Director Vacates PTAB’s Denial of Institution That Contradicted Federal Circuit Precedent on Anticipation and Written Description for Method of Treatment Patent

September 22, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

A Petitioner filed a request for rehearing and a request for Precedential Opinion Panel review after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or the “Board”) rejected its petition for post-grant review. The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office sua sponte granted Director Review and concluded that the PTAB failed to correctly determine whether a certain species inherently anticipated the challenged claims and whether the claims were supported by adequate written description. As to inherent anticipation, the Director concluded that the PTAB erred by, first, failing to acknowledge that a genus claim is anticipated by a prior art species within the genus and, second, declining to consider non-prior art as evidence that the prior art reference disclosed a composition that inherently contained the claimed properties.

The patent claims at issue relate to a method of treating a certain hormonal disorder by administering a type of compound called a CRF1 receptor antagonist, which reduces certain hormone levels by at least 10% from baseline. The patent discloses one specific CRF1 receptor antagonist—the compound tildacerfont—that could be used in the claimed method. Petitioner sought post-grant review, arguing that the claims were inherently anticipated and lacked written description support.

First, Petitioner argued that the challenged claims are anticipated by a prior art reference that discloses a method of treating the hormonal disorder by administering a different CRF1 receptor—the compound crinecerfont—because a second, non-prior art reference showed that crinecerfont reduced hormone levels by at least 10%. Thus, according to Petitioner, the reference taught administering a CRF1 receptor antagonist that reduced hormone levels by at least 10%. The PTAB rejected Petitioner’s argument because Petitioner’s reference did not show that a representative number of CRF1 receptor antagonists necessarily cause the claimed 10% reduction and because Petitioner relied on results from a reference that was not prior art.

The Director found that the PTAB had erred on both accounts. A genus claim is anticipated by an earlier disclosure of a species within that genus. Because the reference disclosed administering a species (crinecerfont) within the claimed genus (CRF1 receptor antagonists), the reference anticipates the claimed method as long as it discloses the remaining limitations expressly or inherently. The Director then found the PTAB erred by not determining whether administration of that species inherently results in the claimed at least 10% reduction of hormone levels, and stated that the PTAB could consider non-prior art as evidence of what is necessarily present, or inherent, in a prior art embodiment. Accordingly, the Director vacated the PTAB’s analysis and remanded for further consideration of whether the reference inherently anticipated the challenged claims in light of the test results in the non-prior art reference.

Second, Petitioner argued that the claims lacked written description support because there are over 100 diverse CRF1 receptor antagonists, but the patent identifies only one that can be used in the claimed method. The Board disagreed, concluding that the genus itself was not claimed, only a method of using members of that genus. The Director agreed with Petitioner that claiming use of a genus in a method requires written description support for the members of the genus. The Director then made factual findings that the patent did not provide representative examples and did not describe any common structural features of the compounds that could be used in the method and remanded for further proceedings consistent with her factual findings.

Practice Tip: If any claim limitations are not expressly disclosed in a prior art reference, patent challengers should consider whether they may be an inherent property of that disclosure and whether any later, non-prior art reference could help establish the inherent existence of those limitations in the art.  

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v. Spruce Biosciences, Inc., No. PGR2021-00088, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2023)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.