• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Astrazeneca ABInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2016-01325 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Mylan did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–20 obvious over McLeskey alone or with Howell 1996.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. We are, nevertheless, cautioned not to “rely on hindsight reasoning to piece together elements to arrive at the claimed invention.” In re NTP, Inc. 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Thus, a finding of obviousness, “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party petitioning the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). D.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art. The parties’ propose similar, albeit non-identical, definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art, both of which are consistent with the high level of ordinary skill demonstrated by the prior art asserted in the Petition. See Pet. 14–15; Prelim. Resp. 11–12. Discerning no present conflict between the parties’ proposals, we rely on the level of ordinary skill in the art of developing and treating hormone dependent diseases of the breast as demonstrated by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). B.” slip op. at 15

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

    “patentable weight, the term “therapeutically significant” should be construed to mean “any blood plasma fulvestrant concentration greater than or equal to at least 2.5 ngml-1 that is achieved for at least 4 weeks after injection.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner does not argue that Petitioner’s proposed interpretation is unreasonable, but contends that the meaning of the term is clear from the Specification and context of the claim phrase itself. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1001, 9:24–27 (expressly defining “therapeutically significant” fulvestrant blood plasma levels as “at least 2.5 ngml-1, ideally at least 3 ngml-1, at least 8.5 ngml-1, and up to 12 12 Our reasoning extends to the wherein clauses of dependent claims 2 and 10, also challenged by Petitioner at page 16, footnote 9, of the Petition. ngml-1 of fulvestrant [] achieved in the patient.”). We agree with Patent Owner. No express construction of this term is required.” slip op. at 17

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

    “and 9, “wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml-1 for at least four weeks,” is merely a statement of intended result entitled to no patentable weight. Pet. 16–17. For the reasons set forth at pages 12–16 of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive.12 For example, rather than merely stating the result of intramuscularly administering the recited formulation, as Petitioner argues, the wherein clause dictates both the administration duration and dose of the formulation, i.e., an amount sufficient to provide a therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml-1 for at least four weeks. See Prelim. Resp. 15 (relying on Exhibits 2002 ¶ 37–39, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 33–37, and citations therein). That these parameters are further limited in claims 2, 10 (“the therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant concentration is at least 8.5 ngml-1”) further indicates that the wherein clauses provide defining characteristics. See Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 60).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,329,680
• Luye Pharma Group Ltd. / Luye Pharma(Usa) Ltd. et al. v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd. And Alkermes Controlled Therapeutics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2016-01095 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 and 17–23 were unpatentable over Goldenheim alone or in the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4, 42.108. Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1‒13 and 17‒23. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of those claims.” slip op. at 2

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

    “[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. . . . [I]t is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, as noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner is using disparate teachings of the Goldenheim reference to attempt to establish that the claims of the challenged patent are anticipated by that reference. The disclosure of Goldenheim of a viscosity of 35 cp in certain instances is a single sentence from that document, and Goldenheim provides no guidance as to what those circumstances may be. Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the ordinary artisan would have read that viscosity limitation into the formulation used by Example 16, which Petitioner relies upon to meet the concentration of microparticles required by challenged claim 1. In that regard, we note that Example 16 does not mention viscosity, and specifically teaches the use of an injection vehicle of 0.5% CMC and 0.1% Tween 80 in water. Ex. 1004, 52:27‒28” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “references remedy the deficiencies discussed above with respect to the anticipation rejection. As the Supreme Court pointed out in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” Id. at 418. Rather, the Court stated: [I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does . . . because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. Id. at 418-419 (emphasis added); see also id. at 418 (requiring a determination of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”) (emphasis added). In the instant proceeding, Petitioner has not provided a reason, however, as to why the ordinary artisan would have taken Goldenheim’s one mention of a viscosity of 35 cp and applied it to the formulation in Example 16 relied upon by Petitioner to meet the concentration limitation of independent challenged claim 1. Specifically, as noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 20), Goldenheim teaches that “[i]n certain instances, the final reconstituted product viscosity may be, e.g., about 35 cps” (Ex. 1004, 35:11) but does not explain what those instances may be, much less tying that disclosure to the concentration of microparticles used in Example 16, which makes no mention of viscosity.” slip op. at 14

