- DBR Finance, Inc. v. Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00291 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–19 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove the proposed Whybrew–Strength combinations disclosed the claimed mesh panels with spaced holes.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We question, therefore, whether someone having an education in textile engineering or physics, but no experience in the field of hunting blinds, would be consistent with the level of skill portrayed by the ’535 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that Petitioner’s expert’s experience, education, and qualifications are rooted in textiles, fibers and physics, and sophisticated subjects related thereto. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–20. But his deposition revealed that he has little or no experience in the field of hunting blinds. See Ex. 2038, 8–14.5 5 The same might be said of Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2031, ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1023, 16. However, our obviousness analysis leaned lightly, if at all, on her declarations and testimony.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. Mesh Material In the Petition, Petitioner asks that “the term ‘mesh material’” be interpreted in accordance with “a plain and ordinary usage.” Pet. 25. Per Petitioner, the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the term “mesh material” is “a woven material of open texture with spaced holes therein.” Id. Per Petitioner, “[o]ther typical terms used to describe a mesh-like material” are “a screen material, or a netting material, which are believed to be synonyms.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that a mesh material would have an open texture with spaced holes therein. See PO Resp. 18. We find that Petitioner’s proposed construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification. See Ex. 1001. The drawings in the ’535 Patent depict the mesh material 26 as having an array of uniformly spaced circular holes forming a net-like structure (see id., Fig. 1A, 1B, 4, 9) or an array of uniformly spaced rectangular openings (see id. Fig. 8) forming a screen-like structure. The embodiments of the mesh material 26 listed in the ’535 Patent (e.g., a mesh banner material, scrims, a network of fibers, etc.) are materials having net-like or screen-like structures. See id. at 6:47–7:28.6” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Our construction aligns with the claim language; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001, 10:4–19. The independent challenged claims set forth “one or more panels of mesh material” and then set forth “said one or more panels comprising: a first side with a camouflage pattern; and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 10:4–11. The recited “said one or more panels” corresponds to the previously recited “one or more panels of mesh material,” not panels comprising a material that was only a “mesh” prior to printing/coating. See id. Also, the independent challenged claims set forth that “the one or more panels of the mesh material define an outer surface of the camouflage structure.” See id. at 10:18–19, 1:23–24 (emphasis added). And the panel(s) defining a hunting blind’s outer surface would include the dark color coating. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001. The ’535 Patent repeatedly describes the relevant panel material in the hunting blind (i.e., post printing/coating) as a mesh material. See id., Abst., 1:19–5:34, 6:47–7:28, 9:16–54, Figs. 1A, 1B, 9. The ’535 Patent expressly describes and depicts the mesh material 26 as including the camouflage pattern and the dark-color coating. See id. at 1:52–56, 3:24–25, 3:31–33, Figs. 1A, 1B. The ’535 Patent says that “panels” of this coated mesh material 26 “are used to form” a hunting blind. Id. at 3:22–26. The ’535 Patent says that “[m]esh material is presented for a hunting blind with a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a color coating.” Id. at Abst. The ’535 Patent says that “mesh material of interwoven fabric is provided for a hunting blind including a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 1:19–22; see also id. at 1:44–49. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s prosecution history; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1006. As mentioned above, throughout prosecution of the ’535 Patent, the same prior art material was mapped to the claimed panel(s) of mesh material. See Ex. 1006, 64–72, 122–106. The mapped-to prior art mesh material was described during prosecution as an “interwoven fabric” with “a pattern” printed on a first side and “a dark color coating” on a second side. Ex. 1006, 64; see also id. at 122. And the mapped-to prior art mesh material (i.e., which included not only the interwoven fabric but also the printed pattern and the dark color coating) had a “net-like structure” with an array of uniformly spaced “net holes” that are “not closed.” Ex. 2021, 4:1–5, see also id. at 2:58–3:6, 4:34–45, Figs. 1, 2a. Thus, we understand that claimed panel(s) of mesh material must have” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, Patent Owner does not bear the burden of proving Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. Rather, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. And Petitioner’s arguments that undermine Patent Owner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes, concurrently undermine