- Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01679 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, and 17 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 20–22 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claims 18–19 are obvious over …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“location.” See PO Resp. 21–22; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term “central monitoring device” is not further limited to a device that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 21–22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an open-ended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 20–22; Tr. 38:1–17. Though Patent Owner cites one dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constantly checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear that monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:2–31, 8:57–64. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe “central monitoring device” as “a device that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’901 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:13–23, 2:38–44. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–43. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’901 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’901 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. 3.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 6,225,901 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,225,901 - Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01688 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, and 18 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’403 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’403 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that a central monitoring device/service is a device/service that “watch[es], keep[s] track of, or check[s]” on something “from a central location.” See PO Resp. 21; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term central monitoring device/service is not further limited to a device/service that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 20– 22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an openended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit this claim term in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 19–22; Tr. 38:1–17. The term “central monitoring service” does not appear in the Specification. Though Patent Owner cites a dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constant checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:6–35, 8:63–9:2. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the term central monitoring device/service in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:14–20, 6:42–47, 7:17–25, 7:57–64, 8:28–42); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 21–34. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe central monitoring device/service as a device or service “that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’403 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:17–27, 2:42–48. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–44. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties during the trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers. 4.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 6,940,403 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,940,403 - Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2016-01237 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–44 would have been obvious over Baker, Xu, and Hatke.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,850 B2 (“the ’850 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 1–44 of the ’850 patent on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Braemar Manufacturing, LLC (Patent Owner) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to any challenged claim of the ’850 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Further, a patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was known, independently, in the prior art. Id. at 418. Additionally, we determine Petitioner—by, inter alia, ambiguously referring to disclosures in multiple references individually and in combination—has failed to explain adequately how it is proposing to combine or modify the references’ teachings to arrive at the claimed subject matter of the forty-four challenged claims. See, e.g., Pet. 29 (“Baker or Xu alone, as well as in combination, disclose the broader claim feature and the narrower feature in claims 35 and 41.”) For these reasons, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated there is a reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“display of Hatke’s Figure 6 is “strikingly similar” to that of Figures 2 and 4 of the ’850 patent, with Hatke’s “detected events on top of the trend data instead of below it.” Pet. 43–44. We determine that Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it primarily relies on the purported similarity in appearance of the figures and fails to articulate sufficiently how the prior art suggests the claim limitation. We also agree with Patent Owner that this use of the ’850 patent hints at hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 31 (“Aside from a desire to recreate Figure 2 of the ’850 patent, Petitioner fails to explain why the skilled person would have wanted to do this.”). Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Hatke’s figure is “strikingly similar” to that of the ’850 patent. At most, Hatke’s oxyhemoglobin saturation data has an I-beam shape like that of the ’850 patent’s heart rate. However, Hatke’s histogram showing the quantity of apnea events does not have the appearance of AF burden. Rather, Petitioner is forced to look to a separate figure in Hatke, Figure 7, to find what Petitioner calls “blocks” similar to those of the ’850 patent. Id. at 45–46. Petitioner then proposes modifying Hatke’s Figure 6 by “dumbing [it] down,” apparently proposing to convert the quantities of apnea events to blocks depicting apnea event duration, reasoning that drawing a line for time span was a well-known and intuitive technique to depict time span. Id. at 46; see also id. at 49 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that displaying AF burden merely is drawing AF event time spans as a line). We do not find this persuasive because the fact that one could depict duration as a line does not explain adequately why one would modify Figure 6, even in the context of apnea events. Further, even were we to accept that it first would have been obvious to modify a display related to sleep apnea to arrive at Petitioner’s proposed modified Figure 6, Petitioner fails to explain persuasively why one would have utilized that proposed modified display—which would show oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory effort—as the format to display heart rate and AF burden. Mere similarity of appearance—particularly assuming, as we must, that one of ordinary skill lacks the knowledge of the figures of the ’850 patent—does not point towards an eventual conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightTeaching away not foundNot shown unpatentable
“display of Hatke’s Figure 6 is “strikingly similar” to that of Figures 2 and 4 of the ’850 patent, with Hatke’s “detected events on top of the trend data instead of below it.” Pet. 43–44. We determine that Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it primarily relies on the purported similarity in appearance of the figures and fails to articulate sufficiently how the prior art suggests the claim limitation. We also agree with Patent Owner that this use of the ’850 patent hints at hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 31 (“Aside from a desire to recreate Figure 2 of the ’850 patent, Petitioner fails to explain why the skilled person would have wanted to do this.”). Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Hatke’s figure is “strikingly similar” to that of the ’850 patent. At most, Hatke’s oxyhemoglobin saturation data has an I-beam shape like that of the ’850 patent’s heart rate. However, Hatke’s histogram showing the quantity of apnea events does not have the appearance of AF burden. Rather, Petitioner is forced to look to a separate figure in Hatke, Figure 7, to find what Petitioner calls “blocks” similar to those of the ’850 patent. Id. at 45–46. Petitioner then proposes modifying Hatke’s Figure 6 by “dumbing [it] down,” apparently proposing to convert the quantities of apnea events to blocks depicting apnea event duration, reasoning that drawing a line for time span was a well-known and intuitive technique to depict time span. Id. at 46; see also id. at 49 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that displaying AF burden merely is drawing AF event time spans as a line). We do not find this persuasive because the fact that one could depict duration as a line does not explain adequately why one would modify Figure 6, even in the context of apnea events. Further, even were we to accept that it first would have been obvious to modify a display related to sleep apnea to arrive at Petitioner’s proposed modified Figure 6, Petitioner fails to explain persuasively why one would have utilized that proposed modified display—which would show oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory effort—as the format to display heart rate and AF burden. Mere similarity of appearance—particularly assuming, as we must, that one of ordinary skill lacks the knowledge of the figures of the ’850 patent—does not point towards an eventual conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,212,850 - Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2016-01236 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims 1–28 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the claims were obvious over Baker, Xu, and Hatke.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“limitation would have been obvious in view of the combination of Baker, Xu, and Hatke.”); id. at 26 (“Baker or Xu alone, as well as in combination, disclose the first claim limitation of independent claim 1 and 12.”). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Further, a patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was known, independently, in the prior art. Id. at 418. Petitioner’s discussion of the “subset” feature is an example of a flawed analysis focused on individual elements rather than an ordered whole. Petitioner’s rationale for the combining of Baker and Xu is that Xu “provid[es] an efficient and accurate AF detection algorithm” (Pet. 24) and “because [Xu’s algorithm] has the desirable characteristics of rapidly and accurately detecting AF events with robust anti-noise performance and requires a short amount of computing time” (id. at 31). Although it is not clear as to how Petitioner proposes to modify Baker by Xu, it appears that Petitioner may be proposing to substitute that efficient, rapid, and accurate algorithm into Baker’s system. Xu’s algorithm is efficient and accurate when it is “ready to use.” See Pet. 21. According to Petitioner (see id.), human assessment ceases before the algorithm becomes “ready to use” because human assessment is used only to “train up” the algorithm. Accordingly, the use of Xu’s system, after having been trained up and ready to use, would not involve human assessment of any subset of events identified by the system. Thus, Petitioner’s identification of a “subset” as being that data apparently the subject of one hundred percent human review prior to being “ready to use” (Pet. 40) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reason why one would have combined Baker and Xu. Further, Petitioner’s style of addressing claim terms in a vacuum leaves us unable to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of proving the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious. It is not enough for Petitioner to assert that one or more references disclose a human assessment of a subset of data. See Prelim. Resp. 40. In claim 1, for example, the “subset” is of the “identified AF events,” which ties the subset to the limitation directed to identifying AF events and to the “pictographically presenting” limitation, which is based on the human assessment of the subset of the identified AF events. Petitioner does not adequately explain why or how the three relied-upon references would have been combined or modified such that all of the limitations of the claimed subject matter would have been satisfied at the same time in the same related manner as in the claims. Accordingly, Petitioner does not persuasively articulate an adequate reason why and how the teachings of the three reliedupon references would have rendered obvious the claimed subject matter as a whole.