Subscribe to all posts by William K. Merkel, Ph.D.

Evidence of Secondary Considerations Fails to Establish Nexus to Challenged Claims

In IPR 2016-00039, Costco challenged claims 1, 12 and 14 of USPN 7,228,588 owned by Bosch and drawn to beam (non-yoked) windshield wipers with spoilers to keep the wipers in contact with the windshield in high winds.  Petitioner combined one reference with each of two other references in support of obviousness challenges to the claims. … Continue Reading

Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness Retain Some Vigor

IPR 2015-01651 involved a dispute over the obviousness of claims in U.S. Patent No. 8,551,271 owned by Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and drawn to a grooved crown bottle cap with thinner, harder steel than used in conventional caps.  World Bottling Cap, LLC, petitioned the Board to cancel the ’271 patent claims as being obvious based … Continue Reading

Don’t Switch Horses Midstream

In IPR2015-01157, 10X Genomics, Inc. challenged claims 1-31 of USPN 8,889,083 owned by the University of Chicago.  PTAB instituted trial on grounds of obviousness over two references.  Each party relied on the testimony of one or more experts, and the Patent Owner challenged expert testimony as exceeding the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply. The technology … Continue Reading

It Isn’t Printed Publication Art Unless It’s Publicly Accessible

In IPR2015-01191, American MegaTrends and four other petitioners challenged claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 15 of USPN 6,892,304 owned by Kinglite Holdings, Inc. on grounds of obviousness over three technical documents, supplemented by a fourth document for the challenge to claim 6.  The parties also indicated that they were involved in 11 other IPR petitions … Continue Reading

Ignore Occam’s Razor at your Peril

In IPR 2015-01127, PAR Pharmaceuticals, challenged claims 1-11 of USPN 8,404,215 owned by Horizon Therapeutics, LLC on grounds of obviousness over various combinations of six references.  Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed another challenge to the claims of the ‘215 patent on the same grounds using the same arguments and evidence as used by … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Upholding Patent Claims

In what has been a rare outcome to date, the Federal Circuit in Apotex v. Wyeth, dkt. no. 2015-1871 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2016) affirmed in a non-precedential decision the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2014-00115 that the challenged claims were not unpatentably obvious over three references.  At trial, the PTAB found that Apotex did … Continue Reading

Priority Claims Unchallenged In Prosecution Can Be Weak Links

IPR2015-00291 decided a petition filed by Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. against USPN 8,168,181 owned by Alethia Biotherapeutics, Inc.  The ‘181 patent issued from a continuation-in-part of the U.S. national phase of a PCT application and contains claims drawn to methods of impairing osteoclast differentiation, useful in treating various bone diseases.  The Board denied the Patent … Continue Reading

Supporting Evidence, Not Counter-Punching, May Be Needed In An IPR

In IPR2015-01537, Momenta petitioned for IPR of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,476,239 owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) on grounds of obviousness over three references: Cohen, Shire, and Carpenter.  Petitioner also relied on expert testimony.  The claims recite formulations containing CTLA4Ig, which is a stabilized form of a negative regulator (checkpoint inhibitor) of the … Continue Reading

PTAB Grants Motion to Amend Claims

In IPR2015-00208, Shinn Fu petitioned for IPR of USPN 6,681,897 owned by Tire Hanger.  All five claims of the patent were drawn to methods of supporting vehicle wheels removed from a vehicle while on a service lift, wherein the supports would allow technicians to remove and replace the wheels without risking back injury by bending.  … Continue Reading

Avoid Stumbling Before You Get To The Merits Of A PTAB Appeal

In Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB’s practice of denying IPR institution on redundant grounds is appropriate.  The Court’s decision is important because it should counsel prospective petitioners to carefully select grounds on which to petition review and offer an explanation in the petition as to why multiple … Continue Reading

Put Away The Blunderbuss – Attention to Detail and Thoroughness Are Needed in Preparing an IPR Petition

Boehringer Ingelheim filed three petitions attacking patents generally drawn to methods of treating RA patients with rituximab.  The decisions on two of those petitions, i.e., IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00417, have been addressed elsewhere.  In IPR2015-00418, the PTAB declined to institute an IPR on the petition’s challenges to the lone claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172, drawn … Continue Reading

Gamble At Your Own Risk – The Danger Of Petition Overkill

Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00417 concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00418 to challenge patents protecting methodologies for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with rituximab, an FDA-approved antibody for treating certain cancers.  The IPR2015-00417 petition specifically challenged the fourteen claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,976,838, which are drawn to … Continue Reading

Grinning Patentees Get A Mulligan

Filed concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00417 and IPR2015-00418, Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00415 seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 7,820,161 owned by Genentech and Biogen Idec.  The Board’s institution decision steadily whittled down Boehringer’s varied attacks on the patent.  Ultimately, IPR was granted on 2 of the 36 … Continue Reading
LexBlog