• Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01035 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–6, 8–10, and 22–28, and denied substitute claims 29–44 because Wright ’451 rendered them obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 16). Patent Owner took no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. Inst. 6–7. In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that it accepts the Board’s definition for purposes of this proceeding. MTA 24. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears to be consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not 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 › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Although neither party expressly proposes a construction for the term “conversion,” the parties appear to differ in their interpretations of that term. Petitioner interprets “conversion” to mean the percent conversion of the 1- alcohol. See Pet. Opp. RMTA 6–7 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of remaining 1-alcohol); Ex. 1040, 109:2–11. Patent Owner, on the other hand, interprets “conversion” to mean the total percentage of alkenes that have been produced. Ex. 2010 ¶ 123 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of total alkenes). During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner conceded that “conversion can mean either.” Tr. 27:18–28:13. Without the benefit of briefing by the parties, we decline to expressly construe the term “conversion,” as our Decision would be the same under either interpretation, as discussed further below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Moreover, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. Id.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Analysis A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said claimed invention pertains. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Objective evidence of nonobviousness may include” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded. “[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must, therefore, first consider what results were expected to determine what a POSA would have considered to be unexpected. Id. As seen by the table below, Wright ’451’s disclosure fully encompasses the temperature ranges and purported unexpected results recited by substitute claim 29 and shown in Table 2 of the ’048 Patent: Reference Reaction Calcination Conversion Regioselectivity Rate13 Temperature Temperature Wright ’451 about 220 °C about 200 °C greater than about 90% to to about to 600 °C about 95% about 99% 440 °C Substitute 240 °C to about 420 °C at least 95% to about Claim 29” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,995,048 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,995,048
• Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 14, 2024 · IPR2023-00442 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Dixon because Dixon anticipates them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We adopt the same reasoning here, and conclude that the evidence of record and the Specification of the ’681 patent support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to a patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” (emphasis added). 8 F.4th 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We consequently reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction that the language of the preamble reciting a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder” requires not only an intent to treat, but, additionally, a high degree of efficacy on par with monthly Lucentis. See PO Resp. 9–10.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44. Patent Owner does not expressly dispute Petitioner’s construction, other than to argue that, by 2011, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “initial” and “secondary” doses to correspond to loading doses and “tertiary” doses to correspond to maintenance doses. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66; Ex. 2349, 6–11. Patent Owner contends that the purpose (and expected effect) of loading doses was to achieve visual acuity gains and retina drying, and the goal of less frequent maintenance doses was to maintain the efficacy achieved with loading doses. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66). As we have explained above, we do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the definition of these terms requires a high, or otherwise defined, degree of efficacy. As we stated in the -00881 and -01225 Decisions: Based on those express definitions in the Specification, we do not find cause to construe the terms differently. In particular, we do not find that the Specification requires the “tertiary doses” to maintain any efficacy gain achieved after the initial and secondary doses, or that the term suggests any specific level of efficacy. The Specification unequivocally states that “[t]he terms ‘initial dose,’ ‘secondary doses,’ and ‘tertiary doses,’ refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist.”” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, the second step of the Praxair analysis is to determine whether the printed matter is functionally related to its “substrate.” Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032. Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight. Id. (citing DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850). However, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id. (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). More specifically, printed matter is functionally related to its substrate when the language changes not mere thoughts or outcomes, but provides action steps that the method requires. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the test for printed matter is whether it “merely informs people of the claimed information, or whether it instead interacts with the other elements of the claim to … cause a specific action in a claimed process.”); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that language “is only a statement of purpose and intended result” where its “expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner notes that the Petitioner in the ’00881 IPR proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field. Pet. 17–18 (quoting -00881 IPR, Paper 94 at 9–10). Furthermore, it was asserted that such a person would typically have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D. (or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders, including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Id. at 18 (citing -00881 IPR Paper 94 at 10). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. In the -01225 IPR, we adopted the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the challenged claims of the ’681 patent, concluding that that definition was consistent with the level of skill in the art. See -01225 IPR, Paper 96 at 52–53. Having previously adopted this definition of the level of skill in the art for the claims of the ’681 patent, we do so again in the present proceeding.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00532 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach Grounds 2–6.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Decision. See Ex. 3001, 12–23. As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s reliance on Sanofi and Eli Lilly. See PO Resp. 9. In Sanofi, a non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that the preamble to the claims at issue, reciting “[a] method of increasing survival comprising administering to a patient in need thereof” was limiting upon the claims, in conformance with the court’s prior decisions in Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Sanofi, 757 F. App’x at 992–93. Furthermore, the court held that, because the preamble was limiting, and recited a “method of increasing survival” the proposed claims would now clearly require “increasing survival.” Id. at 994. The preamble to claim 1 of the ’681 patent, however, recites no such “increase” with respect to efficacy, but merely recites “A method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient,” and the remainder of the claim requires no specific efficacy requirement. Nor does Eli Lilly support Patent Owner’s position. In Eli Lilly, the court upheld the Board’s conclusion that the preamble reciting “a method for treating headache in an individual” was limiting upon the claims. Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. However, it noted, in upholding the Board’s conclusion, the Board also “found that while the claims encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Id. (emphasis added). We also find that the similar language of the preamble to challenged claim 1 of the ’681 patent, although encompassing clinical efficacy, does not require it, let alone a “high degree of efficacy.”” slip op. at 33

