• Guardant Health, Inc. v. University Of WashingtonNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00817 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 were not proven unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a reason to combine the Travers references with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors 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). Furthermore, the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art by March 20, 2012 would typically have an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., with research experience in genomics, molecular biology, bioinformatics, or a related field, or could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46–47). Patent Owner states that for the purposes of this proceeding, it does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the skill level. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 28–30). After reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languagePlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that, in a few instances, the ’127 patent discloses “sequence reads” as corresponding to “multiple and distinct sequencing reactions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:12–18, 4:45–49, 9:5–9, 9:11–12). Those disclosures, however, relate to “only one method for making the invention and do[] not automatically lead to finding a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Patent Owner does not point to, and we cannot find, any intrinsic evidence that would limit “sequence reads” as Patent Owner contends. Patent Owner also relies on Travers as extrinsic evidence that supports its argument. PO Resp. 9. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that Travers “refers to the sense and antisense target DNA sequences as subreads, which are distinct from the ‘raw read sequence’ or ‘raw read’ that comprises all of the subreads physically linked together.” Id. (citing Ex. 1021, 2). Patent Owner, however, ignores that Travers ’075 refers to the sequence of a sense or antisense strand as a “sequence read,” and not a subread. See Ex. 1018 ¶ 61. As a result, we find insufficient evidence to support Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “sequence read” as requiring “multiple and distinct sequencing reactions.”7 Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Based on the complete record, we see no need to expressly address any other claim term.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. First, the prior art references Petitioner relies on relate to sequencing SMRTbell templates; specifically, they teach two polymerase binding sites in the two hairpin adapters per SMRTbell molecule, one on each end of the target molecule. See Ex. 1021, Fig. 1. They do not speak to concatemers with multiple polymerase binding sites interspersed along the molecule. Second, as explained above, a two-round RCR already generates three polymerase binding sites. See Ex. 2014 ¶ 178. Thus, even if we were to agree with Petitioner that the optimal stoichiometric ratio for SMRTbell templates applies to RCR produced concatemers, the polymerase to concatemer template ratio is at least three, i.e., 50% higher than the number Petitioner points to.11 See Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1035, 34). 11 The product of one round of RCR replication has only two polymerase binding sites. But, with only one copy of A and A each, it would not satisfy Third, and most importantly, the prior art does not support Petitioner’s arguments. The SMRT sequencing “approach is based on eavesdropping on a single DNA polymerase molecule working in a continuous, processive manner.” Ex. 2021, 1 (“Within each [ZMW] chamber, a single DNA polymerase molecule is attached to the bottom surface.”). Indeed, in SMRT sequencing, polymerase molecules are randomly distributed among the ZMWs, leading to a Poisson distribution of occupancy. At optimal loading, the distribution is 36.8% empty ZMWs, 36.8% with just one polymerase, and 26.4% with two or more. In this experiment, ~35% of the ZMWs produced traces indicative of single DNA polymerase occupancy, of which 82% produced full-length reads.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “3. Summary In sum, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to sequence RCR replicated concatemers on PacBio’s sequencing platform with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, Petitioner has not shown the Travers references render the claims 1–10, 12, and 15–28 obvious.12 F. Other Grounds Claim 11 depends from claim 1. Petitioner asserts that claim 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Travers ’075, Travers 2010, and NEB Expressions. Pet. 58–60. 12 The parties dispute whether there are objective indicia to support a conclusion of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 68–74; Reply 23–27; Sur-reply 27–29. We do not address this issue because we determine Petitioner has not met its burden in showing the reason to combine/modify the Travers references or the reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,760,127 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,760,127
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00556 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach or suggest the limitation requiring no outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. Consequently, and according to the plain and ordinary meaning, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, 29 such as a cloth, fabric or other material, that covers all, or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, and specifically “between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame,” we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the spaces between those struts and members. Consequently, the ordinary and customary meaning of the limitation “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” is that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 29

