PTAB Invalidates Regeneron Claims on Method of Treatment

Attorney: Cristina Lai
July 5, 2024

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision on IPR2023-00442 determining that claims 1, 3-11, 13, 14, 16-24, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,130,681 (“the ‘681 patent”) were unpatentable. The ‘681 patent is owned by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and was challenged in an IPR by Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.  The ‘681 patent claims priority to a number of patents that were invalidated in previous IPR proceedings.<... Read more

Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Finding of Patentability in Medtronic v. Teleflex Life Sciences

April 1, 2024

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (“the ’413 patent”), owned by Teleflex, was not shown to be unpatentable over the asserted prior art. This post will focus on how the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s claim interpretation to find ’413 patent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–14 non-obvious.<... Read more

Sisvel – PTAB Guidance On A Proposed Amendment In An IPR Is Not Binding On The PTAB

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
November 20, 2023

In Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., Appeal nos. 2022-1387 and 2022-1492, (Fed. Cir. 2023) the Court considered this issue of when was a claim broadened in a post grant proceeding. Sisvel’s patent U.S. 7,433,698 (‘698) was involved in two IPRs, IPR 2020-01070 and IPR2020-01071 where it attempted unsuccessfully to amend its claim 10.  Sisvel received preliminary guidance from the PTAB on its original motion to amend claim 10 which then led it to file a revised motion to amend.  Sisvel’s revised motion proposed these amendments:

The amendments to the preamble and the first two limitations result in a more limited claim than original claim 10. However, the PTAB and Federal Circuit held the third limitation “setting the value” to be broader than the original limitation.  The original claim required that the value of at least one parameter be based at least in part on information in the at least one frequency parameter.  The amended claim required the “use of the frequency parameter” which was interpreted as being broader in scope than the “based on” language of the original claim 10.  Using the information was broader in scope than the old language “based at least in part on information in at least one frequency parameter.”  “Using the parameter” was broader than basing it on the parameter.  The Federal Circuit used the example of using a value V and multiplied by X and then dividing by X where the value X was used to calculate V, but the value V is not based on X.  Thus, while proposed claim 36 is narrower overall than claim 10, the last limitation is broader.  It is possible for infringement of claim 36 to exist where none existed for claim 10 since a device only “using the frequency parameter” of claim 36 would not infringe claim 10 but would infringe proposed claim 36.  The amendment process does not permit a patentee to broaden any aspect of a claim even though the overall the claim is narrower, see Hockerson-Halberstadt, 183 F.3d at 1374 see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.175(b) (“A claim is a broadened claim if the claim is broadened in any respect.”)<... Read more

USPTO Issues Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for America Invents Act (AIA) Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
April 20, 2023

The USPTO today announced Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for PTAB reforms regarding IPRs/PGRs. The proposal related to five areas:<... Read more

CAFC Affirms Obviousness Rejections Regarding Lack of Motivation to Combine

Attorney: Grace Kim
January 23, 2023

Update by Kasumi Kanetaka & Grace Kim

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential decision affirming the PTAB’s holdings in two final written decisions. P Tech, LLC (herein “P Tech”) appealed the PTAB decisions holding that claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent 9,192,395 (herein “’395 patent”) and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 9,149,281 (herein “’281 patent”) are unpatentable because they would have been obvious over the cited prior art, U.S. Patent 6,331,181 (herein “Tierney”) in view of U.S. Patent 5,518,163 (herein “Hooven”).P Tech, LLC, v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 22-1102, No. 22-1115 (December 15, 2022)<... Read more