• Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01261 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach the claimed predetermined cycle for controlling distal fluid flow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(1) a person with a B.S. in engineering or an equivalent field, with two-four years of academic or industry experience in aspiration embolectomy and thrombectomy or comparable industry experience who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including a physician, to develop embolectomy or thrombectomy devices; or (2) an interventional neurosurgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in embolectomy or thrombectomy procedures, and who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including an engineer, to develop such a medical device. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 48). Petitioner also contends that, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner states that for purposes of its PO Response, it “accepts ¶ 44). We adopt Petitioner’s characterization because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’402 patent and the cited prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “specification explicitly includes sensors similar to those in the prior art in support of their argument that the claimed “predetermined cycle” must not exclude the use of such sensors. Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:55–33:7, 40:66–41:5, 44:9–29). We reviewed the portions of the specification cited by Petitioner. We agree with Patent Owner that one excerpt discussing sensor use appears to be directed to triggering the predetermined cycle rather than causing timing changes during the cycle itself (Ex. 1001, 32:55–66) (describing use of a pressure sensor to “determine when the vacuum channel 3 is clogged by a thrombus and automatically perform the unclogging procedures described herein”), while another excerpt discusses a sensor that Petitioner that the ’402 patent discusses the use of sensors to “tune” the system and that such “tuning” can be done statically (setting the cycle timing in advance) or dynamically (adjusting the timing during the cycle itself). See Ex. 1001, 48:19–49:50. Overall, we find that these disclosures involving sensors demonstrate that sensors may be used in various ways in different embodiments. However, none of these disclosures explicitly discuss the use of sensors in conjunction with a “pre-determined cycle.” Therefore, we find that the ’402 patent specification’s discussion of “sensors” are not particularly informative as to the appropriate construction of a “predetermined cycle” and do not outweigh the other explicit disclosures of “predetermined cycle” in the patent. We next turn to the other intrinsic evidence discussed by the parties — the prosecution history. As discussed by Patent Owner, in the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner found that Garrison did not teach or suggest a “predetermined cycle” because Garrison’s controller “changed the cycle of opening and closing the valves based on feedback from sensors.” Ex. 1004, 86. We acknowledge that the patent applicant filed subsequent comments during prosecution in which they stated that they “do[] not concede that the Examiner’s characterizations of the terms of the claims and the prior art are correct.” Id. at 29. However, we agree with Patent Owner that the importance of the Examiner’s statement in the Notice of Allowance does not rely on it being an express disclaimer (a standard which it does not meet). PO Sur-reply 8. We also considered Petitioner’s contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of Garrison may have been in error (PO Resp. 16); however, even if this were true, the Examiner’s statement still provides helpful insight into how the Examiner was interpreting the term sensors to change the opening and closing of valves during a cycle was not a “predetermined cycle.” Id. at 86. In sum, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the usage of the term “predetermined cycle” in the ’402 patent specification and prosecution history. Thus, after considering all of the cited evidence, we construe “predetermined cycle” to mean that “the timing of the sequence of valve operations in the cycle is determined beforehand, i.e., fixed, rather than varying based on feedback after operation begins.”” slip op. at 14

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

    “2. Other Terms The parties also provided proposed constructions for the limitations of “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” and “control[ling] fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” See Pet. 15–16; Pet. Reply 1–8; PO Resp. 22–24; PO Sur-Reply 2–6. However, having evaluated the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor Mr. Brown propose any combination of Yang and Mullins that does not include Mullins’s pressure sensor in order “to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Indeed, in addressing the “predetermined cycle” limitation, Mr. Brown contends that Mullins discloses a “cycling controller that ‘varies aspiration pressure according to sensed pressure within the catheter lumen.’” Ex.1005 ¶¶ 131–32 (citing, e.g., Ex.1008, 27:40–28:20 (“[a] novel aspect of this pump system is the incorporation of feedback into the pump algorithm in order to produce more effective pressure cycling”)). This use of a sensor to change pressure during a cycle, is not a “predetermined cycle” under our construction. combinations is its discussion of distal end flow control, not for its sensors.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 83). However, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds rely on the combination of Yang and Mullins, especially with regard to Mullins’s disclosure of “a controller” in order “to control fluid flow in and out.” As discussed above, Mullins relies on the sensor-feedback approach in order to control flow and we find that Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence of how the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins would control flow without using Mullins’s sensor feedback approach. See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (error to “consider[] … references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in [them] … that diverge from and teach away from the invention”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of Yang and Mullins discloses or renders obvious “a controller configured to open and close the vacuum valve and the vent valve in a predetermined cycle to change a level of vacuum at the distal end of the catheter and to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective evidence and arguments, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’402 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Yang and Mullins.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,406,402 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,406,402
• Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29

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

    “Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,906,508
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Corteva Agriscience LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01014 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not show claims 1–8 unpatentable because they are entitled to the 2004 priority date, making Barbour unavailable as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “For a claim to a biological material, the enablement requirement of § 112, first paragraph, does not require such assured access to a microorganism deposit as of the filing date; what is required is assurance of access (to the microorganism culture by the public upon issuance of a patent on the application) prior to or during the pendency of the application, so that, upon issuance of a U. S. patent on the application, the public will, in fact, receive something in return for the patent grant. Feldman, 517 F.2d at 1355. Patent Owner has persuaded us that such exception not only applies to a deposit, but also extends to a biological material known and readily available. See 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081. In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art.” slip op. at 15

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

    “In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art. Because all of Petitioner’s challenges rely on Barbour (Pet. 6), all those challenges fail.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art. Because all of Petitioner’s challenges rely on Barbour (Pet. 6), all those challenges fail.” slip op. at 15

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

    “would understand that the term “‘flanked by’ permits overlap between the expression cassette and the DNA sequence it is flanked by.” Pet. 24–26. Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction. PO Resp. 6–7. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any claim term.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,901,378 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,901,378
• Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not proven unpatentable under either §103 ground because the evidence did not show the claimed viewability determination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’329 patent: a person that would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s resurrected argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of § 311(b). Section 311(b) provides: “A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed cancel the claims of the ’329 patent on the basis of Badros, Harkins, and Krassner. Pet. 11. Petitioner did not base its request, in whole or in part, on the Krassner publication. Id. Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner responds that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, “Harkins teaches that its invention can be used in web pages.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶30). Although Petitioner’s citation is off by one paragraph, Petitioner’s response about what Harkins teaches is correct. See Ex. 1004 ¶29 (“The present invention may be implemented for provision of virtually any type of advertising (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet, billboard, etc.) via any type of advertising medium (e.g., newspaper, magazine, radio broadcast, Web pages, billboards, etc.) without departing from the scope of the present invention.”). We find that Harkins is from the same field based on its express statement that it is applicable to “virtually any type of advertising” and “any type of advertising medium,” including “Web pages.” Ex. 1004 ¶29. Further, even if this were insufficient to place Harkins in the same field as the ’329 patent, we find that Harkins is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with which the ’329 patent inventors were involved. In sum, we find that Harkins is analogous art to the ’329 patent.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “Paper 60 (“PO Mot. To Exclude”), 9–10.6 Patent Owner is correct in this regard and, thus, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude with respect to the testimony in the second Smedley Declaration and the Madansky Declaration opining that Badros teaches the determination limitation. Paper 60, 9–12. Petitioner, in its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, argues that Patent Owner’s arguments about the “viewability test” were “surprising.” Paper 62, 8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The “viewability test” is a claim limitation. Petitioner should have anticipated that Patent Owner would argue that limitation. See In re Gardner, 449 F. App’x 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This court has held that when evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight.” (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Univ. of Strathclyde v. 6 Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude seeks to exclude, in part or in whole, Exhibits 1020–1022, 1025–1030, and 1034–1040, which were submitted with Petitioner’s Reply, of which Exhibits 1026 and 1027 are the declaration by Dr. Madansky and the second declaration by Dr. Smedley, respectively. Mot. To Exclude. The Motion to Exclude also seeks to exclude “Exhibits” 1017 and 1018, which are not filed or of record in this case but which are referenced in the Reply. Id. For example, Exhibit 1017 is the Krassner publication, which Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to add to the record as supplemental information. See Paper 21, 3 n.1 (expunging the Krassner publication and stating that it “need not -- and indeed may not -- be re-filed under a new exhibit number”). Apart from the portions of Dr. Smedley’s second declaration and Dr. Madansky’s declaration opining that Badros teaches the “determination” limitation, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot. obviousness determination generally requires a finding that “all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art’.” (citing PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Petitioner argues that “[v]iewability tests were well known for well over a decade prior to the ’329 patent’s priority date.” Reply 9. If that were the case, then Petitioner should have made its argument in the Petition. Section 312(a) of Title 35 is titled “Requirements of Petition,” and it specifies that a petition must identify, among other things, “the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including . . . (B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence and opinions, if the petitioner relies on expert opinions.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon; and . . . the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge.”). Thus, “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 73 (Nov. 21, 2019).7 Dr. Smedley’s testimony in his second declaration, that “Badros discloses Patent Owner’s ‘viewability test’” (Ex. 1027 ¶11), is clearly evidence to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. The same is true of Dr. Madansky’s testimony that she agrees with Dr. Smedley in this regard. Ex. 1026 ¶4.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,443,329
• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00052 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4, 8–14, and 18–26 not shown unpatentable because they were entitled to priority before the November 2018 Venclexta Label, which therefore was not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner did not expressly recite hematological malignancies, Petitioner did refer to expertise in clinical oncology, which would encompass the blood cancers recited in the claims. Neither party identifies a difference in the analysis or conclusions that would be based on differences in the ordinary skill in the art analysis. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. 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 7