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

    “As an initial matter, there is little disagreement between the parties and their experts that PET can be a graft covering. However, the disputed limitation requires something more. Specifically, it requires that “the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.” We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence of record, that Levi, Spenser II, or Walther, upon which Petitioner relies, teaches or suggests the incorporated limitation of claim 1 reciting “wherein the valve assembly is free of an outer graft covering between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame.” In our analysis, we must first determine what is meant by the claim term “outer graft covering.”” slip op. at 29

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

    “Furthermore, our understanding of an outer graft covering as a material or structure that covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering, reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by challenged claim 1. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met 35 its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 10,987,236 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,987,236
• Transgene / Bioinvent International AB v. Replimune LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2023 · PGR2022-00014 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claim 13 not unpatentable over Silvestre or Du, Choi, and Zitvogel, finding insufficient motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “or “POSITA”) “would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, or a related field, with expertise in virology (including expertise growing, isolating, and rescuing viruses), immunology, and cancer biology with at least four years of post-Ph.D. experience in those areas.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35, 96). Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. See PO Resp. 5. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition as that definition is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by 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” slip op. at 11

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

    “claim terms of the ’513 patent for purposes of determining whether to institute trial. For purposes of our analysis in this Final Written Decision, however, we find that it would be useful to clarify the scope of “oncolytic virus.” We agree with Petitioner that the Specification defines an “oncolytic virus” as “a virus that infects and replicates in tumor cells, such that tumor cells are killed.” Ex. 1001, 9:10–12. The Specification further clarifies that “the virus is replication competent,” and is preferably selectively replication competent in tumor tissue. Id. at 9:12–13. “A patentee is free to be his own lexicographer.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, consistent with its express definition in the Specification, to be a virus that infects and replicates in tumor cells, such that tumor cells are killed, wherein such a virus is replication competent.” slip op. at 12

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

    “but contends that “oncolytic virus” should not be construed to encompass “viral vectors” such as those disclosed in Zitvogel. PO Resp. 5. Although Petitioner does not expressly contend otherwise, we agree with Patent Owner that “oncolytic virus” would not encompass Zitvogel’s “viral vectors,” which are defined in that reference to be “replication-defective” or “replication-impaired.” Ex. 1004, 19:26–29. We do not construe any other claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner acknowledges that “while the bulk of Silvestre’s disclosure, including the working examples, is directed towards creating an oncolytic poxvirus, Silvestre discloses preparing modified oncolytic virus using other virus types, including HSV.” Pet. 44. It is undisputed, however, that Silvestre does not disclose a single embodiment of an oncolytic HSV that includes both a heterologous GM-CSF encoding gene and a heterologous CTLA-4 inhibitor encoding gene. Rather, Petitioner points to where each element could be found among broader lists of possible oncolytic virus classes, immune checkpoint targets, and therapeutic genes. Ex. 1002, 7:10– 15:49. As noted by Dr. Chiocca, if one were to randomly select any of the 11 We need not decide whether Silvestre anticipates independent claim 1, as the sole challenged claim 13 depends directly from claim 11. Thus, our determination that Petitioner has not shown that claim 11 is anticipated is sufficient to establish that Petitioner has not met its prerequisite burden for claim 13. Ex. 2009 ¶ 29. This type of picking and choosing is not anticipation. See Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,947,513 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,947,513
• Restem, LLC. v. Jadi Cell, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01535 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not proven unpatentable: Majore did not anticipate claims 1–13 and 15, and the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 132, 133. Importantly, however, Dr. Olson does not cite anything to support his opinion that the ordinary artisan would have known that MSCs could be cultured to be renewable from subepithelial UC tissue. Nor does Dr. Olson explain why the artisan would have had this understanding aside from simply stating it. Majore uses the word “subepithelial” only once to explain that primitive stem cells are “distributed in subepithelial and intervascular regions,” but this does not teach what Dr. Olson asserts. Accordingly, Dr. Olson’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–16 (finding that an expert’s conclusory assertions that repeat the proposition for which they are offered without “any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning” in support are “conclusory and unsupported, add[] little to the conclusory assertion[s] for which [they are] offered to support, and is” slip op. at 52

