Federal Circuit Allows Petitioners to Present Additional Evidence of Invalidity After Institution of AIA Review

Jul 13, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

The case involved Genzyme’s patents for treating a serious genetic muscle disease that can lead to death from heart failure. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. filed inter partes review petitions challenging the claims as obvious based on several combinations of prior art references involving in vitro experiments, (i.e,. experiments that take place outside the human body). Genzyme argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not find those experiments predictive of results in a human patient, and that Biomarin should not now be permitted to use any prior art showing successful tests in humans because those studies were not discussed in the board’s institution decision. In its reply, Biomarin cited two in vivo studies (i.e., experiments that take place inside the human body) to further argue Genzyme’s patent claims are unpatentable as obvious. In its final written decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found the claims to be obvious based in part on the in vivo studies.

On appeal, the Genzyme argued that in finding the claims unpatentable, the PTAB had relied on facts and legal arguments not set forth in the institution decision. Specifically, Genzyme argued that although the PTAB held the claims unpatentable in view of the same combinations of references that were set forth in the institution decision, its citation to the two new in vivo studies denied notice of the issues to be considered by the PTAB and an opportunity to address those issues.

The Federal Circuit affirmed because it held that the PTAB is free to consider/rely on new evidence and that it did not “change theories midstream” (i.e., it was not a new ground of rejection) much less deny Genzyme notice of any such change. The Federal Circuit stated:

In particular, Genzyme objects to the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board’s citation of two references dealing with in vivo testing, the Kikuchi and van der Ploeg ’91 references. However, the introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in inter partes review trial proceedings and, as long as the opposing party is given notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond to it, the introduction of such evidence is perfectly permissible under the APA.

The Federal Circuit rejected Genzyme’s argument that the institution decision must refer to every bit of evidence that is relied on by PTAB in its final written decision because “[t]here is no requirement, either in PTAB’s regulations, in the Administrative Procedure Act, or as a matter of due process, for the institution decision to anticipate and set forth every legal or factual issue that might arise in the course of the trial. See Boston Carrier, Inc. v. ICC, 746 F.2d 1555, 1560 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (even when adjudicating charges of misconduct, an agency is not burdened with the obligation to give every applicant a complete bill of particulars as to every allegation that carrier will confront’).” The Federal Circuit also pointed out that Genzyme had opportunities to attack Biomarin’s references to the in vivo tests beyond arguing that they should have been kept out because they were not mentioned in the institution decision. It could have filed a motion to exclude the references or sought leave to file a surreply to provide a substantive response to them, but it did neither.

The opinion thus indicates that parties can use the inter partes review proceedings to build a record and introduce/present new evidence for the PTAB to rely on even if it was not included in the original institution decision, provided the grounds of rejection stay the same (i.e., parties might not necessarily be locked in to only the evidence in the petition/institution decision).

Genzyme Therapeutic Products LP v. BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., C.A. No. 15-1720 (Jun. 16, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.