IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Patents
Subscribe to Patents's Posts

Even a Non-Explicit Claim Construction Can Be Erroneous

by | Feb 15, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision finding the challenged patent claims not obvious over the prior art. The Court found that the Board, after concluding that no claim construction was required, implicitly construed the claim limitation at issue and did so erroneously. Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Case Nos. 22-1750; -1767 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2024) (Reyna, Taranto, Stark, JJ.)

Google filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims of an EcoFactor patent related to dynamic climate control systems that factor outside weather conditions and thermal conditions inside the home to balance comfort and energy savings. The challenged claims define a method for reducing the cycling time of a climate control system involving “retrieving a target time at which [the] structure [(e.g., a house)] is desired to reach a target temperature.” The challenged method claims recite a step of “determining a first time prior to said target time at which [the] climate control system should turn on to reach the target temperature by the target time.” The relevant claim limitation reads:

[D]etermining a first time prior to said target time at which said climate control system should turn on to reach the target temperature by the target time based at least in part on [i] said one or more thermal performance values of said structure, [ii] said performance characteristic of said climate control system, [iii] said first internal temperature, [iv] said first external temperature, and [v] the forecasted temperature.

During the IPR proceedings, the parties disputed whether a prior art reference disclosed a method involving determining a first time prior to the target time based on a first internal temperature. Google argued that the prior art taught a calculation of a first time prior to the target time based on thermal performance values (input [i]) calculated from internal temperature values (input [iii]). EcoFactor argued that each of the inputs in the claim limitation was a distinct value not dependent on or calculated from any other input. Based on the claim language, the Board determined that claim construction was unnecessary and concluded that inputs [i] – [v] of the relevant claim limitation were separate inputs using different data. The Board concluded that Google had not shown that the challenged claims were unpatentable, reasoning that Google’s theory of obviousness relied on a single input as the basis for both input [i] and input [iii].

Google appealed. Google argued that although the Board stated that no construction was necessary, it incorrectly construed the claim limitation to require five discrete inputs.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Google, finding that the Board’s assessment of the claim limitation implicitly established the claim scope by requiring inputs [i] – [v] to be completely separate. The Court reasoned that the plain claim language did not provide any indication that none of the listed inputs could be based on any other input(s). Imputing this requirement into the limitation was therefore an act of claim construction.

The Federal [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Carolina Calling: Sources of Proof Favor Transfer

by | Feb 8, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court order denying transfer, finding that the sources of proof, compulsory process and localized interest factors all favored transfer. In re Honeywell Int’l Inc., Case No. 23-152 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2024) (Dyk, Bryson, Taranto, JJ.) (per curiam) (nonprecedential)

Lone Star SCM Systems filed a lawsuit against Honeywell in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (West Texas) asserting infringement of four patents related to radio frequency identification technology. Honeywell moved to transfer the suit to the Western District of North Carolina (West Carolina), where Hand Held Products, a Honeywell subsidiary that designed, manufactured, imported and sold certain accused products, is headquartered. Honeywell argued that it had identified five potential Hand Held witnesses who would be subject to the transferee’s subpoena power and that relevant and material evidence would be more likely to exist in the transferee district.

The district court denied Honeywell’s motion. The district court analyzed public- and private-interest factors outlined in the Fifth Circuit’s 2008 In re Volkswagen of Am. decision and concluded that although Lone Star could have brought its suit in West Carolina, Honeywell had failed to demonstrate that West Carolina was clearly more convenient. The district court acknowledged that the bulk of the evidence was located in West Carolina but ultimately concluded that the convenience to potential party witnesses favored West Texas, pointing to several Lone Star witnesses who resided in the Northern District of Texas. The court found that the public-interest factors were neutral or similarly offsetting. The district court also found that West Carolina’s local interest favored transfer, but judicial efficiency did not because a transfer would have required relocating this suit away from two co-pending Lone Star infringement suits.

