- Painteq, LLC v. Orthocision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00451 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Vestgaarden-981, Vestgaarden-818, and Lins, with Paltzer additionally applied to claims 6, 7, and 10–23.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is sufficiently supported by the record. Therefore, we apply that understanding in our analysis herein.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that the parties have submitted joint claim construction in the Florida litigation, and asserts that “[t]he grounds set forth in this [P]etition render the challenged claims obvious under either party’s construction.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34; Ex. 1017). Nevertheless, Petitioner urges that “express construction is not necessary.” Id. at 7. We agree that no express construction is required for this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Figures 30, 32A and 32B in the Specification depict a working channel with tangs 180a and 180b. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 30, 32A–B. These figures and all of the related description in the Specification describing a working channel with tangs appear in the Parent (Ex. 1006, Figs. 30, 32A–B, 3:17–21, 6:47–54, 15:25–51), but not in the Grandparent. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining the same). Accordingly, the Grandparent application does not provide sufficient written description for the limitations requiring that the working channel have tangs in the independent claims. See Ex. 1001, 42:7 (limitation 1.b.4 “at least one tang on a distal end”), 43:9–11 (limitation 10.b.2 “two bilateral blunt tangs on a distal end”), 44:31–32 (limitation 18.b.2 “plurality of blunt tangs on a distal end”). For this reason, the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the Grandparent’s filing date.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the asserted references. Vestgaarden- 818 expressly incorporates the teachings of Vestgaarden-981, providing a motivation to use the implant and related tools taught in Vestgaarden-981 in its method for fusing a SI joint. Ex. 1010, 4:10–16. Moreover, we credit Dr. Bovinet’s testimony describing additional reasons for combining Vestgaarden-981’s implant and surgical implants with Vestgaaren-818’s method. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–74. Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Lins’s guidance slots and protrusions is also supported by the evidence of record. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–84. In particular, Dr. Bovinet persuasively testifies that a POSA would have motivated to make this combination because it “enables a surgeon to visually align the guide protrusions on a shaft with the guidance slots of the working channel,” which is “a major improvement” over the flat portion depth stop taught in Vestgaarden-981. Id. ¶ 83; see also id. ¶ 84 (“As someone who has personally performed hundreds of SI joint fusion surgeries, I can attest that the guide protrusions and guidance slots taught in Lins would offer a surgeon a significantly better user experience” as compared to Vestgaarden- 981’s flat portions). Finally, Petitioner has demonstrated that the combination would have produced a “predictable result” and therefore that a (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76, 85).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,083,511 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,083,511 - BTC Corporation v. TG Biotech Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00998 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to strike Exhibit 1038 was granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that we should disregard Dr. Naumovski’s testimony because she may have taken a leave of absence from work for a couple of years. The record supports that Dr. Naumovski not only meets the requirements of the person of ordinary skill in the art, but also appears to have relevant knowledge with respect to Gynostemma pentaphylum (“GP”) saponins. See Ex. 2015 (Appendix A). related field, and at least two years of experience using techniques for extraction and characterization of plant-based materials.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 74). Because there are more than 400 species of plants that contain saponins, Patent Owner disagrees that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the structure and utility of saponins. Id. The level of skill in the art is a reference point for gauging what would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner, however, does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would meaningfully alter the Petition’s assertions of obviousness. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner, but there would be no difference in the outcome of this Decision if we were to apply the level of skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. C.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“during the full trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that applying the methods of Kim 460 to the G. pentaphyllum starting material of Razmovski necessarily results in the damulin levels as claimed. We agree with Dr. Naumovski’s explanation that the use of an impure damulin B standard containing a double peak renders the results as shown in Exhibit 1013 unreliable. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 141–143, 162–173; see Ex. 2007. Dr. Naumovski further explains that the use of an impure standard would require the application of a correction factor, but this correction factor would need to be reassessed as the purity of the standard decreases over time. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 166. As Dr. Naumovski explains that applying a correction factor to the linear regression would result in a shallower slope. Ex. 2015 ¶ 165 (citing 2006, 71:12–73:5; 99:2–9). “Reducing the calibration curve slope increases the amount of damulin B calculated from the experimental extracts.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 165. However, in the Experimental Report-1 the same correction factor for the damulin B standard was used to” slip op. at 41