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating” requires a high level of efficacy. In the -00881 Decision, the Board rejected Patent Owner’s similar argument because it required improperly importing limitations into the claims. See Ex. 3001, 22. Specifically, the Board found that: [W]hen the Specification explains that “[t]he amount of VEGF antagonist administered to the patient in each dose is, in most cases, a therapeutically effective amount,” and discloses that “a therapeutically effective amount can be from about 0.05 mg to about 5 mg,” we find that a POSA would have understood that any dosage amount within that range administered according to the invention may, in some cases, result in a detectable improvement in “one or more symptoms or indicia of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or be one that “inhibits, prevents, lessens or delays the progression of an angiogenic eye disorder,” or it may not. In either event, the VEGF antagonist would have been administered for the purpose of treating the eye disorder. In other words, the method of treating the patient with the eye disorder is performed upon administration of the VEGF antagonist to the patient for the purpose of achieving an improvement or beneficial effect in the eye disorder, regardless whether the dosage amount administered actually achieves that intended result. Id. at 21–22 (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Board found that: Patent Owner proposes that the claims require not only achieving a therapeutically effective result, but more specifically, achieving a “high level of efficacy that was noninferior to the standard of care by the time the patent was filed in 2011.” In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner describes a “highly effective treatment for angiogenic eye disorders” as “one that is on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin and can produce visual acuity gains, not just slow vision losses.” The Specification refers to “a high level of efficacy” in one instance, i.e., in the “Background” section. The Specification does not describe there, or elsewhere that “treating,” in the context of the claims or in the art, requires achieving a “high level of efficacy” or providing results “on par to Lucentis or off-label Avastin.” Id. at 22 (citations omitted). We adopt the same reasoning here, and find that, for the purposes of this Decision, the evidence of record and the Specification support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to such patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” Eli Lilly, 8 F.4th at 1343. We consequently reject” slip op. at 35

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

    “The terms “initial dose,” “secondary doses,” and “tertiary doses,” refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist Thus, the “initial dose” is the dose which is administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen (also referred to as the “baseline dose”) ; the “secondary doses” are the doses which are administered after the initial dose; and the “tertiary doses” are the doses which are administered after the secondary doses. The initial, secondary, and tertiary doses may all contain the same amount of dosing regimens, but will generally differ from one another in terms of frequency of administration. Ex. 1001, col. 3 ll. 34–44. Petitioner also notes that the Specification further explains that “the immediately preceding dose” means “in a sequence of multiple administrations, the dose of VEGF antagonist which is administered to a patient prior to the administration of the very next dose in the sequence with no intervening doses.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 54–59; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–45). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44.” slip op. at 37

