Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: June 28, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC and
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP and
`AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`Patent Owners.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: June 28, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC and
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP and
`AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`Patent Owners.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH
`(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3; “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes
`review of claims 1–6 of US 8,445,647 B2 (Ex. 1001; “the ’647 patent”).
`AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) did not file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. We
`apply the threshold for review under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`Upon consideration of the above-mentioned Petition, we conclude that
`Petitioner has established that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will
`prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We institute an
`inter partes review as to claims 1–6 of the ’647 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Patent Owner identifies the following co-pending case involving the
`’647 patent: Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
`LP, et al., Civil Action No. 15-cv-00662-GMS (D. Del.). Paper 6.
`Concurrent with the present inter partes review, Petitioner also
`requested review of claims in related patents, including: U.S. Patent No.
`7,297,761 (Case IPR2016-00348); U.S. Patent No. 7,691,963 (Case
`IPR2016-00353); and U.S. Patent No. 8,951,962 (Case IPR2016-00355).
`
`B. The ’647 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’647 patent discloses “modified exendins and exendin agonists
`having an exendin or exendin agonist linked to one or more molecular
`weight increasing compounds, of which polyethylene glycol polymers (or
`other molecular weight increasing agents), and related products and
`methods.” Ex. 1001, 3:64–4:2. The ’647 patent discloses exendin-4 as a
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`peptide that has the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2. Id. at 1:38–48,
`31:33–39, Figure 2. The “molecular weight increasing compounds” are
`described as follows:
`
`A “molecular weight increasing compound” is one that can be
`conjugated to an exendin or exendin agonist and thereby increase
`the molecular weight of the resulting conjugate. Representative
`examples of molecular weight increasing compounds, in addition
`to PEG, are polyamino acids (e.g., poly-lysine, poly-glutamic
`acid, and poly-aspartic acid; see Gombotz, et al. (1995),
`Bioconjugate Chem., vol. 6: 332-351; Hudecz, et al. (1992),
`Bioconjugate Chem., vol. 3, 49-57; Tsukada, et al. (1984), J.
`Natl. Cancer Inst., vol 73: 721-729; Pratesi, et al. (1985), Br. J.
`Cancer, vol. 52: 841-848), particularly
`those of the L
`conformation, pharmacologically
`inactive proteins
`(e.g.,
`albumin; see Gombotz, et al. (1995) and the references cited
`therein), gelatin (see Gombotz, et al. (1995) and the references
`cited therein), succinyl-gelatin (see Gombotz, et al. (1995) and
`the references cited therein), (hydroxypropyl)-methacrylamide
`(see Gombotz, et al. (1995) and the references cited therein), a
`fatty acid, a polysaccaride, a lipid amino acid, and dextran.
`Id. at 4:36–57.
`The ’647 patent discloses that “[t]he polyethylene glycol polymers (or
`other molecular weight increasing agents) are preferably linked to an amino,
`carboxyl, or thio group, and may be linked by N or C termini of side chains
`of lysine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, or cysteine, or alternatively, the
`polyethylene glycol polymers or other molecular weight increasing agents
`may be linked with diamine and dicarboxylic groups.” Id. at 5:20–39.
`
`C. Challenged claims
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim of the ’647 patent. Claim 1 is
`illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`
`1. A compound comprising exendin-4, or agonist analog of
`exendin-4, linked to a polyamino acid through the C-terminal
`amino acid of the exendin-4 or agonist analog of exendin-4 and
`wherein the polyamino acid is selected from the group consisting
`of poly(L-lysine), poly-glutamic acid, and poly-aspartic acid.
`
`Challenged claims 2–6 depend from claim 1, either directly or
`
`indirectly.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–6 of the ’647 patent on the following
`grounds. Pet. 31–56.
`Ground
`Reference[s]
`1
`Larsen PCT1
`
`Claim[s] Challenged
`1–4
`
`Basis
`§ 102(e)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Larsen ’1072
`
`Larsen ’486 3
`
`RE ’3134
`
`Larsen PCT
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`1–4
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`1, 2, 5, 6
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`1, 2, 5, 6
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1–4
`
`
`1 International Application No. PCT/DK99/00118 to Bjarne Due Larsen,
`filed March 9, 1999, published in English as International Publication No.
`WO 99/46283 on September 16, 1999. Ex. 1009 (“Larsen PCT”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 7,414,107 to Bjarne Due Larsen, issued August 19, 2008.
`Ex. 1010 (“Larsen ’107”). Larsen ’107 Patent is a continuation of Larsen
`’118 PCT.