Honeywell petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus. The Federal Circuit determined that the district court’s denial of Honeywell’s transfer motion was patently erroneous. The Federal Circuit explained that the district court’s findings regarding potential party witness convenience and judicial efficiency were contrary to recent Fifth Circuit and Federal Circuit precedent. Regarding the potential party witnesses, the Federal Circuit cited the Fifth Circuit’s 2023 In re TikTok decision, explaining that it was improper to place witnesses residing outside of West Texas but still within the state of Texas on par with those residing in West Carolina. Regarding judicial efficiency, the Federal Circuit found that Lone Star’s position differed little from the circumstances that the Federal Circuit considered in its 2021 In re Samsung Elecs. decision, where the other suits involved different defendants with different hardware and software. Consistent with Samsung, the Federal Circuit concluded that Lone Star’s co-pending suits did not favor West Texas because the other cases were likely to involve significantly different discovery, evidence and issues. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and ordered the district court to grant Honeywell’s transfer motion.



read more

Rules of Evidence Require Weighing Relevance of Evidence Against Potential Prejudice

by | Feb 8, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the exclusion of a drug patent in a medical malpractice case, finding that the highly technical language of the patent would more likely confuse a lay jury than be probative of the issues in the case. Ward v. Schaefer, Case No. 22-1547 (1st Cir. Jan. 29, 2024) (per curiam).

In 2018 Edmund Ward sued his doctor, Ernst Schaefer, claiming that Dr. Schaefer had fraudulently induced Ward to participate in an experimental drug protocol and had otherwise failed to obtain his informed consent. Ward was born with a rare genetic disorder that caused his body to not produce a blood enzyme, lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT), that is critical for cholesterol production. As a result, Ward was at risk of kidney failure and would require either regular dialysis or a kidney transplant. When Ward met Dr. Schaefer, Ward’s condition was deteriorating. Dr. Schaefer suggested that Ward might be a suitable candidate for an experimental enzyme therapy with a drug called ACP-501, and Ward, under an expanded access application, was granted permission to start an experimental protocol.

Ward traveled from his home in Massachusetts to a National Institutes of Health (NIH) facility in Bethesda, Maryland, to receive infusions of ACP-501 and was monitored by Dr. Schaefer in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, Ward’s condition did not improve under the experimental protocol but instead worsened because he was compelled to delay dialysis treatments while using ACP-501. Ward stopped the experimental protocol; began regular dialysis; and sued Dr. Schaefer, the NIH doctors and the drug manufacturer. The district court dismissed the claims against most of the plaintiffs, but the claims of fraud and failure to obtain informed consent against Dr. Schaefer went to trial. Ward’s signed consent form was admitted into evidence at trial, but he claimed he had no memory of discussing it with his doctors or signing it. The jury found in favor of Dr. Schaefer on all claims. Ward appealed.

Ward argued that the court erred in refusing to allow the introduction of the patent for ACP-501 because the patent specified that it was a method for reducing arterial cholesterol in patients not suffering from LCAT deficiency. Ward argued that this language in the patent made clear that the drug was not appropriate for patients like him. The district court ruled that the patent was inadmissible because it had been offered without foundation, and that it had nothing to do with the issues of fraud and informed consent. On appeal, the First Circuit offered a different analysis but arrived at the same outcome, holding that the Fed. R. Evid. 403 balancing test “disposes of the matter.”

The First Circuit noted that the patent’s description of ACT-501 “is of absolutely no relevance to Dr. Schaefer’s alleged failure to apprise Ward of the potential risks and rewards of taking the drug through expanded access.” The Court went on to point out that even if the single sentence in the patent pointing to its exclusion for patients with LCAT [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Senate Holds Hearing on Legislative Initiative to Address Patent Eligibility

by and | Feb 1, 2024 |

Seeking to undo the current jurisprudence “mess” on the issue of patent eligibility, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property heard testimony on January 23, 2024, on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) (text here). PERA seeks to address the uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes created by the 2014 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l.

PERA is the latest iteration of 35 USC § 101 patent eligibility reform that Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) have been introducing for years. Although the language has been tweaked over time, the bill’s purpose is to eliminate “[a]ll judicial exceptions to patent eligibility” and in their place codify several categories of inventions as unpatentable, such as mathematical formulas; processes that are substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural or artistic; processes that are mental or purely natural; unmodified human genes; and unmodified natural materials.

