• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00321 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 16, and 17 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required purge-tower teachings or prior-art status.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of skill, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’324 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “According to the ’713 patent, “[p]urge tower 24 itself may be . . . recycled or otherwise discarded as desired.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28. This description provides some support for Patent Owner’s view, because a purge tower too intimately integrated with the part would be difficult or impossible to recycle or discard. This is further supported by the ’713 patent’s statement that “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Id. at 8:30–34. It also is supported by Dr. Hickner’s testimony that the ’713 patent “clearly shows . . . the 24 purge tower separated from the part” and that “the purge tower is a separate physical object.” Ex. 2016, 28:8–10, 64:1–9. On the other hand, there is evidence supporting Petitioner’s view that, as long as the purge tower is generally separate from the part and the support structure, it may still make contact with those portions of the print. As noted above, “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Ex. 1001, 8:30–34. This language does not exclude locations adjacent to or in contact with the part or the support structure. Thus, determine that a “purge tower,” as that term is used in the context of the ’713 patent, may not be an integrated portion of a printed part or support structure but need not be free of all contact with the printed part or support structure.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “There is evidence of record to support both Petitioner’s view and Patent Owner’s view. On the record developed at trial, however, we cannot say that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer teaches printing a layer of a purge tower each time the printer switches one extruder to the operating mode. Because proving the obviousness of claims 1 and 16 requires such a showing, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious over the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer. 5. Analysis of Remaining Claims Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 or claim 16. Accordingly, they all include the limitations of either claim 1 or claim 16. Because, as discussed above, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, Petitioner also has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 would have been obvious over that combination of references.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther

    “On the record developed at trial, we agree with Petitioner. According to several industry forum posts, people interested in three-dimensional printing located the website where KISSlicer was posted between February 2012 and April 2012. Ex. 1028, 1 (post discussing and directing others to KISSlicer on April 11, 2012); Ex. 1031, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on March 16, 2012, and March 21, 2012); Ex. 1032, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on February 11, 2012, and February 14, 2012). Thus, not only was it possible for people of ordinary skill in the art to locate KISSlicer; people of ordinary skill in the art actually did locate it. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer was publicly accessible.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,421,713 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,421,713
• Illumina, Inc. v. Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 15, 2026 · IPR2024-01419 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references failed to disclose the claimed correcting step, and Chee was not prior art to claims 1–3 and 9.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered both parties’ arguments and evidence and determine that Patent Owner has presented sufficient evidence of reasonable the invention to practice every day during the critical period in order to demonstrate reasonable diligence. See Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[D]iligence need not be perfectly continuous—only reasonably continuous.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1331 (2019). The key question is whether, “in light of the evidence as a whole, the invention was not abandoned or unreasonably delayed.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Applying this standard, we determine that Patent Owner sufficiently demonstrates reasonably continuous diligence throughout the critical period.” slip op. at 32