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

    “As Petitioner states, Patent Owner relies upon these Exhibits as objective secondary evidence of non-obviousness. See, e.g., PO Resp. 65– 69. However, and as we explain below, because we find that the challenged claims are anticipated by Dixon, we do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments that the claims are non-obvious (Grounds 4–6) or its contentions regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness. See Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that “secondary considerations are not an element of a claim of anticipation”). Consequently, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the Financial Documents as moot.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2022-01225 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Here, the claims are directed to methods of administering, i.e., using, a VEGF antagonist for an intended purpose of “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” The Specification repeatedly characterizes the method as one for treating angiogenic eye disorders in patients. Apart from the preamble, the independent claims do not elsewhere recite or indicate any other use for the method steps comprising the administration of a VEGF antagonist. Thus, we determine that the preamble sets forth the essence of the invention—treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient. Additionally, we find that the preamble provides antecedent basis for claim terms “the patient” recited in the body of each independent claim, and “angiogenic eye disorders” recited in dependent claims 6, 7, 18, and 20. Indeed, without the preamble, it would be unclear to whom the doses of VEGF are administered. Thus, …in view of the evidence of record, namely, the claim language and the written description of the ’338 patent, we find that the preambles of method claims 1 and 14 are limiting insofar as they require “treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient.” Id. at 17–18 (citations omitted). We adopt this same reasoning here and find that the preamble of claim 1 reciting “[a] method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient” is limiting.” slip op. at 34

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

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44.” slip op. at 37

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

    “If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, the next step in the Praxair analysis is to determine whether the printed matter is functionally related to its “substrate.” Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032. Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight. Id. (citing DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850). However, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id. (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). More specifically, printed matter is functionally related to its substrate when the language changes not mere thoughts or outcomes, but provides action steps that the method requires. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the test for printed matter is whether it “merely informs people of the claimed information, or whether it instead interacts with the other elements of the claim to … cause a specific action in a claimed process.”); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that language “is only a statement of purpose and intended result” where its “expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 46

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field. Pet. 28. Petitioner asserts that such a person would typically have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D. (or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders, including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1006, 1020), we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,681
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Bayer Pharma AktiengesellschaftAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00517 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1–2 as anticipated by Foley, claims 1–2 and 5–8 as obvious over Foley, and claims 3–4 and 6–7 as obvious over Foley and Plosker.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s definition and contends that a POSA would have been a “clinician with experience in the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of results from clinical trials involving antithrombotic agents (anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents), as well as experience with the treatment of patients with anticoagulants and antiplatelet 7 Although we find certain of Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive, this should never be taken as an indication that we have assigned Patent Owner the burden of proof on patentability. patients with coronary artery disease and/or peripheral artery disease.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2060 ¶¶ 24–26). In response, Petitioner asserts that its definition encompasses Patent Owner’s definition, as the experience of an M.D. includes the ability to interpret the results of clinical trials to evaluate therapies. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶ 7). We find Petitioner has the better position. We agree with Petitioner and Dr. Zusman that an M.D. with experience treating patients who worked in consultation with a team of specialists would include the qualifications recited by Patent Owner. Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 7–11. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSA, which indicates a high level of skill in the relevant art and is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9

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

    “construction and determine that the term “clinically proven effective” is nonlimiting, as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 11; Pet. Reply 8–9, 16. We begin our analysis with the language of the claims, which recite administering rivaroxaban and aspirin in amounts that are “clinically proven effective,” “wherein rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin is administered in an amount of 75–100 mg daily.” Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 5. We are persuaded that a POSA would have understood from a plain reading of the claims that the specific recited “amounts” of 8 We also noted in our Institution Decision that in the Delaware MDL, the parties stipulated that claim 1 “does not require FDA approval.” Dec. Inst. 15 n.6 (quoting Ex. 2019, 2). That is, the independent claims expressly recite that the rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily, and that aspirin is administered in an amount of 75–100 mg daily. Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 5. Because the claims expressly recite the amounts of rivaroxaban and aspirin, further identifying these amounts as “clinically proven effective” is redundant and unnecessary, and does nothing to alter the method steps of administering the pharmaceutical, as otherwise recited by these claims. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding claim term “antineoplastically effective” not limiting where express dosage amounts are material claim limitations that do not change based on the intended result).” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableInherency foundUnpatentable

    “Inherent anticipation requires “merely that the disclosure of the prior art is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught in the prior art would result in the claimed product.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotes omitted).” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “aspirin was taken with the first 2.5 mg dose of rivaroxaban, with the second 2.5 mg dose of rivaroxaban, or at a different time than either dose of rivaroxaban. Pet. 67 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 336–338). Nevertheless, Petitioner asserts that a POSA would have understood that “unless there is a cause for concern in terms of potential drug interactions, concomitant administration of multiple drugs in a dosing regimen is preferred for patient-compliance reasons.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 337–338). 13 We further note that we have considered, but are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s objective evidence of nonobviousness, discussed below, outweighs this strong evidence of obviousness. “first product,” Patent Owner does not argue that Foley does not teach a “first product.”14 See PO Resp. 51–56; PO Sur-reply 19–24. As set forth above, we agree with Petitioner’s construction of “first product” as not requiring, although allowing, a single combination dosage form. See supra Section II.B.2. We, therefore, find Petitioner has shown that a POSA considering Foley would have found it obvious to administer aspirin together with one of the rivaroxaban doses. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Zusman, who notes that a POSA would have known that there were no concerns about administering rivaroxaban and aspirin together, and that it is easier for patients to take two drugs at the same time rather than at different times throughout the day. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 337–338; see also Ex. 1009,15 981 (noting “there is no clinically relevant interaction between rivaroxaban and aspirin and that the 2 drugs could be administered concomitantly”). We, therefore, find Petitioner has shown that Foley teaches or suggests each limitation of claims 5 and 8 and that a POSA would have had a reason to modify Foley to administer rivaroxaban together with aspirin with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,828,310 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,828,310
• Abiomed, Inc. v. White Swell Medical Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01477 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 3–16 are anticipated by Gelfand, and claims 1–16 are also obvious over the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s contention that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art may not comprise a multidisciplinary team, but may be “a member” of that same multidisciplinary team, strikes us as a distinction without a difference. See id. Thus, although we disagree with Patent Owner’s analysis, we rephrase part one of our provisionally adopted definition to reference “a member of a multidisciplinary team.”” slip op. at 31

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “demonstrates that Dr. Day and Dr. Garcia are individually well-qualified to opine as to the perspective of an Engineer POSA and a Clinician POSA, respectively; and collectively qualified to opine from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as to all aspects of the claimed invention and relevant prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–15; Ex. 1003 (Dr. Day’s curriculum vitae); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4–15; Ex. 1005 (Dr. Garcia’s curriculum vitae). With respect to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Brecker’s experience and credentials as an interventional cardiologist amply qualify him to speak to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as a Clinician POSA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 4–15, Exhibit A. But because there is no evidence that he is an Engineering POSA, or receiving assistance from an Engineering POSA, we accord less weight to his opinions as they relate to the province of an Engineer POSA. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that “to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art”). C.” slip op. at 34

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’871 Patent “teaches activating and adjusting restrictors based on pressure readings to achieve and then maintain target venous blood pressures.” Pet. Sup. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:33–36, 15:36–16:42, Fig. 11A). Implicit in the above analysis, and as expressly discussed at pages 11–12 of the Reply, which we adopt, we understand “maintaining” to refer to keeping intravascular pressure at a target level or range, which may be lower than a normal body pressure. Cf. POR 30–31 (Patent Owner’s argument that “maintaining” is limited to non-hypotensive (i.e., substantially normal) systemic pressure). In view of the above, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed construction of “maintaining intravascular pressure,” to mean “maintaining pressure within blood vessels or a blood vessel.” Our construction is not limited to maintaining a physiologically normal systemic pressure, and encompasses maintaining regions of low pressure in portions of the venous system between occlusion devices, or in the vicinity of one or more occlusion devices. We need not further define the meets and bounds of this term to resolve any dispute between the parties or decide the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. D.” slip op. at 46