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

    “21 The parties do not dispute that the preamble’s recitation of “isolated cell” serves as a limitation to claim 1 as it provides antecedent basis for its recitation later in the body of the claim. Accordingly, we treat the preamble as limiting. “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” slip op. at 31

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

    “[JUDGE NEWMAN:] So if -- if the comparison is possible, why did you not present evidence of that comparison? MR. FITZPATRICK: We --we’ve had the -- we had this discussion with our -- with our expert, and our conclusion was that it’s just not -- it wasn’t necessary. The conclusion was that the -- the evidence that’s in the -- in the prior art references, including the fact that it clearly practices the exact same steps as the claims, that was sufficient to -- and would anticipate or render obvious the claims. That’s the only reason we didn’t present evidence -- our own evidence.” slip op. at 38

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

    “Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (alteration in original). We agree that an ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the teachings of analogous references for information, but to establish obviousness, a party must show that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale to explain why the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the isolated cell with the specific marker profile or why the artisan would have looked to the cited references themselves out of the wide range of references available in the art.” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 9,803,176 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,803,176
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00034 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to show claim 6 unpatentable because none of the seven asserted grounds established the required absence of an outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “November 2012 would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that, as the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must circumferentially cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. See Merriam-Webster, Cover, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover (last visited March 2, 2023) (defining “cover,” relevantly, as “something that is placed over or about another thing”). See Ex. 3004. Consequently, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, such as a cloth or fabric or other material, that circumferentially covers all or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the intervals between those struts and members. Consequently, we construe the limitation reciting “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” to mean that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 40

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

    “Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, or otherwise provide any additional argument or evidence to demonstrate that the outer skirt of Levi does not constitute the outer graft covering prohibited by claim 6. Consequently, our initial determinations stand. Furthermore, our definition of outer graft covering herein as “a material or structure that circumferentially covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the 45 interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering” reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by claim 6. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 45

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

    “Both the descriptions and Figure 22 of Spenser II show a cloth covering the proximal outer surface of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve, including the spaces between the struts and members of the frame. Furthermore, the reference discloses that any fibers extending outwardly from the cloth arise from the surface of the cloth, and are not attached directly to the frame, as depicted in Figure 11 of the ’846 Specification. Thus, even were such fibers made of the same material as the cloth, which is not clear from the reference’s disclosure, the cloth would be between the surface-residing fibers and the metallic outer frame. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sleeve-like cloth or fabric of Spenser II corresponds to an outer graft covering between its fibers and its outer frame, and such a covering would be between Spencer II’s surface fibers and its metallic outer frame. Such an outer graft cover is expressly prohibited by the language of claim 6, even if it and associated extending fibers are of the same material.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 10,966,846 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,966,846
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cardiovalve Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01051 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–10 and replacing them with claims 11–20, which Petitioner failed to prove unpatentable over Goldfarb ’267.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “We conclude that Petitioner’s arguments are insufficient to meet its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Goldfarb ’267 anticipates, or renders obvious, the limitation of proposed substitute claim 11 reciting “advancing the end of the first-clip arm and the end of the second-clip arm out of the delivery tube before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube” merely requires advancing the ends of the clip arms out of the delivery tube “before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube.” Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to proposed substitute dependent claims 12–20 due to their dependence from, and incorporation of, the limitations of proposed substitute claim 11. See Supp. Mot. Amend. 1, Reply Supp. Mot. Amend. 1. We therefore conclude that these proposed substitute claims are similarly neither anticipated by, nor obvious over, Goldfarb ’267. III. CONCLUSION We GRANT Patent Owner’s non-contingent Motion to Amend and Supplemental Motion to Amend, canceling original claims 1–10 and replacing them with substitute claims 11–20. Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, and after having analyzed the entirety of the record and assigning appropriate weight to the cited supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claims 11–20 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 57

