- Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Biosciences, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · PGR2022-00025 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable because the ’201 patent lacks written description support for the claimed genus of CRF1 receptor antagonists under § 112(a).
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“[A] sufficient description of a genus instead requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus. Id. at 1350 (citing Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568–69). Moreover, “an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials.” Id. (citing Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568 (quoting Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171)). Furthermore, “functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. (citing Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001))). “[M]erely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id.” slip op. at 42
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) “would have a medical degree or a Ph.D. in a field related to endocrinology, and would have knowledge of hormone regulation and disorders, as well as knowledge of the treatment regimens employed to treat such disorders . . . [and] would also have at least three years of experience conducting research concerning endocrine disorders, including CAH or other adrenal disorders.” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34 (Dr. Carey Declaration)). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because Petitioner’s definition of a person of skill in the art appears commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the asserted art in this case as well as the ’201 patent itself, see, e.g., Exs. 1024, 1025, 2003, 2004, 2005, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). C.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, we do not find persuasive the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dobs, that: By describing adjustments of dosing protocols to achieve an A4 reduction from baseline, and describing this use of tildacerfont as just one embodiment of the claimed use of the entire well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class, the specification reasonably conveyed to a POSA that the invention extended to the particularly claimed use of the entire recited class. Ex. 2014 ¶ 82. On the contrary, far from being a “well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class” the prior art teaches a heterogeneous assembly of different classes of small molecule CRF1 receptor antagonists (Type I, Type II, and “atypical”) displaying a very considerable variety of structures, both in terms of the core pharmacophore (e.g., monocyclic, bicyclic, tricyclic, phenolic, cyclohexyl amide, etc.) as well as in the various side groups. Moreover, the challenged claims recite only “a CRF1 receptor antagonist or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,” the scope of which also encompasses the much larger (and, according to Williams) much more effective large-molecule (peptide) CRF1 receptor antagonists, about which the Specification is entirely silent. See Ex. 1029, Abstr., 1065. Furthermore, despite Dr. Dobs’ testimony that “[t]he [prior art] references explain the typical CRF1 antagonist consists of a core nitrogen heterocycle with an aryl substituent adjacent to the core nitrogen atom and a branched alkyl group attached at the opposite end of the core,” Dr. Dobs also acknowledged that the “atypical CRF1 receptors depicted in Figures 11 and 12 of Williams had different structures, and lacked the nitrogen heterocyclic core.” Ex. 1042, 127:9–14, 130:13–131:16; see also Ex. 2014 ¶ 83. Additionally, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cutler, testified, by way of example, in his Reply Declaration that two of the ‘“first-generation CRF1 antagonists’ identified in Figure 1 of the Williams article do not fall within the Figure 2 structure Dr. Dobs relies upon.” Ex. 1047 ¶ 93. Indeed, with respect to the alleged core pharmacophore that Dr. Dobs” slip op. at 54
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“with chemical terminology”; “could not answer questions regarding the chemical structures in the prior art articles”; “did not know whether CRF1 receptor antagonists contained the structural features she deemed ‘essential’ in her Declaration”; and “agreed that tildacerfont has structurally unique features” (see Ex. 1042, 52–53, 125–126, 126–128, 128–130) goes to the weight that we assign to such testimony, but we do not find that such testimony, in light of Dr. Dobs’ extensive qualifications as an endocrinologist set forth above, deems Dr. Dobs unqualified to testify concerning the written description issue in this proceeding. For these reasons explained above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Dobs’ written description opinions in paragraphs 20 and 75–87 of Exhibit 2014 is denied.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 11,007,201 unpatentable§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,007,201 - Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Biosciences, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · PGR2021-00088 · APJ John G New · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 are unpatentable because the ’908 patent lacks written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach Grounds 1–3 or 5.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“To the extent that Dr. Dobs has admitted that she is “not comfortable with chemical terminology”; “could not answer questions regarding the chemical structures in the prior art articles”; “did not know whether CRF1 receptor antagonists contained the structural features she deemed ‘essential’ in her Declaration”; and “agreed that tildacerfont has structurally unique features” (see Ex. 1038, 52–53, 125–126, 126–128, 128–130), we will weigh her testimony regarding those matters accordingly. However, for the reasons explained above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Dobs’ written description opinions in paragraphs 19 and 80–91 of Exhibit 2014 is denied.” slip op. at 10
- Strike new argumentOther
“Analysis Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2020–2026 play no part in our reasoning and were not relied upon by the Board in reaching our Decision. Petitioner’s Motion to strike Exhibits 2020–2026 is therefore dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“typically possess a medical degree or a Ph.D. in a field related to endocrinology, and would have knowledge of hormone regulation and disorders, as well as knowledge of the treatment regimens employed to treat such disorders. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34). Petitioner argues that such a person of ordinary skill would also have at least three years of experience conducting research concerning endocrine disorders, including CAH or other adrenal disorders. Id. Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the demonstrable level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1025, 2003, 2004, 2005), and in the absence of a different proposed definition of the level of skill in the art by Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, we do not find persuasive the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Dobs, that: By describing adjustments of dosing protocols to achieve at least a 10% reduction from baseline, and describing this use of tildacerfont as just one embodiment of the claimed use of the entire well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class, the specification reasonably conveyed to a POSA that the invention extended to the particularly claimed use of the entire recited class. Ex. 2014 ¶ 87. On the contrary, far from being a “well-known, well-characterized, and discrete class” the prior art teaches a heterogeneous assembly of different classes of small molecule CRF1 receptor antagonists (Type I, Type II, and “atypical”) displaying a very considerable variety of structures, both in terms of the core pharmacophore (e.g., monocyclic, bicyclic, tricyclic, phenolic, cyclohexyl amide, etc.) as well as in the various side groups. Moreover, the challenged claims recite only “a CRF1 receptor antagonist or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,” the scope of which also encompasses the much larger (and, according to Williams) much more effective large-molecule (peptide) CRF1 receptor antagonists, about which the Specification is entirely silent. See Ex. 1029, Abstr., 1065.” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 10,849,908 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,849,908 - Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00874 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show Bansal's claimed light intensity arrangement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An obviousness determination requires finding both ‘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.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Obviousness grounds must be supported with “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” and not by “mere conclusory statements.” See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S at 418. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown for institution that Bansal teaches or suggests arranging light sources “such that a higher intensity of light is emitted proximate the second edges compared to the intensity of light emitted not proximate the second edges,” as required by the challenged claims. Instead, Petitioner demonstrates how Bansal describes varying the density of light source distribution throughout the array to provide a higher density of light in the entire peripheral area of the array, which includes the areas proximal to both the first and second edges, as compared to the central area of the array. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1005 ¶ 25. In this regard, Petitioner relies on Bansal’s Figure 9b, asserting that it “shows one embodiment where more light sources are placed near the edges of the panel compared to the light sources in the center.” Pet. 36–37. The comparison of Bansal’s light density between the entire periphery and the central area of the array is insufficient. What is missing from Petitioner’s argument and discussion of Bansal is how Bansal teaches or suggests a configuration that provides a higher density of light proximate to the second shorter edges of the periphery in comparison to the remaining areas of the array, which includes the first longer edges of the periphery. Without that discussion, we find that Petitioner has not shown sufficient for institution that Bansal is persuasively relied upon for the light source arrangement limitation of the challenged claims. likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claims 1, 5, 16, 20, or 21, or dependent claims 2, 4, 6–8, and 17–19 over Larsen, Bansal, and Jones.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelOther
“would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, physics, biomedical engineering, computer engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one year of work or research experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, photodynamic diagnosis (PD), photodynamic therapy (PDT), phototherapy (PT), or a related field. Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that, alternatively, a “POSITA in the relevant time frame would have had at least four years of industry or academic experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, PD, PDT, PT, or a related field.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’028 patent was filed, “would have had a M.D. and/or a Ph.D. in an electrical engineering, physics, optical sciences, optical engineering, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one to two years of work or research experience in optical engineering, optics, optoelectronics, phototherapy (‘PT’), PDT, or a related field.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner asserts that, “[a]lternatively, a POSITA could have a Bachelor’s degree in one of the above areas and at least three to four years of work or research experience in that area.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–31). We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. To the extent that the proposed definitions differ, we do not need to resolve those differences as our findings and conclusion in this Decision would be the same under any of the proposed definitions.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,028 - PTAB · Nov 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00834 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“anticipated by Sonti. Pet. 3. To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims to find anticipation. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In evaluating anticipation, it is permissible to take into account not only the literal teachings of the prior art reference, but also the inferences the skilled artisan would draw from it. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. At Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the “dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference”). As such, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“b. Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to topically administer 1% tapinarof composition once a day to treat mild to severe plaque psoriasis in view of Sonti’s teaching to apply its compositions (including 1% tapinarof compositions) in various application frequencies (including once daily) to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Pet. 29–30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184, 187–188; Ex. 1005 Abstract, ¶¶ 55, 196, 288, 387).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsInstituted
“d. Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Patent Owner asserts that, although the “Petition notes the patent’s ‘surprising[] and unexpected[]’ finding that once daily application of 1% tapinarof cream was just effective as twice daily application, . . . the Petition does not analyze, as the law requires, this surprising, unexpected finding in its obviousness arguments.” Prelim. Resp. 52. We are not persuaded by this argument. Immediately after the Petition’s acknowledgement that “[t]he specification [of the ’088 patent] contends that it was ‘surprisingly’ found that once daily application was just as effective as twice daily,” the Petition notes that, “[h]owever, during prosecution the examiner cited a set of prior art by Chen et al. disclosing treating plaque psoriasis by topically applying a composition containing 1% tapinarof once a day.” Pet. 1 (footnote omitted). Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner counters “Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” by referring to the Chen references cited during prosecution, but asserts that “Chen . . . does not undermine Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” because “Chen discloses applying a composition containing 1% mixture of cis and trans 3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropylstilbene, and not one containing 1% tapinarof (3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropyl-trans-stilbene).” Prelim. Resp. 52–53.16 As 16 Patent Owner refers to its earlier discussion on this issue. Prelim. Resp. 53 (“As already discussed . . .”). That earlier discussion is with respect to the Chen references cited in Sonti (i.e., Exs. 1012 & 1013), not the Chen 40” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,590,088 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01035 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–6, 8–10, and 22–28, and denied substitute claims 29–44 because Wright ’451 rendered them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 16). Patent Owner took no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. Inst. 6–7. In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that it accepts the Board’s definition for purposes of this proceeding. MTA 24. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears to be consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although neither party expressly proposes a construction for the term “conversion,” the parties appear to differ in their interpretations of that term. Petitioner interprets “conversion” to mean the percent conversion of the 1- alcohol. See Pet. Opp. RMTA 6–7 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of remaining 1-alcohol); Ex. 1040, 109:2–11. Patent Owner, on the other hand, interprets “conversion” to mean the total percentage of alkenes that have been produced. Ex. 2010 ¶ 123 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of total alkenes). During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner conceded that “conversion can mean either.” Tr. 27:18–28:13. Without the benefit of briefing by the parties, we decline to expressly construe the term “conversion,” as our Decision would be the same under either interpretation, as discussed further below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Moreover, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said claimed invention pertains. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Objective evidence of nonobviousness may include” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded. “[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must, therefore, first consider what results were expected to determine what a POSA would have considered to be unexpected. Id. As seen by the table below, Wright ’451’s disclosure fully encompasses the temperature ranges and purported unexpected results recited by substitute claim 29 and shown in Table 2 of the ’048 Patent: Reference Reaction Calcination Conversion Regioselectivity Rate13 Temperature Temperature Wright ’451 about 220 °C about 200 °C greater than about 90% to to about to 600 °C about 95% about 99% 440 °C Substitute 240 °C to about 420 °C at least 95% to about Claim 29” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,995,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,995,048 - BTL Industries, Inc. v. Inmode Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00703 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–58 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would have been obvious over Edwards, Ingle, and Mosher.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’511 patent would have had “a medical degree plus at least two years of experience in a field such as gynecology, urogynecology, or plastic surgery involving female genital anatomy, with clinical experience in the application of radiant energy to female genital tissue.” Ex. 1009, 8–9; Ex. 1010, 8. Petitioner here proposes a similar definition, specifically, “a medical doctor . . . [with] at least three years of experience in the non-surgical treatment of uro-gynecological conditions and/or the non-surgical cosmetic treatment of female genital tissues.” Pet. 6. Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Berenholz. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–31, 58–60.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner asserts that “no claim term requires construction—all terms should receive their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the patent specification.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). Accordingly, Petitioner contends that formal constructions are unnecessary. Id. (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. 2017) (explaining that only those terms need be construed “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). Petitioner, nevertheless, succinctly reviews the preliminary construction of certain terms of the ’511 patent claims in the ThermiGen IPRs, and the construction by the District Court in Viveve. See Pet. 8–11. We note first that, whereas these two sets of prior constructions may differ in focus or scope, we do not view them as in conflict. And although the preliminary constructions in the ThermiGen IPRs were conducted under the then-applicable broadest-reasonable-interpretation (BRI) standard, we are not presently aware of any reason that those definitions would differ under the Phillips standard, and we provisionally apply them here for clarity. And while we recognize that the Viveve constructions are not binding on this proceeding, the district court’s definitions are instructive and generally complementary to ThermiGen IPR constructions. Accordingly, we also provisionally apply them here for clarity. Although none of these terms are presently in dispute, we find it useful to clarify the meanings we apply at this stage of the proceeding. The parties are, of course, welcome to address the construction of any claim term at trial.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Mosher, and Ingle with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention because 1) “loose vaginal or vulval tissue was a known problem facing women at the time,” 2) “Edwards, Mosher, and Ingle are all directed to methods for the non-invasive treatment of female uro-genital conditions, for therapeutic and/or cosmetic reasons,” and 3) each of the cited references teaches the application of radiant energy, including RF, to heat and denature collagen, thereby tightening and remodeling the affected tissues. See generally, Pet. 22–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–91. More specifically, Petitioner relies on Edwards as providing general teachings of a non-invasive treatment using RF energy, and looks to Mosher and Ingle for details regarding parameters, techniques, and the physiological mechanism underlying heat-mediated collagen remodeling of female genital tissue. See Pet. 23. According to Petitioner, the asserted “combination is merely applying known techniques (Mosher/Ingle’s treatment methods) to a known method ready for improvement (Edward’s treatment method) to yield the predictable result of tightening via collagen denaturation.” Id.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,961,511 - Kelonia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Interius Biotherapeutics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00008 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of PGR because Petitioner did not show that Perkins and RCSB PDB made claims 1–30 more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The 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. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the underlying decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Owner’s argument persuasive because Perkins discloses embodiments with “mutations at I182 among a group of 20 other possible locations for modifications,” 13 of which are mutations of specific amino acids that “can be changed to any of the 19 other natural amino acids.” Id. Perkins discloses further that modifications at each of those 20 possible sites can be combined such that “one, two, or more” of the mutations can be made together in other embodiments (Ex. 1006, 17–18), or in other words, “each species [is] combinable to create a vast number of species.” Dec. 35. In addition to the locations of modifications expressly listed in Perkins, Perkins adds yet another option in which “the mutated VSV-G envelope protein is as described in Nikolic et al.” (Ex. 1006, 18), which “describes the crystal structures of VSV G bound to its native LDL-R receptor” that RCSB PDB depicts in entries 5OY9 and 5OYL (Dec. 18). We also considered Dr. Rose’s testimony about the crystal structures depicted in RCSB PDB, namely that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Perkins based on the VSV-G crystal structures in the RCSB PDB. Perkins taught that mutations to VSV-G “inhibit binding of VSV-G to the low-density lipoprotein receptor (‘LDL-R’), while preserving the VSV-G protein’s fusogenic function,” and expressly disclosed making a mutation at I182. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at 19:29-20:2, 20:29-21:14, 21:16-27; Ex. 1006 at 16.) The VSV-G crystal structures in the RCSB PDB taught that I182 is nearby negatively charged amino acids on the LDL-R. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate a mutation which negated an interaction with the negatively charged residues in the LDL-R. (Ex. 1005 at 19:29–20:2; Ex. 1006 at 16.) Dec. 37. discussed above, “Perkins provides a list of many mutations and combination[s] thereof, but provides no direction as to which of the many possible choices is likely to be successful.” Id. at 37–38. Thus, we were not persuaded that choosing an embodiment with a mutation at I182 from Perkins’s other listed embodiments with 20 possible locations for modifications, combinations of modifications at 20 possible locations, and the mutations described in Nikolic and depicted in RCSB PDB is an “easily traversed, small or finite number of alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness.” Id. at 35. In view of these findings, we noted that we did not “find sufficient evidentiary support for a determination that the navigation of RCSB PDB crystal structures to achieve the missing limitation would have been ‘evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art.’” Id. at 38.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“discussed above, “Perkins provides a list of many mutations and combination[s] thereof, but provides no direction as to which of the many possible choices is likely to be successful.” Id. at 37–38. Thus, we were not persuaded that choosing an embodiment with a mutation at I182 from Perkins’s other listed embodiments with 20 possible locations for modifications, combinations of modifications at 20 possible locations, and the mutations described in Nikolic and depicted in RCSB PDB is an “easily traversed, small or finite number of alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness.” Id. at 35. In view of these findings, we noted that we did not “find sufficient evidentiary support for a determination that the navigation of RCSB PDB crystal structures to achieve the missing limitation would have been ‘evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art.’” Id. at 38.