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“display of Hatke’s Figure 6 is “strikingly similar” to that of Figures 2 and 4 of the ’996 patent, with Hatke’s “detected events on top of the trend data instead of below it.” Pet. 41–42. We determine that Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it primarily relies on the purported similarity in appearance of the figures and fails to articulate sufficiently how the prior art suggests the claim limitation. We also agree with Patent Owner that this use of the ’996 patent hints at hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 29 (“Aside from a desire to recreate Figure 2 of the ’996 patent, Petitioner fails to explain why the skilled person would have wanted to do this.”). Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Hatke’s figure is “strikingly similar” to that of the ’996 patent. At most, Hatke’s oxyhemoglobin saturation data has an I-beam shape like that of the ’996 patent’s heart rate. However, Hatke’s histogram showing the quantity of apnea events does not have the appearance of AF burden. Rather, Petitioner is forced to look to a separate figure in Hatke, Figure 7, to find what Petitioner calls “blocks” similar to those of the ’996 patent. Id. at 43–44. Petitioner then proposes modifying Hatke’s Figure 6 by “dumbing [it] down,” apparently proposing to convert the quantities of apnea events to blocks depicting apnea event duration, reasoning that drawing a line for time span was a well-known and intuitive technique to depict time span. Id. at 44; see also id. at 46 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that displaying AF burden merely is drawing AF event time spans as a line). We do not find this persuasive because the fact that one could depict duration as a line does not explain adequately why one would modify Figure 6, even in the context of apnea events. Further, even were we to accept that it first would have been obvious to modify a display related to sleep apnea to arrive at Petitioner’s proposed modified Figure 6, Petitioner fails to explain persuasively why one would have utilized that proposed modified display—which would show oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory effort—as the format to display heart rate and AF burden. Mere similarity of appearance—particularly assuming, as we must, that one of ordinary skill lacks the knowledge of the figures of the ’996 patent—does not point towards an eventual conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,907,996 - PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00554 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ rehearing request, leaving intact its determination that claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over the Advisory Committee Art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party who requests rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. “A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to re-argue old arguments.” Histologics, LLC v. CDX Diagnostics, Inc., Case IPR2014-00779, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (Paper 9). With the aforementioned principles in mind, we address the rehearing arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“and 9; Ex. 2044, 181:1–23; Ex. 2046 ¶¶ 45–49). Though we did not discuss the expert testimony, we considered it. For example, on the same page of testimony cited by Patent Owner, Dr. Valuck testified that the information sufficient to identify a patient is “whatever the pharmacist believes is required to sufficiently identify the patient in their professional judgment.” Ex. 2044, 98:2–16. Even so, our Decision puts primary emphasis on the claim language and relevant description of the “identifying” element in the specification, not the extrinsic expert testimony relied upon by Patent Owner. See Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1012–13 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The legal part of claim construction is the determination of the meaning of the term in the claim in light of the patent’s intrinsic record.”); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that sources outside the specification should not be “used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.”).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for petitioner
“We made clear that the controlling description of the specification outweighed Patent Owner’s argument and supporting evidence that specific types of information are required to be read into the “identifying” element of the claims. Id. (“Thus, we construe ‘prescription requests [for GHB] containing information identifying patients’ to refer to information identifying a patient, which may include [Patent Owner’s specifically listed information], but is not limited to that information nor requires all of that information.”) (emphasis added). We also cited to all of the expert testimony on which Patent Owner relied for its claim construction, as an indication that we considered the testimony. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 2044, 97:11–98:5, 99:18–100:10; Ex. 2046 ¶¶ 39–44). We did the same for the “information identifying . . . any and all medical doctors” language, concluding that: The specification does not suggest that failing to include on the prescription one or more pieces of information from the list of a “medical doctor’s name, license number, DEA number, and physician specialty,” as proposed by Patent Owner, means that a prescription fails to contain information regarding “various credentials,” as recited in the claims.