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “F.3d at 1354–55. This requirement is not excused in IPR proceedings. See Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 F. App’x 443, 450 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]egardless of the forum, prior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art.”). Considering all the argument and evidence of record, we find that Patent Owner has not overcome the presumption with respect to Gelfand for at least the reasons set forth on pages 12–24 of Petitioner’s Reply, which we adopt in full and briefly summarize below.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 10,653,871 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,653,871
• Apple, Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00972 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 16, 18–20, 22, and 23 over Shmueli and Osorio; remaining claims over combinations adding Lee-2013 or Chan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that we should reject our originally proposed definition in light of, for example, Petitioner’s proposed definition before the ITC, which required an engineering background and “at least two years of relevant work experience designing wearable devices and/or sensors for measuring physiological signals.” PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2004, 6). As noted at oral argument, however, Patent Owner truncates the full extent of Petitioner’s ITC definition, which further states that “a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art could also be a person with a medical degree (MD or DO) and with at least two years of work experience using biomedical sensors and/or analyzing their data (in the context of industry, in biomedical academic research, or in practice treating patients).” Ex. 2004, 6; Tr. 40:13– 41:10. Patent Owner’s assertion that our originally proposed definition, would “classify all cardiologists as [persons of ordinary skill in the art],” is well taken. PO Resp. 25. Accordingly, we apply the following modified definition, which is consistent with Petitioner’s representation before the ITC. For the purpose of this proceeding, a person of ordinary skill in the art may be a member of an interdisciplinary team including persons with backgrounds in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and/or cardiology, and having at least two years of relevant work experience designing, using, or analyzing data from, cardiac monitoring devices.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Dr. Efimov has extensive experience in the design of cardiac monitoring and related technologies, but Petitioner asserts that he “is unable to offer credible testimony on the meaning of [relevant] medical terminology,” because he is not a doctor. Reply 28; Sur-reply 22 (arguing that “Dr. Efimov is a recognized expert in the field of clinical cardiac electrophysiology”). Considering the totality of Dr. Efimov’s background, including extensive work on the physiology, diagnostics, and therapy of cardiac arrhythmias, we do not adopt Petitioner’s position. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 2–15. In light of the above, we determine that Dr. Chaitman and Dr. Efimov are both qualified to testify as to the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we, nevertheless, consider the weight of both parties’ experts on a particular topic in light of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective background. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 26

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

    “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner offers a construction for the claim term “discordance,” proposing that it should be construed to mean “when a first sensed parameter value would not be expected to coincide with a second sensed parameter value.” Pet. 8–10. Patent Owner does not propose a competing construction and, in the ITC Investigation, proposed “[n]o construction required” for the term “discordance.” Ex. 2009, 4. Having reviewed the evidence and argument of record, we determine that we do not need to construe the term “discordance” in order to resolve this dispute. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. See e.g., Ex. 1047 (medical dictionary defining arrhythmias as “[a]n abnormal rate or rhythm of the heartbeat” caused by “a disturbance in the electrical impulses within the heart”); Ex. 1001, 4:4 (“Heart function is also measured in terms of regularity of rhythm. . . . When there is an abnormality of rhythm, the condition is typically referred to as an arrhythmia.”). Although it is not clear that the term is in dispute, for clarity, we understand the term “arrhythmia” as used in the context of the ’941 patent to mean: a cardiac condition in which the electrical activity of the heart is irregular or is faster (tachycardia) or slower (bradycardia) than normal.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,638,941 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,638,941
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Uniqure Biopharma B.V.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00925 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 7–10, 14–16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Stafford and Manno, and Stafford, Manno, and Schuettrumpf.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, although we agreed with Patent Owner that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have experience in the treatment of coagulopathy, we applied a broader definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated by Drs. Wang and Pedersen. Dec. Inst. 22; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 48; Ex. 1094 ¶ 19. We determined a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the skill of a research team working to develop factor IX variants and gene therapies, where that team would include (1) one or more researchers with experience in the fields of molecular biology and virology and the use of gene therapy for treatment of coagulopathies, working together with (2) one or more individuals with experience in protein structure or engineering; and where the individuals working on the team have an advanced degree and several years of experience in a relevant discipline. See id. Patent Owner states its positions on patentability of the challenged claims “would not change under that construction or Petitioner’s proposed definition ....” PO Resp. 13. Accordingly, we apply the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art set forth supra and in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the ’248 patent provides an express definition of “treat” and “treatment.” The Specification states, “[i]n the present text the term ‘treat’ or ‘treatment’ of a pathology means the prophylaxis and/or therapy and/or cure of this pathology.” Ex. 1001, 5:19– 21. This definition includes “cure” as a separate concept from therapy, and further provides that therapy includes “partial or total” alleviation of symptoms. Id. at 5:21–24. The ’248 patent does not define or otherwise describe “treating a coagulopathy” as requiring any specific duration of therapeutic efficacy; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that partial alleviation of symptoms and a shorter duration of therapeutic efficacy is encompassed in “treating a coagulopathy” as recited in claim 1. Claim 16, which depends from claim 1, supports a construction of “treating a coagulopathy” that does not require complete alleviation of symptoms or permanent therapeutic efficacy. Claim 16 recites the “modified FIX polypeptide is expressed at a level that reduces and/or prevents hemorrhages.” Ex. 1001, 46:34–36. Because claim 16 depends from claim 1, this means that “treating a coagulopathy” as recited in claim 1 encompasses merely reducing hemorrhages, i.e., partial alleviation of symptoms. Accordingly, based on the intrinsic evidence, including the express definition of the terms “treat” and “treatment,” we construe “treating a coagulopathy” as prophylaxis and/or therapy and/or cure of this coagulopathy which includes partial alleviation of symptoms, for any duration of therapeutic efficacy. We determine that we need not explicitly construe any other claim terms.