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner requests construction of the terms “an effective amount for improving or treating the metabolic syndrome,” which is found in claims 11–13, as meaning “an amount that produces any measurable amount of improvement in the metabolic syndrome” (Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91)) and “[a] pharmaceutical composition for improving and treating a metabolic syndrome, comprising at least one of at least 0.7% damulin A and at least 0.5% damulin B . . . and a pharmacologically acceptable carrier or excipient,” which is found in claim 8, as meaning “a pharmaceutical composition that includes an extract with 0.7% and 0.5% of damulin A and damulin B[, respectively,] along with a carrier or excipient” (id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002, 64–65, 251–52, 280; Ex. 1001, 12:15–67, Table 2)). Patent Owner argues that “constructions are not necessary.” PO Resp. 11–12. We agree with Patent Owner and determine that it is not necessary for purposes of this Decision to construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Droge, 695 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed.Cir.1988)); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the expectation of success issue involves a showing of “a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed”) (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner relies on Kim 460 to show that heating ginseng, which contains the ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, results in a teaches that ginseng with the higher Rg3 and Rg5 content is 50-fold more potent in their vasodilation studies than the non-treated samples. Razmovski teaches that G. pentaphyllum contains over 100 saponins and eight of those saponins are the same as protoparaxadiol-type ginsenosides Rb1, Rc, Rb3, Rd, F2, Rg3, malonyl-Rb1, and malonyl-Rd that are found in P. ginseng. Ex. 1007, 4. Knowing that G. pentaphyllum also contains ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, we find Petitioner’s conclusion that heating a G. pentaphyllum extract that contains these ginsenosides would similarly increase the ginsenoside levels of Rg3 and Rg5 is a reasonable inference from the cited references. Based on the teachings in Kim 460, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been reasonable to expect that the same source material, although derived from a different plant, would behave similarly to heat treatment. See Pet. 24. Because G. pentaphyllum is a less expensive starting material, we also agree with Petitioner that there is sufficient motivation to substitute G. pentaphyllum for ginseng in the methods of Kim 460. slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,357,786 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,357,786 - DGL Group, Ltd. v. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00844 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 4–25 are unpatentable as obvious over the Chen/Guangjing-based combinations; the Board did not reach the alternative Kickstarter-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“In its petition, DGL adopts the definition of the level of skill in the art as proposed by Hangzhou in the parallel district court litigation. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1016, 8). There, Hangzhou asserted that one skilled in the art— would have at least (1) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, or equivalent experience, and (2) at least two years of experience in the area of: (i) robotics or feedback control for electromechanical systems; (ii) mechanical design, dynamic analysis, and/or control design for mechatronic systems, or (iii) equivalent experience in (i) or (ii). Ex. 1016, at 8. Hangzhou agrees that the above definition from the parallel litigation should control. See PO Resp. 4–5. Because the parties’ definition of the level of skill in the art appears consistent with the level reflected by the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of our analysis.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Here, the parties summarize their claim construction positions from the parallel district court litigation for three claim terms: “electric balance vehicle,” “controller,” and the various iterations of the “control” limitation of the claims, i.e., “control the hub motors,” “controls the motors,” and “controlling the first and second hub motors.” Compare Pet. 22–23, with PO Resp. 8–9. At the same time, however, the parties state that an express claim construction is not needed for purposes of this inter partes review. See PO Resp. 8–9 (submitting “no construction was necessary.”); Pet. Reply 1 (submitting that “[c]laim construction is not required in this inter partes review.”). Nonetheless, the parties note their agreement that “electric balance vehicle” means “electric self-balancing vehicle.” PO Resp. 8; Pet. Reply 1. We find the parties’ construction of that term is reasonable and adopt it for purposes of our analysis. As for the other two claim terms, we agree with the parties that no further construction is needed to decide this case. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Resp. 25–29. In doing so, Hangzhou makes the mistake of arguing the references individually without ever acknowledging the combination of their teachings as a whole. For instance, Hangzhou argues that the asserted combination is improper “because Chen at least does not disclose the inner cover.” PO Resp. 24. But DGL never argued that Chen discloses an inner cover. Instead, DGL observed that one skilled in the art “would have been inclined to employ the inner cover of Guangjing with the electric balance vehicle of Chen because of the benefits expressly taught by Guangjing: improved structural strength, lighter weight, lower battery load, faster response speed, and longer batter[y] run-time,” which “would have merely been the predictable result of using the elements of Guangjing according to their known function.” Pet. 29 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 83) (emphases added). Similarly, Hangzhou argues that the asserted combination is improper because “Guangjing discloses controlling the device through the use of a steering rod” (PO Resp. 25–26) and “[i]ncluding the steering mechanism of Guangjing would be necessary for the user to control turning of the device” (id. at 24). But, again, DGL never proposed using Guangjing’s steering mechanism in the asserted combination. Instead, DGL argued that one skilled in the art would have modified each of the foot platforms in Chen to include an inner cover, thereby preserving the rotatable relationship of the two foot platforms and their ability to independently turn and otherwise operate the wheels as originally intended by Chen. See Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85). We also disagree with Hangzhou’s contention that the asserted combination “would lead to an inoperative result.” PO Resp. 24. Apparently, Hangzhou believes that “combining the single piece, non- rotatable-frame of Guangjing, with that of Chen would result in a device capable of only moving directly forward or directly backward.” Id. (emphasis added). But that argument relies on the false premise that Guangjing’s single-piece framework would extend the length of both of Chen’s foot platforms, while ignoring DGL’s express position that one skilled in the art would necessarily account for the rotatable relationship of Chen’s foot platforms when incorporating Guangjing’s teaching of an inner cover. See Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–86); Pet. Reply 3–4 (same). Indeed, in undertaking the combination, it would have been unthinkable for one skilled in the art to destroy the very essence of Chen’s invention— independently rotatable foot platforms for steering the vehicle. More reasonably, one skilled in the art, seeing Guangjing’s teaching of an inner cover for improving the structural strength of a self-balancing vehicle, would have immediately envisaged installing an inner cover into each of Chen’s foot platforms in a manner that preserved the ability of the user to steer the vehicle via the rotatable foot platforms. In that regard, we find the testimony of DGL’s expert more persuasive and credible than Hangzhou’s expert. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–86, with Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 31–33, 36.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“away” from structures like Guangjing’s inner framework. PO Resp. 30. According to Hangzhou, Guangjing’s inner framework equates to the “prior art” device that Chen disparages, which includes “a multi-component parallelogram structure” that “adds to the weight, bulk, complexity, and potential for mechanical failure.” Id. at 29 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 5). We disagree. In quoting Chen, Hangzhou omits that the “multi-component” structure disparaged by Chen is used “to coordinate/link movement of the two platform sections and the wheels,” which reasonably refers to a mechanical linkage for steering the vehicle. Ex. 1004 ¶ 5. Chen’s disparagement of a multi-part steering linkage does not, in our view, teach away from using a static cover or frame to strengthen the underside of the foot platform itself, as taught by Guangjing. Nor can Hangzhou reasonably argue that Guangjing’s inner cover would add to the vehicle’s weight or bulk, given Guangjing’s express disclosure that the inner framework “reduc[es] the overall weight of the vehicle body.” Ex. 1006, 2:15–16; see also id. at 2:27–29 (“the weight is slightly lighter”). Similarly, Hangzhou argues that Chen’s disclosure of the platform sections being formed of “metal, sturdy plastic, or other suitable material” that is “reinforced” means that Chen “specifically teaches away from including additional structures, which would include an inner cover.” PO Resp. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 18). Again, we disagree. Chen simply states that “[t]he housing may be molded and incorporate strengthening reinforcements” and “[t]he housing may be formed of metal, sturdy plastic or other suitable material.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Thus, these are not requirements in Chen. At most, Chen is describing a preferred embodiment. However, “[a] reference does not teach away ‘if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.’” Huawei Techs. Co. v. Iancu, 813 F. App’x 588, 591–92 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Here, while Chen may indicate a “general preference” for the use of strengthening reinforcements or certain materials, nothing in Chen criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of Guangjing’s inner cover. Indeed, in our view, one skilled in the art would have recognized that replacing Chen’s molded strengthening reinforcements in each of the foot platforms with an inner cover, as taught by Guangjing, is nothing more than substituting one strength-enhancing structure for another equivalent structure. Accordingly, Chen does not teach away from employing the inner cover of Guangjing in the electric balance vehicle of Chen.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,597,107 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,597,107 - Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00739 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Sun, Dodick, and Sharma; the Board did not reach the separate Dodick and Sharma ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“(iii) Conclusion with respect to Group I patients In sum, we find that the only difference between Sun’s patients who” slip op. at 33
