Monsanto Technology LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Appeal 2017-1032 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2018), illustrates “[t]he life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one.” [1] The case concerns an inter partes reexamination of a Monsanto patent in which the Patent Office concluded the claimed subject matter was inherently described in an earlier DuPont patent. The Patent Office reached this conclusion because DuPont presented during the reexamination its unpublished data regarding experiments described in its earlier patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
Continue Reading Play the Claim
Two recent PTAB final written decisions highlight the benefits that the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard for claim construction provides to Petitioners, as well as the difficulty Petitioners face in proving inherent anticipation. The PTAB instituted two IPRs on the same patent: one on an anticipation ground, and another on an obviousness ground. The Petitioner failed to prove anticipation, but prevailed on obviousness of all claims of the patent.
Petitioners should beware gaps in their evidence and reasoning. Two DepoMed patents recently survived their second IPR challenge because the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof. The PTAB rejected petitioner’s obviousness arguments as “overly vague and nonspecific,” concluding that petitioner failed to “explain persuasively why or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the drug formulation” of the prior art to develop the claimed formulation, and failed to show a reasonable expectation of success. 
Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in