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

    “introduced during said workflow by collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations observed more than once into a single count.” Ex. 1001, 131:46–48 (emphasis added). The “determining step” of claim 2 recites “determining a consensus base call for the target nucleic acid molecule sequences,” but performs “collapsing all sequence reads comprising a same differentiator tag into a single read,” before the “determining step.” Id. at 131:49–53. Patent Owner proposes an interpretation of these “collapsing” and “determining” steps recited in claims 1 and 2 and asserts that they should be construed as distinct steps performed in a particular order in which the “collapsing step” is performed before the “determining step.” PO Resp. 42–45. We agree. First, Patent Owner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “collapsing step” of claim 1 is distinct from, and must occur before, the “determining step” of claim 2 based on the plain language of claims 1 and 2. PO Resp. 42–43. Patent Owner argues that the “collapsing step” and the “determining step” are distinct steps because claims 1 and 2 use different terms to describe these distinct steps that are performed sequentially according to the claim language. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 131:47–54; Ex. 2023 ¶ 133; Ex. 2024, 57:11–58:22). More specifically, Patent Owner explains that claim 1 recites a “collapsing step,” followed by claim 2, which depends from claim 1 and refers to “collapsing” before “determining a consensus base call” such that “claim 2 describes determining a consensus base call from collapsed reads, not performing ‘collapsing’ by determining a consensus base call.” Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 131:47–54). collapsing corrects for skewing, an issue related to over- or under-amplification, which is a separate and distinct problem from the sequence errors that a consensus base call is designed to address.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:47–50, 32:29–34). Patent Owner contends further that “‘[c]ollapsing’ is a different step, performed separately from determining any consensus base call, to provide even greater accuracy when subsequently determining a consensus base call” such that “if one were to collapse by determining the consensus base call, errors from amplification bias could still be represented in the consensus base call generated.” Id. at 43–44 (emphasis omitted, citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 134–37). Second, Patent Owner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “collapsing step” of claim 1 is distinct from the “determining step” based on the specification of the ’730 patent. PO Resp. 43–45. For example, Patent Owner explains that the specification states that “[f]or any target:differentiator tag combination observed more than once, all such reads are ‘collapsed’ into a single read before consensus basecalls are determined. This will cancel the effect of bias on consensus basecall accuracy.” Id. at 43 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 72:63– 73:5) (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 133, 138–142).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We have considered both parties’ arguments and evidence and agree with Patent Owner’s position. As discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1 and the “determining step” recited in claim 2 are two different steps required by the challenged claims such that “collapsing” does not mean determining a consensus base call or sequence, and must occur before any determining step. As a result, we determine Chee’s step of determining a consensus sequence does not disclose the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1 that requires collapsing “target:differentiator tag combinations.” We are also unpersuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Chee’s process of correcting for amplification bias as disclosing the claimed collapsing step. As recognized by Patent Owner, the claim language of the “collapsing step” requires “collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations,” rather than collapsing only differentiator tags. In view of this requirement, Chee does not disclose the “collapsing step” because Chee teaches quantifying the starting nucleic acid molecules using their unique identifiers, rather than target:differentiator tag combinations. As Petitioner admits, “Chee’s technique for correcting amplification bias corrects quantitative errors without correcting sequencing errors” (Reply 15), whereas claim 1’s “collapsing step” corrects both quantitative errors and sequencing errors by using target:differentiator tag combinations. See Ex. 1001, 131:47–49 target:differentiator tag combinations).” slip op. at 41

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

    “Given this claim interpretation requiring collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations, it is undisputed that McCloskey, who uses unique barcodes alone, does not teach this limitation. Petitioner does not rely on Bignell as teaching this collapsing step. Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Bignell and McCloskey teaches the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1. Because claims 4 through 6 depend from claim 1, they also require the “collapsing step” of claim 1 that is not taught by the combination of Bignell and McCloskey.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 11,840,730 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,840,730
• Adobe Inc. v. Jonathan E. JaffeNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01352 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted §103 ground because the references did not teach monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and memory.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Institution Decision adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because Petitioner’s “definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings” slip op. at 11

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

    “The parties present various claim construction arguments, disputing the meaning of three limitations recited in claim 1: “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory”; “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor”; and “based on.” See Pet. 9–14; PO Resp. 5–12; Pet. Reply 4–9; PO Sur-reply 4–11. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to discuss the construction of “based on.” See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As explained below, this Decision turns on whether Glass or Rieger discloses limitation [1c] reciting “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–66; see infra §§ II.C.2, II.E.1, II.F. That limitation recites an element which overlaps with the earlier-recited limitation “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory.” To reach our decision, we need only provide a limited discussion of two of the parties’ claim construction arguments. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 13

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

    “said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–21:2. Although Petitioner points out that the limitation does not expressly recite “‘specifically’ monitoring the tight coupling” (Pet. Reply 8), the structure of the clause suggests that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. At a high level, the limitation is straightforward in its recitation that the integrity being monitored is “of the tight coupling” (Ex. 1001, 20:65–66 (emphasis added)), plainly suggesting that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. More granularly, breaking the relevant clause down to its grammatical parts, the clause recites a gerund (“monitoring”) acting on a direct object (“the integrity”) which is modified by a prepositional phrase (“of the tight coupling”). Notably, the object of the preposition (“of”) is “the tight coupling.” Altogether, this reads that the integrity being monitored is specifically of the tight coupling. Also, the claim recites that “if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Therefore, from the claim language we know that the “integrity” of the tight coupling is something that may be “compromised,” which is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of determining whether the physical coupling has been “accessed or disturbed.” Petitioner’s interpretation effectively inserts additional language into the limitation such that the limitation includes monitoring the integrity of a device containing or surrounding the tight coupling, such as a camera (or camera housing), e.g., “monitoring the integrity of a camera that includes the tight coupling.” But, because the plain reading and the structure of the limitation reads that it is specifically the tight coupling’s integrity—not another physical structure, like a camera—which is being monitored, a monitored is not consistent with the language of the claim. See PO Resp. 9 (arguing that “Petitioner’s construction is improper because the claim language explicitly requires monitoring the physical coupling between the memory and the sensor as opposed to some third structure” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “package 50 does not specifically monitor the integrity of the coupling between Glass’s sensor and the memory and, instead, argues that Glass detects tampering of all “the components and interconnections contained in that packaging,” e.g., control logic 44, cropper 46, compressor 47, MUX 45, code generator 48, and the various interconnections between those components. See Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1005, 5:13–41. As explained above, we construe “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor” to mean determining whether the physical 7 Petitioner does not assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Glass’s device in any way; Petitioner solely argues that Glass teaches limitation [1c], based on Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. See Pet. 30–32 (“Glass discloses this limitation.”); Pet. Reply 16–17 (“Glass and Rieger disclose the ‘monitoring’ step.”). disturbed, which specifically requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory. See supra § II.C.2. As we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory, monitoring Glass’s tamper resistant package 50 does not teach or disclose “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that Glass teaches or suggests [1c] monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor when said at least one internal and unique parameter is generated, and, if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity, as required by claim 1. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Glass.8” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,757,828 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,828
• Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v. Olink Proteomics ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01353 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness grounds failed, including because Kanan and Neri did not teach selecting the claimed cis-reactive cells.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, for purposes of this decision we adopt Petitioner’s proposal of a person of ordinary skill in the art, with the following changes noted in italics below: A person with “an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., in organic chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related field; and about two years of experience in industry and/or laboratory experience relating to small molecules and proteins and would have been familiar with nucleic acid chemistry and conventional hybridization techniques; and (b) access to one or more team members having an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., in organic chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related field; and about two years of experience in industry and/or laboratory experience relating to high throughput screening techniques such as nucleic acid sequencing. A person could also have qualified as a POSA with less formal education and more technical or professional experience.11 We emphasize, however, that our decision would not change if we instead used Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSA.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Because the parties have placed the limitation “selecting all cis- reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace” into controversy, we construe the term below, but only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase, in light of the language of the claims, the Specification, and the prosecution history of record, requires “selecting all of the [molecular complexes or structures] meeting the defined criteria for [cis-reactive cells (CRCs)] and exhibiting the detectable trace.” Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 94, 98–119). We further agree that cis-reactive cells should be construed to mean “an association of at least two interactor moieties, joined by an associated oligonucleotide.” (PO Resp. 9 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:35-37)). Accordingly, we determine that, properly construed, the claims require that what is “selected” at step 1(d) — what is differentiated or set apart from other molecular complexes or structures in the reaction mixture at the conclusion of step 1(d) — to be “an association of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide” that exhibits the detectable trace.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Kanan and Neri teaches “selecting all cis-reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace,” as we have construed that phrase above. In particular, we determine that, properly construed, the limitation requires the selection of “all associations of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide and exhibiting the detectable trace.” Instead, as described in Kanan, what is “selected” is the molecules of interest joined by bond formation, with only one of the molecules of interest coupled to a nucleic acid moiety. Thus, the selected molecular complex or structure does not comprise two interactors (i.e., two molecules of interest coupled to NAMs). Moreover, to the extent there are two interactors, they are joined by the bond between the molecules of interest rather than an associated oligonucleotide.” slip op. at 35

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Patent Owner moved to exclude Exhibit 1008, on the ground that it contains settlement statements and that Rule 408 of the Federal Rule of Evidence prohibits Petitioner from using the statements to impeach or contradict Patent Owner. Mot. 5. Because we do not rely in our analysis on this exhibit, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 7,883,848 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,883,848
• Illumina Inc. v. Molecular Loop Innovations LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2026 · IPR2024-00964 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable over either asserted §103 combination because the prior art did not teach the discarding step or establish a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “specification to interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the specification into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[T]he line between construing terms and importing limitations”, however, “can be discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if [our] focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms.” Id. Ultimately, we construe claim terms to “capture the scope of the actual invention more accurately than either strictly limiting the scope of the claims to the embodiments disclosed in the specification or divorcing the claim language from the specification.” Id. at 1324. Here, we are tasked with resolving the dispute between the parties as to the scope of the source of the claimed cross-over error. See Sur-reply 2. Although claim 1 does not explicitly recite cross-over error is created during cluster amplification, the specification shows otherwise. It repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively describes cross-over errors as arising from the formation of chimeric molecules during the amplification step of the sequencing workflow. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, 4:29–52 (describing “improper molecular overlap via formation of a heteroduplex between patient A’s nucleic acid template and patient B’s nucleic acid template” “[w]hen the amplification process begins”), 5:29–58 (the same), 6:25–44 (the same), 6:64–7:23 (the same).” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had (i) a Ph.D. in molecular biology, genetics, bioinformatics, or a related field and at least two years of experience in high-throughput sequencing technologies or (ii) a Master’s degree in one of the same fields with at least four years of experience in high-throughput sequencing technologies.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–20). Patent Owner states that it adopts Petitioner’s proposal for a POSA for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–22). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skill level 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. We find both Dr. Spellman and Dr. Adalsteinsson are qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSA, because each has at least ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 4–9.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 9 Because, as explained below, we find Petitioner has not met its burden to show reasonable expectation of success, we do not need to address whether Petitioner has shown sufficient reason to combine the asserted references. 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (stating that “failure to consider the appropriate scope of the . . . patent’s claimed invention in evaluating the reasonable expectation of success . . . constitutes a legal error”). Here, the claimed invention is a method for reducing template cross-over error. Thus, we must determine whether, in December 2010, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably expected that the combination of Parameswaran and Gloor would reduce template cross-over error. slip op. at 26