Petitioner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. Per Petitioner, “Strength is silent on whether visible holes exist in the fabric” (Pet. Reply 8) and “the Strength reference doesn’t discuss anything about holes” (Tr. 14). Petitioner’s expert testified that it was his “understanding that Strength is silent” on “whether or not there are holes.” Ex. 2038, 44. Petitioner contends that Strength’s silence about the presence/ absence of holes hinders Patent Owner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. See Pet. Reply 8. We agree. But this same silence likewise hinders Petitioner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 11,399,535 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,399,535 - Encube Ethicals PTV. Ltd. v. Dermavant Sciences GmbHAdverse judgmentPTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00834 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on all challenged claims, 1–4, 6–10, 16, 18, 21, and 22, following their disclaimer.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Terminate Proceeding and Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Adverse Judgment (collectively “Motion”). The parties jointly request that the Board enter adverse judgment in light of the disclaimer filed by Patent Owner disclaiming all challenged claims. Mot. 1 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2)). The Motion attaches as an exhibit a disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), filed January 28, 2025, of claims 1–4, 6–10, 16, 18, 21, and 22 of the ’088 patent, which constitute all of the claims challenged in the inter partes review. Ex. 2001; Paper 1, 3.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Accordingly, we grant the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Adverse Judgment. This Adverse Judgment is sufficient to dispose of this proceeding and Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate is denied as moot.1” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 11,590,088 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00183 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 10, 11, 13–20, 22, 23, and 26–33 because the asserted combinations of ICMSF, Hughes, and Price showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious.
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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’584 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’584 patent on the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. A.” slip op. at 2
- 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/POSITA), “would most likely have an advanced degree in microbiology, food science, or animal science and at least two years of work experience but may alternatively have a bachelor’s degree in those areas and at least four years of experience with validation methodologies.” Pet. 11. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a working knowledge of microbiology,” “would have been involved in developing sampling and testing methodologies for analysis of food products (“validation methodologies”),” and “would have been familiar with relevant scientific literature and industry regulations, directives, and guidelines relating to validation methodologies.” Id.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “lots” does not require construction because on the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of the term, and neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identify any way that claim construction impacts the decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“This definition requires that a “validation” determines that “a particular sample tests negative.” The initial definition sentence makes no mention of “cleared for release” as necessary for “validation.” Rather, the definition only refers to “cleared for release” in the more limited situation where a particular composite sample “tests negative all single-unit production lot samples,” and even then, the “cleared for release” is a separate step that occurs after the samples are “validated.”” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,534,584 - 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 - PTAB · Sep 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00693 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled challenged claims 1–5, 9–10, 12–17, and 23–25, and denied substitute claims 26–41 for lack of written-description support for the amendments.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“A. Written Description The test for sufficiency of a written description is whether the disclosure “clearly allow[s] persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The disclosure must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“The RMTA is non-contingent, and, therefore, Patent Owner is making two requests: 1) cancel the claims challenged in the Petition; and 2) add the substitute claims proposed in the motion. We grant in-part the RMTA by canceling the claims challenged in the Petition. We deny in-part the RMTA by not adding the proposed substitute claims.” slip op. at 2
Nonecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,064,376 - Forte Biosciences, Inc. v. University Of MassachusettsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · PGR2023-00014 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable for lack of written description and enablement under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the § 103 challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition, except to modify the level such that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with well-known inhibitors of IL-15 and IL-15R as described in the ’505 patent and recognized in the art as of April 2017.” Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). We adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art with Patent Owner’s proposed modification because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’505 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“this stage of the proceeding and that all terms are to given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 23; Resp. 38. We agree. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, we determine that no claim construction is necessary.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Finally, we are reminded that “a sufficient description of the genus . . . 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.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. “[F]unctional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Here, however, the challenged claims are directed to methods using a wide range of different types of compounds purported to be “IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors” that are not part of a known or readily identifiable class, do not target the same biological pathway, do not have any common structural features, and do not appear to always function as inhibitors. See Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1575–77, 1579; Ex. 1046, 189:4–19, 191:15–192:15, 193:18–196:22, 198:21–199:21, 197:12–198:19, 200:1–8, 207:11–14, 203:3–10, 207:15–21, 236:12–24; Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 19–23, 56, 63–64, 80–85. Therefore, we find there is neither a representative number of species disclosed, nor a sufficient” slip op. at 21
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“598 U.S. at 610. A “specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention. What is reasonable in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art.” Id. at 613. But the person of ordinary skill in the art cannot be left with merely “a hunting license” or obligated to engage in “painstaking experimentation” or “trial and error” to “see what works.” Id. at 614. Patent Owner argues that “the IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors disclosed in the specification were known in the art and “share the common ‘general quality’ of inhibiting a pathway known to be relevant to and having ‘particular fitness for the particular purposes’ of (id.) treating certain autoimmune diseases by blocking IL-15 signaling.” Sur-reply 14 (citing Ex. 1011, 22; Ex. 2013, 3; Ex. 2017, Abstr.; Ex. 2024, 17; Ex. 2025, 2–3, 6; Ex. 2027, 4; Ex. 2028, 9; Ex. 2029, 4; Ex. 2031, 23; Ex. 2118, 53:22–54:9; Ex. 1018, 1; Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 52–63, 80–83, 130; Ex. 1046, 231:20–25). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing, however, because the record shows that different IL-15-specific inhibitors may operate in different ways that may result in differential effects, some of which may not include inhibition at all. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶21, 23, 40, 71; Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1576, 1579; Ex. 2013, 4:1– 8; Ex. 2014, 4:9–15; Ex. 2015 ¶ 22; Ex. 2025, 4:34–5:2; Ex. 1046, 166:21– 24, 168:25–169:5, 207:23–209:22, 210:4–17, 210:24–211:6; Ex. 1011, 1:67–2:4; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 116, 134. Thus, we find that the record supports Drs. Abbas and Plott’s testimony, which we credit, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to hunt down and test every compound through painstaking Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–90, 92; Ex. 1047 ¶ 53 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that the “specification of the ’505 patent is essentially a black box (so far as which aspects of IL-15 signaling it inhibits and how it operates), leaving the reader to guess through trial and error which molecules might operate similarly to ChMBC7 and which do not.”); Ex. 1004 ¶ 61 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that “from the perspective of a clinician, the amount of experimentation required would be extremely burdensome and success would be speculative.”); Ex. 2007, 93:16–97:25, 38:208; Ex. 1046, 234:20–236:11. This is due to the fact that the claims (without limit) encompass any inhibition of any one of the various types of IL-15 signaling and various versions of the receptor, and even implicate other compounds that act on different targets but which inhibit the IL-15 signaling pathway. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 53, 68; Ex. 2005 ¶ 71; Ex. 1046, 254:4–255:11, 158:12–160:20. The evidence has shown that IL-15/IL-15R inhibition is complicated and unpredictable, with some inhibitors also capable of enhancing forms of IL-15 signaling rather than preventing it. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 25–26, 53; Ex. 2013, 2:10–18; Ex. 2014, 2:12–20; Ex. 2015 ¶ 3; Ex. 2025, 2:10–18; Ex. 2078, 267.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 11,278,505 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,278,505 - Toast, Inc. v. Gratuity, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 27, 2024 · IPR2023-01408 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–13 on all asserted grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Marshall.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“On balance, we determine that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial of institution. In particular, we determine that factors 2– 4 weigh against denial of institution and factor 5, which is the lone factor favoring denial of institution, does not outweigh factors 2–4. Factor 1 is neutral. As a result, we need not decide whether Petitioner presents a compelling unpatentability challenge. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (decision on Director review) (precedential) (“[I]n circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis.”). 7. Summary Based on our holistic view of the Fintiv factors, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Marshall (alone and with Phillips and Webb) when addressing the claims added during prosecution that ultimately issued as the Challenged Claims.” Pet. 68. As pointed out by Petitioner, “Marshall was never considered by the Examiner” against the claims that ultimately issued as claims 1–13 of the ‘050 Patent. Pet. 67, see also Ex. 1008, 263–289, 323–353. As also pointed out by Petitioner, “even when the Examiner considered Marshall” against claims that were subsequently cancelled, “he considered Marshall only as a secondary reference.” Pet. 67, see also Ex. 1008, 203–236, 263–289, 323–353. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to provide an adequate explanation as to how the examiner erred.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s explanation “makes no sense,” and is “both conclusory and uncompelling.” Id. We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the Petitioner’s position, especially because it is supported by prosecution history of the ’050 Patent. (See Ex. 1008, 203–236, 263–289, 323–353.) Patent Owner also argues that the prosecution history of the ‘050 Patent “establishes that the Examiner reviewed Marshall thoroughly and applied it against the claims, some of which he rejected and other he later allowed.” Id. at 21. To support this argument, Patent Owner points to findings made by the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘050 Patent. See id. at 20. These findings, however, related to the Examiner’s rejections against claims that were subsequently cancelled. See Ex. 1008, 203–224. And these findings were made in conjunction with Marshall being applied as a secondary reference to reject those claims. See id. The Examiner rejected those claims over a combination of three prior art references (Kessler, Delany, and Tidwell), and added Marshall, in lieu of using official notice, to show that it was known in the art to configure a processor to execute computer executable instruction stored in a memory. See id. at 211–214. Thus, these findings do not contradict Petitioner’s position that overlooking Marshall as primary obviousness reference in connection with the Challenged Claims was a material error. The prosecution history does not sufficiently show that the Examiner considered Marshall, Philips, Web, or the combinations of these references asserted in the Petition, with respect to the claims that issued as the ’050 Patent. In particular, the Examiner asserted as Reasons for Allowance that the prior art did not teach” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Patent Owner argues that “Marshall fails to disclose a cloud-based computing system remote from a plurality of client business systems” as recited in independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 22. Per Patent Owner, the cited-by-Petitioner paragraphs in Marshall (Ex. 1004) say “nothing about ‘cloud computing,’ only data transmission.” Id. at 22–23. And, per Patent Owner, the cited-by-Petitioner paragraphs from a declaration (Ex. 1002), do not provide “any additional evidence” beyond Marshall’s cited paragraphs. Id. at 22. We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the evidence presented by Petitioner. The cited paragraphs of Marshall talk not only about data transmission, but also data transmission to remote locations via the Internet. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 25, 110. Also, one of these paragraphs talks about data transmission to a remote location being performed “via uploading and downloading via HyperText Transfer Protocol (‘HTTP’), Extensible Markup Language (‘XML’), and/or HTML as is known in the art.” Id. ¶ 110. The 9 The ’050 Patent says that “[i]n some embodiments, [a] point of sale system 110 and/or [an] employee records system 112 may be implemented in cloud computing systems reducing the burden on businesses to host these systems using local computing resources.” Ex. 2002, 4:65–5:2. If so, “[t]he gratuity management system 100 may be similarly implemented in a cloud computing system that interfaced with cloud-based point of sale and/or employee record systems.” Id. at 5:2–5. The gratuity management system “is contemplated to operate in conjunction with both local and cloud-based point to sale and/or employee record systems.” Id. at 4:8–11. cited paragraphs from the declaration provide additional evidence that these “communication protocols describe by Marshall (HTTP, XML, HTML) support a cloud-based infrastructure” and that “cloud computing solutions were well known and commonly used in the art by 2012.” Ex. 1002, ¶ 148. Thus, collectively, Petitioner’s evidence adequately establishes for the purposes of institution that Marshall indicates to POSITA that Marshall’s gratuity management system would be a cloud computing system remote from the plurality of client business systems.