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“be advantageous as compared to galcanezumab on the basis that galcanezumab is a “less selective agent” than erenumab. Patent Owner and Dr. Grosberg cite Shi 2016 (Ex. 2049) as teaching the “high selectivity” of erenumab for blocking the CGRP complex as compared to “less selective agents,” and use this teaching to imply that galcanezumab is less selective than erenumab. PO Resp. 22; Ex. 2037 ¶ 218. But, as Dr. Hay explains, “[t]he ‘less selective agents’ that Shi 2016 refers to are the small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, Gepants, not galcanezumab.” Ex. 1239 ¶ 29. We find Dr. Hay’s testimony on this point persuasive, as it is consistent with Shi 2016. See Ex. 2049, 2 (discussing concerns regarding small molecule CGRP antagonists that have prevented their approval and opining that “[a] monoclonal antibody may be a preferred modality to target the CGRP receptor”). Moreover, Shi 2016 concludes with a discussion of the advantages of the superior selectivity of mAbs as a class. Id. at 8 (discussing advantages of mAbs over small molecule CGRP-receptor antagonists, noting “[i]n addition to high potency and superior selectivity, which may provide the benefit of fewer off-target side effects, monoclonal antibodies provide advantages that make them better suited for preventive treatment compared with small molecules”); Ex. 1239 ¶ 32 (interpreting Shi as teaching that “antibodies as a class have limited off-target effects as compared to small molecules because they bind to fewer biological targets and are therefore considered more specific.”). Accordingly, the evidence of” slip op. at 50
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. “A subject having refractory migraine” The phrase “a subject having refractory migraine” appears in the preamble to claim 1. Ex. 1002, 173:2–3. The parties agree that the preamble is limiting because it provides context and antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. Pet. 12 (“Claim 1’s preamble . . . should be construed as limiting at least because it provides context and antecedent [basis] for the claimed ‘therapeutically effective amount.’”); PO Resp. 9 (“There is no dispute that the preamble ‘[a] method of treating or preventing migraine in a subject having refractory migraine, the method comprising’ is reasons expressed by the parties. Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding that the phrase “treatment of sleep apneas” in the preamble of an interference count was limiting because it provided antecedent basis for the phrase “to a patient in need of such treatment” in the body of the interference count); see also Eli Lilly Co. v. Teva Pharmas Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (discussing construction of claims directed to “methods of using a composition for a specific purpose,” explaining, “while there is no bright-line rule for determining whether a preamble is limiting, we have generally construed statements of intended purpose in such method claims as limiting”). We turn now to the meaning of the phrase “a subject having refractory migraine.” The parties agree that the ’161 patent expressly defines the phrase “a subject having refractory migraine.” Pet. 13; PO Resp. 9. In this regard, the ’161 patent states: As used herein, refractory migraine patients (or “subject having refractory migraine”) are considered refractory if they have a documented inadequate response (in a medical chart or by treating physician’s confirmation) to at least two preventive medications (from a different cluster, defined below). Refractory migraine patients can also be considered refractory if they have a documented inadequate response (in a medical chart or by treating physician’s confirmation) to two to four classes of prior preventive medications (from different cluster[s], as defined below), e.g., inadequate response to two classes of prior preventive medications, inadequate response to three classes of prior preventative medications, or an inadequate response to four classes of prior preventative medications. Ex. 1002, 18:61–19:7. Thus, a “subject having refractory migraine” should be construed as: a migraine patient having a documented inadequate least two preventive medications from a different cluster. Id.” slip op. at 8
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“A. Exhibits 1065, 1073, 1088, 1089, 1220, and 1221 We do not rely on Exhibits 1065, 1073, 1088, 1089, 1220, and 1221 in our Final Written Decision. Accordingly, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion as it relates to these exhibits.” slip op. at 107
