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

Search the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

5 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

77 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2021-00919, No. 77 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2022)
Thus, the ’680 patent recognizes that “[i]t would be beneficial if the sharp edges of shaped thermoplastic articles could be displaced in such a way that the risk of injury or damage to sealing films could be reduced,” and “[i]t would be ...
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “either (1) a Bachelor of Science degree in packaging science, mechanical engineering, material science, or chemistry and two years of experience designing ...
... person of ordinary skill in the art would have been limited to a person who “would only view publications from the standpoint of whether they taught mass-producible designs,” as Patent Owner and Mr. Clements suggest. To the contrary, ...
Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the purported defects in Figure 8 of Portelli as “merely imperfections in a manually drawn figure in which the draft person overshot the lengths of certain ...
Indeed, Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Clements, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to overcome this issue of sticking as “there are a ‘wide variety’ of techniques to prevent parts from sticking to a hot die, including treating the surface with a non- stick coating, ...
... [person of ordinary skill in the art.]” Ex. 1044 ¶ 87. Patent Owner does not discuss or dispute—separate from criticism of the term “clacker box”— whether Portelli describes a component sufficiently for a person of ordinary skill in the art to ...
... [person of ordinary skill in the art] to make and use any of what is mentioned, experimentation or not.” Resp. 50–51. According to Patent Owner, “Long as a reference teaches very little except incomplete and erroneous proposals for the [ ...
... [person of ordinary skill in the art] would realize that the proposed methods yield a trapped part that is unusable for any further processing.” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 136, 152). Patent Owner contends that “a cooled precursor could not be released from the mold without breaking it while a heat- softened precursor could not be released without also permanently deforming the periphery into a contour different from the one required by Long Figure 5A,” and that the “impossible removal problem is further complicated if a male mold is used or if a [ ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

54 Other Not for motions: Final Written Decision Newly Redacted

Document IPR2019-00991, No. 54 Other Not for motions - Final Written Decision Newly Redacted (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2021)
... claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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 made to a person ...
In an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, see ...
The application for Kastner was filed on June 4, 2007, which predates the conception date 33 IPR2019-00991 Patent 8,602,287 B2 useful in hand-held power tools” to “minimize fatigue and potential injury, while allowing greater control of ...
See Ex. 1020, 139:13–21 (Q: “Is it your opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look only at prior art that describes endocutters or similarly minimally invasive surgical instruments?” A: “It’s my opinion that they would most ...
See Ex. 1014 ¶ 30 (stating that soft-starting can “minimize fatigue and potential injury, while allowing greater control of the tool”).
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402 (construing the scope of analogous art broadly and stating that “familiar items may have 36 IPR2019-00991 Patent 8,602,287 B2 obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often ...
... person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill ...
Here, relying on Kastner, Petitioner asserts that “[s]oft-starting can also be useful in hand-held power tools” to “minimize fatigue and potential injury, while allowing greater control of the tool.” Pet. 62 (quoting Ex. 1014 ¶ 30); see also Ex. ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

48 Notice: Judgment Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims UnpatentablePUBLIC VERSION

Document IPR2019-00991, No. 48 Notice - Judgment Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims UnpatentablePUBLIC VERSION (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021)
... claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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 made to a person ...
In an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, see ...
The application for Kastner was filed on June 4, 2007, which predates the conception date 33 IPR2019-00991 Patent 8,602,287 B2 useful in hand-held power tools” to “minimize fatigue and potential injury, while allowing greater control of ...
See Ex. 1020, 139:13–21 (Q: “Is it your opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look only at prior art that describes endocutters or similarly minimally invasive surgical instruments?” A: “It’s my opinion that they would most ...
See Ex. 1014 ¶ 30 (stating that soft-starting can “minimize fatigue and potential injury, while allowing greater control of the tool”).
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402 (construing the scope of analogous art broadly and stating that “familiar items may have 36 IPR2019-00991 Patent 8,602,287 B2 obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often ...
... person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill ...
Here, relying on Kastner, Petitioner asserts that “[s]oft-starting can also be useful in hand-held power tools” to “minimize fatigue and potential injury, while allowing greater control of the tool.” Pet. 62 (quoting Ex. 1014 ¶ 30); see also Ex. ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

120 Termination Decision Document: FINAL WRITTEN DECISION 35 USC § 318a and 37 CFR § 4273and RELATED ORDERS

Document IPR2017-00731, No. 120 Termination Decision Document - FINAL WRITTEN DECISION 35 USC § 318a and 37 CFR § 4273and RELATED ORDERS (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2018)
... claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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 made to a person ...
... the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. Moreover, a person ...
Indeed, it is undisputed that anthracyclines produce “cumulative cardiac injury” that “causes the greatest concern.” See, e.g., Ex. 2030,22 409, 423 (anthracycline-induced cardiac toxicity “is difficult to treat and is associated with a high mortality”). It was known that with each dose of an anthracycline, “there is ...
... ’94, but the prior art as a whole, including Baselga ’96, the 1995 TAXOL PDR entry, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. More importantly, patentability is assessed from the perspective of the hypothetical person ...
After reviewing the entire record, we determine that the combination of Baselga ’96 and Baselga ’94 teaches or suggests each limitation of claim 1, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the ...
Clarke’s declaration is irrelevant because it does not represent the views of a person of ordinary skill in the art,” who is a “clinical or medical oncologist.” Id. at 1.
Id. at 3; see also id. at 3–4 (further arguing that because Dr. Clarke is not a person of ordinary skill in the art, his testimony should also be excluded under FRE 403, 602, 801, and 802).
“A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’” Id. (citing Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets