- Argentum Pharmaceutical LLC v. Novartis AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 5, 2020 · IPR2016-01479 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted prior-art combinations did not establish a reasonable expectation of success in treating advanced PNETs after chemotherapy failure.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.10 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation not foundDecided for patent owner
“Judged by the correct standard, the evidence leaves little doubt that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pursue everolimus as a potential treatment option for advanced PNETs after failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Novartis does not seriously contend otherwise, focusing its arguments instead on whether the motivation to pursue everolimus was greater than the motivation to pursue other possible treatments. Not only does Öberg 2004 discusses rapamycin as an “interesting new compound” that suggests clinical trials with rapamycin in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy, it specifically provides a treatment algorithm that shows rapamycin among the potential “experimental therapies” following failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Ex. 1027, 60, Fig 1. And O’Donnell specifically demonstrates that administration of everolimus to human cancer patients was safe. Ex. 1029, 200. We credit Dr. Ratain’s testimony that by 2005, there was a “significant body” of data on the administration of everolimus to humans, but no reported clinical data on rapamycin. Ex. 1003 ¶ 135. Given the difference in information on everolimus and rapamycin, we find that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to pursue everolimus as an alternative to the rapamycin disclosed in Öberg 2004. Even if a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to pursue everolimus, however, our inquiry does not end there. Argentum must also prove that the 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.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). That “expectation of success need only be reasonable, not absolute.” Id. at 1364. “Whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success . . . is measured as of the date of the invention.” Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman–La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner
“the only prior art clinical trial of everolimus presented to us, was a Phase I trial designed to test dosages, not efficacy. Ex. 1029, 803. While Öberg 2004 does disclose the promise of rapamycin, we agree with the District Court that at the time of the invention the mTOR pathway was insufficiently understood, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected rapamycin’s “promise,” as reported in Öberg 2004, to translate to everolimus. Ex. 1027, 60. And in regard to Boulay 2004, Novartis argues that the record lacks sufficient evidence to support Argentum’s contention that the CA20948 rat pancreatic tumor model described therein was applicable to the treatment of PNETs. Ex. 1005, 253. On this point, again we agree with the District Court. District Court Decision, 287 F. Supp. 3d at 526 (“I find that Defendant has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that CA20948 is a PNET model.”). Upon evaluating the full record before us, we find that the CA20948 tumor model line originated from a pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which is distinct from a neuroendocrine tumor (NET). Ex. 2038, 197–99; Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 132–134. We credit and rely on Dr. Kulke’s testimony that pancreatic adenocarcinomas and PNETs were known to differ in their origin, incidence, clinical behavior, molecular genetics, and responses to pharmacotherapies. Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 57, 135–136. Argentum does not dispute the distinction between CA20948 and PNETs, but instead argues that tests performed on CA20948 would nevertheless be understood to be applicable to PNETs. Reply 17–18. Argentum’s primary support for this argument derives from the De Jong reference, which discloses the use of the CA20948 pancreatic tumor line in a study of the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors. Ex. 1010, Abstract. As based treatment of tumors using radioactive somatostatin-analogues. PO Resp. 33; Ex.1010, 356–58. Both neuroendocrine tumors and CA20948 express somatostatin receptors; it is this commonality that made CA20948 useful as a model for NETs in De Jong’s study of radiation treatment. Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 139, 141. But just because some features of a cell line make it useful in studies of tumors where those features are relevant, it does not necessarily follow that the cell line is relevant to all studies of those tumors. See Tr. 14:15–25. As Dr. Kulke credibly explains, the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood from the De Jong radiation treatment study that CA20948 could be used as a model for NETs in a pharmacotherapy study. Ex. 2041 ¶ 143–146. For these reasons, we agree with the District Court that Argentum has not proven CA20948 to be a PNET model; nor is there reason to believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered CA20948 to be applicable to studying the treatment of PNETs with mTOR inhibitors, much less such treatment after the failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy.” slip op. at 18
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“We agree. If Argentum had submitted only certain portions of Dr. Kulke’s testimony into the record before us, Novartis would be entitled to rely on FRE 106 to request that the Board admit other portions of his testimony that, in fairness, should be considered. But that is not what Novartis requests here; nor could it, given that Exhibits 1070, 1095, and 1119 were already admitted in their entirety. And in any event, Novartis’ request would not have been proper as part of a motion to exclude. Upon reviewing the Motion, it is clear that Novartis is using its FRE 106 arguments as a vehicle for introducing additional citations to, and discussion of, Dr. Kulke’s testimony that were not introduced in the multiple other opportunities for merits briefing that Novartis had during this trial. For this” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,006,224 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,006,224 - Dell Inc. / Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2018 · IPR2017-00365 · APJ Per Curiam · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 9–12, 14, 18, 19, and 24 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because Petitioner failed to establish a specific combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We do not observe a meaningful difference between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, Dr. Creusere appears to satisfy either assessment. Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment, but, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not argue a claim construction for any terms. See generally PO Resp.; Reply. In the Decision to Institute, we did not construe any terms. Dec. 5–6. We determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168– 69), on this record, we cannot reconcile these portions of his declaration Dr. Creusere’s his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–69), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, nor Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony, provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Put another way, we do not find that Petitioner demonstrates a “reasonable expectation of success” when Dr. Creusere acknowledges that a person having ordinary skill in the art did not specify whether to discard or keep Franaszek’s sampling approach, or would use only Franaszek’s teachings of compression algorithms, or incorporate other such algorithms, or what data type or data types an intended system teaches would be created to compress, or what specific goals and objectives the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve. Compare id. at 75:18–76:19, 126:20–127:1, 76:24–78:6, 94:4–12, 96:4–98:14 with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–71; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 187–89.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,415,530 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,415,530 - Dell Inc. / Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2018 · IPR2016-01671 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–5, 9–12, 14, 18, 19, and 24 unpatentable as obvious because it did not establish a specific combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We do not observe a meaningful difference between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, Dr. Creusere appears to satisfy either assessment. Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment, but, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties do not argue a claim construction for any terms. See generally PO Resp.; Reply. In the Decision to Institute, we did not construe any terms. Dec. 5–6. We determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Put another way, we do not find that Petitioner demonstrates a “reasonable expectation of success” when Dr. Creusere acknowledges that a person having ordinary skill in the art did not specify whether to discard or keep Franaszek’s sampling approach, or would use only Franaszek’s teachings of compression algorithms, or incorporate other such algorithms, or what data type or data types an intended system teaches would be created to compress, or what specific goals and objectives the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve. Compare id. at 75:18–76:19, 126:20–127:1, 76:24–78:6, 94:4–12, 96:4–98:14 with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–71; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 187–89. Instead, Petitioner simply asserts, in a conclusory manner, that: Because the relevant art is predictable and compression algorithms and transmission times may be modeled, simulated, and easily tested, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these various teachings found in the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Pet. 34 (emphasis added)(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–71). Notably, Dr. Creusere acknowledges that the number of possible permutations faced by a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been “unlimited” and that it was “impossible” for him to address “all the permutations of those possibilities.” Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168– 69), on this record, we cannot reconcile these portions of his declaration Dr. Creusere’s his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–69), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, nor Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony, provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices. Petitioner’s modeling, simulation, and testing theory fails to satisfy sufficiently its “reasonable expectation of success” evidentiary burden. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009), it is “improper” to argue an obviousness theory on the basis that “it would have been ‘obvious to try’ . . . to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result.” Id. at 1359–60 (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[O]bviousness law in general recognizes an important distinction between combining known options into ‘a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,’ and ‘merely throwing metaphorical darts at a board’ in hopes of arriving at a successful result.”). Furthermore, as the Federal Circuit explained in Kubin, the Board should not use hindsight based on allegations that require that the person having ordinary skill in the art to randomly pick from a board filled with combinational prior art possibilities. Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359. To paraphrase, Petitioner is attempting to bypass its evidentiary burden of having to proffer particular evidence of a specific combination, which would teach the “faster than” limitation recited in claims 1 and 24 by instead repeating that “model[ing], simulat[ion], and test[ing]” leads to a reasonable expectation of success (Pet. 34); whereas, in this proceeding, the number of permutations and variables are “unlimited” and “impossible” to address, as acknowledged by Dr. Creusere (Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13– 24, 143:20–144:3). That is, Petitioner attempts to craft a theory of obviousness using non-specific teachings from Franaszek and Osterlund that allegedly demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success; this attempt, however, falls significantly short of the Federal Circuit’s requirements. Another obstacle to our reliance on Dr. Creusere’s vacillating opinions is Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Zeger. Dr. Zeger opines in his declaration that Franaszek illustrates complex choices a person having ordinary skill in the art would face in considering whether and how to modify Franaszek in light of Osterlund on this record. Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 152–69. In particular, Dr. Zeger opines that Franaszek’s approach requires numerous steps that each create delays before compression occurs, which are illustrated in Dr. Zeger’s figure below. Id.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,415,530 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,415,530 - Dell Inc. / Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2018 · IPR2016-00972 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 1–5, 9–12, 14, 18, 19, and 24 unpatentable under § 103 because it failed to show a specific combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Creusere, testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical and computer engineering, electrical engineering, or electronics and at least two years of experience working with data compression or a graduate degree focusing in the field of data compression. Such experience would have led to familiarity with data compression systems using multiple data compression and decompression techniques to increase data storage and retrieval bandwidth. As such, individuals with additional education or additional industrial experience could still be of ordinary skill in the art if that additional aspect compensates for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The parties do not argue a claim construction for any terms. See generally PO Resp.; Reply. In the Decision to Institute, we did not construe any terms. Dec. 5–6. We determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the recited invention does. And as the Federal Circuit elaborates in ActiveVideo (supra), this analysis involves consideration of how specific references could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific references would yield a predictable result, or how any specific combination would operate or read on the asserted claims. We find Dr. Creusere’s testimony is insufficient under the aforementioned requirements under ActiveVideo. In particular, Dr. Creusere acknowledges that he does not specify whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would keep or discard Franaszek’s sampling approach, or would use only Franaszek’s compression algorithms or incorporate other algorithms. Ex. 2015 at 75:18–76:11, 126:20–127:1. Also significant is Dr. Creusere’s repeated testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not incorporate Osterlund’s compression algorithm into Franaszek, or incorporate Franaszek’s compression algorithms into Osterlund. Id. at 43:3–11, 94:13–95:4. Furthermore, Dr. Creusere did not have an opinion about whether using Osterlund’s compression algorithm as part of Franaszek’s compression method would increase Franaszek’s compression speed. Id. at 94:4–12. Moreover, Dr. Creusere could not state whether his hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art would modify Franaszek’s set of existing compression techniques at all, and, if so, what techniques the person having ordinary skill in the art would even consider. Id. at 96:4–98:14. Also notable is Dr. Creusere’s failure to indicate whether combination of the teachings of Franaszek and Osterlund would apply to some data types or all data types. Id. at 142:5–10, 143:12–19. Put another way, we do not find that Petitioner demonstrates a “reasonable expectation of success” when Dr. Creusere acknowledges that a person having ordinary skill in the art did not specify whether to discard or keep Franaszek’s sampling approach, or would use only Franaszek’s teachings of compression algorithms, or incorporate other such algorithms, or what data type or data types an intended system teaches would be created to compress, or what specific goals and objectives the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve. Compare id. at 75:18–76:19, 126:20–127:1, 76:24–78:6, 94:4–12, 96:4–98:14 with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–71; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 187–89.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168– 69), on this record, we cannot reconcile these portions of his declaration Dr. Creusere’s his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–69), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, nor Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony, provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,415,530 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,415,530 - 10x Genomics, Inc. v. The University Of ChicagoNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01157 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–31 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed surface-tension relationship under either instituted obviousness ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedNew argument consideredMixed
“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)). For this reason, our Rules require that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition . . . or patent owner response.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). This reasoning applies equally to reply declarations, submitted to support a party’s reply brief. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc., 821 F.3d at 1369–70 (affirming exclusion of reply brief and supporting declaration). Our Trial Practice Guide provides that “a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered. . . . The Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of a reply.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial Practice Guide”). Of course, “the introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in inter partes review trial proceedings.” Genzyme Therapeutic Prod. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That new evidence, however, must be responsive to an argument raised by the opposing party in its opposition brief. By contrast, when “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for . . . unpatentability” or “new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing” is introduced, these are indications that a new issue has been raised improperly. See Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The theory advanced by 10X—that the surface tension relationship can be inferred from the lack of adhesion of droplets—suffers from at least two failings. First, as discussed above, to establish the presence of fluorinated surfactants with a hydrophilic head group, 10X relies on paragraph 117 of Quake, which it argues discloses surfactants residing at the oil-water interface between the droplets and the carrier fluid. Indeed, this reliance is crucial to its inference that the surfactants have a hydrophilic head group. But when it comes to inferring that the claimed surface tension relationship is present, 10X points to a different disclosure of surfactants coating the channel walls. As counsel conceded, the disclosures of paragraphs 117 and 118 “disclose two separate uses of surfactants.” Tr. 21:8–9. 10X cannot have it both ways, arguing that the hydrophilic head group is implied because the surfactant is at the oil-water interface, while also arguing that the surface tension relationship is implied because the surfactant coats the channel walls. Furthermore, even if we were to accept 10X’s reliance on the surfactant coating the channel walls, its proposed inference is not supported by the record or logic. While it may be the case that if the surface tension relationship is present, droplets do not adhere to the wall, to infer the reverse would be affirming the consequent.9 In other words, we cannot infer from the fact that droplets do not adhere to the channel wall that the claimed surface tension relationship is necessarily present, because there are other possible causes of non-adherence. As Chicago correctly notes, Quake discloses multiple reasons why a droplet may not adhere to a channel wall, including droplet shape (“about four times as long as [it is] wide”) and size (“[d]roplet adherence is overcome when the droplet is massive enough in relation to the channel size”). PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 92).” slip op. at 25
- ExcludeNot reached
“D. Motion to Exclude Chicago moves to exclude various exhibits filed by 10X, namely Exhibits 1037, 1043, 1045, 1047, 1050, 1051–1056, 1072, 1081, 1088–1092, and portions of Dr. Huck’s testimony (Exs. 1002 and 1087). Mot. 1. The basis for the Motion is Chicago’s prior objections to these exhibits on grounds of hearsay (FRE 802), prejudice (FRE 403), or unreliability (FRE 702). Even having considered these objected-to exhibits, however, we have found in Chicago’s favor on the merits of 10X’s patentability challenge. As such, the grant or denial of Chicago’s Motion would have no effect on the outcome of the proceeding. We, therefore, dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 28
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Chicago that Quake does not explicitly disclose that the surfactants of paragraph 117 have a hydrophilic head group, and that “surfactants” in general include surface active agents both with and without a hydrophilic head group. Nevertheless, we find that a person of skill in the art would understand the surfactants disclosed in paragraph 117 may include a hydrophilic head group. Dr. Olmsted notes, and Chicago does not dispute, that the other surfactants listed as “exemplary”—namely, Tween and Span— have hydrophilic head groups. Ex. 1085 ¶ 27. Furthermore, the sentence characterizes the surfactants as “soluble in oil relative to water,” from which Dr. Olmsted concludes that the oil-water boundary is the surface where the surfactants are expected to reside. Id. ¶ 29. While Chicago is correct that other portions of Quake—for example, as discussed extensively above, paragraph 118—disclose surfactants that coat the channel walls, we do not understand paragraph 117’s surfactants to be so limited.8 For this reason, we find credible Dr. Huck’s and Dr. Olmsted’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand paragraph 117’s disclosure to refer to surfactants having a hydrophilic head group. We find that Quake discloses fluorinated surfactants that reside at the droplet-carrier fluid interface, and which have a hydrophilic head group.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,889,083 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,889,083 - Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00106 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9 and 10 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish a reason to combine the references to create the claimed inert environment.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner, however, does not cite precedent to support its position, and, during the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that it was unaware of any supporting case law. Id. at 28:14-17. Moreover, we note that Dr. Checkel has “worked on automotive research projects with all of the ‘Big Three’ North American manufacturers as well as various suppliers to the industry.” Ex. 2018 ¶ 3. We are not persuaded on this record and with respect to this art that Petitioner has shown that a relevant distinction may be drawn between persons of ordinary skill in the United States and in Canada.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the present record, including Dr. Checkel’s unrebutted testimony, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute the air used in Gilliam with inert gas alone from the mixture disclosed in Stoyle to achieve the invention recited in claim 9. Specifically, Dr. Checkel opines that: 136. The Stoyle apparatus heater relies on a high pressure process to heat oil to a temperature so as to enable flash evaporation and thus generate a large output of smoke. The Stoyle apparatus heats and forces a foam of oil and inert carbon dioxide gas under pressure through narrow annular passages in a heated metal assembly. This construction allows the oil to be pressurized and superheated above its atmospheric boiling temperature without significant degradation because of the uniform heating temperature and lack of oxygen. At the end of Stoyle’s heater tube, the superheated liquid oil is released to ambient conditions to form a mist. 137. A smoke generator relying on high pressure and flash evaporation to generate large volumes of smoke would be inappropriate and dangerous to use with the closed volume of an EVAP system, which is typically restricted to pressure of 1 psi (7kPa) or less. Even if the smoke generator had some modifications, the use of high pressure in generating the smoke and the production of large volumes of smoke at a rapid rate would risk damaging EVAP and fuel system components, possibly to the point of rupture. A person of skill would not consider Stoyle to be an analogous reference to add features missing from Gilliam. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 136-137 (emphasis added; citations omitted). Dr. Checkel’s analysis of the differences between Stoyle and claim 9 of the ’808 patent is specific, well-supported, and persuasive. Therefore, we do not find sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s argument for relying on Stoyle’s ventilation testing apparatus, in combination with Gilliam’s vacuum system leak-testing apparatus, to make the asserted substitution. We determine that the evidence of record is not sufficient to conclude that Gilliam and Stoyle provide a reason for one skilled in the relevant art to create an inert environment within a closed smoke-producing chamber and, subsequently, within a closed EVAP system during leak testing. In view of the differences between Stoyle’s and Gilliam’s apparatus, as detailed by Dr. Checkel, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not have reason to choose only the inert gas from Stoyle’s air/inert gas mixture and substitute inert gas alone for Gilliam’s use of air to achieve the invention recited in claim 9.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“iii. Combination of Gilliam and Stoyle For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner, and we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence or Petitioner’s reasoning that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to substitute Stoyle’s use of inert gas, forced into the narrow compressed space between a bore and a plug, in place of the air used in Gilliam’s temperature-regulated, spark arrestor-governed system to generate smoke in a closed smoke-producing chamber. See Pet. 41-42. It is not sufficient for prior art references to teach or suggest the recited limitations of a claim. There must be some reasoning supported by rational underpinnings to combine the references to achieve the invention recited in the challenged claims. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained, “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 36 (warning against a “temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue” and instructing courts to “guard against slipping into use of hindsight”).” slip op. at 22
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Exhibits 2020, 2022, and 2024-2036: Referenced in Dr. Checkel’s Declaration, and Exhibits 2008, 2013, 2015, and 2017: Referenced in Mr. Saffie’s Declaration Petitioner seeks to exclude Exhibits 2020, 2022, and 2024-2036, referenced in Dr. Checkel’s Declaration, and Exhibits 2008, 2013, 2015, and 2017, referenced in Mr. Saffie’s Declaration, as allegedly irrelevant under FRE 403 and hearsay under FRE 801 and 802. Pet. Mot. Excl. 15. Petitioner, however, fails to identify any allegedly improper portions of any of these exhibits with any particularity. Id.; see Pet. Reply Mot. Excl. 5 (“For the reasons set forth in [Petitioner’s] motion, the remainder of [Patent Owner’s] evidence should be excluded.”). Such a general objection to these exhibits does not provide us with the information necessary to assess Petitioner’s reasons for seeking exclusion of these exhibits. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 2008, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2022, and 2024-2036 is denied. V. CONCLUSION Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to show by a preponderance” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 6,526,808 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,526,808
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.