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

    “The parties do not identify any issue relating to the preamble that would impact our analysis. We recognize that Patent Owner is suggesting that Petitioner’s expert, at least, is reading the word “clinical” into the treatment language of claim 1. However, the plain language of the claim 1 preamble states “treating lymphoma or leukemia in a human patient” and is supported by a straightforward definition in the Specification of the ’087 patent, expressly limiting the invention to treatment of human patients. See Ex. 1001, 16:25–38. We therefore find that the preamble terms do not need claim construction because there is no actual dispute suggesting that, for example, claim 1 implicitly recites the term “clinical.” 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 5

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “d. Analysis Considering the Wands factors as a whole, we find that the limited breadth of the claims, presence of several working examples, significant amount of direction and guidance provided by the ’087 patent, predictability in treating blood cancers with Bcl-2 inhibitors like GDC-0199, and high level of skill in the art are balanced against a large quantity of experimentation. Based on our consideration of the entirety of the evidence, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that undue experimentation would not have been required to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims of the ’087 patent. One underlying theme of Petitioner’s contentions and Petitioner’s expert testimony is the repeated contention that clinical trials were not completed by Patent Owner. See, e.g., Pet. 48 (“venetoclax (GDC-0199) was not FDA-approved”); Ex. 1020 ¶ 193. We find these arguments unpersuasive as we agree with Patent Owner that “[i]t is well established that a patent may be secured, and typically is secured, before the conclusion of clinical trials.” In re Montgomery, 67 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Particularly as to the dependent claims, a preponderance of the evidence of record does not support a finding that undue experimentation would have been required to administer three different doses of GDC-0199 starting with 100 mg, to use multiple daily dosing cycles of one day, to continue until disease progression occurs, or to combine with other treatment compounds. We find that a preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner’s position that any of the dependent claims fail to comply with the enablement requirement.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Applying Rai and Wertheim to the instant facts, we agree with Patent Owner that, factually and legally, in the ’087 patent “the claimed dosages of 100 mg, 200 mg, and/or 400 mg of GDC-0199 are adequately supported.” PO Second Suppl. Brief 2 (citing PO Resp. 11, 27–29; PO Sur-reply 19, 21– 22; Ex. 1001, 24:20–29.) In particular, the ’087 patent describes all three specific dosage values 100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg in the context of an escalating drug dosage series and Petitioner points to no persuasive statements in the specification that dispute either the effectiveness or the operability of GDC-0199 at any of these dosages.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 11,110,087 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,110,087
• 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
• Streck, Inc. / Streck LLC v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01577 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 55–61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89–92, 94, 126–130, 132, and 133 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “III. MOTIONS Motion to Strike (Paper 50) Petitioner filed a motion to strike portions of Patent Owner’s Sur- Reply. Paper 50. Patent Owner opposes the motion. Paper 53. Petitioner contends Patent Owner raised new argument about Exhibit 1014 (a paper authored by Dr. Patterson), which was submitted with the filing of the Petition but only cited by Patent Owner for the first time in its Sur-Reply. Paper 50, 1–3; PO Sur-Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1014). According to Petitioner, Patent Owner presents new argument about the reversibility of certain crosslinks caused by formaldehyde, cites new experimental data (in Ex. 1014, Fig. 2.1), and argues such matters would have been known before any possible priority date of the ’277 patent. Paper 50, 1–3. Moreover, Petitioner argues, the untimeliness of Patent Owner’s arguments about Exhibit 1014 prevented the exhibit’s author, Dr. Patterson, from addressing them to provide explanation or context. Id. at 2–3. For the reasons given below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to strike. First, we find that Patent Owner’s arguments on Exhibit 1014 are, on balance, responsive to issues raised by Petitioner in its Reply. It is true that Petitioner submitted Exhibit 1014 with its Petition and that Patent Owner did not cite it until its Sur-Reply. However, the points raised by Patent Owner about Exhibit 1014 respond to certain of Petitioner’s arguments raised for the first time in its Reply. For example, Petitioner argued a POSA would not have been concerned about formaldehyde’s use (such as cross-linking disclosed in Heinmoller that Patent Owner cited in its Response) and that those concerns arose only after the supposed priority date of the ’277 patent. 88 Pet. Reply 8–9. Patent Owner’s citation of Exhibit 1014 is responsive on such points (e.g., it discusses cross-linking with formaldehyde’s use), it published in 2000 and is thus earlier than some references Petitioner argued were too late to evidence a POSA’s knowledge, and, lastly, it was authored by Dr. Patterson and arguably called into question the credibility of rebuttal opinions he offered about the state of a POSA’s knowledge on such issues. Second, Exhibit 1014 does not, ultimately, help Patent Owner as we do not rely on the portions of Exhibit 1014 cited by Patent Owner or Patent Owner’s argument about them. As discussed in our analysis, if cross-linking (as reported in Heinmoller or, for that matter, Exhibit 1014) was a perceived problem, Dr. Patterson provides a credible explanation how it could be and likely was addressed by Pertl.54 Supra Section II(G)(3) (citing Ex. 1047).” slip op. at 88

  • ExcludeDenied

    “by the non-designating party. See generally Paper 60. We nevertheless reviewed the designated testimony. The objections are overruled, but were also considered during review.” slip op. at 90

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

    “evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on grounds advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 93

