• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01264 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhang and Ding, and over Zhang, Ding, and Sun.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claims 1 and 5 recite “therein,” not “throughout.” The term “therein” means “in there” (i.e., in the first film). That readily apparent meaning unmistakably was conveyed by the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 5–7 (rejecting Patent Owner’s attempt to read “therein” as “throughout.”). As further conveyed by our Institution Decision, Patent Owner’s attempt to incorporate “a mixture” into the limitation is another, unsupported, mechanism that would require nitrogen throughout. See id.” slip op. at 10

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

    “not adopted. First, Patent Owner proposes to substitute “non-crystalline” for “amorphous.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2003; Ex. 2008). Although both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence are probative that “amorphous” and “crystalline” are antonyms, the ’324 patent uses the term “amorphous” dozens of times and not once uses the term “non-crystalline.” Further, the meaning of the term “amorphous” is readily apparent in light of the specification; there is no need for extrinsic evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (Extrinsic evidence “is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is especially so here because the asserted prior art provides an in haec verba disclosure of the “amorphous” aspect of this limitation. See Ex. 1005, 3:39–41 (Ding teaching that the tantalum nitride (TaNx) layer is “amorphous”). In fact, Patent Owner’s proposed construction would not clarify what “amorphous” means; rather, it appears to be a vehicle by which Patent Owner would add a negative limitation prohibiting any portion of the second film being crystalline. See PO Resp. 16 (“As the specification and claims of the patent clearly distinguish between crystalline and amorphous materials and their different characteristics in a barrier film, a second film consisting essentially of amorphous metal nitride requires amorphous metal nitride throughout, and not merely a portion or portions of the film.”). Such a negative limitation is not part of the claim. Second, Patent Owner proposes to substitute “compound containing nitrogen” for “nitride.” Id. (citing Ex. 2004; Ex. 2009; Ex. 2011 ¶¶71–74). Although Patent Owner persuades us that a nitride is a compound containing nitrogen, there is no need to explicitly construe the limitation. The plain and ordinary meaning of “nitride” in light of the specification is readily apparent, and there can be no reasonable dispute in this inter partes review as to whether the “nitride” aspect of this limitation is taught by the asserted prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 6:64 (disclosing a “TaNx/Ta barrier layer structure”), 3:27 (designating “TaNx” as meaning “tantalum nitride”). Further, if we were to substitute the words “compound containing nitrogen” for “nitride,” we would introduce yet another transitional phrase— “containing”—into the claim. Doing so would obfuscate what the prior transitional phrase (i.e., “composed of,” which, at Patent Owner’s urging, we have construed to mean “consisting essentially of”) modifies.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the art. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an equivalent of a Master of Science degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, materials science, or physics, or the equivalent, a working knowledge of semiconductor processing technologies for integrated circuits, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor processing analysis, design, and development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶64). Patent Owner argues that such an individual would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Materials, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering, or a related degree, and at least two years of experience working in semiconductor processing and fabrication, semiconductor equipment manufacturing, or semiconductor materials.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶24). Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. 2. Disclosure of Zhang Zhang discloses a semiconductor device that includes a two-layered” slip op. at 16

