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 immune system useful in treating autoimmune disease and rheumatoid arthritis, for example. The Patent Owner opposed institution by attacking the Petitioner’s position as failing to provide a reason to combine the cited references and as relying on impermissible hindsight in arriving at a formulation that satisfied all features recited in the claims (i.e., tonicity, pH, excipient concentration, excipient:therapeutic mass ratio, volume, and stability).
Continue Reading Supporting Evidence, Not Counter-Punching, May Be Needed In An IPR
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. By all accounts, Shinn Fu mounted a strong attack against all claims in the ‘897 patent, and the PTAB instituted review. Foregoing a dogged defense of the granted claims, Tire Hanger maintained a clear head and responded to the petition by filing a contingent motion to amend the claims rather than a Patent Owner Response.
Continue Reading PTAB Grants Motion to Amend Claims
It’s Complicated: PTAB Reinforces Notion That Petitioners Should Consider Expert Testimony in Complex Technology Areas
This Blog previously highlighted the risks involved when a petitioner does not submit an expert declaration with their petition. This risk may be lessened where the “the invention and prior art references are directed to relatively straightforward and easily understandable technology.” [Paper No. 41 at 17 n.6 of IPR2014-00169] (ruling in favor of petitioner despite its failure to present expert declaration until its Reply brief). However, a petitioner should strongly consider submitting an expert declaration to support their arguments in technology areas that are considered complex.
Continue Reading It’s Complicated: PTAB Reinforces Notion That Petitioners Should Consider Expert Testimony in Complex Technology Areas
Federal Circuit Gives a Geometry Lesson when Correcting the PTAB’s Claim Construction
In Pride Mobility Prods. Corp. v. Permobil, Inc., the Federal Circuit partially affirmed the PTAB’s decision cancelling claims in two Pride Mobility Products wheelchair patents. Disagreeing with the Board’s conclusions as to one of the canceled claims, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s claim construction of “substantially planar” and “oriented perpendicular” did not make any “ordinary geometric sense.” In reversing the Board’s decision with respect to this single claim, the Federal Circuit gave the Board a much-needed refresher in geometry.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Gives a Geometry Lesson when Correcting the PTAB’s Claim Construction
Failure to Establish Published U.S. Application is Prior Art Dooms IPR under Dynamic Drinkware
The PTAB’s final written decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., IPR2014-01093, should serve as a reminder to Petitioners challenging claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) – take care to establish that your reference is prior art.
Continue Reading Failure to Establish Published U.S. Application is Prior Art Dooms IPR under Dynamic Drinkware
Failure To Identify The Difference Makes A Difference
There have been a few short articles floating around over the past few years that list the top (usually four or five) mistakes that petitioners have made to doom their IPR/CBM petitions. These articles sometimes refer to the need for the petitioner to pay attention to detail, but then often fail to go into detail about what those details might be.
Continue Reading Failure To Identify The Difference Makes A Difference
District Court Interprets IPR Estoppel Provision to Permit Reliance
In what appears to be the first district court case to address the issue directly, Judge Lefkow of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not preclude parties from raising grounds in a civil litigation that were cumulative of grounds that could have been asserted during that party’s prior IPR proceeding, so long as the grounds are based on prior art that was not reasonably available during the IPR.
Continue Reading District Court Interprets IPR Estoppel Provision to Permit Reliance
A Second Bite at the Apple? Kyle Bass’s CFAD is Awarded IPR Institution of Follow-on Petitions
Remember when the PTAB denied institution of two IPR petitions filed by Kyle Bass’s Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC’s (CFAD) against Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. (Acorda)? Well, if at first you don’t succeed, try citing different prior art!
Continue Reading A Second Bite at the Apple? Kyle Bass’s CFAD is Awarded IPR Institution of Follow-on Petitions
House of Cards: Weak Evidentiary Support Dooms IPR of Med Device Patent
On February 9, 2016, in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., IPR2015-01660, the PTAB refused to institute an IPR against US Patent No. 8,257,325, “Venous Access Port with Molded and/or Radiopaque Indicia.” The challenged claims were directed to a venous access port assembly with a marking to indicate the port is rated for power injection of a contrast fluid, which marking is visible by X-ray examination when the port is implanted.
Continue Reading House of Cards: Weak Evidentiary Support Dooms IPR of Med Device Patent
Federal Circuit Provides Further Guidance on Administrative Procedures For Motions to Amend Claims
Update: Overruled in part by Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal.
In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, Case No. 2014-1719 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2016) (appeal of IPR2013-00067), the Federal Circuit provided further guidance on the PTAB’s administrative procedures regarding motions to amend claims. After considering Nike’s argument that 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) places the burden of proving unpatentability on the petitioner in an IPR, the court reaffirmed its decision in Microsoft v. Proxyconn that the Patent Office has appropriately placed the burden on the patent owner to show patentability of substitute claims.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Provides Further Guidance on Administrative Procedures For Motions to Amend Claims