Motif FoodWorks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected petition for an inter partes review (Paper 6 (“Pet.”)) challenging claims 1–23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,224,241 B2 (Ex. 1001 (“the ’241 patent”)).
We determined that the information presented in the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and, accordingly, we did not institute an inter partes review.
Upon considering these three grounds, we determined that Petitioner had not “shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brown by adding to it Giacino’s composition.” Id. at 12–17.
In addition, we determined that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that Brown alone taught or suggested the claim limitations reciting “[a] meat-like-food product produced by a method comprising ... combining, with ... one or more plant proteins ... a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamine, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof in a concentration of at least 1.5 mM” and “[a] meat-like-food product produced by a method comprising ... combining, with ... one or more plant proteins ... one or more of cysteine, cystine, thiamine, and methionine.” Id. at 10–12.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Board abused its discretion in any respect in declining to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–23 of the ’241 patent.