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,668,730 - PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00547 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ rehearing request, leaving claims 1–6 unpatentable as obvious over the Advisory Committee Art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. “A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to re-argue old arguments.” Histologics, LLC v. CDX Diagnostics, Inc., Case IPR2014-00779, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (Paper 9). With the aforementioned principles in mind, we address the rehearing arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“nothing in the specification suggests that excluding one or more pieces of information in the list of a “patient’s name, social security number, date of birth, sex, and complete address information, including city, state and zip code,” as proposed by Patent Owner, means that a prescription fails to contain “information identifying the patient,” as recited in the claims.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,765,107 - PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00551 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ rehearing request, leaving claims 1–15 unpatentable for obviousness over the Advisory Committee Art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party who requests rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. “A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to re-argue old arguments.” Histologics, LLC v. CDX Diagnostics, Inc., Case IPR2014-00779, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (Paper 9). With the aforementioned principles in mind, we address the rehearing arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“PO Resp. 60. We did not find such testimony persuasive, or particularly credible, in view of Korfhage’s express disclosures, Dr. Valuck’s testimony, and Dr. Bergeron’s deposition testimony. Dec. 57–59 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 157; Ex. 1037, 276–77; Ex. 1054, 317:13–320:12; Ex. 2047 ¶ 57–59). Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive given that the ACA drug distribution system was designed to allow a pharmacist to identify and resolve duplicate prescriptions before deciding whether to distribute the drug to a patient (or delete a duplicate caused by data redundancy). Ex. 1003, 184:24–185:7; Ex. 1005, 314 ¶ 6. We also were persuaded by Dr. Valuck’s testimony that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify the ACA system “such that the data stored in the central data repository was distributed across multiple databases, as disclosed by Korfhage in order to accommodate cost, efficiency, and the number of prescription requests and associated data.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 157 (cited at Dec. 57–581).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We also agree with Petitioner that Korfhage does not teach away from the use of distributed databases systems, particularly given the acknowledgement of Dr. Bergeron that Korfhage offered solutions to the problems identified. Id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1037, 276–77; Ex. 1054, 317:13–320:12). We did not overlook or misapprehend Patent Owner’s argument and evidence, rather, we declined to credit them in view of the text of Korfhage, Dr. Valuck’s testimony, and Dr. Bergeron’s deposition testimony. Dec. 56– 59. The pages of Korfhage cited and quoted in our Decision disclose multiple factors “driving information systems to the use of distributed document sets and distributed processing,” and set up “[t]hree major problems” only to discuss “simple solution[s],” a position supported by Dr. Valuck. Dec. 57–59 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 157; Ex. 1037 at 276–77). Under cross-examination by Petitioner’s counsel, Dr. Bergeron readily acknowledged that Korfhage’s discussion of data redundancy and matching document evaluation “problems” were paired with disclosed solutions, which undercut his declaration testimony (Ex. 2047 ¶¶ 56–65) relied upon by Patent Owner. Ex. 1054, 317:13–320:12. Our Decision credits Dr. Bergeron’s deposition testimony, which acknowledges the distributed database system solutions disclosed in Korfhage, rather than the speculative new problems hypothesized in his declaration and Patent Owner’s Response.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“nothing in the specification suggests that excluding one or more pieces of information in the list of a “patient’s name, social security number, date of birth, sex, and complete address information, including city, state, and zip code,” as proposed by Patent Owner, means that a prescription fails to contain “information identifying the patient,” as recited in the claims. Dec. 19 (emphasis added). We made clear that the controlling description of the specification outweighed Patent Owner’s argument and supporting evidence that specific types of information are required to be read into the “identifying” element of the claims. Id. (“Thus, we construe ‘prescription requests [for GHB] containing information identifying patients’ to refer to information identifying a patient, which may include [Patent Owner’s specifically listed information], but is not limited to that information nor requires all of that information.”) (emphasis added). We also cited to all of the expert testimony on which Patent Owner relied for its claim construction, as an indication that we considered the testimony. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 2044, 97:11–98:5, 99:18–100:10; Ex. 2046 ¶¶ 39–44). We did the same for the “information identifying . . . any and all medical doctors” language, concluding that: The specification does not suggest that failing to include on the prescription one or more pieces of information from the list of a “medical doctor’s name, license number, DEA number, and physician specialty,” as proposed by Patent Owner, means that a prescription fails to contain information regarding “various credentials,” as recited in the claims. Id. at 20–21 (citing PO Resp. 33–36; Ex. 1001, 2:22–24, 2:41–42, 4:7–8, 4:8–14, 4:18–20, 4:20–22, 4:7–5:67, 8:4–7, 8:40–44, 10:20–23, Figs. 2A–C, 9; Ex. 2044, 181:1–23; Ex. 2046 ¶¶ 45–49). Though we did not discuss the expert testimony, we considered it. For example, on the same page of testimony cited by Patent Owner, Dr. Valuck testified that the information sufficient to identify a patient is “whatever the pharmacist believes is required to sufficiently identify the patient in their professional judgment.” Ex. 2044, 98:2–16. Even so, our Decision puts primary emphasis on the claim language and relevant description of the “identifying” element in the specification, not the extrinsic expert testimony relied upon by Patent Owner. See Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1012–13 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The legal part of claim construction is the determination of the meaning of the term in the claim in light of the patent’s intrinsic record.”); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that sources outside the specification should not be “used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.”).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,457,988 - PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00545 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and reaffirmed that claims 19–25 are unpatentable as obvious over the Advisory Committee Art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party who requests rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. “A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to re-argue old arguments.” Histologics, LLC v. CDX Diagnostics, Inc., Case IPR2014-00779, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (Paper 9). With the aforementioned principles in mind, we address the rehearing arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“cite to Dr. Bergeron’s Declaration testimony in support. PO Resp. 26–29 (citing Ex. 2047 ¶¶ 27–30); Req. Reh’g 2–5 (citing Ex. 2047 ¶¶ 27–30). Although we did not cite to Dr. Bergeron’s Declaration testimony in our Decision regarding claims 19–25, we did consider Dr. Bergeron’s Declaration testimony. Dec. 2. Dr. Bergeron’s Declaration testimony simply restates Patent Owner’s Response arguments, including the argument that the ACA discloses “the verification is being done by a human, not a computer processor.” Ex. 2047 ¶ 28. We take this opportunity to make explicit that we are not persuaded by Dr. Bergeron’s cited Declaration testimony (Ex. 2047 ¶¶ 27–30) on the issue of whether the ACA discloses or suggests the “verifying” step in claim 19, for the same reasons given in our Decision and above.” slip op. at 7
NonePatents in suitUS 8,589,182 - PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00548 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–16 unpatentable as obvious over the Advisory Committee Art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party who requests rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. “A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to re-argue old arguments.” Histologics, LLC v. CDX Diagnostics, Inc., Case IPR2014-00779, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (Paper 9). With the aforementioned principles in mind, we address the rehearing arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“nothing in the specification suggests that excluding one or more pieces of information in the list of a “patient’s name, social security number, date of birth, sex, and complete address information, including city, state and zip code,” as proposed by Patent Owner, means that a prescription fails to contain “information identifying the patient,” as recited in the claims.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,895,059 - PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00546 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–8 unpatentable as obvious over the Advisory Committee Art under § 103(a).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. “A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to re-argue old arguments.” Histologics, LLC v. CDX Diagnostics, Inc., Case IPR2014-00779, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (Paper 9). With the aforementioned principles in mind, we address the rehearing arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“nothing in the specification suggests that excluding one or more pieces of information in the list of a “patient’s name, social security number, date of birth, sex, and complete address information, including city, state and zip code,” as proposed by Patent Owner, means that a prescription fails to contain “information identifying the patient,” as recited in the claims.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Extrinsic evidence (dictionaries, experts)Decided for petitioner
“Id. at 20–22 (citing PO Resp. 33–36; Ex. 1001, 2:28–30, 47–48, 4:13–6:4, 8:4–7, 40–44, 9:56–60, Figs. 2A–C, 9; Ex. 2044, 181:1–23; Ex. 2046 ¶¶ 45– 49). Though we did not discuss the expert testimony, we considered it. For example, on the same page of testimony cited by Patent Owner, Dr. Valuck testified that the information sufficient to identify a patient is “whatever the pharmacist believes is required to sufficiently identify the patient in their professional judgment.” Ex. 2044, 98:2–16. Even so, our Decision puts primary emphasis on the claim language and relevant description of the “identifying” element in the specification, not the extrinsic expert testimony relied upon by Patent Owner. See Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1012–13 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The legal part of claim construction is the determination of the meaning of the term in the claim in light of the patent’s intrinsic record.”); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that sources outside the specification should not be “used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence”).” slip op. at 6
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,765,106
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.