The January 23 hearing featured eight witnesses, divided into two panels. The first panel included:

  • Andrei Iancu, former US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) director
  • Richard Blaylock, testifying on behalf of Invitae Corporation
  • Courtenay Brinckerhoff, partner at Foley & Lardner
  • Phil Johnson, steering committee chair at the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform.

The second panel included:

  • The Honorable David Kappos, former PTO director
  • Adam Mossoff, professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School
  • Mark Deem, operating partner of Lightstone Ventures
  • David Jones, executive director of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance.

Harkening back to prior panels, the testimony was largely in favor of reform considering what many characterized as inaction by all other stakeholders. Senators and witnesses alike recognized that legislative reform is likely the only way to gain clarity on § 101 considering the Supreme Court’s failure to take up more than 100 certiorari petitions seeking review, many with the Solicitor General’s endorsement.

During the first panel, Blaylock testified that PERA would improperly provide patent eligibility to new uses of natural phenomena, such as genetic material, and therefore “would stifle innovation and harm patient care in the fields of diagnostic genetic testing and precision medicine.” Iancu testified in response that “all human invention is the manipulation of nature towards practical uses by humans on this planet . . . and it should be eligible for a patent.” Brinckerhoff’s testimony also opposed Blaylock’s view; she explained that considerable research and development is needed to develop new uses for isolated natural products and would be disincentivized without patent eligibility. Brinckerhoff highlighted an important theme at the hearing: “PERA would bring eligibility back in line with other countries” by permitting patents on methods of detecting new diagnostic markers, thus maintaining international competitiveness. Lastly, Johnson testified that “[j]ust because something is eligible doesn’t mean it’s patentable” and stressed the importance of using §§ 102, 203 and 112 as additional filters to determine patentability.

During the second panel, venture capitalist Deem testified that “the United States is failing many of our most innovative startups” because [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Scattered Disclosures May Not Lead to Inference of Fraud in FCA Claim

by | Feb 1, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc and issued an amended opinion that reversed a district court’s decision regarding the False Claims Act’s (FCA) public disclosure bar. Silbersher v. Valeant Pharm. Int’l, Inc., Case No. 20-16176 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2023; amended Jan. 5, 2024) (Schroeder, Sanchez, Antoon, JJ.)

The FCA imposes civil liability on those who knowingly present a fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government and allows “relators” to bring fraud claims on behalf of the government.

Valeant owns a set of patents that cover a delayed-release formula for a medication prescribed to treat ulcerative colitis. In 2015, a generic drug manufacturer, GeneriCo, challenged one of Valeant’s patents in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Ultimately, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board found Valeant’s patent unpatentable based on two articles co-authored by Valeant’s head of research.

Silbersher was GeneriCo’s lawyer in the IPR proceeding. He discovered that three years before applying for the challenged patent, Valeant had applied for another patent that disclosed the exact opposite of what Valeant would claim in the challenged patent. Silbersher brought an FCA action alleging that Valeant failed to disclose this information in the IPR proceeding. In response, Valeant argued that the public disclosure bar applied. The district court decided that an IPR qualified as an “other Federal hearing” under channel (ii) of the public disclosure bar and dismissed Silbersher’s action. Silbersher appealed.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. Valeant filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The Court issued an amended decision that refocused on its analysis under its 2016 decision in Mateski v. Raytheon. Under Mateski, the public disclosure bar applies when “the disclosure at issue occurred through one of the channels specified in the statute; the disclosure was ‘public;’ and the relator’s actions are ‘based upon’ the allegations or transactions publicly disclosed.”

The Ninth Circuit discussed whether Valeant’s disclosures revealed “substantially the same allegations or transactions” as Silbersher’s qui tam action. As discussed in the original decision, this was a first for this court, which had not yet “interpreted substantially the same prong of the public disclosure bar” under the 2010 Congress amendments. Mateski explained that to disclose a public fraudulent transaction according to the formulation X+Y=Z (where Z is the fraud allegation and X and Y are the essential elements), “the combination of X and Y must be revealed from which readers or listeners may infer Z, the conclusion that fraud has been committed.”

