- Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted and IPR instituted on claims 1–28 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Linnarsson, McCloskey, and ordinary skill.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. WHETHER REHEARING IS WARRANTED Petitioner argues that we misconstrued the claims “as requiring one to add tags in a way that can provide a distinction based on a ‘polynucleotide sequence.’” Req. 6 (quoting Dec. 14 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Petitioner is correct. More specifically, we implicitly construed the claim language reciting “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell,” as requiring said “distinguishing” to be based on the sequences of the sample polynucleotides. See, e.g., Dec. 14 (“[E]ach strand of cDNA that is tagged in Linnarsson is tagged regardless of the polynucleotide sequence of the cDNA or its corresponding mRNA. Thus, Linnarsson’s tags do not distinguish between ‘sample polynucleotides,’ whether cDNA or mRNA, of different sequences.”). Based on that misunderstanding, we erroneously determined that the proposed modification could not achieve the claim language, stating the following: Petitioner’s proposal appears to defeat satisfaction of another portion of claim 1, namely a “second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell.” Ex. 1001, 30:62–64. For if the second tag is “added to the CDS or TSO after extension,” as opposed to the sample polynucleotide, as Petitioner argues (Pet. 39 (emphasis added)), it would appear that the second tag would be incapable of distinguishing any sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides. Rather, the second tag would be ligated to each and every extension product bearing a CDS or TSO without regard to the sequence of any sample polynucleotide. Dec. 16. We now reconsider whether to institute.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Cited”). Because we find that the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, we proceed to part two of the analysis. 2. Advanced Bionics Part Two Patent Owner argues that the Petition “fails to show any error in the Examiner’s application during prosecution of the prior art teachings Petitioner now purports to invoke from . . . McCloskey.” Prelim Resp. 23; see also id. at 24–25 (“Revisiting the same art and arguments already overcome during prosecution is a waste of the Board’s limited resources and would unfairly burden PO.”). However, Petitioner argued that “the Examiner committed major error in Examination by erroneously stating that the prior art fails to teach a dual tagging approach when, in fact, this approach is plainly taught in both McCloskey and McCloskey II.” Pet. 67. The record supports Petitioner’s position, and we agree that the error was material to patentability. See Ex. 1005, 131 (Notice of Allowance). Accordingly, and having considered all of the Becton, Dickinson factors, we do not exercise discretionary denial.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Linnarsson and McCloskey with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed subject matter. 8. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“the three references is analogous art to the ’013 patent as opposed to each other. Prelim. Resp. 46 (citing Pet. 35; Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). As Sanofi- Aventis holds, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, the Petition should not be denied for failing to state explicitly that the cited prior art references are analogous art to the ’013 patent. Rather, as Sanofi-Aventis further held: “A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to ‘respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.’” Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23). Accordingly, we need not address this issue for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,697,013 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing granted and IPR instituted on claims 1–26; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. WHETHER REHEARING IS WARRANTED Petitioner argues that we misconstrued the claims “as requiring one to add tags in a way that can ‘provide a distinction based on a polynucleotide’s sequence.’” Req. 6 (quoting Dec. 15 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Petitioner is correct. More specifically, we implicitly construed the claim language reciting “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell,” as requiring said “distinguishing” to be based on the sequences of the sample polynucleotides. See, e.g., Dec. 14 (“[E]ach strand of cDNA that is tagged in Linnarsson is tagged regardless of the polynucleotide sequence of the cDNA or its corresponding mRNA. Thus, Linnarsson’s tags do not distinguish between ‘sample polynucleotides,’ whether cDNA or mRNA, of different sequences.”). Based on that misunderstanding, we denied the Petition because “adding a second tag sequence to Linnarsson’s CDS and/or TSO would do nothing to achieve such a distinction,” i.e., “a distinction based on a polynucleotide’s sequence.” Id. at 15. That was error. We now reconsider whether to institute.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“the ’197 patent. See Ex. 1001, code (56) (listing McCloskey II under “References Cited”). Because we find that the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, we proceed to part two of the analysis.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Linnarsson and McCloskey to obtain the claimed subject matter. 6. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). As Sanofi-Aventis holds, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, the Petition should not be denied for failing to state explicitly that the cited prior art references are analogous art to the ’197 patent. Rather, as Sanofi-Aventis further held: “A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to ‘respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.’” Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23). Accordingly, we need not address this issue for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,240,197 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2020 · PGR2019-00045 · APJ Christopher C Kennedy · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 13, 18, and 19, but denied substitute claims 23–25 because their percentage-and-range limitations introduced new matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“3. Scope of Proposed Substitute Claims A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii). Although Patent Owner does not appear to separately address this requirement in the Revised Motion to Amend, see generally Revised MTA, we have reviewed the proposed substitute claims and determine that they do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent because they add limitations that render each proposed substitute claim narrower than original challenged claim 13.2 Petitioner does not contend otherwise. See generally Opp. On this record, we determine that the Revised Motion to Amend satisfies this requirement.” slip op. at 9
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,071,852
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.