely to “a pharmaceutical composition for injection,” not for intranasal administration as required by the ’546 Patent. Prelim. Resp. 22. First, as noted above, based on the record presented, we determine that Gwozdz’s mention of “penetration enhancers” is not prior art to the challenged claims. Second, we disagree, however, that Gwozdz’s non-prior art mention of penetration enhancers is relevant solely to a pharmaceutical composition for injection as argued by Patent Owner. Gwozdz discloses that “[the] pharmaceutical compositions of the present invention” can be administered by a number of “nonlimiting” routes including intranasal administration. See Ex. 1009, 9:2–11. Provisional. Prelim. Resp. 20–21. Based on this record, we determine that Gwozdz’s mention of “penetration enhancers” is not prior art to the challenged claims. The phrase cannot, therefore, be used to establish a motivation to combine the asserted references.” slip op. at 18

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,895,546
• Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. 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)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12

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

    “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,298,166
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01151 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged, undisclaimed claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “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.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 2, 9, 17, and 18 of the ’834 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in November 2012 “would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. This [POSA] would, where necessary, work with a medical device engineer to experiment with or manufacture a prosthetic heart valve.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s proposed definition. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This POSA level is also consistent with the level the Board applied in earlier decisions involving the same parties and related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 2124, 11; Ex. 1120, 11–12.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “during prosecution. Pet. 18, 99. According to Petitioner, Spenser II never describes its compressible material as including “tightly knitted fibers” and a POSA would, instead, have understood Spenser II’s compressible material as comprising “loose, porous materials.” Pet. 18, 99. We agree with Petitioner that the phrases “tightly knitted” and “tightly knitted fibers” do not appear in Spenser II. At the same time, neither does Spenser II describe its compressible material as being “loose” and “porous.” Notably, in prior proceedings before the Board, Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Buller testified that Spenser II’s compressible material “includes a plurality of PET fibers on the inward-facing surface of the compressible material” (i.e., the “base layer” and alleged “second plurality” of fibers here; Paper 9, 5), that is “sufficiently dense to prevent blood from leaking through the cloth/fabric.” Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2122, 20:2–22:18 (testifying that “nonporous” as used in the Specification means “that fluid would not pass through it” and such fluid includes “all components of blood”). We find that Dr. Buller’s description of Spenser II as having a dense, blood impermeable base layer is, on balance, more consistent with applicant’s characterization of Spenser II as having an arrangement of “tightly-knitted fibers”—even if some imagined or microscopic spaces between fibers might still exist in a base layer. Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2002 (Brecker testimony) ¶¶ 42–45 (testifying, inter alia, that the description of a “tight fitted outer seal is . . . consistent with Spenser II’s Figure 22” and “knitted” is consistent with Buller’s testimony describing Spenser II’s compressible material as “velour-like woven or knitted” PET (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 162; Ex. 2134 ¶ 56). We are, thus, unpersuaded on this record that applicant mischaracterized Spenser II.” slip op. at 38

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

    “Altogether, the parties’ alleged “plain meaning” yet otherwise undefined interpretation of the “spacing” limitations leaves the Board with insufficient clarity about what the claimed “spacing” means in the affirmative. Paper 9, 3 (arguing “plain meaning”); Paper 11, 3 (arguing applicant’s arguments are in “full harmony with the plain meaning”). The intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful: the Specification does not use the term “spacing” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them.15 The prosecution history provides clues, but portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. The applicant distinguished 15 For example, Dr. Brecker, in support of Patent Owner’s argument, identifies several of the patent drawings and testifies that, “as is particularly clear in Figure 13 (but also present elsewhere), there are gaps and spaces between the fibers that extend to the frame” and then proceeds to testify that prior art, like Spenser II’s compressible material, “bears no resemblance” to the “exemplary” spacings identified in prosecution. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–43. Dr. Brecker’s articulation of a “spacing” does not seem to add anything meaningful beyond the language of the claim as written. And, simply comparing the patent drawings to the prior art drawings presumes a sort of “know-it when you see it” interpretation—it is not an affirmative construction for a “spacing” as claimed. the claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 1002, 1001. At what point, however, does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” qualify as more “loosely defined” and come within the scope of the claimed “spacing?”16 Id. The applicant also described the “spacing” in semi-functional terms based on “advantages” provided by the claim feature. See, e.g., id. (asserting, e.g., that the spacing permits “expansion and contraction” with “lesser rigidity”); see also id. at 1133, 1140 (asserting, e.g., “reduce[d] restrictions” and avoidance of “restrained valve foreshortening” with the then-claimed “openings”). It is not, however, evident where the Specification supports such “advantages”—no citations were given in prosecution. And, in prosecution of related applications, applicant argued, for example, that “[w]hile all fibers have some degree of being spaced-apart, the construction from Applicant’s claimed invention clearly requires some level more spacing.” Ex. 1149, 13–14 (assertion differences over “Dehdashtian” (alias to Spenser II)) (emphasis added). On this record, what would suffice as “some level more spacing” is unclear. Id.” slip op. at 39