Patent outcomesUS 11,028,161 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,028,161 - Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00738 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Sun, Dodick, and Sharma; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the problems” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“1. “A subject having refractory migraine” The phrase “a subject having refractory migraine” appears in the preamble to claim 1. Ex. 1001, 173:2–3. The parties agree that the preamble is limiting because it provides context and antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. Pet. 12 (“Claim 1’s preamble . . . should be construed as limiting at least because it provides context and antecedent [basis] for the claimed ‘therapeutically effective amount.’”); PO Resp. 9 (“There is no dispute that the preamble ‘[a] method of treating or preventing migraine in a subject having refractory migraine, the method comprising’ is limits the claim for the reasons expressed by the parties. Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding that the phrase “treatment of sleep apneas” in the preamble of an interference count was limiting because it provided antecedent basis for the phrase “to a patient in need of such treatment” in the body of the interference count); see also Eli Lilly Co. v. Teva Pharmas Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (discussing construction of claims directed to “methods of using a composition for a specific purpose,” explaining, “while there is no bright-line rule for determining whether a preamble is limiting, we have generally construed statements of intended purpose in such method claims as limiting”). We turn now to the meaning of the phrase “a subject having refractory migraine.” The parties agree that the ’160 patent expressly defines the phrase “a subject having refractory migraine.” Pet. 13; PO Resp. 9. In this regard, the ’160 patent states: As used herein, refractory migraine patients (or “subject having refractory migraine”) are considered refractory if they have a documented inadequate response (in a medical chart or by treating physician’s confirmation) to at least two preventive medications (from a different cluster, defined below). Refractory migraine patients can also be considered refractory if they have a documented inadequate response (in a medical chart or by treating physician’s confirmation) to two to four classes of prior preventive medications (from different cluster[s], as defined below), e.g., inadequate response to two classes of prior preventive medications, inadequate response to three classes of prior preventative medications, or an inadequate response to four classes of prior preventative medications. Ex. 1001, 18:59–19:5. Thus, a “subject having refractory migraine” should be construed as: a migraine patient having a documented inadequate least two preventive medications from a different cluster. Id.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“understand the term “adverse event” to be limited to “serious” events. Ex. 2004, 1; Ex. 1208, 1; Ex. 1209, 6; Ex. 1210, 8. The only evidence to the contrary is the testimony of Dr. Grosberg. Ex. 2037 ¶ 45. Because Dr. Grosberg’s testimony is inconsistent with the evidence he relies upon, we decline to give it substantial weight. We recognize that the Specification of the ’160 patent includes language imposing some degree of severity on the “adverse event.” Specifically, the adverse event must be significant enough to cause treatment to be “interrupted” because the event made the treatment become “intolerable by the patient.” But, we find no support in the record for imposing an additional severity requirement by effectively limiting the term “adverse event” to “serious adverse events.” Accordingly, we decline to construe the term “adverse event” to mean “a serious undesirable experience associated with the use of a treatment” as proposed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 12. We do not find it necessary to further construe the term “adverse event” to resolve this dispute.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d) Conclusion regarding Sun’s disclosure of the claimed patients For the reasons discussed supra §§ II.F.1.a–c, we find that Petitioner” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,028,160 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,028,160 - Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00040 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable, principally as obvious over the grounds decided.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.13 PO Resp. 18. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“any weight. Reply 29–30. First, Petitioner contends that the Patent Owner Response does not provide a single citation to Dr. Madisetti’s declaration, Exhibit 2005. Id. at 29. However, Patent Owner explains that the Patent Owner Response mistakenly cites to Exhibit 2001 instead of Exhibit 2005 due to a filing error and confirms that Dr. Madisetti’s declaration is persuasive. Petitioner also argues that Dr. Madisetti’s testimony in Exhibit 2005 is not based on underlying facts because, in the 60-paragraph declaration, only paragraphs 32–35 and 59 have any citations. Reply 29. Petitioner also asserts that Dr. Madisetti refused to answer questions and provide clarification during his deposition. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1040, 30:3–20, 52:2–14, 78:16–84:4). Patent Owner states that it served a supplemental declaration in response to Petitioner’s Objection to Evidence months before the deposition of Dr. Madisetti.14 Sur-reply 20. On this record, we decline to discount Dr. Madisetti’s testimony in its entirety as suggested by Petitioner. Instead, we consider Dr. Madisetti’s testimony, as we do all expert testimony, in accordance with governing law and Board rules. E. Ground 1: Asserted Obviousness Based on Allum, Raymond, and Conlan” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Allum’s and Conlan’s design schemes, although different, are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in addition to the pushbuttons, Conlan’s monitor includes a movement senor for detecting a full range of a subject’s movement and a memory in which data obtained by the monitor can be stored and later retrieved for evaluation. Ex. 1010, 2:60–63, 3:56–58, 4:47–49. As such, Conlan combines the pushbuttons for a user to tell the device about the user’s condition with a movement senor and a memory that enables the device to tell the user (or another person) about the user’s conditions (i.e., the user’s movements). Furthermore, even if Conlan did not disclose using two design schemes together, the differences in the design schemes identified by Patent Owner would not prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from considering combining the references. Rather, as Petitioner asserts, adding Conlan’s pushbuttons would allow the resulting device to gather additional data relating to a particular event, such as a feeling of dizziness, that pertains to the subject’s balance or movement. See Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1010, 6:38–46; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79); see also id. at 34 (arguing that “switches 22, ‘dizziness,’ and, when depressed, the switches 22, 23 ‘cause that occurrence to be recorded in the internal memory of the monitor’”). We are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such additional data to be beneficial to Allum’s diagnostic and rehabilitative tool for people prone to abnormal falling and wishing to improve movement control.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,059,576 - Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00037 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.12 PO Resp. 16. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are materially similar. 12 Petitioner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Reply. definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Also, the Petition merely states that “Ono supports instances where the user stops the step-counting mode operation using switch S2 after the processor detects that” the target distance or the target number of steps has been reached and notifies the user by generating an alarm sound. Pet. 53 (emphasis added). In this case, supporting the notion of the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm is not the same as teaching or suggesting the notion to one of ordinary skill in the art. The possibility that a user could stop the step-counting operation in response the alarm is insufficient to render claims 1 and 20 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Petitioner’s reliance on the Hewlett-Packard and Unwired Planet cases (Pet. 56) is unavailing, as the facts in those cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present proceeding. Namely, both of those cases involved prior art references that disclosed operations that satisfied a claimed feature some, but not all, of the time. Hewlett-Packard, 340 F.3d at 1326; Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1002. Here, Ono does not disclose the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm even some of the time. In view of the above, we determine, based on the full record, that the combination of Ono and Hutchings does not disclose limitations [1f] or [20f]. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono and Hutchings.” slip op. at 28
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We have determined incorporated Grounds 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4, as well as Ground 5A, deficient for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner contends that any of these combinations somehow adds something to supplement or strengthen the patentability analysis of the incorporated grounds, we note that neither the Petition nor Dr. Kenny provides sufficient particularity to support such a position. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the complete record before us that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 5B); (2) claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 31, 36, 39–42, 45–47, 49, and 61–65 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Conlan (Ground 6A); (3) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, and Hickman (Ground 6B); (4) claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39–42, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Kaufman (Ground 7); (5) claims 1–5, 8, 10, 20, 25, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 45–47, 49, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, and Kaufman (Ground 8A); and (6) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 8B).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,059,576 - Nextremity Solutions, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Extremity Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00802 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 59 is unpatentable as anticipated by Brumfield, Marcus, and Chandran; the motion to amend proposing substitute claim 62 is denied because claim 62 is unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find this argument unpersuasive. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner’s expert provides a definition of POSITA that is very similar to that recited by Patent Owner in its Motion to Amend, substantively differing only in the number of years of experience of the engineer at issue. This congruity supports the conclusion that the level of ordinary skill in the art may be recognized in the prior art itself. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the “portion of the preamble reciting ‘for compressing bone’ is not limiting to the claim” and found that other terms did not require construction. Dec. 8–9. We agreed with Petitioner that “[t]he phrase ‘for compressing bone’ merely identifies an intended use.” Pet. 20; Dec. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation. See generally PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner that “the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, having considered the entire record developed during trial, we adhere to the preliminary construction that the limitation “for compressing bone” does not impose a structural limitation on claim 59 and that the other terms do not require construction.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner disputes the Petition generally but Patent Owner does not identify any error in Petitioner’s foregoing arguments. Accordingly, we adopt the factual statements regarding the specific teachings of the references as findings of fact. See generally In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the Board need not make specific findings as to claim limitations that Patent Owner does not dispute are disclosed in the prior art). We have reviewed Petitioner’s analysis and the underlying evidence cited in support and conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations of claim 59 are disclosed by Brumfield.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“For the reasons discussed below, Patent Owner has shown that proposed substitute claim 62 meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. For the reasons discussed below, however, Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 62 is unpatentable over prior art. Therefore, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,303,589 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,303,589 - Painteq, LLC v. Orthocision, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00477 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–23, exercising §314(a) discretion because the parallel petition was unnecessary after the priority-date dispute was resolved.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“that this is one of those “rare” circumstances when the institution of two concurrently filed parallel petitions challenging the same claims is warranted. See Trial Practice Guide, 59. The Trial Practice Guide acknowledges that “when there is a dispute about priority date . . . two petitions by a petitioner may be needed,” but that is not the case here. The only reason Petitioner offers for why we should institute a second proceeding is the possibility that Patent Owner could demonstrate that Lins does not qualify as prior art. See Ranking, 2–4. However, as explained in our decision granting institution of the 451 Petition, we agree with Petitioner’s showing that none of the challenged claims are entitled to claim the benefit of the March 15, 2013 filing date of the Grandparent of the ’511 patent, and thus Lins qualifies as prior art. Moreover, Patent Owner has stipulated that it will not dispute that Lins qualifies as prior art. IPR2023-00451, Paper 9, 1. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the priority date that might affect the status of Lins or any of the other references in IPR2023-00451 as prior art.6” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,083,511 - Painteq, LLC v. Orthocision, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jul 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00451 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–23 based on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On the current record, we determine that the Petition demonstrates “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). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a medical or an engineering degree and would have had experience with surgical instruments and implants used for spinal joint fusion, including [sacroiliac (“SI”)] joint fusion.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 15). At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this Decision. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that the parties have submitted joint claim construction in the Florida litigation, and asserts that “[t]he grounds set forth in this [P]etition render the challenged claims obvious under either party’s construction.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34; Ex. 1017). Nevertheless, Petitioner urges that “express construction is not necessary.” Id. at 7. At this stage of the proceeding and for purposes of instituting trial, we determine that there are no terms that require express construction. See” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Figures 30, 32A and 32B in the Specification depict a working channel with tangs 180a and 180b. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 30, 32A–B. These figures and all of the related description in the Specification describing a working channel with tangs appear in the Parent (Ex. 1006, Figs. 30, 32A–B, 3:17–21, 6:47–54, 15:25–51), but not in the Grandparent. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining the same). Accordingly, based on the current record, we find that the Grandparent application does not provide sufficient written description for the limitations requiring that the working channel have tangs in the independent claims. See Ex. 1001, 42:7 (limitation 1.b.4 “at least one tang on a distal end”), 43:9–11 (limitation 10.b.2 “two bilateral blunt tangs on a distal end”), 44:31–32 the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the Grandparent’s filing date.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,083,511
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.