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “3. Conclusion For the reasons above, we find Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Chiu/Lee discloses “an agent that inhibits cell lysis, if cells are present” as recited in independent claims 55 and 81, and the claims depending therefrom. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that claims 55–59, 61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89, 94, and 126–130 would have been obvious over Chiu and Lee.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,277 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,277
• Illumina, Inc. v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2023 · IPR2021-01271 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 21, 22, and 24–30 were not shown unpatentable because Illumina did not prove that glucose in the cited ACD samples necessarily impeded cell lysis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not expressly contest this definition during trial, noting only that “Dr. Van Ness meets [this] definition” and “confirms [that] his opinions are the same under either party’s definition.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 20–25). To the extent there are minor differences in the above 14 definition and the alternative definition offered by Dr. Van Ness (Ex. 2239 ¶ 23), Dr. Van Ness’s proposal is too broad for at least the reason that it does not require the POSA have experience collecting and analyzing cell-free DNA from blood samples—subject matter relevant to the claims and applied art. Accordingly, we continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition here.13 In any event, the parties’ technical declarants meet or exceed either definition and there is no indication that their opinions would change depending on which definition was applied, and no argument from the parties to the contrary. Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 5–10 (overview of qualifications and experience); Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 4–7 (same).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “presents is whether a claimed agent that inhibits cell lysis may be a chelator used as an anticoagulant. The Specification and prosecution history make clear that at least one anticoagulant chelator—EDTA—is excluded from satisfying the claimed agent as recited in claim 1. As discussed above, the Specification describes an example where a sample processed in a tube with only EDTA is described as processing a sample in the “absence” of an agent that inhibits cell lysis. Ex. 1001, 89:35–57 (describing, in contrast, the EDTA + formalin sample as showing an example in the “presence of inhibitors of cell lysis”). If EDTA alone could be read as meeting the “agent” limitation, that example would make no sense. Petitioner provides no persuasive argument otherwise. The prosecution history buttresses the exclusion of the anticoagulant chelator EDTA from being the claimed “agent.” For example, during prosecution of the related ’277 patent, the Examiner at one point expressly 20 identified the EDTA in the tubes of a prior art reference as satisfying the agent term, prompting applicant’s argument that the Office was “incorrect” in doing so, and further distinguishing EDTA as merely “a well-known chelator of calcium and magnesium” that is added to blood “as an anticoagulant due to its ability to chelate calcium.” Ex. 2064, 1196 (arguing “EDTA is clearly referred to as a chelator in Applicant’s specification, not as a cell lysis inhibitor”); supra Section I(E); Ex. 1001, 32:61–64 (listing EDTA and EGTA as chelators). This, in turn, convinced the Examiner to withdraw the finding that EDTA was an “agent” as claimed and move on to art that disclosed formaldehyde as meeting that claim term. Ex. 2064, 1024 (Examiner interview summary noting that “applicant pointed out [that] EDTA could not be defined as a cell lysis inhibitor but rather was simply an anticoagulant”). This colloquy during prosecution evidences a clear and unmistakable disavowal