The Ninth Circuit then applied the Mateski framework to conclude that the qualifying public disclosures here did not collectively disclose a combination of facts sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of fraud. It explained that although “scattered disclosures when viewed together possibly reveal some of these true and misrepresented facts,” fraud could not reasonably be inferred from the combinations. Neither Valeant’s patent prosecutions nor disclosures revealed the critical information necessary to support [...]

Continue Reading



read more

R&D Expenditures Need Only Relate to Subset of Domestic Industry Product

by | Feb 1, 2024 |

Addressing a decision by the US International Trade Commission finding a violation of Section 337 based on importation of certain TV products, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the patent holder had established a domestic industry based on research and development (R&D) relating to only a subset of the domestic industry products. Roku, Inc. v. ITC, Case No. 22-1386 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2024) (Dyk, Hughes, Stoll, JJ.)

In 2020, Universal Electronics filed a complaint at the Commission seeking a Section 337 investigation of certain streaming devices, TVs, set top boxes and remote controls sold by Roku and others that allegedly infringed six of Universal Electronics’ patents. During the investigation, the administrative law judge (ALJ) granted Roku’s summary determination motion that Universal Electronics lacked ownership of one of the patents, but the Commission promptly reversed that decision. Prior to the hearing, Universal Electronics terminated the investigation as to the three other patents and all respondents other than Roku. The ALJ subsequently issued an initial determination finding infringement and domestic industry for all three patents but held that two of the patents were invalid. The Commission agreed and issued a limited exclusion order barring Roku’s importation. Roku appealed.

Roku raised three challenges to the Commission’s decision on appeal. Roku renewed its ownership argument, disputed the domestic industry finding, and contested the holding of nonobviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed on all issues.

On ownership, the Federal Circuit faced the question of whether an inventor had executed an automatic assignment or merely a promise to assign. The Court noted that Roku only addressed a 2004 agreement cited by the ALJ and disregarded a later 2012 agreement relied on by the Commission where the inventor agreed to “hereby sell and assign” the patent.

The Federal Circuit rebuffed Roku’s argument that the domestic industry prong was not satisfied on the basis that Universal Electronics failed to allocate expenses to specific domestic industry products. Instead, the Court noted that Section 337 requires investment in the exploitation of the intellectual property and explained that the expenditures can relate to only a subset of a product if the patent only involves that subset.

Finally, regarding obviousness, the Federal Circuit noted that Roku’s arguments regarding secondary considerations ignored the Commission’s finding that the prior art combination failed to satisfy the key claim limitation. As to secondary considerations, the Court dismissed Roku’s lack of nexus argument by finding that it did not matter that the news articles showing a long-felt but unmet need also discussed features other than what was claimed by the patent.



read more

Keep Calm and Party On: New Issue Prohibition Doesn’t Apply to Motions to Amend

by | Jan 25, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness determination, explaining that inter partes review (IPR) statutory provisions that prohibit an otherwise time-barred party from introducing new issues into the proceeding do not apply to motions to amend. CyWee Group Ltd. v. ZTE (USA), Inc. et al., Case No. 21-1855 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 18, 2024) (Prost, Hughes, Stoll JJ.)

CyWee owns a patent directed to a “three-dimensional (3D) pointing device capable of accurately outputting a deviation including yaw, pitch and roll angles in a 3D reference frame and preferably in an absolute manner.” ZTE filed a petition for IPR of the patent asserting that certain claims were unpatentable. The Board instituted the IPR. LG later filed an IPR petition challenging the patent and moved to join ZTE’s ongoing IPR, stating that it would “act as a passive ‘understudy’ and [would] not assume an active role unless [ZTE] ceases to participate in the instituted IPR.”

While LG’s motion was pending, CyWee moved to amend its patent claims, contingent on cancellation of the original claims. ZTE opposed the motion to amend. The Board gave preliminary guidance that the proposed claims lacked written description support and introduced new matter, and also that one of the proposed claims was invalid over the asserted prior art.