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, Patent Owner has failed to show that it is entitled to a presumption of a nexus between the objective evidence and the claimed invention. Patent Owner argues that it “need not rely on such presumption [of nexus]” under the Polaris and Fox Factory analysis. PO Resp. 67. Although Patent Owner does not fully explain its position, we note that Fox Factory provides, “[a] finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; rather, “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Fox Factory, 994 F.3d at 1374 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, we find that Patent Owner presents insufficient evidence to establish a nexus by this alternative route. Patent Owner does not present argument as to the “unique characteristics” of the claimed invention, or provide evidence to support such an analysis. See PO Resp. 66–67; PO Sur-reply 26–28. In addition, as discussed above, Patent Owner’s evidence is broadly directed to FIX- R338L, which was in the prior art and does not suggest non-obviousness of the claimed invention as a whole. In summary, Patent Owner does not meet its burden to show a presumption of nexus or show a nexus to the alleged long-felt need for an effective gene therapy for hemophilia B, industry praise, and unexpectedly superior efficacy of AAV-FIX-R338L. Weighing the evidence and arguments presented, we determine that even if there is some nexus, it is weak. See Merck & Cie, 808 F.3d at 837 (Where objective indicia “result[ ] from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.”). The failure to show a nexus is fatal to Patent Owner’s contentions regarding objective indicia.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We also find Dr. Pedersen’s opinion with regard to a leucine substitution in FIX-R338 more credible than Dr. Spiegel’s, who states “there is no such thing as ‘conservative amino acid substitutions’ in the sense Dr. Pedersen asserts.” Ex. 2101 ¶ 72. The ’248 patent itself refers to “conservative amino acid substitutions” and states “[i]t is expected that substitutions between these homologous amino acids [including alanine and leucine] would not change the phenotype of the proteins.” Ex. 1001, 4:48– 61. Although Dr. Spiegel notes that substitution is context dependent and “the specification recognizes ... various properties of each unique amino acid all contribute to the amino acid’s interactions” (Ex. 2101 ¶ 75, citing Ex. 1001, 4:48–61; Ex. 1002, 4:45–58; Ex. 1039, 51), his opinions do not account for the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as to the properties of alanine and leucine and the structure of FIX. See Ex. 1101 ¶¶ 36–39. Further, Dr. Spiegel’s surface-exposure opinion (see, e.g., Ex. 2101 ¶ 99) is undercut by Stafford’s teaching that the 330–338 region of wild-type FIX contains two solvent-exposed leucines. Ex. 1101 ¶ 41 (citing Ex. 1004, 34). Dr. Spiegel’s opinion that a leucine substitution would reduce solubility or increase susceptibility to aggregation also lacks credibility because it is based on the protein hemoglobin S, and not on a modification to FIX positions 330–338. Ex. 2101 ¶ 62; Ex. 1103, 78:15–18; see Ex. 1101 ¶ 60. We also do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had serious concerns whether R338L would be expressed, based on Stafford. As discussed above, Stafford discloses successful expression of R338A in vitro, and as Dr. Wang explains, the understanding of a person of ordinary skill of similarities between R338A and R338L would have supported the understanding that R338L would express at a similar level to R338A, given Stafford’s disclosure that only R338P showed reduced expression, and unlike leucine, “proline is a known ‘helix breaker.’” Ex. 1004, 14–15; Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 113– 116. Stafford’s disclosure that mutations at 330–337 cause severe hemophilia due to loss of FIX activity (Ex. 1004, 19:16–20) does not support Patent Owner’s argument, because Patent Owner’s experts do not persuasively explain why the risk of severe hemophilia from single amino acid substitutions at positions 330–337 would be predictive of a similar risk at position 338. See Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 115–119; Ex. 1101 ¶¶ 48–51. As such, we agree with Dr. Wang that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected difficulties in expression of R338L.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 9,982,248 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,982,248
• New World Medical, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00066 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 are anticipated by Quintana and obvious over Quintana; the Board did not reach the Jacobi ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner filed a motion to exclude evidence (Paper 38); Petitioner opposed (Paper 41); and Patent Owner filed a reply in support of its motion (Paper 43). Petitioner also filed a motion to exclude evidence (Paper 39); Patent Owner opposed (Paper 40); and Petitioner filed a reply in support of its motion (Paper 42). We addressed (and denied) the parties’ motions to exclude in Paper 49.” slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “We “conclude[d] that the better course is to have a complete record of the evidence,” and, therefore, denied Petitioner’s Motion, but also explained that “to the extent that Dr. Condon’s testimony and Patent Owner’s reliance thereon ventures into areas the witness has conceded he either does not understand or has inadequately analyzed,” we would accord it little weight, as distinguished “from that relating to Dr. Condon’s technical expertise in, for example, anatomy, eye surgery, and his own reading of evidence.” Order 13. Therefore, it is through this lens that we consider and analyze Dr. Condon’s testimony here.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). On page 18 of our Institution Decision, we provisionally accepted Petitioner’s proposed definition, which was not opposed by Patent Owner, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’544 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)). As Patent Owner expressly agrees with our analysis, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition here. See PO Resp. 11, n.4. C.” slip op. at 25