of EDTA as being the claimed “agent.” Having determined that Patent Owner disavowed EDTA as the claimed “agent,” we next consider whether the disavowal extends more broadly to other anticoagulant chelators and, specifically, to ACD. On this record, we find that it does as explained below. In distinguishing EDTA from being the “agent,” Patent Owner relied not on properties that are unique to EDTA, but on the fact that it was a “well-known chelator” used as an anticoagulant in this technical field. Ex. 2064, 1196. Given Patent Owner’s clear intent to exclude EDTA from the scope of the claimed “agent” on the basis that it was simply an anticoagulant chelator, we find that a POSA would also have understood other anticoagulant chelators as subject to Patent Owner’s disavowal.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “20 Before institution, Patent Owner contested the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on whether Landes was entitled to the priority benefit of the filing date of the Landes provisional application. We disagreed that Petitioner’s showing was insufficient. Inst. Dec. 43–47. Patent Owner did not raise any issue during trial about Landes’s prior art status and, thus, has forfeited any argument that Landes is not prior art. On this record, we determine that Landes is § 102(a) prior art based on its July 31, 2003, publication date. On this record, we do not presume the claims of the ’720 patent are entitled to any earlier priority date of other applications listed in its ancestral chain. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that “there is simply no reason to presume that claims in a [CIP] application are entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application”). That is especially true with the patent’s complex priority chain, involving several CIPs leading back to a provisional application filed 26” slip op. at 26

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Altogether, considering the argument and evidence of record, Petitioner has shown, at best, that it is possible for glucose to help impede cell lysis by reason of isotonicity and providing a nutrient source. But such possibilities are not enough for Petitioner to prevail on its challenge to the claims as anticipated by Landes. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or 41 possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech, 936 F.3d at 1364 (same). Petitioner has not, on this record, met its burden to show that the glucose component of ACD in Landes’s specific method is an “agent that impedes cell lysis” in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,727,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,727,720
• Illumina, Inc. v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2023 · IPR2021-01272 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Illumina did not prove claims 55–63, 66–69, 80–91, 94–96, 126–130, 132, and 133 unpatentable because the asserted grounds failed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not expressly contest this definition during trial, noting only that “Dr. Van Ness meets [this] definition” and “confirms his opinions are the same under either party’s definition.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 20–25). To the extent there are minor differences in the above definition and the alternative definition offered by Dr. Van Ness (Ex. 2239 ¶ 23), we find that Dr. Van Ness’s proposal is too broad for at least the reason that it does not require the POSA have experience collecting and analyzing cell-free DNA from blood samples—subject matter relevant to the claims and asserted art. Accordingly, we continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition here.14 In any event, the parties’ technical declarants meet or exceed either definition and there is no indication that their opinions would change depending on which definition was applied. Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 5–10 (overview of qualifications and experience); Ex. 2239 ¶¶ 4–7 (same).” slip op. at 17