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,528,486 to Bjarne Due Larsen et al., issued March 4,
`2003. Ex. 1011 (“Larsen ’486”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. RE45,313 to Bjarne Due Larsen et al., issued December
`30, 2014. Ex. 1012 (“RE ’313”). RE ’313 Patent is a reissue of Larsen
`’486 Patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`
`Reference[s]
`Larsen ’107
`
`Ground
`6
`
`Petitioner relies also on the Declaration of Dr. S. Russ Lehrman (Ex.
`1002).
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claim[s] Challenged
`1–4
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets a claim term in an
`unexpired patent according to its broadest reasonable construction in light of
`the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, 2016 WL 3369425 (U.S.
`June 20, 2016). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we
`assign claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in
`the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only terms that are in controversy need to
`be construed, however, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
` We interpret the following terms of the challenged claims as part of
`our analysis. Based upon the facts presented, we determine that the explicit
`construction of any other specific claim term is unnecessary to reach our
`decision that Petitioner has established that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. See,
`e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803)). At this
`stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination as to
`the construction of any claim term.
`
`1. “exendin-4”
`
`The ’647 patent discloses that “[t]he amino acid sequence of exendin-
`4 is shown in FIG. 2.” Ex. 1001, 1:38–48; see also id. at 31:33–39. Using
`the standard three-letter codes for amino acids, Figure 2 shows the 39-amino
`acid polypeptide sequence for exendin-4 terminating in an amide:
`
`
`
`Exendin-4 is also identified as SEQ ID NO: 2, which does not show
`the polypeptide terminating in an amide. Petitioner directs us to SEQ ID
`NO: 2 and contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “exendin-
`4” to a person of ordinary skill in the art would be SEQ ID NO: 2, which
`does not require exendin-4 terminating in an amide. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex.
`1002 ¶¶ 57–62).
`We are not persuaded. Patent applications that contain a disclosure of
`an unbranched sequence of four or more amino acids must comply with the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.821–1.825 (“Sequence Rules”). The
`sequence listing presents the polypeptide sequence of exendin-4 as SEQ ID
`NO: 2 in compliance with the Sequence Rules. Petitioner argues that the
`mere compliance of the Sequence Rules is sufficient to lead a person of
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`ordinary skill in the art to understand that exendin-4 does not terminate in an
`amide, despite the clear disclosure of the terminating amide in the
`specification of the ’647 patent. Ex. 1001, 1:38–48, 31:33-39. The evidence
`presented by Petitioner does not persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would understand that the specific chemical structure disclosed for
`exendin-4 should be altered because of the inventor’s compliance with the
`formalities of the Sequence Rules.
`We find “exendin-4” to be expressly defined in the ’647 patent as the
`amino acid sequence shown in FIG. 2.
`Petitioner contends further that
`
`The “exendin-4” must also include a C-terminal amino acid that
`is able to covalently link to a polyamino acid. A person of
`ordinary skill in art would understand that an exendin-4 “linked
`to a polyamino acid through the C-terminal amino acid” would
`most likely be linked at the terminal carboxyl group. Ex. 1002, ¶
`61. The amide that is normally found on this amino acid in
`exendin-4 would need to be absent for the peptide to link to the
`polyamino acid in that manner. Id.
`Pet 26. Here, we distinguish between “exendin-4” and exendin-4 “linked to
`a polyamino acid through the C-terminal amino acid.” Petitioner has
`presented sufficient evidence for us to find, at this stage of the proceeding,
`that the chemical structure of exendin-4 would need to be modified in order
`to be successfully linked to a polyamino acid through the C-terminal amino
`acid to form an exendin-4–polyamino acid conjugate. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 57–61.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`
`2. “agonist analog of exendin-4”
`
`The term “agonist analog of exendin-4” is not expressly defined in the
`’647 patent. However, the term “exendin agonist” is expressly defined as
`follows:
`
`a compound which mimics the effects of exendins, e.g., on gastric
`motility and gastric emptying (namely, a compound which
`effectively binds to the receptor at which exendins exert their
`action on gastric motility and gastric emptying, preferably an
`analog or derivative of an exendin) or a compound, e.g., that
`mimics the effects of exendin on the reduction of food intake by
`binding to the receptor or receptors where exendin causes this
`effect.
`Id. at 6:42–49 (emphasis added).
`The ’647 patent further discloses that “[e]xendin agonists include
`exendin peptide analogs in which one or more naturally occurring amino
`acids are eliminated or replaced with another amino acid(s).” Id. at 11:34–
`36 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner directs our attention to the above passages of the ’647
`patent and contends as follows:
`
`From this perspective and in view of the specification’s use of
`the terms “exendin agonist” and “exendin peptide analogs,” a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of “agonist analog of exendin-4” to be
`“a compound which is structurally substantially similar to
`exendin-4 and mimics the effects of exendin-4.”
`Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶ 66; Ex. 1001, 6:42–49, 11:34–36).
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s analysis and adopt Petitioner’s claim
`construction for the phrase “agonist analog of exendin-4.” For the purposes
`of this Decision, “agonist analog of exendin-4” means “a compound which
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`is structurally substantially similar to exendin-4 and mimics the effects of
`exendin-4.”
`
`B. Priority Claim of the ’647 patent
`Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’647 patent are not entitled
`to the benefit of priority claim to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`60/132,018, filed April 30, 1999 (“the ’018 Provisional”) (Ex. 1003). Pet.
`21–23. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the ’018 Provisional does not
`provide adequate support for the “polyamino acids” limitation recited in the
`challenged claims, but rather is “limited to peptides linked to PEG polymers
`and two other ‘molecular weight increasing agents’ (specifically albumin
`and gelatin).” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003, 10).
`Petitioner notes that during prosecution and reexamination of the ’963
`patent, Patent Owner argued that “the incorporation by reference of the non-
`patent Gombotz & Pettit5 article provides sufficient support for the
`polyamino acids limitation.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1054, 6; Ex. 1044, 6–8).
`Petitioner contends, however, that the ’018 Provisional cites Gombotz &
`Pettit only for its discussion of PEG, albumin and gelatin and that it would
`be improper to incorporate essential material from other, uncited parts of the
`Gombotz & Pettit article. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 48); see also
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir.
`2000) (“[O]ne cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then
`later pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention. In order to
`
`
`5 Wayne R. Gombotz & Dean K. Pettit, Biodegradable polymers for protein
`and peptide drug delivery, 6 Bioconj. Chem. 332 (1995). Ex. 1004
`(“Gombotz & Pettit”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`satisfy the written description requirement, the blaze marks directing the
`skilled artisan to that tree must be in the originally filed disclosure.”).
`Petitioner further contends that our “Rules do not permit the
`incorporation by reference of essential material from non-patent
`publications.” Pet. at 23; see 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(d) (“‘Essential material’ may
`be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by
`reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which
`patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such
`essential material by reference.”).
`The challenged disclosure in the ’018 Provisional states that:
`
`The present invention also provides for conjugation of an
`exendin or exendin agonist to one or more polymers other than
`polyethylene glycol which can regulate kidney clearance in a
`manner similar to polyethylene glycol. Examples of such
`polymers include albumin and gelatin. See, Gombotz and Pettit,
`Bioconjugate Chern., 6:332–351, 1995, which is incorporated
`herein by reference in its entirety.
`The ’018 Provisional, 59:1–8. After consideration of the above cited portion
`of the ’018 Provisional, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and
`evidence that the “polyamino acids” limitation appears to be essential
`material and that reliance on the disclosure of Gombotz and Pettit for
`adequate written description support for the “polyamino acids” limitation
`recited in the challenged claims is improper. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(d).
`In view of the above, at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that
`the claims of the ’647 patent are not entitled the benefit of priority to the
`’018 Provisional.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`
`C. Petitioner’s Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1. Anticipation of Claims 1−4 by Larsen PCT
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1−4 are anticipated by Larsen PCT.
`Pet. 33–35. Petitioner contends that Larsen PCT discloses exendin-4 as a
`pharmacologically active peptide to which a “stabilising peptide sequence”
`may be linked. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:20–10:20–22). Petitioner
`contends that Larsen PCT discloses that exendin-4 can be conjugated to the
`“stabilising peptide sequence” at the C-terminal amino acid residue. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1009, 4:29–5:1, 18:5–7). Petitioner further contends that Larsen
`PCT discloses that the “stabilising peptide sequence” may be a “polyamino
`acid” such as poly(L-lysine), poly-glutamic acid, or poly-aspartic acid. Id. at
`36–37 (citing Ex. 1009, 5:10–15, 14:1–2, 14:14–15:16); see Ex. 1009, 5:10–
`15 (“Thus, in a first aspect the invention relates to a pharmacologically
`active peptide conjugate having a reduced tendency towards enzymatic
`cleavage, said peptide conjugate comprises: a pharmacologically active
`peptide sequence (X) and a stabilising peptide sequence (Z) of 4–20 amino
`acid residues covalently bound to X, each amino acid residue in said
`stabilising peptide sequence (Z) being independently selected from the group
`consisting of Ala, Leu, Ser, Thr, Tyr, Asn, Gln, Asp, Glu, Lys, Arg, His,
`Met, Orn . . . .”).
`Petitioner further provides a detailed claim chart explaining how each
`limitation of challenged claims 1–4 is disclosed by Larsen PCT. Pet. 35–37.