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

    “1. “A device useable to create an opening in the trabecular meshwork of the eye” Independent claim 1 is directed to “[a] device useable to create an opening in the trabecular meshwork of the eye” and having a “foot member . . . advanceable, tip first, through Schlemm’s Canal to facilitate performance of a surgical procedure using the surgical instrument.” Ex. 1001, 23:4–5, 23:18–20. As an initial matter, we consider the preamble of claim 1 limiting here because a device that “create[s] an opening in the trabecular meshwork” recites or, at a minimum, implies, “essential structure or steps” required for the insertion and advancement of the instrument through Schlemm’s Canal as set forth in [1.d]. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).8” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,999,544 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,999,544
• Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01771 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Kabbinavar and over the 2000 Press Release; anticipation by Kabbinavar was not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “summarized above, we conclude that Kabbinavar fails to disclose “assessing the patient for gastrointestinal perforation” as required by the challenged claims. In making this determination, we note that Kabbinavar expressly states that the patients enrolled in the disclosed study underwent regular “baseline tumor assessments [that] included a chest x-ray, abdominal and pelvis computed tomography [(“CT”)] scans.” Ex. 1005 at 3–4. We are not, however, persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that “Kabbinavar teaches that the subjects receiving bevacizumab underwent regular CT scans that the Skilled Artisan would have understood (1) were performed to determine whether the subjects were experiencing any GI injury including GI perforation and (2) would have detected signs of GI perforation.” Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 26–29; Ex. 1026, 39:6–16) (emphasis added). Rather, we find that Kabbinavar expressly discloses that the CT scans were performed for the purposes of tumor assessment, and not for assessing the patient for GI perforation. While it is undisputed that CT scans of the abdominal and pelvis, such as those performed in Kabbinavar, are capable of detecting GI perforation (Ex. 1025 ¶ 26; Ex. 1026, 39:6–16; Ex. 1022; Ex. 1023; Ex. 1027, 55:1–57:4), the evidence of record supports a finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art looking for a GI perforation would have performed different steps that are not necessarily taken in cases where GI perforation is not suspected, such as in the case of performing baseline tumor assessments (or tumor staging). Here, we credit the testimony of Dr. Levy, Professor of Radiology at Georgetown University Medical Center, who testified that, where a patient is suspected to have GI perforation, a radiologist would use particular contrast agents and would use a setting known as a “lung window,” a setting that is better suited to detect the presence of free air and to more easily identify the location of the perforation. Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 24–35. In contrast, the record fails to establish that the same or equivalent steps would necessarily be used where a radiologist was performing baseline tumor assessments. See Reply 14–17; Ex. 1026, 53:8–60:17. Accordingly, based on the evidence of record, we conclude that the use of a CT scan in the manner disclosed in Kabbinavar would not have necessarily confirmed the presence or absence of GI perforation. That is, while a CT scan is capable of assessing a patient for GI perforation, Petitioner failed to show that the patients discussed in Kabbinavar necessarily underwent an evaluation to determine if those patients had GI perforation. As such, we find that Kabbinavar fails to explicitly or inherently disclose the requirement for “assessing the patient for gastrointestinal perforation.”” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would have had adequate reason to assess patients with colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapeutic agents, such as the patients disclosed in Kabbinavar and the 2000 Press Release, for GI perforation. In reaching this conclusion, we credit the testimony of Dr. Neugut that the standard of care and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have guided a physician to assess patients receiving bevacizumab for GI perforation. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92–108; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 35–40. We are persuaded that such an assessment necessarily begins with evaluating patients for symptoms of GI perforation, such as nausea and abdominal pain, and in the event of a showing of such signs, a physician would have assessed the patient for GI perforation. Id. at ¶¶ 92–94. Guiding that physician would have been the knowledge that GI cancers and systemic chemotherapy each were known to be causally related to GI perforation. Pet. 48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91, 96-99; Ex. 1025 ¶ 39; Ex. 1027, 64:1–24; Ex. 1026, 95:18–96:17; Ex. 1007, 9 (“ask if the patient has recently received chemotherapy as this may cause perforation by weakening the bowel wall at a site of tumor.”). The physician would have known that GI perforation was associated with a high rate of death, and thus the physician would have been particularly concerned with a life-threatening complication such as GI perforation. Pet. 47; Ex. 1002 ¶ 90; Ex. 1007, 11. The physician would have also known that chemotherapy promotes GI injury by killing tumor cells and effectively eroding away the tumor as well as by killing epithelial cells that line the gut wall. Pet. 48; Reply 23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98–101; Ex. 1025 ¶ 39; Ex. 1009, 5; Ex. 1010, 3; Ex. 1013, 2. Finally, the physician would have known that the protein VEGF promotes GI injury repair and that a VEGF-neutralizing antibody, such as bevacizumab, could impair the ability of VEGF to promote GI injury repair and thus potentially exacerbate GI tissue injury caused by chemotherapy. Reply 23; Ex. 1002 ¶ 82; Ex. 1025 ¶ 39; Ex. 1008, 3, 8–9.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We further note that secondary consideration have not been asserted in this case.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,622,115 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,622,115

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.