The PTAB has continued the trend of pushing the -“antibody exception” to written description into an ever-smaller corner. Claims to methods of using antibodies that bind Siglec-15 to impair osteoclast differentiation and inhibit bone resorption were deprived of priority because the parent application failed to disclose the “antigenic regions useful for generating antibodies having the desired functional properties.” Consequently, the claims were anticipated by the cited reference under 35 U.S.C. §102(a), and Patentee’s other evidence of prior conception, diligence and reduction to practice was insufficient to antedate the reference. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Alethia Biotherapeutics, Inc., IPR2015-00291 (Paper No. 75, June 14, 2016) (final written decision).
Continue Reading Squeezing the ‘Antibody Exception’ to Written Description into a Corner
A judgment in an interference disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Patent Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party’s failure to move. 37 C.F.R. § 41.127. This is known as “interference estoppel,” and was recently applied by the PTAB in partially denying an IPR petition. See 
The Federal Circuit recently vacated or reversed-in-part two PTAB final written decisions on the basis that the PTAB did not adequately describe its reasons for concluding the claimed invention is obvious. In both instances, the court criticized the Board’s “broad, conclusory statements” regarding one of ordinary skill’s motivation to adjust prior art teachings. These decisions highlight an attractive grounds for appealing a PTAB’s final written decision.
Institution was denied in two IPR proceedings on the grounds that the petitions were filed more than one year after petitioner was served with a complaint alleging patent infringement. The documents were electronically filed but proof of payment of filing fees were one minute and nine minutes late, respectively. Additionally service had not been completed before the midnight deadline.
On May 20, 2016, the 
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Board’s IPR decision that IBS failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating obviousness of the challenged claims of Illumina’s U.S. Patent No. 7,566,537 (“the ‘537 patent), and determined that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider IBS’s reply brief.