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

    “To meet the limitations specifying that the first film is crystalline and the second film is amorphous, Petitioner cites Ding’s explicit teaching of a two-layered barrier film with a bottom layer being amorphous tantalum nitride and a top layer being crystalline tantalum. See, e.g., Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:39–41, 8:1–4). Petitioner argues that a combination of teachings from Zhang and Ding renders the claims obvious. See, e.g., Pet. 24–26, 30–34. In particular, Petitioner argues, with supporting testimony from Dr. Banerjee, that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to use crystalline and amorphous top and bottom films for the films 32 and 22 in Zhang’s barrier structure, in view of Ding, to achieve” certain advantages noted in the prior art. Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶92–96). For example, Petitioner notes that Ding “discloses the desirability of using an amorphous TaNx layer as the bottom layer, so the TaNx is ‘sufficiently amorphous to prevent the diffusion of copper into underlying silicon or silicon oxide surfaces.’” Id. at 24 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:39–41 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Similarly, Petitioner notes that Ding “also discloses the desirability of using a crystalline metal film ‘having a tantalum <002> crystalline orientation’ as a top film in the two-layer diffusion barrier because the crystalline orientation ‘enables easy wetting of the tantalum surface by the copper and 13 Petitioner’s claim 5 arguments largely—and, in all relevant aspects, exclusively—rely on its claim 1 arguments. See Pet. 44–46. Hereafter, we cite to only its claim 1 arguments. depositing of a copper layer having a high <111> crystal orientation.’” Id. at 25 (quoting Ex. 1005, 8:1–4). Petitioner further argues that such a combination of teachings would have been obvious because it would have achieved these predictable results (i.e., an amorphous layer to prevent copper diffusion and a crystalline layer to promote copper adhesion) through known techniques. Id. at 32–34. Specifically, Petitioner notes that Zhang and Ding teach similar sputter-deposition processes for forming the top and bottom films. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:21–50; Ex. 1005, 6:63–7:29; Ex. 1003 ¶98); see also PO Resp. 46 (Patent Owner acknowledging that “Zhang and Ding disclose similar sputtering processes.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,538,324 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,538,324
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 and proposed claims 11–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Ding and Zhang; proposed claim 13 is patentable and allowed by amendment.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “essentially of” for “being composed of.” PO Resp. 11 (citing AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). In AFG, the Court noted that, “[i]n 1942, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals [had] stated that ‘“composed of” should be regarded as synonymous with “consisting of.”’” AFG, 239 F.3d at 1245 (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d 1014, 1019 (CCPA 1942)). However, as further explained in AFG, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals had “qualified this statement . . . by remarking that ‘the words “composed of” may under certain circumstances be given, in patent law, a broader meaning than “consisting of.”’” Id. (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d at 1020). The Court in AFG ultimately construed “composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of.” Id. (“[W]e do agree based on the specification and other evidence before us that the term ‘composed of’ in this case is not completely closed. Rather, we think that ‘composed of’ in this case should be interpreted in the same manner as ‘consisting essentially of.’”). Thus, “composed of” means either “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of.” Id. The term “consisting of” prohibits any 4 <111> and <002> are indices that pertain to an orientation or direction of crystals. Ex. 1003 ¶51. unspecified components. Id. (citing PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The term “consisting essentially of” prohibits only unspecified components that materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of a claimed invention. Id. (citing Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). By arguing that “being composed of” means “consisting essentially of” as opposed to “consisting of,” Patent Owner argues for broader claim scope. For purposes of this Decision, we construe “being composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of,” as Patent Owner argues.5 In conclusion, we construe “first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 5, to mean “first film consisting essentially of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein.”6” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an equivalent of a Master of Science degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, materials science, or physics, or the equivalent, a working knowledge of semiconductor processing technologies for integrated circuits, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor processing analysis, design, and development.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶64). Patent Owner argues that such an individual would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Materials, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering, or a related degree, and at least two years of experience working in semiconductor processing and fabrication, semiconductor equipment manufacturing, or semiconductor materials.” PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶24). Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “As to Petitioner’s predictable-results assertion, Petitioner persuasively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to the crystalline tantalum layer of Ding for three independent reasons. First, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would make it more easily removable by chemical mechanical polishing (“CMP”), which removal by polishing both Zhang and Ding teach to do. Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34–37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63). Second, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion. Id. at 26–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶144–146; Ex. 1023, 8). Third, Petitioner argues that adding a small amount of nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would reduce its resistivity, which was known to help reduce a device’s power consumption and RC delays. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶147; Ex. 1015, 81 (Table 1)). Patent Owner counters that none of these purportedly predictable results are realistic. PO Resp. 46–52. With respect to the first reason offered by Petitioner (to make the first film more susceptible to CMP), Patent Owner argues that: (A) adding only “[a] small amount of nitrogen” to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would not change its CMP characteristics; and (B) “[a]dding significant amounts of nitrogen” would result in Ding’s previously crystalline layer becoming amorphous. Id. at 48. Patent Owner does not disclose what it considers “small” and “significant” amounts of nitrogen. Id. As a result, we cannot apply Patent Owner’s argument (even if it were persuasive) to the facts before us. Also, Patent Owner’s argument is based exclusively on declaration testimony that does not cite to any underlying evidence, let alone documentary evidence. See id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶190–98). In contrast, Petitioner’s argument is supported by declaration testimony, which, in turn, is based on underlying evidence, including documentary evidence. See Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34– 37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63); see also Ex. 1003 ¶139. With respect to the second reason offered by Petitioner (to inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion), Patent Owner argues that, in Petitioner’s asserted combination, “there would be no nitrogen to provide any copper diffusion benefit.” PO Resp. 49. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Zhang teaching exclusively an upper surface of pure tantalum. Id. But, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may have a nitrogen content of, for example, 1%, 2%, 3%, or 4%. See Ex. 1004, 3:59–62 (“At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”). With respect to the third reason offered by Petitioner (to reduce resistivity), Patent Owner argues that adding nitrogen would actually increase resistivity. As pointed out by Petitioner, however, Patent Owner’s declarant, Harlan R. Harris, Ph.D., conceded that adding nitrogen does lower resistivity. Reply 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1036, 125:3–20). Dr. Harris testified as follows: Q. When the nitrogen flow ratio is zero in the ’324 patent, and the power is kept constant, wouldn’t that result in a film that could be pure tantalum? A. All three of those data points are at the exact same position on the graph. The N2 concentration, which is the numerator of the ratio, is set at zero. And in this particular position, the nitrogen concentration would be assumed to be zero in the film. Q. So is it within the scope of what’s taught in the ’324 patent to have a film that would have no nitrogen at all? A. It’s also apparent to anyone who is examining this of skill in the art that you can decrease from that number, which is favorable in terms of the value of resistivity by adding flow rate in the data points for all of the positions greater than zero. So you decrease resistivity by the addition of any amount of nitrogen, therefore, a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to not have nitrogen, based on this data. Q. You’re referring to the decrease in resistivity as nitrogen is added? A. Yes. Q. Which is desirable? A. You want the resistivity to go down. Ex. 1036, 124:15–125:20. We are satisfied by each of Petitioner’s proffered reasons for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer, as taught by Zhang. Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 5 would have been obvious over Ding and Zhang.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable because they introduce limitations—nitrogen throughout the first film (claim 11) and nitrogen at the upper surface of the first film (claim 12)—that are met by the very references asserted in the ground of unpatentability involved in this inter partes review. Patent Owner’s Motion to substitute claims 11 and 12 is premised, incorrectly, on Zhang requiring pure tantalum (and, thus, no nitrogen) at the upper surface of its tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film. In fact, Zhang does not require any portion of the tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film to be pure tantalum. Ex. 1004, 3:53–54 (“The tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film has a range of approximately 0-30 atomic percent nitrogen.”). And, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may include nitrogen. Id. at 3:57– 62 (“A lower atomic percent nitrogen at the upper surface typically gives better adhesion to copper films. At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”); Ex. 1036, 40:1–6, 42:2–9, 42:15–21, 54:14–20 (Dr. Harris acknowledging that the upper surface of the film would contain some nitrogen). Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are not patentable over the art of record in this inter partes review. Put another way, and as Petitioner argues, claims 11 and 12 (like challenged claim 5) are unpatentable as they claim subject matter that would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); Amend Opp. 6–7 (“The instituted obviousness ground[] based on Zhang and Ding already include[s] the newly-added limitations Patent Owner seeks to add in its Substitute Claims 11–13. Thus, the Substitute Claims 11–13 remain unpatentable over each of the instituted grounds.”).14 Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is denied with respect to claims 11 and 12.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,538,324 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,538,324
• CSL Behring GmbH / CSL Behring LLC v. Shire Viropharma Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2017 · IPR2017-01512 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1-18: Schranz was not shown to be prior art, and the Jiang ground was denied under §325(d) because the same art and arguments were previously presented.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “may request to cancel . . . claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Before considering the ground before us based on Schranz, we must address whether Petitioner has provided a sufficient threshold showing that Schranz constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102—a legal question based on underlying factual determinations. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “As was the case in Dep’t of Justice, the use of a joint declaration “invites innumerable practical difficulties in cross-examining the witnesses, in assessing the reliability of the statements made, and in evaluating the weight to be accorded to the opinions expressed.” Dep’t of Justice 10. For example, Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser declare in “our recollection.” Ex. 1013-A ¶ 4. It is unclear how two different declarants can have the same “recollection.” In addition, the declarants state that “[h]andouts of the poster . . . [were] picked up by us.” Id. ¶ 5. It is unclear from the Joint Declaration, however, if both declarants were together when the hand-out was picked-up, or if each declarant picked up the handout at separate times. We, therefore, afford the Joint Declaration of Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser little weight. See Dep’t of Justice 11. As it is the primary evidence on which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Schranz is prior art, we determine that Petitioner has not made a threshold showing that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent. As Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 1‒18 are rendered obvious by the combination of Schranz (as evidenced by Cinryze Label and Bock), Gatlin, Pharming, and Levi.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “In the instant proceeding, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is essentially making the same arguments as to obviousness over Jiang that the Examiner already considered. The prosecution history demonstrates that the Examiner considered many of the same issues with respect to the Schranz Declaration as Petitioner is arguing here. Although the Examiner noted in allowing the claims that Applicant Shire had established the secondary consideration of long-felt need and failure of others, the Examiner also stated that the art did not suggest the claimed dosage. We determine, therefore, that the Examiner did address the Schranz Declaration, and the Examiner’s concerns are similar to those raised by Petitioner in the instant proceeding. That is, as the Examiner stated: The Examiner has considered the arguments found in Dr. Schranz’s declaration concerning difficulty in higher concentration formulation. However, Dr. Schranz’s declaration provides little more than an assertion that it is difficult to reach such a concentration formulation, as opposed to actual evidence establishing that this (1) was a recognized problem in the art and (2) was generally not achievable via other means. Ex. 1001-B, 3041. Thus, the Examiner did acknowledge the lack of supporting evidence in the Schranz Declaration demonstrating that it was difficult to reach the claimed concentration.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “As was the case in Dep’t of Justice, the use of a joint declaration “invites innumerable practical difficulties in cross-examining the witnesses, in assessing the reliability of the statements made, and in evaluating the weight to be accorded to the opinions expressed.” Dep’t of Justice 10. For example, Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser declare in “our recollection.” Ex. 1013-A ¶ 4. It is unclear how two different declarants can have the same “recollection.” In addition, the declarants state that “[h]andouts of the poster . . . [were] picked up by us.” Id. ¶ 5. It is unclear from the Joint Declaration, however, if both declarants were together when the hand-out was picked-up, or if each declarant picked up the handout at separate times. We, therefore, afford the Joint Declaration of Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser little weight. See Dep’t of Justice 11. As it is the primary evidence on which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Schranz is prior art, we determine that Petitioner has not made a threshold showing that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent. As Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 1‒18 are rendered obvious by the combination of Schranz (as evidenced by Cinryze Label and Bock), Gatlin, Pharming, and Levi.” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,616,111
• Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00922 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–9, 11–19, and 21 unpatentable as obvious over Reed and Nishida because it did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “appropriate factors identified by our reviewing court and utilized by other panels to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 17–18. We agree with Petitioner that it is not necessary to consider every factor or to weigh the factors equally in order to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 2 (quoting In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Here, we may rely on Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 34) and the teachings of the prior art to evaluate Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In particular, Reed and Nishida identify the types of problems encountered in the art prior art solutions to these problems, and the sophistication of the technology. E.g., Ex. 1006, 1:13–55; Ex. 1009, 1:10– 36; see, e.g., Ex. 1007, 1:8–32, 2:12–64; Ex. 1008, 1:11–54; Ex. 1010, 145– 160; see also Ex. 1010, Preface (“The aim of this book is to combine in a single volume the fundamental principles of weft and warp knitting in such a manner that its contents are useful to readers in education, industry or commerce. It thus [fulfills] the long felt need for a comprehensive up-to-date textbook explaining this important sector of textile technology.”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “unitary construction” means “a textile element having a unitary construction and having a first area and a second area.” Pet. 6. As Petitioner notes, this is the construction that this panel gave to the same term appearing in the substitute claims of the ’011 patent. adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Case IPR2013- 00067, slip op. at 16–17 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2014) (Paper 60). We further note that the ’749 patent’s Specification provides that “[a]s defined for purposes of the present invention, unitary construction is intended to express a configuration wherein portions of a textile element are not joined together by seams or other connections, as depicted with textile element 40 in FIG. 8.” Ex. 1001, 6:42–46 (emphasis added); see IPR2013-00067, Ex. 1002, 6:41–46 (identical disclosure). The ’011 patent and the ’749 patent share the same Specification (apart from their claims), neither party contested our construction of this term in the appeal of our decision in the inter partes review of the claims of the ’011 patent, and Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term in this proceeding. Therefore, in view of the express definition of the phrase “unitary construction” in the Specification of the ’749 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation for this term. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 12

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

    “2. “wide-tube circular knitting machine” (Claims 9 and 19) We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “wide-tube circular knitting machine” is “a circular knitting machine forming body garment sized, tubular textile structures, including those having a diameter that ranges from 10 inches to 20 inches.” See Inst. Dec. 9–11. Neither party contests this construction. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 13

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

    “8 Patent Owner contends that Reed is not analogous art. PO Resp. 34–36. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Reed is not from the same field of endeavor as the challenged claims and that Reed’s teachings are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the recited methods are involved. Id. at 34–35. Because Reed is directed to the manufacture of all types of garments, including footwear (Reply 12–13; see Ex. 1006, 1:33–44), and Reed is related directly to preparation of garments layouts from a knitted textile structure (Reply 14–15; see Ex. 1006, 2:29– 35), we are persuaded that Reed is analogous art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00921 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–13 unpatentable as obvious over Reed and Nishida because it did not show a reason to combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Initially, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to consider appropriate factors identified by our reviewing court and utilized by other panels to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 12–13. We agree with Petitioner that it is not necessary to consider every factor or to weigh the factors equally in order to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 2 (quoting In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Here, we may rely on Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 34) and the teachings of the prior art to evaluate Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In particular, Reed and Nishida identify the types of problems encountered in the art prior art solutions to these problems, and the sophistication of the technology. E.g., Ex. 1006, 1:13–55; Ex. 1009, 1:10– 36; see, e.g., Ex. 1007, 1:8–32, 2:12–64; Ex. 1008, 1:11–54; Ex. 1010, 145– 160; see also Ex. 1010, Preface (“The aim of this book is to combine in a single volume the fundamental principles of weft and warp knitting in such a manner that its contents are useful to readers in education, industry or commerce. It thus [fulfills] the long felt need for a comprehensive up-to-date textbook explaining this important sector of textile technology.”). Patent Owner contends that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “low” (PO Resp. 13), but it is not clear whether Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner’s assessment is deficient because Petitioner fails to argue that a person possessing such a “low” level of ordinary skill in the art also would have “experience using knitting technologies to create knitted footwear uppers” (id. at 13–14) or whether the inclusion of such skill would raise the “low” level of skill in the art (id. at 14). Alternatively, Patent Owner may merely be contending that Petitioner’s declarant fails to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 14 (“If it was too ‘dangerous’ for Mr. Holden with his nearly forty years of experience, a person with just a “few years of experience” would not have had any knitting experience, let alone experience using knitting technologies to create uppers.”); see Tr. 62:17–22. Patent Owner is not required to help us assess the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not do so here. See PO Resp. 18 (“Petitioner may criticize NIKE for not submitting an expert declaration. But it is Petitioner’s burden to prove unpatentability; it is not NIKE’s burden to prove patentability.”). In response to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner argues that the level of ordinary skill in the art is not low and that hands-on knitting experience is not required. Reply 2–3. Petitioner further argues Patent Owner has not required knitting experience in its previous assessment with respect to a related patent of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing IPR2013-00067, Ex. 2010 ¶ 52). Based on the record before us and to the extent necessary, we again adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Inst. Dec. 8 n.3.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “document.” Reply 3 (quoting Ex. 2004, 12:7–11); see Ex. 2004, 12:12– 13:16. Declarants often have assistance in authoring their declarations. See Square, Inc. v. Think Computer Corp., Case CBM2014-00159, slip op. at 26–27 (PTAB Nov. 27, 2015) (Paper 47) (“the mechanics of declaration preparation is ‘a waste of time, both for the witness and the Board’”). Mr. Holden was not required to be the sole author of his declaration. Rather, the relevant issue regarding the preparation of Mr. Holden’s declaration is whether Mr. Holden adopted the content of his declaration as his own. Here, he has. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3, 4, 209. As Patent Owner suggests, we weigh Mr. Holden’s declaration testimony in light of his testimony on cross-examination. Although Mr. Holden indicated that he was unable to define or was unfamiliar with certain terms during cross-examination, he did name references, including Spencer (Ex. 1010), that he could and would consult to obtain the answers to specific questions. Tr. 63:20–64:13. Moreover, Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged that persons of ordinary skill in the art (or declarants) do not have to have all of the knowledge relevant to their testimony in their heads and that they are allowed to consult references, as appropriate. Id. at 63:20– 64:2. Although Patent Owner notes that Mr. Holden apparently was not aware of Spencer until this inter partes review (see Ex. 2004, 77:1–3; Tr. 64:1–6), his learning of and relying on a new reference alone is not sufficient reason to disregard, i.e., give no weight to, Mr. Holden’s testimony. Further, the issue here is not whether Mr. Holden is a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather whether his testimony is of value to the panel. See Tr. 64:15– 18. Thus, as indicated in the discussion below, we determine the appropriate weight to give to Mr. Holden’s testimony.” slip op. at 31

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

    “8 Patent Owner contends that Reed is not analogous art. PO Resp. 29–31. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Reed is not from the same field of endeavor as the challenged claims and that Reed’s teachings are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the recited methods are involved. Id. at 29–30. Because Reed is directed to the manufacture of all types of garments, including footwear (Reply 12–14; see Ex. 1006, 1:33–44), and Reed is related directly to preparation of garments layouts from a knitted textile structure (Reply 14–15; see Ex. 1006, 2:29– 35), we are persuaded that Reed is analogous art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 17