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

    “that anticoagulant chelators are not the claimed “agent” and, accordingly, that “Landes’s disclosure of ACD (and its dextrose component) fails to meet the ‘agent’ limitation.” Id. at 17–19 (citing the aforementioned prosecution history). Second, even if the dextrose of ACD is not excluded from the scope of the “agent” term as a matter of claim interpretation, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to provide evidence sufficient to show that dextrose in Landes’s ACD tubes and method necessarily “inhibits lysis of cells” as claimed. Id. at 19–20; 26–34 (arguing, inter alia, that a “mere possibility” of ACD’s dextrose component inhibiting lysis in Landes’s method is not enough); PO Sur-Reply 10–12 (arguing that Petitioner’s contentions about dextrose regulating “isotonicity” or providing a “nutrient source” for cells are belated and otherwise substantively flawed).23” slip op. at 32

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

    “warning against formaldehyde’s use and recommending other fixatives altogether. Id.; Ex. 2150 (Srinivasan), 6 (“A method to overcome the problems of formaldehyde is to use an alternative fixative that is better suited for the preservation of nucleic acids and proteins.”).33 Accordingly, Patent Owner contends that “significant evidence of negative perceptions of formaldehyde” would have dissuaded the modification of Lo proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 46–47; PO Sur-Reply 18–20.34 3. Analysis On the complete record developed through trial, we agree with Patent” slip op. at 56

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

    “warning against formaldehyde’s use and recommending other fixatives altogether. Id.; Ex. 2150 (Srinivasan), 6 (“A method to overcome the problems of formaldehyde is to use an alternative fixative that is better suited for the preservation of nucleic acids and proteins.”).33 Accordingly, Patent Owner contends that “significant evidence of negative perceptions of formaldehyde” would have dissuaded the modification of Lo proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 46–47; PO Sur-Reply 18–20.34 3. Analysis On the complete record developed through trial, we agree with Patent” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,277 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,277
• Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2021-01026 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 21–30 were not shown unpatentable: Lee did not establish that ACD dextrose impeded cell lysis, and Sorenson/Rao lacked motivation to combine because formaldehyde was known to damage nucleic acids.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Van Ness’s proposed POSA level is too broad. Under that proposal, an individual with, for example, an undergraduate degree in microbiology and three years’ work experience studying the habitats of bacteria might qualify as a POSA. It is not clear that such a person would have sufficient, relevant experience in the detection of chromosomal abnormalities, especially through non-invasive methods for detecting fetal 10 genetic abnormalities in maternal samples, as described in the ’720 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:22–5:44 (Field of Invention and Background Art). Petitioner’s proposal of the POSA level is more precise because it requires familiarity with techniques for detecting cell-free DNA in biological samples, which is relevant to the prior art and the claimed technology. Petitioner’s proposal also appears to be more consistent with the cited prior art. 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). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s POSA level here, but note that our other determinations on this record would not change under Patent Owner’s POSA level.12” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “Owner relied not on properties unique to EDTA, but on the fact that it was a “well-known chelator” and anticoagulant: [T]he assertion by the Office that EDTA is a cell lysis inhibitor is simply incorrect. . . EDTA is not an “agent that inhibits cell lysis.” Rather, EDTA is a well-known chelator of calcium and magnesium. EDTA is routinely added to blood during the blood collection process as an anticoagulant due to its ability to chelate calcium. Ex. 2064, 1196. Given Patent Owner’s clear intent to exclude EDTA from the scope of the claimed “agent” on the basis that it was a chelator and an anticoagulant, we find that a POSA would have understood other chelators and anticoagulants to also be excluded from the scope of the claimed agent. Consistent with this understanding, during subsequent prosecution of the application that issued as the ’720 patent, Patent Owner argued that the Holodniy reference, which disclosed a method of detecting free nucleic acid in which blood was collected in tubes containing ACD, “fail[ed] to teach or suggest a method for detecting free nucleic acid comprising, inter alia, isolating free nucleic acid from a non-cellular fraction of a sample, wherein an agent that impedes cell lysis has been added.” Ex. 1003, 1428 (emphasis added). On the salient point here, the Examiner agreed, concluding that “Holodniy et al. teach a method of detecting free nucleic acid which comprises all of the limitations of Claim 1, except these authors do not teach that their samples comprise an agent that impedes cell lysis.” Id. at 1344 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1156 (finding that Adams et al., a reference that also collects blood in tubes containing ACD, taught “all of the limitations recited in Claim 1 except these authors do not teach adding an agent that impedes cell lysis to the sample.”). And Patent Owner argues 15 persuasively, without dispute from Petitioner, that ACD is the “only” addition to the collection tubes besides the blood sample itself. Sur-reply 4 (citing Ex. 1016, 2; Ex. 2023, 20:52–54). This supports that neither the Examiner nor the Patent Owner considered ACD as an anticoagulant chelator to be an “agent,” as that term is used in claim 1. Accordingly, we construe the phrase “agent that impedes cell lysis” to” slip op. at 15