The Board granted LG’s motion to join ZTE’s IPR proceeding but placed restrictions on LG’s participation that required LG to consolidate filings with ZTE, rely on ZTE to take and defend depositions, refrain from requesting or reserving additional deposition or oral hearing time, and agree to other procedural concessions to minimize delay to the IPR proceeding.

After LG’s joinder, CyWee filed a revised motion to amend. ZTE indicated that it did not oppose the motion. LG, arguing that ZTE was no longer actively participating in the IPR, moved for leave to oppose CyWee’s motion to amend. Ultimately, the Board permitted LG to present argument and evidence independent from ZTE. LG filed an opposition arguing that CyWee’s proposed revised claims were obvious over Withanawasam, Bachmann and Bachmann2. Notably, ZTE had not cited Withanawasam in its opposition to CyWee’s initial motion to amend.

After the Board issued its final decision finding that the proposed revised claims were obvious over Withanawasam, Bachmann and Bachmann2, CyWee appealed.

CyWee argued that the Board erred by allowing LG to oppose CyWee’s motion to amend in a manner that violated the terms of LG’s joinder and by allowing LG to raise Withanawasam in opposition to the motion to amend. The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments. The Court explained that the Board concluded that although ZTE still participated in the IPR, the proceeding “no longer appear[ed] to be meaningfully adversarial” as to the revised motion to amend. The Court found no error in the Board’s conclusion that ZTE was no longer an active participant in the IPR proceeding, and thus there was no violation of the joinder terms.

The Federal Circuit also concluded that the Board did not err [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Struggling to Master the Alice Two-Step: Search Result Display Ineligible for Patent Protection

by | Jan 18, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit involving two software patents directed toward enhancements to search result displays, finding that both patents claimed subject matter that is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. IBM v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case No. 22-1861 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2024) (nonprecedential) (Prost, Hughes, JJ.) (Stoll, J., dissenting).

IBM sued Zillow for infringing five patents. Claims from two of the patents were dismissed. For the remaining three patents, Zillow filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that all three patents were ineligible under § 101. The district court granted Zillow’s motion to dismiss, finding the asserted claims ineligible. IBM appealed.

Only two of the patents were subject to the appeal. The first patent was directed to a graphical user interface that improves search and selection based on user input to produce better results, and the second patent was directed to improvements in how to display search results to users.

IBM raised two arguments on appeal:

  • The district court erred in dismissing both patents, because the complaint and IBM’s inventor declaration were enough to show patent eligibility and—at minimum—survive the pleading stage.
  • The district court failed to resolve a claim construction dispute over a term in the second patent.

The Federal Circuit began by providing a primer on the Alice two-step process for evaluating patent eligibility. For step one, courts must “determine whether a patent claim is directed to an unpatentable law of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea.” When the patent involves software, claims are ineligible where they merely describe a process or system that uses a computer as a tool applied to an otherwise abstract idea. For step two, courts must analyze whether the claims simply describe an abstract method. If the claims instead go further and transform an otherwise abstract idea into something new via an “inventive concept,” then the subject matter may be patentable.

Turning to the appeal, the Federal Circuit first addressed whether IBM’s complaint and inventor declaration should have been enough to establish subject matter eligibility at the pleading stage for either patent. Applying the Alice two-step test, the Court found that they were not and upheld the district court’s dismissal.

For the first patent directed to a graphical user interface, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the patent had three clear indicia of abstractness. First, the process could be done with pen and paper. Second, the claim language was result-oriented. Third, the patent focused on intangible information. The Court also found that the claims did “not disclose any technical improvement” to computer software. Thus, the claims failed at Alice step one. The Court found that IBM fared no better at step two, explaining that IBM’s argument for an inventive process hinged on the inventor declaration, which made no reference to the patent’s actual claim language. The Court explained that “[s]imply including allegations of inventiveness in a complaint, detached from what is claimed or discussed in [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTO Continues to Wave Wands in Assessing Enablement

by | Jan 18, 2024 |

In light of the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published guidelines for PTO employees to use, regardless of technology, to ascertain compliance with the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. (89 Fed. Reg. 1563 (Jan. 10, 2024).) Unsurprising to those familiar with the Amgen decision, the PTO hewed closely to existing practice.

