Obviousness

Subscribe to Obviousness

In the chemical and biological arts, it is common for patent challengers to allege obviousness based upon prior art disclosures of ranges combined with “routine optimization” by one skilled in the art.  In E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., No. 17-1977 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2018), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s (“Board”) final written decision upholding Synvina’s U.S. Patent No. 8,865,921 (“’921 patent”) as non-obvious, in response to du Pont’s inter partes review (“IPR”) challenge on such grounds.  In particular, in E.I. du Pont, the Court found that the patentee failed to demonstrate that 1) the claimed range produced a new and unexpected result, different in kind and not merely in degree from the prior art, 2) the optimized parameter was not recognized as a result-effective variable, 3) the disclosure of broad ranges did not invite more than routine optimization, or 4) that the prior art taught away from the range.
…
Continue Reading Obviousness of Overlapping Ranges – The Burden-Shifting Framework Applies to Inter Partes Review: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.

We wrote previously regarding Incyte Corp. v. Concert Pharms., Inc., IPR2017-01256, in which the Board reached different conclusions regarding the availability of two pieces of prior art, over a dissent by Judge Fitzpatrick.  Regarding art referred to as the Concert Backgrounder, the Board’s earlier ruling found public accessibility where the Backgrounder was 1) identified on a cached WebCite page, 2) cited in an International Search Report for a patent application, and 3) used in a law review article that cited the WebCite page.  In a new decision in the same case, the Board ruled on Petitioner’s motion for additional discovery regarding public availability of the Concert Backgrounder, granting the discovery in part.  Interestingly, the Board declined to allow discovery that it viewed as changing the Petitioner’s theory of public availability of the art.
Continue Reading Granting A Motion For Discovery, Board Bars Changes In Theory Of The Evidence

At the end of a week shortened by the Memorial Day holiday, the PTAB (“Board”) issued just two decisions in Technology Center (TC) 1600 during the week of May 28.  The Pfizer decision hammers home that hindsight is not always 20/20, and there is no place for such bias in an obviousness analysis, while the shorter Roquette Freres decision serves to remind us of the old adage ‘mean what you say and say what you mean.’…
Continue Reading Hindsight Is Not 20/20: PTAB Technology Center 1600 Decision Round-Up: Week of May 28 – June 1, 2018

In a final written decision in April 2017, the PTAB found that Petitioner did not satisfy its burden of proving claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,618,135 (“the ’135 patent”) were unpatentable in part because the PTAB found a slide deck presented to business persons was not prior art.  In Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, IPR2015-01f835, Paper No. 56 (PTAB March 6, 2017) Petitioner argued that the ’135 patent was unpatentable over a combination of prior art that included a slide deck prepared by Evan Stein, M.D., Ph.D., for PPD, Inc. (“Stein”).

Stein was presented during Analyst Day at PPD, Inc. live and via webcast, and a hyperlink was distributed.  Moreover, Stein was reported in Pink Sheet, a news webpage.  In asserting Stein was prior art, Petitioner alleged Stein was “targeted to financial analysts, investors, and skilled artisans interested in drug discovery and development.”  Petitioner also asserted that the presentation was publicized for weeks, and that skilled artisans would have taken great interest in it. …
Continue Reading Presentation Directed Toward Business Persons, Rather Than Skilled Artisans, Did Not Qualify As Prior Art