• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All

Search the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

7 results

63 Notice Other: JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 318a Granting Parties’ Motions to Seal Papers 19, 54, 55 Denying without Prejudice Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Paper 42 37 CFR § 4214 PUBLIC VERSION Originally entered September 18, 2024

Document IPR2023-00481, No. 63 Notice Other - JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 318a Granting Parties’ Motions to Seal Papers 19, 54, 55 De...
4 IPR2023-00481 Patent 8,377,903 B2 accumulation of various neurological disabilities” and “[c]linical disability in MS is presumed to be a result of repeated inflammatory injury with subsequent loss of myelin and axons, leading to tissue ...
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person ...
Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have a “high” level of skill.
Munafo testifies that “[c]onfidential communication between the Serono team and the IVAX team took place both at meetings (both in person and by telephone), where formal presentations were made, and by e-mail.” 11 Patent Owner ...
Mere publication of an inventor’s ideas in a reference patent or application of another person is not necessarily prior art “by another” against the inventor.
... what portions of the reference patent were relied on as prior art to anticipate the claim limitations at issue, (2) evaluate the degree to which those portions were conceived “by another,” and (3) decide whether that other person’s ...
... simply that De Luca had worked for Serono “for a very 17 32 IPR2023-00481 Patent 8,377,903 B2 long time,” but “in a department which was remote” to Munafo’s, and so Munafo was “not aware of [De Luca’s], how you call it, personal ...
... Dr. Miller testifies, “[t]he most logical reading of Bodor would have 26 At the hearing, when asked about why Bodor would specify the length of the cladribine-free period, Patent Owner’s counsel stated that “it’s a period in which the person ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

22 Termination Decision Document: FINAL WRITTEN DECISION Inter Partes Review35 USC sec 318a and 37 CFR sec 4273

Document IPR2017-00847, No. 22 Termination Decision Document - FINAL WRITTEN DECISION Inter Partes Review35 USC sec 318a and 37 CFR sec 4273 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2018)
Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
... meaning is incorrect on the theory that it encompasses “an unlimited number of interconnections” and is “not supported by the claim language or the specification and contradicts expert testimony that clearly demonstrates how a [person ...
... § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was 10 IPR2017-00847 Patent 9,345,285 B2 made to a person ...
Petitioner contends that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent training in mechanical engineering, and would have gained substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic ...
In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes.
According to Petitioner, the above-reproduced Figure 17 “depicts how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the directional element would look with the center island material removed to form a single longitudinal groove.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90–91). Petitioner further proposes the ...
In supporting its proposed combination, Petitioner postulates that it amounts “to a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ...
A person with experience in biomechanics would not modify shoes in a way that increases medial-lateral instability, as this increases the risk of injury to the wearer.
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

28 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2017-00127, No. 28 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2018)
Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
... meaning is incorrect on the theory that it encompasses “an unlimited number of interconnections” and is “not supported by the claim language or the specification and contradicts expert testimony that clearly demonstrates how a [person ...
... § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject 10 IPR2017-00127 Patent 9,339,079 B2 matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person ...
Petitioner contends that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent training in mechanical engineering, and would have gained substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic ...
In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes.
In particular, Petitioner first proposes the following annotated version: According to Petitioner, the above-reproduced Figure 17 “depicts how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the directional element would look with the center island material removed to form a single longitudinal groove.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–86). Petitioner further proposes the ...
In supporting its proposed combination, Petitioner postulates that it amounts “to a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ...
A person with experience in biomechanics would not modify shoes in a way that increases instability medial-lateral instability, as this increases the risk of injury to the wearer.
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

29 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2017-00125, No. 29 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2018)

cite Cite Document

61 Notice: DECISION on Petitioners Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Modified Prot...

Document IPR2015-00171, No. 61 Notice - DECISION on Petitioners Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Modified Protective Ordert and Patent Owners Motion to Seal (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2016)

cite Cite Document

64 Notice: DECISION on Petitioners Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Modified Prot...

Document IPR2015-00173, No. 64 Notice - DECISION on Petitioners Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Modified Protective Ordert and Patent Owners Motion to Seal (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2016)

cite Cite Document

70 Notice: DECISION on Petitioners Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Modified Prot...

Document IPR2015-00170, No. 70 Notice - DECISION on Petitioners Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Modified Protective Ordert and Patent Owners Motion to Seal (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2016)

cite Cite Document