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having weighed the evidence and Petitioner’s argument, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as: (1) a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least three years of experience in designing or developing medical devices who would, where necessary or desired, work or consult with others including a physician to develop such a medical device; or (2) an interventional cardiologist or cardiac surgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in the heart, and who would, where necessary, work or consult with others including an engineer to develop such a medical device. See Pet. 15–16.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Vesely. Ex. 1003. We have reviewed the credentials of Dr. Vesely and consider him qualified to provide the opinions for which his testimony has 4 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,563,267 B2, July 21, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’267”) (Ex. 1005). 5 Petitioner refers to Goldfarb’s ’267 disclosure of a further alternative at Ex. 1005 col. 27 ll. 57–60 as Embodiment A. See Pet. 19. We understand the asserted Embodiment A to encompass the description that extends to Ex. 1005 col. 28, l. 9. See Pet. 24–48. 6 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,635,329 B2, December 22, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’329”) Ex. 1006. 7 Ex. 1005 cols. 17–23, ll. 66–29, Figs. 9–16; see Pet. 21–22. been submitted. See id. ¶¶ 1–9; see also Ex. 1004 (Dr. Vesely’s curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “is described in Goldfarb ’267 as plainly a single, unitary structure and, as such, each portion argued as separate elements by Petitioner (i.e., male element (yellow), female element (green), coupling member 19 (blue) and flexible arms 19A and 19B (dark blue)) together form a solid, single component. Thus, all of the “elements” described by Petitioner as being “separate” are in fact a single unit that: (1) bears the weight of the fixation device during delivery; (2) absorbs and transfer the axial and rotational forces imposed by the shaft 12; and (3) holds the device in the correct orientation. Petitioner points to no disclosure of Goldfarb ’267 that suggests these elements act independently or separately to perform the functions of the unitary component, nor can we discern any such disclosure. We therefore find that Petitioner’s argument that only the “male element” portion of coupling member 19 constitutes the “support portion” recited in proposed substitute claim 11 is an arbitrary and unduly restrictive interpretation of the reference’s disclosure. This is particularly true given that Petitioner points to no portion of the male element of coupling member 19 performing a supporting function that is not shared by the other elements of coupling member 19. We conclude that the better understanding of the reference is that the entirety of coupling member 19 (including flexible arms 10A and 19B11) constitutes an analogous support portion, as recited by substitute claim 11, because it provides a unitary structure that performs the supporting functions enumerated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 10,702,385 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,702,385
• Thorne Research, Inc v. Trustees Of Dartmouth CollegeNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2022 · IPR2021-00491 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 were not shown unpatentable because the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article and PCT Publication were not shown to be the work of another and thus were not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we find Patent Owner has satisfied its burden of production to show the Cell Article is not prior art. We find the testimony of Dr. Brenner—as corroborated by the testimony and disclaimer of Dr. Bieganowski—to be persuasive evidence that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article represent the work of Dr. Brenner alone. See In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding applicant’s declaration and prior art inventor’s disclaimer sufficient to overcome a § 102(e) rejection).” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “Under § 120, a patent is entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application if (1) the written description of the earlier filed application discloses the invention claimed in the later filed application sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 112; (2) the applications have at least one common inventor; (3) the later application is filed before the issuance or abandonment of the earlier filed application; and (4) the later application contains a reference to the earlier filed application. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2018). As discussed above, the ’807 patent meets all four criteria set forth above for each application in the priority chain of the PCT application listed on the face of the ’807 patent. Since the claim of priority arises under Section 120, the provisions of the Paris Convention and PCT do not apply.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we find Patent Owner has satisfied its burden of production to show the Cell Article is not prior art. We find the testimony of Dr. Brenner—as corroborated by the testimony and disclaimer of Dr. Bieganowski—to be persuasive evidence that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article represent the work of Dr. Brenner alone. See In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding applicant’s declaration and prior art inventor’s disclaimer sufficient to overcome a § 102(e) rejection).” slip op. at 19