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

    “i. Failure of Proof Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. This includes demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Reed and Nishida to achieve the methods recited in the challenged claims. As noted above, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least three reasons to combine the teachings of Reed and Nishida to achieve the methods recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 12–14; see Tr. 10:12–11:12. First, Petitioner argues that, because Reed teaches that its methods are applicable to “all types of garments” (Ex. 1006, 5:56–57 (emphasis added); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 131), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply the teachings of Reed to the processes and shoe parts of Nishida. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 133). Second, Petitioner argues that, because both Reed and Nishida teach the advantages of reducing cost through the use of computer-controlled knitting machines, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine their teachings. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 134–135). Third, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Reed’s methods for producing textile elements, from which to produce garments, to produce Nishida’s shoe upper patterns. Id. at 13–14; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. However, none of these reasons or any other reason identified by Petitioner addresses the differences between Reed and Nishida, specifically pre-seaming.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 7,814,598 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,814,598
• Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01256 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–15 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving anticipation by Rodgers or obviousness over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (stating Director has delegated institution authority to Board). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–15 of the ’149 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of those claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “15, 2012, would have had a “master’s degree or a Ph.D. in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical sciences, physical organic chemistry or a related discipline,” or a lesser degree with more experience.” slip op. at 6

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

    “unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming applicability of broadest reasonable construction standard to inter partes review proceedings). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “2. Analysis Anticipation requires that “each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Anticipation may arise where a reference describes a “definite and limited class,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would “at once envisage each member of this limited class.” In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,249,149
• Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 11, 2017 · IPR2017-00935 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8–11, 13, 17–24, 26–28, 43, 46, 49, 50, and 52–62 of U.S. Patent No. 8,354,726 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’726 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we have decided not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “limitation of claim 1. Petitioner does not point to any express disclosure in the Intel 90 nm Report of the relevant distance and thicknesses, instead relying on averages of various measurements made by Dr. Fair. See Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–99. Petitioner and Dr. Fair, however, do not explain any basis for why it is appropriate to rely on averages of measurements of different components at different locations—as opposed to actual measurements of each component asserted to be the “first gate electrode,” “auxiliary pattern,” “first side-wall insulating film,” “second side-wall insulating film,” and “stress-containing insulating film” recited in the claim—for purposes of calculating the distance limitation. For example, Petitioner does not contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have calculated averages and understood the reference to disclose certain values based on such a methodology. “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference,” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and that the claim limitations be “arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim[],” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner’s reliance on averages of various measurements, without any supporting explanation, is insufficient to show that the Intel 90 nm Report discloses the distance limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “D. Other Asserted Grounds (Claims 20, 22, 54, and 56) Petitioner contends that claims 20 and 54 are unpatentable over the Intel 90 nm Report and the Intel IEEE Paper, claims 22 and 56 are unpatentable over the Intel 90 nm Report and Doris, and claims 22 and 56 are unpatentable over the Intel 65 nm Report and Doris, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 77–83. Claims 20 and 22 depend from claim 1, and claims 54 and 56 depend from claim 43. Petitioner does not argue that the distance limitation of claims 1 and 43 is taught by the Intel IEEE Paper or Doris, alone or in combination with the Intel reports. Id. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted grounds for the reasons explained above with respect to parent claims 1 and 43. See supra Sections II.B, II.C.” slip op. at 18

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

    “E. Claim Interpretation The Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation standard to be applied in inter partes reviews). The parties do not provide proposed interpretations for any claim terms, but Petitioner refers to a district court decision interpreting certain terms. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1008). For purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim terms require interpretation.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,354,726
• Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00903 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted Cheung- or Chiang-based grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R § 42.108. The Petition is denied.” slip op. at 2

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Independent claims 18 and 35 both recite an “interlayer insulating film.” In Cases IPR2016-01331 and IPR2016-01367, we6 construed “interlayer insulating film” to mean “an insulating film located between but not within other layers.” See, e.g., Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01331, Paper 9), 8. Petitioner applies that construction here, with which Patent Owner agrees. Pet. 33; Prelim. Resp. 10. 6 The instant panel is the same as that in Cases IPR2016-01331 and IPR2016-01367. No other express constructions are necessary for purposes of this” slip op. at 7