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

    “Thus, on this record, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Parameswaran’s “unexpected perfect pairings of unmatched forward and reverse barcodes” are not cross-over error. PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 116–123). In addition, as Petitioner acknowledges, Parameswaran merely “distinguished,” but did not “discard” sequences with mismatches. Pet. 34. Parameswaran states that “[t]he low false-discovery rate for perfect matches strengthens the argument that any sequence with both 5’ and 3’ barcode motifs will be placed with reasonable accuracy into the correct bin.” Ex. 1004, 8. But, because Parameswaran achieved a “remarkably low misassignment rate,” it did not discard, but included any sequence with a matched barcode. Id. Indeed, Parameswaran explains that “[f]or our purposes, all sequences with a match to one of the two expected sequence motifs were considered as true members of the corresponding dataset.” Id. In its Reply, Petitioner emphasizes Parameswaran’s language “[f]or our purposes.” Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 8). According to Petitioner, “[a] POSA would have understood from Parameswaran that chimeric sequences could be kept or discarded, depending on the sequencing ‘purpose.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1054 ¶¶ 79–82). Petitioner is asking us to deem unpatentable a claim based on its reading of “for our purposes,” a broad, undefined statement, to mean something specific—a suggestion to discard perfect unexpected pairings, which Parameswaran explicitly did not do. See Ex. 1004, 8. Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence and persuasive argument for us to do so.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,041,852 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,041,852
• Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the 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, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,023,203
• Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00580 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claim 8 not shown unpatentable under each of three §103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish motivation to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had at least a Ph.D. in biochemistry, molecular biology, or a related field and between one and four years of post-doctoral experience in the field of gene therapy. Alternatively, a POSA would have had at least a Master’s or Bachelor’s Degree in biochemistry, molecular biology, or a related field, with a corresponding number of additional years of experience in the field of gene therapy. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–115). Patent Owner states that it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 10. On this complete record, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’274 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the ’274 patent “does not specify a particular program or set of program parameters that should be used to align sequences and calculate percent identity for purposes of determining whether a particular test sequence falls within the scope of the claims.” Pet. 21. Petitioner asserts that it analyzed the percent identity claim elements, as Patent Owner did in the parallel District Court litigation, Penn-II, “using the Clustal program at default settings to generate amino acid sequence alignments and calculate percent identity values.” Id. at 21–22. Petitioner, however, does not ask for any particular construction of any claim term. See id. Patent Owner states that it “does not challenge Petitioner’s articulation of the lack of a need for claim construction.” PO Resp. 10. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. v. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “According to the import of the complete recitation of paragraph 250 of the ’772 Publication set forth above that Petitioner relies upon for the motivation to improve efficient gene transfer in liver, AAV8 already fulfills this need. See Tr. 28:15–18. We do not read the ’772 Publication as calling for a search for a more efficient variant to improve efficient gene transfer in liver. We credit Dr. Samulski’s testimony that supports this view of the teachings of the ’772 Publication. Dr. Samulski testifies: Additionally, when the inventors compared AAV8’s expression in the liver against new serotypes AAVrh2, AAVrh10, AAVrh13, and AAVrh21, they found that AAV8 remained superior: EX1007, ¶ 253. Notably, AAV8 was shown to have over fifty percent (50%) greater expression in liver than AAVrh10. As I discuss more below, a skilled artisan in 2005 would not have expected a single amino acid substitution to significantly alter tropism in order to target to a different tissue. Thus, in my opinion, in 2005, a skilled artisan with the goal of targeting the liver would have selected the best known vector for delivery to liver at that time—AAV8. Ex. 2027 ¶ 42. We also agree with Dr. Samulski’s opinion that a POSA would have selected the best vector for liver, AAV8, instead of modifying another vector to increase tropism to liver. Dr. Samulski testifies: In my opinion, a skilled artisan in 2005 would not have looked solely to modify a vector to try to improve tropism to a particular tissue. As discussed throughout this declaration, changing tropism is difficult to predict, and a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation that changes could be made to improve or alter tropism. A skilled artisan would also have been concerned that changes, even small ones, could negatively impact other properties of the capsid protein. Therefore, rather than seek to modify a vector, a skilled artisan” slip op. at 29

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

    “The ’772 Publication, however, does not indicate as Petitioner asserts that a new variant is necessary to improve the efficiency of gene transfer to liver; the ’772 Publication indicates that AAV8 fulfills that need. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 250. In the paragraph that Petitioner relies upon for the alleged need to improve the efficiency of gene transfer to the liver, the ’772 Publication states in full: The tropism of each new vector is favorable for in vivo applications. AAV2/7 vectors appear to transduce skeletal muscle as efficiently as AAV2/1, which is the serotype that confers the highest level of transduction in skeletal muscle of the primate AAVs tested to date. Importantly, AAV2/8 provides a substantial advantage over the other serotypes in terms of efficiency of gene transfer to liver that until now has been relatively disappointing in terms of the numbers of hapatocytes stably transduced. AAV2/8 consistently achieved a 10 to 100-fold improvement in gene transfer efficiency as compared to the other vectors. The basis for the improved efficiency of AAV2/8 is unclear, although it presumably is due to uptake via a different receptor that is more active on the basolateral surface of hepatocytes. This improved efficiency will be quite useful in the development of liver-directed gene transfer where the number of transduced cells is critical, such as in urea cycle disorders and familial hypercholesterolemia. Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). According to the import of the complete recitation of paragraph 250 of the ’772 Publication set forth above that Petitioner relies upon for the motivation to improve efficient gene transfer in liver, AAV8 already fulfills this need. See Tr. 28:15–18. We do not read the ’772 Publication as calling for a search for a more efficient variant to improve efficient gene transfer in liver. We credit Dr. Samulski’s testimony that supports this view of the teachings of the ’772 Publication. Dr. Samulski testifies: Additionally, when the inventors compared AAV8’s expression in the liver against new serotypes AAVrh2, AAVrh10, AAVrh13, and AAVrh21, they found that AAV8 remained superior:” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 11,680,274 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,680,274
• Gene Company Pty Ltd v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00313 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–54 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combinations; objective indicia also supported non-obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “As to the first issue, we agree with Patent Owner that defining the level of skill in view of the solution described in the patent risks improper hindsight. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 18 (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a . . . lens through which . . . the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention,” which “prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or . . . hindsight[] to gauge obviousness.”). We therefore do not include “practical knowledge about . . . the deuterium isotope effect, including the patents and publications discussed [in the Petition],” as part of our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” in an obviousness analysis, we give some weight to Dr. Guengerich’s testimony. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that “motivation to combine may be found. . . in . . . the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill”). Nevertheless, even if we were to agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have seen the 1,5-shift in NRPE in Mata’s A2E biosynthetic pathway as a particularly desirable location for intervention, we are not persuaded that such a person would have been motivated to substitute C20 deuterated vitamin A for the vitamin A in Ortho Pharma’s composition and method, because Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that such an artisan would have reasonably expected the substitution to retard the accumulation of A2E or to treat macular degeneration.” slip op. at 42

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the preamble of claim 28 as limiting. Inst. Dec. 30–31. Petitioner did not take issue with our construction, or dispute Patent Owner’s construction of the preambles of claims 1 and 29 as also limiting. After consideration of the full trial record, we maintain our construction of the preamble of claim 28 as limiting for the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision. For similar reasons and the reasons set forth in Patent Owner’s Response, we further construe the preambles of claims 1 and 29 as limiting. See PO Resp. 12–14. We further determine that we do not need to construe any other claim term in order to resolve the controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 26

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

    “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 be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS RE47,045 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• 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
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2024 · IPR2022-01496 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because the cited combinations failed to teach required claim limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “including mobile device applications.” Pet. 8 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Petitioner also contends that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner adds that a POSA could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, but otherwise agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a POSA. PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 74–78). We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, but, add that the person of ordinary skill in the art could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science because that is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’187 patent and the prior art. Our Decision, however, would not be affected if we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill in the art. D. Claims 1–21: Obviousness in View of Poole and Hammad” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We credit Dr. Long’s uncontroverted testimony on the topic of “authentication,” which he supports with citations to objective evidence. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 26–31 (citing Ex. 2020, 594, 595, 626, 627, 632, 633, 636). He describes the three types of user authentication as being based upon what a user “knows,” “has,” or “is.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 28 (citing Ex. 2020, 627). He testifies that authentication based on what a user “knows” involves entering a user name and password or answering security questions. Id. ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 2020, 632–633). He further explains that the second type of authentication based on a user providing something that they “have,” involves the user providing, for example, “a key to a door” or an “ATM card.” Id. ¶ 30 (citing Ex. 2020, 633). Regarding the last way of authentication, Dr. Long testifies that the third method, providing something that the user “is,” such as a user’s biometric characteristic like a fingerprint or image of a face. Id. ¶ 31 (citing Ex. 2020, 636).” slip op. at 23

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

    “However, none of the cited material within Poole (¶¶ 32, 48, 88, 94) supports Petitioner’s contention. Poole’s ¶ 32 describes sensors 214 having a “sensor identifier” that “may be used by . . . customer device 220 . . . to identify and/or locate sensor 214,” but wholly fails to describe scanning a machine-readable element to decode location information. Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. Poole’s ¶ 48 explains: information contained in signals transmitted by sensors 214 may include a Bluetooth identifier, Bluetooth profile, sensor identifier, and/or sensor position. The sensor identifier of each sensor 214 may be stored in association with a known position of sensor 214 in memory 306, storage medium 308, and/or database 314. Customer device 220 may retrieve a position or sensor identifier of sensor 214 located near customer device 220 based on the stored information. Id. ¶ 48. This paragraph similarly fails to describe that customer device 220 scans a barcode to decode location information, but instead describes device 220 receiving a wireless signal from sensor 214 used to obtain the position of the sensor from a database. Id. Barcodes are not discussed at all in Poole’s ¶ 48. Id.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,368,187 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,368,187

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.