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,337,834
• Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2023 · IPR2022-00796 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sun and the Teva Press Release; the Board did not reach the Bigal ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “POSA helpful. Moreover, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’434 patent. We do not see a need to specify that the POSA would have experience studying the role of CGRP in migraine. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we accept Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. 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)). The differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s identification of the POSA do not materially affect our decision. Put another way, we would reach the same decision under either definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “adverse event” beyond the portion of the Specification defining “inadequate response” to include when “treatment has to be interrupted because of adverse events that made it intolerable.” Ex. 1045, 6:45–52; PO Resp. 13– 14 (acknowledging that “[t]he ’434 patent does not provide an express definition of an ‘adverse event’” and citing only extrinsic evidence); Pet. Reply 22–25 (citing only extrinsic evidence); PO Sur-Reply 18–19 (citing only extrinsic evidence). Like the parties, we do not find any other intrinsic evidence bearing on the construction of “adverse event.” Accordingly, we turn to the extrinsic evidence provided by the parties. slip op. at 11

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

    “d) Conclusion regarding motivation to combine We find that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 64

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “A. Exhibits 1065, 1073, 1088, 1089, 1220, and 1221 We do not rely on Exhibits 1065, 1073, 1088, 1089, 1220, and 1221 in our Final Written Decision. Accordingly, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion as it relates to these exhibits.” slip op. at 102

  Patent outcomesUS 10,392,434 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,392,434
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Shilpa Pharma, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00886 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable under §102 over Mutz; the Board did not reach the §103 Mutz and Gidwani or §102 Gidwani grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “§ 6. This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Petitioner”) has established, by a preponderance of the evidence of record, that challenged claims 1–4 of Patent Owner Shilpa Pharma Inc.’s (“Patent Owner”) U.S. Patent No. 9,266,816 B2 (Ex. 1001, the “’816 patent”) are unpatentable. Additionally, because we find that Petitioner has established that claims 1–4 are unpatentable, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 59). Furthermore, for the reasons we set forth below, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 48) is dismissed-in-part as moot and denied-in-part. Both parties’ unopposed Motions to Seal are granted. See Papers 31, 33, 39, 40, 42, 46, 52, 56, 57, 60, 62, 68. Finally we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions against Patent Owner. (Paper 43).” slip op. at 2

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “§ 6. This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Petitioner”) has established, by a preponderance of the evidence of record, that challenged claims 1–4 of Patent Owner Shilpa Pharma Inc.’s (“Patent Owner”) U.S. Patent No. 9,266,816 B2 (Ex. 1001, the “’816 patent”) are unpatentable. Additionally, because we find that Petitioner has established that claims 1–4 are unpatentable, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 59). Furthermore, for the reasons we set forth below, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 48) is dismissed-in-part as moot and denied-in-part. Both parties’ unopposed Motions to Seal are granted. See Papers 31, 33, 39, 40, 42, 46, 52, 56, 57, 60, 62, 68. Finally we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions against Patent Owner. (Paper 43).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “claims, Petitioner’s request that we do so as a sanction against Patent Owner is denied. Furthermore, having reviewed the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we conclude that the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to warrant the additional imposition of financial sanctions. We consequently deny Petitioner’ Motion for Sanctions.” slip op. at 82

  Patent outcomesUS 9,266,816 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,266,816
• Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Ovid Therapeutics, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2023 · PGR2023-00020 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 22 and 25–31; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation over Zhang and obviousness grounds for claim 22.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Feb. 13, 2020) (“Advanced Bionics”) (precedential), we further apply the following two-step framework in determining whether discretionary denial under § 325(d) is appropriate: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Becton, Dickinson Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first step, and Becton, Dickinson Factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second step. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated error. Advanced Bionics, at 8–10. “If the petitioner fails to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise [her] discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9 (“If a condition in the first part of the framework [i.e., substantially same art or arguments] is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.”). “At bottom, this [§ 325(d)] framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. An “example of a material error” could be “misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. at 8 n.9” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) and in consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 22 and 25–31 of the ’817 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We find that on the present record, the evidence more likely than not supports Petitioner’s claim interpretation which is based on the express definition of the term “patient” in the ’817 patent specification. That express definition states: “‘Patient’ and ‘subject’ are used interchangeably herein and include, but not limited to, primates such as humans, canines, porcine, ungulates, rodents, poultry, and avian.” Ex. 1001, 32:65–67.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundInstituted

    “We appreciate Patent Owner’s point that for a reference to anticipate without disclosing the relevant feature of the claimed invention, it is required that the “missing characteristic is necessarily present . . . in the single anticipating reference.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In this case, Zhang demonstrates that ganaxolone continues to improve status epilepticus in rats for 5+ hours, supporting the inherency position. Moreover, the ’817 patent’s Specification shows that 10 and 20 mg/kg ganaxolone doses that bracket the 12 and 15 mg/kg ganaxolone doses tested by Zhang, result in improved 24-hour survival relative to lower doses. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 4; Ex. 1009, 21 ¶ 117. This evidence further supports Petitioner’s inherency position because it shows that doses bracketing those recited in Zhang provide continued improvement to patients for periods exceeding 8 hours. “Extrinsic evidence can be used to demonstrate what is ‘necessarily present’ in a prior art embodiment even if the extrinsic evidence is not itself prior art.” Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 946 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2020). As to the issue of whether Zhang’s teaching to treat with multiple doses also teaches “improvement to the patient after administration for more than 8 hours” as required by claim 22, on this record we find that Petitioner’s position is more persuasive. Claim 22 does not distinguish between a single administration event or multiple administrations, and therefore is reasonably interpreted as broadly open to both single administration and multiple administrations. This understanding is consistent with the ’817 patent, which teaches that “[g]anaxolone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof can be administered, e.g., once daily, twice daily, three times daily, or four times daily.” Ex. 1001, 8:35–37. Zhang teaches “[d]osing schedules in which the substituted β-cyclodextrin-ganaxolone injectable formulation is injected every 1 hr, 2 hrs, 4 hrs, 6 hrs, 8 hrs, 12 hrs, or 24 hours are included herein.” Ex. 1009, 13 ¶ 74. We agree with Petitioner that, on this record, Zhang directly demonstrates that where doses are administered every 1, 2, or 4 hours, the ganaxolone would have been expected to necessarily result in improvement in status epilepticus treatment over more than 8 hours based on the five hour efficacy results reported in Zhang. See Ex. 1009, 25 ¶ 135.9” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,395,817
• Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01565 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–10, 12–22, and 24 as anticipated by Kaiser, and claims 1–24 as obvious under the listed grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Considering argument and evidence of record, we define a person of ordinary skill in the art as a member of a multidisciplinary team consisting of at least (1) a person (“Engineer POSA”) with either (a) a bachelor’s or master’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or a similar field, as well as two or more years of work experience with catheters or similar medical devices, or (b) a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field; working with (2) a person with an M.D. or analogous degree and five or more years of work experience in interventional cardiology, hemodynamics or a similar discipline (“Clinician POSA”); or an Engineer POSA receiving assistance from a Clinician POSA; or a Clinician POSA receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA; or a single person with the qualifications of both an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA. With respect to the parties’ proffered declarants, the record before us demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 32

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 32

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

    “activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at pages 11–12 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 31–32 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 44

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

    “Although Kaiser exemplifies in detail a method involving IVC occlusion, its disclosure makes clear that the method is also applicable to the SVC. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 6:60–64 (“the adjustable component may create a pressure gradient by . . . adjusting blood flow impedance through the superior vena cava”), 5:64–6:2 (disclosing “systems and methods may be provided to create a pressure differential” using “balloons . . . to increase a pressure drop through the . . . superior vena cava”), Claim 5 (reciting a “flow impedance device implantable within a patient’s inferior vena cava”), Claim 17 (“The method of claim 10, wherein the body lumen within which the adjustable component is positioned is . . . a superior vena cava.”), 6:31–36 (positioning pressure sensor in the superior vena cava); see also Ex. 1010, 19–22 (claims of provisional application directed to reducing blood flow through the superior vena cava); see also Pet. 29–34, 36–39; Reply 14–16; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 152–153, 156–159, 165, 167–176 (Dr. Day’s testimony regarding the SVC positioning elements). Considering the arguments and evidence of record, including our own reading of Kaiser (see supra Section I.I.1), we find that Kaiser expressly discloses the contested element of Ground 1 relating to use of the restrictor in the SVC.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 10,639,460 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,639,460

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.