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

    “(i.e., “an insulating film located between but not within other layers”). Petitioner does not identify any express disclosure in Cheung that purportedly meets this limitation. Instead, to meet this limitation, Petitioner asserts the following: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] would understand from the disclosure [in Cheung] of a “multilayer interconnect structure” that each layer of interconnects must be separated by an insulating film to ensure interconnects between different layers do not short with one another and to reduce parasitic capacitance between interconnect layers. Ex. 1003, ¶ 48. Although Fig. 2D depicts wires 14 directly on “integrated circuit structure 10,” a POSITA would understand that “integrated circuit structure 10” includes an insulating film (not shown) between the layer of wires 12 and the components of integrated circuit structure 10—i.e., transistor components and lower level interconnects that are in contact with the semiconductor substrate. Ex. 1003, ¶ 62. Pet. 34. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, Cheung neither mentions nor illustrates such an insulating film. Second, even assuming Petitioner is correct that some form of insulation is necessary between copper interconnects 12 and integrated circuit structure 10 in Cheung Figure 2D, it does not follow (as Petitioner implies) that such insulation necessarily would be in the form of an interlayer insulating film. As Patent Owner points out, it could alternatively be in the form of a buried insulating film.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Section V.B. of the Petition begins with arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the asserted references generally, without explaining what teachings within those references would be combined. Pet. 28 (“A POSITA would be motivated to combine Cheung with Chiang and/or Shinoda because each reference focuses on a portion of integrated circuit manufacturing related to fabrication of interconnects, bonding pads, and a moisture-blocking passivating layer, which protects the integrated circuit from the surrounding environment.”), id. (“Chiang, Cheung, and Shinoda all relate to BEOL[7] and a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine them.”), id. at 29 (“A POSITA would be motivated to combine Cheung and Chiang as designing and manufacturing a semiconductor device requires knowledge of both bonding pads for external connection and the various lower layers that comprise a semiconductor device.”). These initial and general arguments are insufficient, as they fail to 7 “The portion of integrated circuit fabrication regarding interconnects, bonding pads, and passivation layers (as opposed to the fabrication of transistors) is called Back-End-of-Line (‘BEOL’).” Pet. 28. identify specific teachings from the asserted references that allegedly would have been combined and what the result of that combination would be.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
• Xilinx, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2017 · IPR2017-00841 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, or 5 were obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’189 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Electronics Terms,2 which defines a “terminal” in the semiconductor device context as “[a]n externally available point of connection to one or more electrodes or elements within the device.” See id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 1351) (emphasis added). Thus, according to Patent Owner, the Specification of the ’189 patent uses the term “terminal,” consistently with the ordinary meaning of the term in the art, as an “electrically conductive portion . . . used to connect to another device.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:9–17, 5:34–38). Patent Owner argues that “the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of ‘connecting terminals’ requires exposed points of connection that allow connection, such as via a solder ball.” Id. (emphasis added). Petitioner has not presented any evidence or argument that the construction of “connecting terminal” should be broader than the ordinary meaning of the term in the art, as discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (“[T]he petition must set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.”). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument and evidence discussed above and, for purposes of this Decision, construe “connecting terminal” to require an externally available/exposed point of connection.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Yamaguchi expressly states that “multi-wiring layer 3 comprises at least one layer of thin film wiring layer 2,” and “[w]hether the multi-layered wiring layer 3 may be formed as a single layer or two or more layers is determined depending on the logic scale of the semiconductor device 9 and the layout therefor, or required high speed signal characteristics.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 60, 99 (emphases added). We discern no suggestion in Yamaguchi to remove entirely the top multi-wiring layer, and are not persuaded by Dr. Qu’s conclusory statement that a “[person of ordinary skill in the art] reading Yamaguchi in view of Lin would have understood the thin film wiring layers 2 over substrate 1 are optional and can be removed as a matter of design choice.” Ex. 1002, claim chart at page 107; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). For the reasons discussed, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to remove top multi-wiring layer 3 on the primary side of substrate 1 of Yamaguchi. Petitioner’s assertions for its alternative theory of obviousness in view of Yamaguchi and Lin are premised on this modification. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 1 and 4 are rendered obvious by the combination of Yamaguchi and Lin, under its second theory, and do not institute review on this asserted ground.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,525,189
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Wockhardt Bio AG et al. v. Astrazeneca ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · IPR2015-01340 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioners failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 unpatentable under the instituted §103 grounds, chiefly because the proposed modifications lacked a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “C. Credibility of the Experts We give more weight to the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weber, over that of Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Rotella, with respect to testimony that is in direct conflict. We favor Dr. Weber’s testimony because of her extensive experience in the design and development of DP 4 inhibitors for type-2 diabetes treatment. See Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 9–12; Ex. 2210, 1– 2. Moreover, Dr. Weber entered the DP 4 field at the relevant time, i.e., the time of invention, around 2000. Ex. 1073, 108:16–21; Tr. 35:16–22. We find that her testimony has been consistent, not just throughout this proceeding, but also with evidence predating this proceeding. See, e.g., Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 88, 115–118; 154–162; Ex. 1073, 51:2–54:14, 113:6–16, 119:19– 121:9; Ex. 2161, 558.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties’ formulations as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar, and neither side identifies with specificity an error in the opposing side’s formulation. See PO Resp. 21; Pet. Reply 10. On the record presented, we hold that the cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves). Specifically, the references are consistent with the parties’ formulations and demonstrate the level of skill in the art. Our determinations regarding the patentability of the challenged claims would remain the same under either side’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 8