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,667,061
• Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2016 · IPR2016-00690 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in its determination that Petitioner failed to show claim 1 unpatentable because the claimed dose reduction was unpredictable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “We concluded that the record as a whole, including FDA Guidance 1999, supported a mere invitation to experiment as rejected in In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation, 676 F.3d 1063, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Dec. at 19, 22–23; see id. at 22 (“Such invitations to experiment do not, in light of the present record, predict the dosage reduction of the subject claim.”). The Decision, including our citation to Cylobenzaprine, makes clear our implicit rejection of Petitioner’s argument that, “to arrive at the claimed dosages, a POSA need only have followed FDA Guidance 1999’s comprehensive guidelines for the performance of drug interaction and dose regimen studies” using only “routine experimentation” and with “predictable results.” Pet. 54–55, 58; Reh’g Req. 4–5. Petitioner’s reliance on Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and Genzyme” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Unlike in Merck and Genzyme, the present case does not involve predictable results that may be confirmed or fine-tuned by routine experimentation. Rather, upon careful consideration of the asserted prior art as a whole, we determined that, “it could not be predicted whether a change in iloperidone metabolism would have increased, decreased, or had no effect on the risk of QT prolongation” and, thus, the amount of dose reduction (if any) was unpredictable and would need to be determined empirically. Dec. at 22–23 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 15–16); see also id. at 22 (stating that, “the art as a whole taught a careful evaluation of [drugs such as iloperidone] for evidence of clinically-relevant drug-drug interactions, which may or may not be addressed with dose reductions”).1 Thus, our determination rejects Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed dosage reduction by routine experimentation. See Coherus Biosciences, Inc., v. Abbvie Biotechnology LTD., Case IPR2016- 00189, slip op. at 2 (PTAB July 14, 2016) (Paper 27) (“The Board is not obligated to respond in writing to every unpersuasive argument made before it.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded we misapprehended or overlooked any of Petitioner’s arguments.” slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,138,432
• The Gillette Company v. Shavelogic, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2016-00699 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6 were unpatentable under any of six obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. As discussed above, the claimed “longitudinal axis of inertia” at a minimum requires a longitudinal axis that passes through the center of mass of the handle. Petitioner, using only its own proposed construction in its analysis of the prior art, ignores this requirement. Petitioner never alleges that the axis disclosed by Ohtsubo and passing through the “center line of the gripping section” of the handle in Ohtsubo also passes through the center of mass of the handle. Petitioner never mentions the center of mass in the analysis of Ohtsubo or any of the other prior art references. In addition, the Petition and accompanying Slocum Declaration fail to set forth sufficient evidence from which we could find that the prior art discloses angles with respect to a longitudinal axis passing through the center of mass of the handle. Similarly, Petitioner’s argument that the claimed angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice relies on Petitioner’s flawed construction, and fails to allege, much less establish, that arriving at the claimed angle using a longitudinal axis passing through the handle’s center of mass would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Pet. 23–24. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to establish that the combination of Jian and Ohtsubo discloses this limitation, or that the claimed angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Because Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable, and the remaining claims 2–6 at issue in Ground I depend from claim 1, we decline to institute on Ground I.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The parties seem to agree that Figure 7E is controlling, as both parties cite to the figure in support of their respective positions. Pet. 10; POPR 10. For purposes of this Decision, we agree. The description of Figure 7E confirms that it “is a diagram illustrating how the longitudinal axis of inertia of the handle is measured.” Ex. 1001, 3:61–62; see also id. at 6:22–24 (“These angles are measured between the longitudinal axis of inertia of the handle (see FIG. 7E) and the skin surface.”). Because the specification indicates that Figure 7E illustrates how to measure the longitudinal axis of inertia, and the remaining text of the specification does not define the term, we rely on Figure 7E to construe “longitudinal axis of inertia” in claim 1. Figure 7E depicts the longitudinal axis passing through the center of mass of the handle. Id. at Fig. 7E. The figure identifies the center of mass with a symbol and explains that the center of mass corresponds to that symbol in a legend. Id. Petitioner’s construction, with reference to an axis extending “generally through the center of the gripping portion of the handle,” may be consistent with Figure 7E in a broad sense, but Petitioner’s proposed construction does not go far enough. Figure 7E does not merely disclose the longitudinal axis of inertia extending “generally through the center of the gripping portion of the handle,” but instead relies on the center of mass of the handle as a frame of reference to define the claimed axis. Id. Petitioner improperly employs broad language not found in the figure, while ignoring important details such as the intersection of the longitudinal axis of inertia with the center of mass that is specifically called out in the figure. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we conclude that the correct construction of “longitudinal axis of inertia,” in light of the specification and in particular Figure 7E, at a minimum requires a longitudinal axis that passes through the center of mass of the handle.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. As discussed above, the claimed “longitudinal axis of inertia” at a minimum requires a longitudinal axis that passes through the center of mass of the handle. Petitioner, using only its own proposed construction in its analysis of the prior art, ignores this requirement. Petitioner never alleges that the axis disclosed by Ohtsubo and passing through the “center line of the gripping section” of the handle in Ohtsubo also passes through the center of mass of the handle. Petitioner never mentions the center of mass in the analysis of Ohtsubo or any of the other prior art references. In addition, the Petition and accompanying Slocum Declaration fail to set forth sufficient evidence from which we could find that the prior art discloses angles with respect to a longitudinal axis passing through the center of mass of the handle. Similarly, Petitioner’s argument that the claimed angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice relies on Petitioner’s flawed construction, and fails to allege, much less establish, that arriving at the claimed angle using a longitudinal axis passing through the handle’s center of mass would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Pet. 23–24. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to establish that the combination of Jian and Ohtsubo discloses this limitation, or that the claimed angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Because Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable, and the remaining claims 2–6 at issue in Ground I depend from claim 1, we decline to institute on Ground I. Grounds II through VI rely on the same flawed arguments to establish that the combination of Jian and Ohtsubo discloses the claimed “planar rim surface being disposed at an angle of about 10 to 20 degrees with respect to a longitudinal axis of inertia of the handle.” Pet. 41–58. Patent Owner relies on additional references in these Grounds, but not in a manner that addresses the deficiencies noted above. Id. We therefore decline to institute on Grounds II through VI for the same reasons discussed above.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,789,282
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00529 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 10–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the INOmax label, Bernasconi, Loh, and Goyal; claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 are also anticipated and obvious over the INOmax label.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “method of providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas requires providing information to the medical provider to safely administer the nitric oxide gas,” thus “confirm[ing] that the ‘providing . . . information’ step is functionally related to the steps in the claimed method.” PO Resp. 31–33. As an initial matter, whether the claims should be interpreted as requiring such a functional relationship is a legal conclusion. See PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner’s conclusion regarding functional relationship between claim terms is based, at least in part, on an overly-limited reading of “pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas,” as discussed above. See PO Resp. 27. Further, we do not read the transcript testimony relied on by Patent Owner as clearly admitting a functional relationship between the steps of “providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas” and the information of (ii). See PO Resp. 31–32 (citing Ex. 2022, 78:15–80:4, 81:11–22, 111:2–17)). To the contrary, Dr. Beghetti appears to have testified that the claim elements are not directly related. Ex. 2022, 86:10– 25. Although Patent Owner points to In re Distefano, 808 F.3d at 848, as evidence that a “printed matter analysis includes ‘factual findings’” (PO Sur Reply 4, n.6), which inform the ultimate legal conclusion, we do not find the evidence as a whole compelling.” slip op. at 19

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther

    “IV. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner moves to exclude certain portions of Ex. 2024 on the grounds that they “are declarations and supporting materials submitted during patent examination . . . in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a)” and “lack foundation (FRE 602) and authentication (FRE 901) and constitute impermissible hearsay (FRE 901).” Paper 31, 2–3. Petitioner likewise moves to exclude Exhibit 2029 as not relied on in the Patent Owner Response or by Patent Owner’s expert. Id. at 3. As we do not rely on the objected-to materials in this opinion, we dismiss the motion as moot.” slip op. at 45

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “V. OBJECTIONS TO DEMONSTRATIVES The parties also submit competing objections to demonstrative exhibits used at trial. Papers 46, 47. Specifically, both parties object to certain slides as setting forth a new argument not previously made in any paper. Papers 46, 47. The parties are reminded that demonstrative exhibits are illustrative only and are not part of the trial record. Indeed, in accordance with our Order on requests for oral argument, neither party filed its demonstratives with the Board. See Paper 45, 2 (“Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in this proceeding without prior authorization from the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). Demonstrative exhibits are intended to be visual aids to assist a party in making its oral presentation and will not be entered into the record of these proceedings.”). Nevertheless, in this Final Written Decision, we rely on the arguments presented properly in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record and do not consider any new arguments not previously set forth in any paper. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”).” slip op. at 45

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “The Applicant amended the preamble of the rejected independent claims to recite “[a] method of providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas,” as presently set forth in claims 1 and 7. Id. at 746–747. Subsequent to the amendment, the Examiner withdrew the objection. Id. at 765; see id. at 733 (“If all the priority issues are resolved then it appears that the primary reference in the 103 rejection will no longer be prior art.” (italics omitted)). On pages 19 and 20 of its Response, Patent Owner argues that the preamble is, therefore, limiting in light of Catalina Mktg. International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002), which holds that “clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates the use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.” Although the prosecution history shows that amendment of the preamble only indirectly distinguished the claims over the prior art by establishing an earlier priority date, we conclude that both the Applicant and the Examiner treated the preamble as a claim limitation. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the preamble language “pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas” is limiting.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,846,112 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,846,112
• Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Novartis AGRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2016 · IPR2016-00084 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Novartis’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place for claims 1–3 and 8–10 because it had not abused its discretion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “review trial, the Board “will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “We did not overlook this argument in reaching our decision to institute trial. While Novartis’ argument raises an issue of fact to be considered at trial, it does not directly refute the testimony of Par’s expert, Dr. Jorgensen, who relies on Lemke’s Table 16-1 for a slightly different purpose. Dr. Jorgensen testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, based on Lemke, that alcohol, phenol, amine, carboxylic acid, ester, and amide groups have the greatest solubilizing potential in a polyfunctional molecule. Ex. 1003 ¶ 83. Because, according to Dr. Jorgensen, some of these groups have known drawbacks, he concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve solubility would have had reason to modify rapamycin to add amino, hydroxyl, or carboxylate groups. Id. ¶¶ 83–84. Contrary to Novartis’ argument, Dr. Jorgensen did not rely on the exact figures of Table 16-1; this may be appropriate, given the fact that Lemke reports the figures as “predictions.” Ex. 1008, 115. The parties will have the opportunity to explore this issue further during trial.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 5,665,772
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2016 · IPR2016-00453 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 11–20, exercising discretion under § 314(a) because this was an unjustified serial petition and separately rejecting it under § 325(d).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied

    “patent, using substantially the same prior art, and filed so long apart that Petitioner received the benefit of having studied Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in an earlier petition. That is especially so if Petitioner, at the time of filing of the earlier petition was aware of or should have been aware of the prior art references newly cited and applied in the later petition. To that end, Petitioner does not assert that it was unaware of Nazem prior to filing the instant Petition or any earlier petition. The potential inequity based on a petitioner’s filing of serial and similar attacks against the same claims of the same patent, while having the opportunity to adjust litigation positions along the way based on either patent owner’s contentions responding to prior challenges or the Board’s decision on prior challenges, is real and cannot be ignored. This is not to say, however, that multiple petitions against the same claims of the same patent are never permitted. Rather, each case depends on its own facts. We look to and consider, in each case, as we do here, what rationale a petitioner offers for filing multiple petitions and for the time elapsed between those filings. Generally, however, we are unpersuaded that the possibility of an adverse claim construction alone, especially where the possibility of the adverse claim construction was expressly a result of assertions made by a patent owner in the previous proceeding, is sufficient to justify serial petitions.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Emphasis added. As admitted by Petitioner, all of the grounds in the instant Petition and the petition in IPR2015-01706 rely primarily on MyLibrary. Furthermore, the only reference cited additionally in the instant proceeding is Nazem, and Nazem mentions, on multiple occasions, variations of “MyYahoo” or “my.yahoo.com.” Ex. 1047, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5A, 5B; 2:63-3:2; Appendices A and B. Moreover, Petitioner asserts the following: For example, one such prior art personalized portal, referenced by MyLibrary as an inspiration, was the MyYahoo system, Ex. 1005 at 1, a system described in U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 to Nazem et al. (issued Nov. 9, 1999) (Ex. 1047). Ex. 1047 at Face, Fig. 5a (“MyYahoo!”). Pet. 21. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add content, such as disclosed in Nazem, to the personalized web pages of MyLibrary because MyYahoo was an inspiration for the system of MyLibrary, thereby suggesting the additional MyYahoo functionality would work well with MyLibrary. Pet. 22. Given these articulated connections between the substance of MyLibrary and Nazem, we have no trouble determining that presenting MyLibrary and Nazem in this proceeding is “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” as was presented previously to the Office in IPR2015-01706, with MyLibrary alone.” slip op. at 13

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

    “III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review of any of claims 11–20 of the ’177 patent, and also reject the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). IV. ORDER It is ORDERED that no trial or inter partes review is instituted for any claim of the ’177 patent on any ground in this proceeding.” slip op. at 14

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177
• Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. / Zimmer Inc. et al. v. Advanced Orthopaedic Solutions, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 7, 2016 · IPR2016-00311 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 6–11, 13–15, 19, and 20 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Shavit discloses an insert having a lower surface that is operative to contact a bone screw. Petitioner relies primarily on Figures 1B and 4 of Shavit to establish that the insert contacts the bone screw. As noted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 16), “[i]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.” In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954).” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In challenging claim 19 over the combination of Shavit and Kilpela, as to the limitation that “said lower surface [of an insert] operative to engage a bone screw extending through said aperture,” Petitioner states that for the reasons discussed as to claim 8, Shavit in view of Kilpela renders that limitation obvious. Pet. 37 (emphasis added). Petitioner relies on that same analysis as to the challenge of claim 19 over the combination of Shavit, Kilpela, and Bramlet. Id. at 46. In its discussion of claim 8 as being obvious over the combination of Shavit and Kilpela, Petitioner relies on Kilpela for a reason to have a longitudinal passageway through the insert. Id. at 28. As to the remaining limitations of claim 8, which depends from claim 6, Petitioner relies on its discussion of claim 6 as being anticipated by Shavit. Id. Petitioner, therefore, does not rely on either Kilpela or Bramlet to make up the deficiency of Shavit as discussed above as to the anticipation challenge of independent claim 6. Thus, for the reasons discussed above in Section II.B.ii.a, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that claim 19 is rendered by the combination of Shavit and Kilpela, or the combination of Shavit, Kilpela, and Bramlet. Similarly, Petitioner relies on its discussion of independent claims 6, 13, and 19 in contending that claim 8 is rendered obvious by the combination of Shavit and Kilpela (Pet. 28), that claims 14, 15, and 20 are rendered obvious by the combination of Shavit and Kilpela (Pet. 31–33, 39– 40) or by the combination of Shavit, Kilpela, and Bramlet (Pet. 40–45, 47), and that claim 11 is rendered obvious by the combination of Shavit and Bramlet (Pet. 47–48). As Petitioner again does not rely on either Kilpela or Bramlet to remedy the above discussed deficiency of Shavit, we determine also that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that claims 8, 11, 14, 15, and 20 are rendered by the Shavit in combination with Kilpela and/or Bramlet.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We determine that, for purposes of this Decision, none of the terms in the challenged claims require express construction at this time. See, e.g. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 3 Bramlet et al., US Patent No. 6,443,954 B1, issued Sep. 3, 2002 (Ex. 1007) (“Bramlet”). 1999) (noting that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,092,454
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 24, 2016 · CBM2016-00016 · APJ Peter P Chen · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–19 because the petition did not establish that the ’957 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “method patent,” as defined by the AIA. CoreLogic bears the burden of persuasion that the ’957 patent is a covered business method patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a). For the reasons discussed below, we determine CoreLogic has made an insufficient showing that the ’957 patent is a “covered business method patent.” The AIA defines “covered business method patent” as “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The legislative history of the AIA “explains that the definition of covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’” Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,374, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“CBM Final Rules”) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)); see also Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To determine whether a patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. AIA § 18(d)(1) (“a patent that claims . . .” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) (same); CBM Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (comment 4) (“[T]he definition set forth in § 42.301(a) . . . is based on what the patent claims.”). A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for review. CBM Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (comment 8) (“A patent having one or more claims directed to a covered business method is a covered business method patent for purposes of the review, even if the patent includes additional claims.”).” slip op. at 5

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “patent because “[a]t least claim 1 of the ’957 patent claims data processing or other operations that are financial in nature or, at a minimum, incidental or complementary to a financial activity.” Pet. 7. CoreLogic also relies on dependent claims 13 and 16–18, and argues that those claims “explicitly limit the claims to financial applications.” Id. at 9; see also id. at 11 (alleging that claims 16–18 cover “subject matter incidental or complementary to a financial activity”). As noted above, however, BSI disclaimed claims 13 and 16–18 at the same time it filed its Preliminary Response. See Ex. 2003. “A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.” Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We agree with other panels that have considered this issue under similar facts and concluded that the disclaimed claims should not be consulted when determining whether the patent is a covered business method patent under AIA §18(d)(1).1 We are mindful that other Board decisions have evaluated compliance with CBM standing requirements at the time of filing, but those cases are distinguishable2 and not binding here. Any suggestion in those cases that a decision on institution should address the disclaimed claims because they existed at the time the petition was filed is inconsistent with Federal Circuit precedent instructing us to treat the claims as if they never existed, and our Rules forbidding institution “based on disclaimed claims.” Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1422; 37 CFR § 42.207(e) (“No post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); see also Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015- 00019, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB Aug. 19, 2015) (Paper 15) (Order Denying Request for Rehearing) (rejecting petitioner’s argument that disclaimed claim should be considered because it existed at the time the petition was 1 See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2015- 00185, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 4, 2016) (Paper 10); Great West Casualty Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2015-00171, slip op. at 7–9 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2016) (Paper 10); Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00019, slip op. at 14–15 (PTAB May 19, 2014) (Paper 11). 2 In Travelers Lloyds of Texas Ins. Co. v. Integrated Claims Sys., LLC, CBM2014-00187, slip op. at 7, 8 n.1 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2016) (Paper 31), the Patent Owner attempted to cancel a claim after institution, not disclaim a claim prior to institution. In J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2014-00157, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2016) (Paper 40), the Patent Owner’s disclaimer occurred after institution, not prior to institution. filed). We therefore do not consider disclaimed claims 13 and 16–18 in our analysis.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with BSI. CoreLogic does not explain adequately how any of the claims of the ’957 patent recite a method or apparatus “for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). CoreLogic focuses on claim 1, but fails to identify any limitation in claim 1 or any other claim that relates to a financial activity in any way. Claim 1 claims a “method for retrieving geographic parcel boundary polygon maps and associated parcel attribute data,” which has applicability to retrieving and displaying map data, not financial products and services. CoreLogic suggests that the “transmitting” step of claim 1 “can be used” by various entities in a business context, but does not argue, let alone establish, that the claim terms on their face are financial in nature. See Pet. 1. CoreLogic asserts that the Specification of the ’957 patent describes several methods of generating revenue using the claimed methods, and that numerous businesses may pay for access to map data generated using the claimed method. Pet. 10–16. CoreLogic’s reliance on these portions of the Specification is unavailing. First, CoreLogic fails to address how these disclosures relate directly to, or meaningfully informs our analysis of, the language of the claims. For example, CoreLogic does not direct us to any claims or claim limitations that require users to pay for access to the map database or use of the claimed methods. Second, CoreLogic fails to address portions of the Specification that indicate the claimed invention can be used “for free,” i.e., without any generation of revenue or financial aspect at all. See Ex. 1001, 2:58 (“These end users may access for free . . . .”), 14:11–15 (“Another public-private alliance option is to offer the free use of the NPDP server to such data sponsors in addition to or in lieu of their revenue share.”), 14:41–45 (“[C]ommodity service subscriber end users (customers) can have access to the NPDP at no charge.”), 16:8–12 (“It is also contemplated that other independent public and private data sponsors could be provided with links as part of the NPDP display which end users could access on a free or fee basis.”). Given that the Specification contemplates use of the claimed inventions for free, it is not apparent that the “purpose of the claimed method is to provide data in exchange for money,” as CoreLogic suggests. Pet. 10. At most, CoreLogic has established that the claimed methods could be used to generate revenue in a number of ways, even though the language of the claims does not require any exchange of money or other financially related step. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the “financial prong” has not been met. Numerous Board decisions have taken a similar approach in situations where the Specification refers to potential financial applications for the claimed inventions but the claim language does not expressly indicate a financial context.3 In Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab,” slip op. at 10

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,092,957
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 24, 2016 · CBM2016-00017 · APJ Richard H Marschall · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution of CBM review because CoreLogic did not show that the patent claims a method or apparatus for a financial product or service.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with BSI. CoreLogic does not explain adequately how any of the claims of the ’946 patent recite a method or apparatus “for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” AIA § 18(d)(1). CoreLogic focuses on claim 1, but fails to identify any limitation in claim 1 or any other claim that relates to a financial activity in any way. Claim 1 claims a “method for retrieving and displaying geographic parcel boundary polygon maps,” which has applicability to retrieving and displaying map data, not financial products and services. CoreLogic suggests that the method of claim 1 “can be used” by various entities in a business context, but does not argue, let alone establish, that the claim terms on their face are financial in nature. See Pet. 11. CoreLogic asserts that the specification of the ’946 patent describes several methods of generating revenue using the claimed methods, and that numerous businesses may pay for access to map data generated using the claimed method. Pet. 10–16. CoreLogic’s reliance on these portions of the specification is unavailing. First, CoreLogic fails to address how these disclosures relate directly to, or meaningfully informs our analysis of, the language of the claims. For example, CoreLogic does not direct us to any claims or claim limitations that require users to pay for access to the map database or use of the claimed methods. Second, CoreLogic fails to address portions of the specification that indicate the claimed invention can be used “for free,” i.e., without any generation of revenue or financial aspect at all. See Ex. 1001, 2:59 (“These end users may access for free . . . .”), 13:54–56 (“Another public-private alliance option is to offer the free use of the NPDP server to such data sponsors in addition to or in lieu of their revenue share.”), 14:20–21 (“[C]ommodity service subscriber end users (customers) can have access to the NPDP at no charge.”), 15:51–55 (“It is also contemplated that other independent public and private data sponsors could be provided with links as part of the NPDP display which end users could access on a free or fee basis.”). Given that the specification contemplates use of the claimed inventions for free, it is not apparent that the “purpose of the claimed method is to provide data in exchange for money,” as CoreLogic suggests. Pet. 11. At most, CoreLogic has established that the claimed methods could be used to generate revenue in a number of ways, even though the language of the claims does not require any exchange of money or other financially related step. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the “financial prong” has not been met. Numerous Board decisions have taken a similar approach in situations where the specification refers to potential financial applications for the claimed inventions but the claim language does not expressly indicate a financial context.3 In Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc., CBM2015-00164 (Feb. 3, 2016) (Paper 8), for example, the claims were “devoid of any terms that reasonably could be argued as having any particular relation to a financial product or service,” but the specification” slip op. at 10

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,499,946

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.