`At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has
`offered sufficient evidence and argument to institute trial. We conclude,
`based on the current record, that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1–4 are unpatentable as
`anticipated by Larsen PCT.
`
`2. Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 by Larsen ’486
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are anticipated by Larsen
`’486. Pet. 43–55. Petitioner contends that Larsen ’486 discloses “several
`exendin variants that have at least about 90–95% homology to exendin-4 and
`demonstrate exendin-4-like activity, such as being able to lower blood
`glucose levels in mammals and bind GLP-1 receptors.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex.
`1011, 5:27–37). Petitioner contends that Larsen ’486 discloses that the
`“exendin variants are conjugated to a polyamino acid (“peptide sequence
`Z”), which is typically between 4-20 amino acid residues in length.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1011, 7:16–23, 8:1–6). The “peptide sequence Z” can be a
`polylysine, polyglutamic acid, or polyaspartic acid. Id. (citing Ex. 1011,
`8:1–16, 8:23–9:16, 10:26–33).
` Larsen ’486 claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional
`Application 60/143,591, filed July 12, 1999 (Ex. 1014) (“Larsen
`Provisional”). Petitioner contends that Larsen Provisional “contains
`sufficient – nearly verbatim – support for both the claims and the
`specification of the Larsen ’486.” Pet 44. Petitioner provides a detailed
`discussion and claim charts explaining how each limitation of challenged
`claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 is disclosed in Larsen ’486 and Larsen Provisional.
`At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has
`offered sufficient evidence that Larsen ’486 is entitled to the benefit of
`priority to Larsen Provisional. Accordingly, Larsen ’486 qualifies as prior
`art to the ’647 patent. We further conclude, based on the current record, that
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`assertion that claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are unpatentable as anticipated by Larsen
`’486.
`
`3. Obviousness of Claims 1−4 by Larsen PCT
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1−4 are obvious in view of Larsen
`PCT. Pet. 33–35. Specifically, Petitioner contends as follows:
`
`The Larsen [] PCT specifically discloses exendin-4 – including
`the C-terminal amide – as a peptide that can be linked to a
`stabilising peptide through solid-phase peptide synthesis. One of
`skill in the art would have understood that the exendin-4 peptide
`would not retain the amide functional group at the C terminus of
`exendin-4 if it were linked to a stabilising peptide through that
`methodology. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 89-91. . . .
`The only difference between the primary structures of
`exendin-4 on its own and the same peptide conjugated to the
`stabilising peptide is the amide group. However, one skilled in
`the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at
`creating the conjugate because the Larsen ‘118 PCT teaches how
`to synthesize it. Ex. 1002, ¶ 90. In fact, the Larsen ‘118 PCT
`discloses a method of synthesizing such a peptide conjugate on a
`solid support one amino acid at a time, and therefore a
`deamidation step would not even be required. Ex. 1009, p. 27, ll.
`9-11; Ex. 1002, ¶ 90.
`Pet. 53–54.
`In view of the above, we determine that Petitioner has offered
`sufficient evidence and argument to institute trial on this ground. We
`conclude, based on the current record, that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1–4 are
`unpatentable as obvious over the Larsen PCT.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`
`4. Petitioner’s Remaining Grounds
`
`The patent rules promulgated for AIA post-grant proceedings,
`including those pertaining to institution, are “construed to secure the just,
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) (regulations for AIA post-grant
`proceedings take into account “the efficient administration of the Office”
`and “the ability of the Office to timely complete [instituted] proceedings”).
`Therefore, we exercise our discretion and, for reasons of administrative
`necessity to ensure timely completion of the instituted proceeding, do not
`institute a review on any ground other than those specifically instituted in
`the Order below. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`We conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on its assertions that claims 1–6 of the ’647 patent are
`unpatentable as anticipated and/or obvious.
`At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final
`determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim or the
`construction of any claim term. Thus, our view with regard to any
`conclusion reached in the foregoing could change upon consideration of
`Patent Owner’s merits response and upon completion of the record.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is granted with regard to the following
`asserted grounds:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00354
`Patent 8,445,647 B2
`
`
`A. Claims 1−4 of the ’647 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`anticipated by Larsen PCT;
`B. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ’647 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`as anticipated by Larsen ’486; and
`C. Claims 1−4 of the ’647 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over Larsen PCT.
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ʼ647 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds listed in
`the Order. No other grounds are authorized.
`
`PETITIONER:
`Paul Berghoff
`berghoff@mbhb.com
`
`Joshua Rich
`rich@mbhb.com
`
`Andrew Williams
`williams@mbhb.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`David Berl
`dberl@wc.com
`
`Dov Grossman
`dgrossman@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