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

    “On the full record before us, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a skilled artisan would have chosen Ashworth I’s compound 25 as a “lead compound.” Although Ashworth I indicates that compounds 24–29 were non-toxic in T cell assays up to 72 hours, and further indicates compound 25 was one among four compounds that were comparable to boroprolines, no further data is provided to guide the skilled artisan to select compound 25 among the other 2-cyanopyrrolidides as a lead compound for further modification to develop a DP 4 inhibitor. Ex. 1007, 1165–66. More importantly, the data reported in Ashworth I was based on in vitro data at room temperature, not in vivo data. PO Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2174, 82:23–83:11). Indeed, Dr. Rotella states, “those studies were carried out at room temperature, which is roughly 20 degrees [Celsius]. I’ll point out that body temperature is higher than that, and that temperature has a direct effect on half-life. As you elevate temperature, you can expect half-life to decrease.” Ex. 2174, 82:23-83:11. Dr. Rotella further admits that he is not aware of any disclosure describing testing of Ashworth compounds in humans. Ex. 2174, 60:23-61:9. In addition, Ashworth I acknowledged that these compounds exhibited an intramolecular cyclization problem and that further work on optimization of the pyrrolidine ring was necessary and would be reported shortly. Ex. 1007, 1163–65. Others in the prior art also continued to seek solutions to the problem of intramolecular cyclization, such as those posed by Ashworth I compounds. See PO Resp. 27–28.” slip op. at 16

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

    “(4) No Reasonable Expectation of Increasing Stability We are not persuaded that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving increased stability of Ashworth I’s compound 25 based on Hanessian I’s teachings concerning the cyclopropanation of proline. See Pet. 29. There was no disclosure in the prior art of cylopropanating the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25, or any similar compound. Indeed, Dr. Rotella admitted “that there wasn’t anything in the literature prior to the invention of saxagliptin that actually suggested that cyclopropanation of an Ashworth-One type DPP4 inhibitor would improve its stability.” Ex. 2174, 142:3-9. In addition, there is not sufficient evidence as to how the modified cyano-moiety would have been understood to affect compound 25’s stability. Given the structural differences, we find there is insufficient evidence suggesting that the skilled artisan could have reasonably predicted how cyclopropanating compound 25’s P1 group (as opposed to the proline compound discussed in Hanessian I) would have affected the cyano moiety’s (as opposed to the substituent in Hanessian I) orientation in space. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence as to whether that modified orientation would have sufficiently decreased intramolecular cyclization. Indeed, Dr. Rotella testified that: [I]n the process of that modification of orientation in space [when you fuse two rings together], you may observe effects on potency, you may observe effects on solution stability, you may observe other effects on other properties that one might measure in connection with a drug discovery project. Ex. 2174, 119:10–120:2. When asked, “[a]nd those effects might be either positive or negative; correct?” Dr. Rotella replied, “[t]hey might be, yes.” Ex. 2174, 120:3–5. Dr. Rotella also testified that at the time of the invention, the objective of adding a cyclopropyl substituent to the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25 would have been exploratory. He testified: Q. Well, what is the objective of putting the cyclopropane on the molecule, in your opinion? A. There are two possible objectives based on the data -- there are at least two possible objectives based on the data available surrounding compound 25. Q. And what are they? A. One would be to explore whether or not you could improve potency. A second would be whether or not you could improve solution stability. One might also explore how that -- those changes, either by themselves or in combination with two changes, might also improve or change -- sorry -- to improve solid-state stability. Furthermore, since nothing is known, at least at this point in time, about other properties associated with compound 25, you’d want to understand what those properties were and adjust them as need be. Generally speaking, those properties are things that we call, collectively, pharmaceutical properties. Ex. 2174, 115:11–116:13 (emphasis added). This testimony does not sufficiently support Petitioners’ contention that a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected cyclopropanating the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25 to increase its stability.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,186 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.