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,767,366 - PTAB · Sep 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00650 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–38 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We determine whether to institute an inter partes review on behalf of the Director. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient were placed into a study arm and then treated with pembrolizumab. (See Ex. 1005, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–73.) Because treatment of the patients was performed only after MSI-H status was determined, the MSI-H Study Record teaches treating the patients “in response to” determining their MSI- H status.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“have been expected, Petitioner cites to Brown as teaching that PD-1 inhibitors are inherently more effective when treating tumors comprised of cells that are easy for immune cells to recognize. (See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1034, 747).) Petitioner argues further that Duval teaches that MSI-H cancers have cells that are easy for immune cells to recognize. (See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1087, 5002).) Dr. Neugut’s testimony supports Petitioner’s argument that the cited teachings of Brown and Duval, as well as other references, would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the results of the MSI-H Study Record. (See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124, 130, 132; see Pet. 41.) Petitioner argues further that Brown and Duval would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the results of the MSI-H Study Record by treating patients with common types of MSI-H cancers, including endometrial, small bowel, and gastric cancers. (See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130).) Petitioner argues further that the state of the art, as demonstrated by Brown and Duval, as well as other references, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success because physicians were successfully treating patients with cancers that were known to be MSI-H with PD-1 inhibitors. (See Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131, 132).)” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’219 patent would have been a medical doctor or a professional in a related field with at least five years of experience with treating cancer. (See Pet. 11 (citing Neugut Decl., Ex. 1003 ¶19).) Petitioner argues further that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have experience in or access to a person with knowledge of clinical studies for therapeutics and how they work and to a pathologist with comparable experience. (See id.) Dr. Neugut’s testimony supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding the level of skill that an ordinarily skilled artisan in the relevant field would have. (See Ex. 1003 ¶ 19.) Accordingly, in the analysis below, and in the absence of argument by Patent Owner to the contrary, we apply the level of skill set forth by Petitioner and refer to Dr. Neugut’s testimony of what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time the application that became the ’491 patent was filed, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,634,491 - PTAB · Sep 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00625 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable and declining discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). To be anticipated, each and every element of the claim must be found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. See Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When claim elements are inherently taught, the result must be a necessary consequence of what was deliberately intended, but the prior art need not demonstrate that the authors appreciated the results. See Mehl/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“At the outset, this court rejects the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). To be anticipated, each and every element of the claim must be found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. See Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When claim elements are inherently taught, the result must be a necessary consequence of what was deliberately intended, but the prior art need not demonstrate that the authors appreciated the results. See Mehl/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“At the outset, this court rejects the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundDecided for petitioner
“invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). To be anticipated, each and every element of the claim must be found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. See Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When claim elements are inherently taught, the result must be a necessary consequence of what was deliberately intended, but the prior art need not demonstrate that the authors appreciated the results. See Mehl/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“At the outset, this court rejects the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues that Pernot teaches treating colorectal cancer and that, therefore, because the MSI-H Study Record is directed to a clinical study treating colorectal cancer in a patient whose cancers are MSI-H with pembrolizumab, which is an anti-PD-1 antibody, one of ordinary skill in the art knowing the teachings of the MSI-H Study Record would have considered the teachings of Pernot. (See Pet. 36.) Petitioner argues that Pernot teaches that colorectal cancer patients that are MSI-H are “good candidates for immunotherapy,” such as PD-1 inhibitors. (See Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1006, 3741 (“[Colorectal cancer] associated with MSI could lead to a more intense immune response, but also to specific immunoregulatory phenomena, making [patients with colorectal cancer] good candidates for immunotherapy.”)).) Petitioner cites further to Dr. Neugut’s testimony to argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the disclosure of Pernot with the methods taught in the MSI-H Study Record in order to obtain the results of the MSI-H Study Record’s study. (See Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93).)” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,339,219
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.