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“Patent Owner argues that “Marshall fails to disclose a cloud-based computing system remote from a plurality of client business systems” as recited in independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 22. Per Patent Owner, the cited-by-Petitioner paragraphs in Marshall (Ex. 1004) say “nothing about ‘cloud computing,’ only data transmission.” Id. at 22–23. And, per Patent Owner, the cited-by-Petitioner paragraphs from a declaration (Ex. 1002), do not provide “any additional evidence” beyond Marshall’s cited paragraphs. Id. at 22. We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the evidence presented by Petitioner. The cited paragraphs of Marshall talk not only about data transmission, but also data transmission to remote locations via the Internet. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 25, 110. Also, one of these paragraphs talks about data transmission to a remote location being performed “via uploading and downloading via HyperText Transfer Protocol (‘HTTP’), Extensible Markup Language (‘XML’), and/or HTML as is known in the art.” Id. ¶ 110. The 9 The ’050 Patent says that “[i]n some embodiments, [a] point of sale system 110 and/or [an] employee records system 112 may be implemented in cloud computing systems reducing the burden on businesses to host these systems using local computing resources.” Ex. 2002, 4:65–5:2. If so, “[t]he gratuity management system 100 may be similarly implemented in a cloud computing system that interfaced with cloud-based point of sale and/or employee record systems.” Id. at 5:2–5. The gratuity management system “is contemplated to operate in conjunction with both local and cloud-based point to sale and/or employee record systems.” Id. at 4:8–11. cited paragraphs from the declaration provide additional evidence that these “communication protocols describe by Marshall (HTTP, XML, HTML) support a cloud-based infrastructure” and that “cloud computing solutions were well known and commonly used in the art by 2012.” Ex. 1002, ¶ 148. Thus, collectively, Petitioner’s evidence adequately establishes for the purposes of institution that Marshall indicates to POSITA that Marshall’s gratuity management system would be a cloud computing system remote from the plurality of client business systems.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,741,050 - PTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2023-01069 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–8 on all three §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We integrate the above considerations into the Advanced Bionics two- part framework in deciding discretionary denial under § 325(d), first considering Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, and if so, evaluating Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, 7–11.” slip op. at 58
- Other 314aDenied
“Patent Owner points to § 314(a)27 as a basis for denying institution but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 2 (citation), 4 (citation), 15 (section heading), 31 (citation in parenthetical). At best, Patent Owner asserts that if we find “that fewer than all three Grounds meet the standard for Section 325(d), institution of Samsung’s petition should still be denied in full, because institution on all three Grounds ‘would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and 27 Under certain circumstances, the Board may apply its discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in light of a parallel district court proceeding involving the same patent. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). But as noted by Petitioner, the patent at issue here “has never been asserted in any litigation.” Pet. 63. 66 resources.’” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative)). Because we decline to exercise our discretion with respect to any of the Grounds under § 325(d), the Board’s Deeper decision is inapposite.” slip op. at 66
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not presently dispute this definition “except to clarify that the POSA would have at least two years of experience in engineering monoclonal antibodies for human therapeutic use, either in the laboratory or industry.” Prelim. Resp. 44–48 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 48–49 (arguing that Petitioner cannot prove unpatentability of the challenged claims under either party’s definition). At this stage in the proceeding, we accept and apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan, as being both unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s additional qualification. In this respect, it appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” encompasses Patent Owner’s proposed modification, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. 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)).” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,590,189 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01070 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–29 on all twelve asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage in the proceedings, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, as being both generally unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s supplemental definition. It appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” includes Patent Owner’s proposed level of experience. Pet. 17–18. We also take into account the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. 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)).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the purposes of this institution decision, we find it unnecessary to construe any claim language because it is readily understandable on its face and there is no dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As the case continues, we may determine that certain claim language should be interpreted.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner, supported by the testimony of Dr. Ravetch, contends that Bowdish is analogous art. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128). In this respect, Dr. Ravetch testifies: A POSA looking for the amino acid sequences encoding eculizumab would have easily found Bowdish, and considered it to be analogous art to Bell and Evans for at least three reasons: (1) it provides express disclosures about the structure of the antibody “5G1.1,” (2) it identifies “Alexion Pharmaceuticals” as the inventors’ addressee that is the same as the assignee for Evans, and (3) it cites to the same Evans patent as does Bell for the structure of 5G1.1. Thus, a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bowdish and Evans in view of Bell to arrive at the claimed sequence. Ex. 1003 ¶ 128. On the present record before us, it appears that Bowdish is both reasonably pertinent and within the same field of endeavor as the ’809 patent for the reasons identified by Dr. Ravetch, because it is directed to the construction of a humanized monoclonal antibody comprising a TPO mimetic peptide graft into the heavy chain CDR3 of antibody framework 5G1, and because it uses “the parental 5G1.1” sequence as a control for FACs analysis of the TPO mimetic antibody. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 191–193. Moreover, it is reasonable that an ordinarily skilled artisan seeking to understand the Alexion anti-C5 antibody disclosed in, for example, Bell or Hillmen or Hill as a treatment for PNH, would look to other Alexion prior art for guidance.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“overarching argument that Petitioner’s positions are fatally flawed by hindsight or that “[a] POSA as of March 15, 2007[,] would have understood that Alexion had developed a humanized antibody named ‘eculizumab,’ . . . [b]ut a POSA at that time would not have known that “eculizumab” had the sequence claimed in the ʼ809 patent.” See Prelim. Resp. 4, 7, 9. It appears that Petitioner’s positions here consider only the disclosures of the prior art and how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have read prior art references in view of one another. Regarding Patent Owner’s foundational preliminary argument that all prior art pointed exclusively to Thomas for the structure of eculizumab, rather than to Evans or Tacken or Mueller PCT, for example, we are unconvinced. We find Patent Owner’s position mischaracterizes Bell’s incorporation of Thomas by wholly ignoring that, in the very same sentence, and preceding the cite to Thomas, Bell also incorporates Evans by reference. Ex. 1007 ¶ 52. Bell incorporates Evans as disclosing “[p]articularly useful anti-C5 antibodies . . . h5G1.1-mAb, h5G1.1-scFv and other functional fragments of h5G1.1,” and “[m]ethods for the preparation” of these. Id. It appears that the ordinarily skilled artisan, like Bell’s inventors, would not have looked solely to Thomas for eculizumab’s structure. Moreover, the ’809 patent itself states that Evans, which is a part of Bell, discloses “a preferred whole antibody (now named eculizumab),” and how to produce it. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 12:34–37. Thus, even the ’809 patent, like Bell, acknowledges that Evans is an important reference regarding eculizumab, its structure, and how to make it.” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,703,809 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01038 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims 1–29 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’745 patent’s challenged claims. We decline to deny the Petition on the basis of discretion under § 325(d). We institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportInstituted
“Conclusion Based on the preliminary record, we determine that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in establishing that the challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date that is earlier than October 7, 2016. Accordingly, Corteva ’437, which was filed May 2, 2005, and published November 17, 2005, is prior art under 32 U.SC. § 102. Ex. 1021, codes (22), (43).” slip op. at 55
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“missing in the disclosures of the priority applications. See, e.g., Paper 9 at 2 (citing evidence). Because the only issue in dispute at this time for Petitioner’s grounds based on Corteva ’437 is the applicable priority date for the challenged claims, the Office’s error is plainly material to Petitioner’s challenge under Grounds IA & IB, covering all claims. We do not further address the parties’ arguments about § 325(d) as applied to the obviousness challenge under Grounds IIA and IIB. Even if we agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial of those grounds, we would not find that § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated based on our determination of error concerning the priority issue as explained above. For the foregoing reasons, we do not deny the Petition on the basis of discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 74
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,299,745
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.