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Although the laboratory techniques and starting materials used by Drs. Brenner and Bieganowski may have been known in the art, that is not the claimed invention. The invention as recited in claim 1 is directed a composition comprising isolated NR combined with one or more of tryptophan, nicotinic acid, or nicotinamide and one of the recited carriers, wherein the composition is formulated for oral administration and increases NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration. See Ex. 1001, col. 53. That the certain individual elements of the claimed composition may have been known elsewhere in the prior art does not lead to a conclusion that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article are “by another.”” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,197,807 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,197,807
• Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00006 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–7 and 9–21 not shown unpatentable over either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish motivation to select Compound (I) from Silverman’s genus.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “It is not necessary for an expert’s experience or expertise to precisely match the art at issue. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, one offering expert testimony must at least have ordinary skill in the art to provide relevant and reliable testimony that is helpful to the factfinder. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf?MURL=). Dr. Patterson has a Ph.D. in Chemistry and over 30 years of experience in drug design, drug administration, evaluation of drug effectiveness, and participated in drug design for over 20 years. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 4–10; Ex. 1008, 1–2. He is author or co-author on over eight peer-reviewed journal articles involving medicinal chemistry. Ex. 1007 ¶ 5. We find this level of skill to meet the qualifications for the level of skill in the art under the training and experience portion of the definition we have adopted for purposes of this opinion (see § II.B.), reproduced below: a Ph.D. in chemistry, pharmaceutical sciences, molecular biology, or a similar field, or an M.D. with similar background. A POSA would also have had at least several years of experience with drug design, drug development, clinical trials, or access to other individuals with that knowledge and experience. Likewise, a POSA would have had knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. We note that Dr. Patterson himself also proposes this definition. Id. ¶ 102. However, Dr. Patterson does not have “knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders” and did not opine that, in regards to his testimony, he had access to a person with that knowledge and experience, as is proposed in the definition. See generally, Ex. 1007. Accordingly, we find Dr. Patterson qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of drug design, evaluation of effectiveness, and drug administration, but we find he is not adequately qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of treating hair loss disorders.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes the same definition as Petitioner, but adds that the skilled artisan “would also have had experience in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA [alopecia areata] formulations, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶ 14). Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Ko critiques Petitioner’s proposed definition as “incomplete, because it lacks any requirement for experience, or access to individuals with experience, in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA formulations.” Ex. 2059 ¶ 16. However, neither Dr. Ko nor Patent Owner explains what difference this additional direct experience would have provided to an artisan with the skill level proposed by Petitioner, particularly when Petitioner’s definition includes “experience in treating hair loss disorders,” and for which the record contains evidence that existing JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib had been identified as causing reversal of hair loss caused by AA. Ex. 1003, 1043. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as consistent with the level of skill apparent in the cited prior art. In any event, as Patent Owner does not explain why its alternative definition would have any bearing on the outcome of the present case, and as we discern no appreciable difference in the parties’ definitions, we note our findings and conclusions would be the same regardless of which definition were adopted. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction We construe claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. Therefore, we construe the challenged claims under the framework set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this framework, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We have considered Petitioner’s claim construction proposals (see Pet. 21–23), which are uncontested (see generally Resp., not addressing construction), and find that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim term for purposes of rendering this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Section 102(b)(1) provides two exceptions to § 102(a)(1) for disclosures made within one year of the effective filing date. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) provides that a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with respect to the claimed invention if: (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,659 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,659
• Laboratoire Francais Du Fractionnement Et Des Biotechnologies S.A. v. Novo Nordisk Healthcare AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2022 · IPR2017-00028 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not shown unpatentable under the remaining Tolo anticipation and Eibl ’023 combination grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was granted in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “We agree that a motion to exclude is not the appropriate vehicle for consideration of whether a party has improperly raised new arguments. Our Trial Practice Guide delineates between a motion to exclude and a motion to strike, indicating that a motion to strike is the preferred mechanism “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply . . . .” See Trial Practice Guide Update 17 (Aug. 2018); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 80 (Nov. 2019).10 Although a motion to exclude is pre-authorized in the Scheduling Order, see Paper 64, 4 (Supplemental Scheduling Order), a motion to strike is not, and Patent Owner did not request prior authorization to file its motion to strike. Petitioner did, however, have an opportunity to respond and did so respond to Patent Owner’s contentions that the allegedly new evidence and argument exceeded the proper scope of a reply. See Paper 87, 3–8. Therefore, we find that Petitioner had an appropriate opportunity, of which it took advantage, to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the alleged new arguments and evidence. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner is not prejudiced by our consideration of Patent Owner’s motion to exclude as, in effect, a motion to strike.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Owner’s proposed levels of skill in the art to be somewhat deficient. Paper 53, 8. We found that Petitioner’s proposed skill level does not address the specific problems concerning the nanofiltration of FVIIa that is the subject of the ’762 patent at issue in this proceeding. Id. We also found, however, that we were unaware of any basis in the record for Patent Owner’s contention that the hypothetical skilled artisan must be a “team” of scientists and engineers with two different areas of “expertise.” Id. Nonetheless, based on our consideration of the record, we found that the skilled artisan would need skills and knowledge with respect to both the biochemistry of coagulation factors (particularly FVII/FVIIa) and separation/purification/processing techniques used in the biotechnology industry for such proteins (particularly nanofiltration). Id. We agreed with both Petitioner and Patent Owner that such skills and knowledge may be obtained through some combination of education and industry/laboratory experience, wherein a skilled artisan with a doctorate degree (Ph.D.) could have fewer years of experience than required for a skilled artisan with a Master’s or Bachelor’s degree. Id. In general, we found that the “ordinary skill” level of a scientist or engineer in this art is relatively high. Id. As explained by Dr. Chtourou, “[e]xtensive academic training and laboratory experience are necessary for producing recombinant coagulation proteins and removing viruses from compositions of such proteins.” Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 27). We further took into account that this level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and we found that the parties’ declarants in this proceeding meet the requirements for this skill level. Id. at 8–9. The parties have not challenged these findings and we see no reason to depart from them for our analysis in this Decision.” slip op. at 22

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

    “As we stated in our Final Written Decision, Petitioner offered constructions for the following claim terms: “cell culture supernatant” and “Factor VII polypeptides.” See Paper 53, 9 (citing Pet. 10–15). We noted that Patent Owner did not disagree with Petitioner’s proposed construction for “cell culture supernatant,” and asserts that “Factor VII [poly]peptide[]” is expressly defined in the Specification of the ’762 patent. PO Resp. 6; see also Paper 67, 4. We previously found that no explicit construction of any claim term was necessary to resolve the issues in this case. No new claim construction issues have been raised in this proceeding, and we again find no explicit construction of any claim term is necessary in this proceeding. See 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 24

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

    “First, we begin with the unassailable fact that Tolo does not disclose expressly or inherently any particular concentration of FVII. See Ex. 1006, 7:25–34 (only mention of Factor VII in Tolo with no express statement concerning a concentration for FVII). In fact, we found in our Final Written Decision that: The record in this proceeding does not show persuasively that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected that the same concentration disclosed in Example 3 of Tolo for IFN-α (0.04 mg/mL) could be successfully used for the nanofiltration of FVIIa. To the contrary, the evidence shows that IFN-α and FVIIa differ significantly in many respects, including molecular weight, size, and structure, such that the skilled [artisan] would not have necessarily considered them interchangeable in a nanofiltration process. Paper 53, 38 (citations omitted).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,102,762 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,102,762
• Medtronic, Inc. / Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sceinces LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2022 · IPR2020-01344 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 25–55 were not determined unpatentable: the Board found the obviousness showing deficient, found Root was not prior art, and credited objective evidence of nonobviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the invention would have been either: (1) a medical doctor who would have had “(a) a medical degree; (b) completed a coronary intervention training program, and (c) experience working as an interventional cardiologist;” or (2) an engineer who “would have had (a) an undergraduate degree in engineering, such as mechanical or biomedical engineering; and (b) at least three years of experience designing medical devices, including catheters or catheter-deployable devices.” Pet. 11–12. Additionally, Petitioner contends “[e]xtensive experience and technical training might substitute for education, and advanced degrees might substitute for experience.” Id. at 12. Further, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a medical degree” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “with an engineering degree” may have had access to each other. Id. (citing Ex. 1405 ¶ 27; Ex. 1442 ¶¶ 24-25). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 7. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as it is undisputed and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the specification of the ‘413 patent. 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 13

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

    “In view of the issues we address below, we determine it is not necessary to address the express interpretation of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). C. Scope and Content of the Prior Art” slip op. at 15

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

    “catheter or stent . . . . through the side opening.” E.g., Ex. 1401, 14:16–25. The parties do not dispute that Kontos does not teach the claimed “segment defining a side opening” as required by independent claims 25 and 52. Pet. 18; PO Resp. 12. As set forth above, the Petition provides multiple reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have wanted to remove the funnel of Kontos and provide a partially cylindrical opening proximal of the tubular structure, as taught by Ressemann. Patent Owner provides several arguments in response as to why the modifications suggested by Petitioner are grounded in hindsight. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have substantially redesigned Kontos (including removing the funnel portion) to provide the side opening configuration of independent claims 25 and 52 and the “one French size” differential of independent claim 25. We agree with Patent Owner, for the reasons Patent Owner provides as summarized above, that Petitioner’s rationale is insufficient, and adopt Patent Owner analysis, as supported by the cited evidence, as our own. Furthermore, while Petitioner may have established that side openings were known in the art, they appear in devices intended to receive an interventional cardiology device when positioned within a guide catheter. Switching to a side opening in Kontos to beneficially increase the available real estate within the catheter or to reduce the size of the guide catheter would require extensive modifications. Reply 5. To that point, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to completely redesign Kontos, with at least six additional changes,” including (1) “recess[ing]” Kontos’s marker bands; (2) attaching the distal soft tip in-line rather than with overlapping structure; (3) removing Kontos’s base portion 18; (4) “taper[ing] the pushrod” down to less than 0.005 inches; (5) “attach[ing]” the thin-tapered pushrod to Kontos’s tube wall without base portion 18, and (6) “increase[ing]” the diameter of “tube 16.” Sur-reply 3–6. We further note that the funnel portion of Kontos appears to be crucial to the device’s ability to receive and facilitate exchange of balloon catheters:” slip op. at 36

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “products had on the field of interventional cardiology, but contends that prior art devices, including those taught by Itou, Kontos, and Ressemann, “are RX, configured to deliver a wide variety of IVCDs, and provide increased backup support when extended partially past the end of a [guide extension catheter].” Reply 25. The evidence of record persuasively demonstrates, however, that the long-felt need for improved backup support was unresolved in the art prior to introduction of the GuideLiner devices. As noted by Petitioner, Kontos and Ressemann both provide some level of backup support, but there is no persuasive evidence that either of these products resolved the long-felt need in the art for a device that would avoid backout problems when difficult lesions are encountered during a procedure. See Ex. 2151 ¶¶ 8–9. And although mother-and-child devices were known to provide additional backup support, Patent Owner’s declarants persuasively demonstrate that a mother-and-child approach was not a safe or time- and cost-effective solution to the backout problem addressed by the GuideLiner products. PO Resp. 63–64; Ex. 2151 ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 2145 ¶¶ 69– 75; Ex. 2215 ¶¶ 16–19 (Dr. Thompson testifying that the problems related to the mother-and-child approach led to very limited use of this technique). Indeed, in view of its inherent limitations, the mother-and-child approach was rarely, if ever, used by interventional cardiologists. Ex. 2145 ¶ 75 (Dr. Graham testifying that the mother-and-child approach “had many significant drawbacks” and he was “not aware of any instances in which a mother-andchild system was successfully marketed.”); Ex. 2215 ¶ 16 (“The mother-andchild approach was rarely, if at all, used by interventional cardiologist for a number of reasons.”). In view of the foregoing, we credit the testimony of Drs. Graham, Thompson, and Azzalini and find that the GuideLiner products solved a long-felt but unmet need in the art, allowing physicians to perform previously impossible coronary procedures.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS RE46,116 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham

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.