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “function to prevent cell lysis, “by: (1) interacting with and stabilizing the cell membrane; (2) maintaining osmolarity so that the cells do not rupture; and (3) providing a nutrient source.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23; 2001 ¶ 169; Ex. 1059 ¶ 5; Ex. 1054, 125:3–127:12; 1057, 3–4, and Ex. 1056, 7– 13, 15–19, 24). Patent Owner argues that the evidence as to how dextrose functions to prevent cell lysis should have been presented in the Petition. Sur-reply 16. On this record, we do not agree. While this evidence could have been included in the Petition, it is responsive to arguments raised in Patent Owner’s response. See PO Resp. 18–22. In any event, consideration of this evidence simply explains how and why dextrose has the capacity to impede cell lysis, and we have already found that the ’720 patent provides 25 evidence that dextrose has this capacity. Under the circumstances, it was therefore reasonable for Petitioner, in the Petition, to rely on such disclosures of the patent itself. Further, consideration of how and why dextrose impedes cell lysis largely benefits Patent Owner, by providing reasons why dextrose might not inhibit cell lysis under the specific circumstance present in Lee.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “interact with and stabilize the cell membrane. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23). In the cited testimony, Dr. Edwards states, “it was known that carbohydrates have a role in membrane stabilization” and that dextrose “is a membrane stabilizer.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23. This is consistent with the teaching in the ’720 patent that glucose is “[a]n agent that stabilizes cell membranes.” See e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:49–56. The evidence thus supports that dextrose can help to stabilize cell membranes. However, this evidence is tempered by evidence supporting that the “impact of carbohydrates on biological membranes is extremely complex” and that it is “extremely difficult to predict how solutes such as carbohydrates will affect biological membranes.” Ex. 2231, 60:18–61:2, 83:14–18 (Dr. Edwards testimony). This is because “there’s a finite but long – long list of variables that will impact the – the mechanism by which carbohydrate interacts with the cell membrane.” Id. at 66:20–67:7; see also id. at 66:1–15 (identifying temperature, concentration and pressure as variables that play a role in how carbohydrates interact with biological membranes); id. at 68:1–17 (identifying prior and simultaneous exposure to other substances as variables that play a role in how carbohydrates interact with biological membranes). 26 Petitioner also provides evidence that dextrose helps prevent cell lysis by “maintaining osmolarity so that cells do not rupture.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 169; Ex. 1056, 7–13, 24; Ex. 1059 ¶ 5). We agree that the cited evidence supports that dextrose has the ability to prevent cell rupture by maintaining isotonicity. In particular, Rapoport found that erythrocytes in an acid-citrate glucose solution underwent osmotic hemolysis at a slower rate than erythrocytes in a simple citrate solution. Ex. 1056, 613. However, Patent Owner introduces evidence, which we credit, that the failure to maintain isotonicity does not necessarily cause cell lysis. Ex. 2299, 237:4– 16 (Dr. Edward’s testimony). For example, cells placed in a hypertonic solution may “shrink or kind of shrivel” rather than burst, and cells placed in a hypotonic solution may swell, but will not necessarily lyse. Id. at 245:3– 16, 246:17–247:8.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,727,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,727,720

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.