The PTO collected the Supreme Court’s clarifications regarding the relationship between the enablement requirement and an amount of experimentation, namely that although particular disclosure of all embodiments is not required, claims are not enabled if they require more than reasonable experimentation. Regarding the “reasonable experimentation” requirement, the PTO explained that consistent with several post-Amgen US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinions, it would continue to apply the factors that the Federal Circuit announced in its 1988 In re Wands decision.

Although the PTO intends to continue to rely on pre-Amgen Federal Circuit Wands analyses as instructive, it found particular persuasive force since the Federal Circuit’s decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Amgen. There, according to the guidance, the Federal Circuit concluded that the genus claims were not enabled because of the amount of experimentation required to test whether antibodies satisfied certain functional limitations. Thus, because “the scope of the claims was far broader in functional diversity than the disclosed examples, … [and] the invention was in an unpredictable field of science with respect to satisfying the full scope of the functional limitations, … there was not adequate guidance in the specification.”

The PTO also noted that the Federal Circuit’s 2023 Baxalta v. Genentech decision, like Amgen, found claims directed to antibodies that contained certain functional limitations to be invalid. There, the Court, like the PTO, detected no appreciable difference between the reasonable experimentation standard as articulated in Wands and the standard as set forth in Amgen. The guidance canvassed other post-Amgen enablement decisions, all of which the PTO read to support continued reliance on Wands.

Practice Note: Although the PTO says that it will continue to apply the Wands factors as it has before, the Amgen decision may, as a practical matter, make establishing enablement of functional limitations more difficult. Whether examiners—especially those in life sciences technology areas—change the course of their review post-Amgen remains to be seen.



read more

Ordinary Meaning: “Identifying” Doesn’t Mean Detecting; It Means Identifying

by | Jan 18, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decisions finding one set of challenged claims patentable and another set of challenged claims in the same patent unpatentable. The Court determined that the Board properly construed a disputed claim term and made factual findings regarding prior art that were supported by substantial evidence. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc., Case Nos. 22-1410; -1554 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

Pacific Biosciences of California (PacBio) filed two petitions seeking inter partes review (IPR) of different claim groups in a patent owned by Personal Genomics Taiwan (PGI). The challenged patent is directed to an apparatus for “identifying a single biomolecule” and methods of using or making that apparatus. The petitions overlapped in terms of the challenged claims but differed in terms of the invoked prior art. PacBio’s challenge (on both anticipation and obviousness) was based principally on the Hassibi reference in one IPR and on the Choumane reference in the other.

The Board rejected PacBio’s challenge to certain claims of the patent in its decision on the first IPR, but it agreed with PacBio’s challenge to certain claims of the patent in its decision in the other. In reaching its decisions, the Board construed the term “identifying a single biomolecule” as requiring an apparatus capable of ascertaining the identity of one single individual biomolecule by examining only that biomolecule. In the first decision, the Board found that this limitation was not taught by the Hassibi reference. In contrast, in the other IPR, the Board found that this limitation was taught by the Choumane reference. Both parties appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed both Board decisions. First, the Court agreed with the Board’s construction that the disputed claim term (“single biomolecule”) was the ordinary meaning of the phrase in context, namely that there was no apparent reason for the inclusion of the word “single” in the claim term unless to indicate that the capability required was identification of a molecule with just that one molecule in view. The Court explained that the specification supported this understanding by repeatedly stressing that this “single biomolecule” capability was critical to the invention and by differentiating the examination of individual biomolecules from examination of an ensemble of copied biomolecules. The Court also pointed to dependent claims of the patent to provide support for the Board’s construction (in terms of claim differentiation), noting that those claims recited using the claimed apparatus for expressly described multiple-molecule examinations.

Regarding the prior issues on appeal, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. Turning to the Hassibi reference, the Court stated that the Board reasonably credited the testimony of PGI’s expert and the Hassibi reference itself in finding that Hassibi only disclosed the capability to ascertain the identity of a single biomolecule using a BRC assay or different assay. With respect to the Choumane reference, the Court found that the Board reasonably [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES