Federal Circuit: Prior Art Disclosure with Same Specificity as Patent Inherently Anticipates Claims

May 16, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

In a recent appeal from the PTAB, the Federal Circuit held that claims of a patent were inherently anticipated where the patent and prior art incorporated the same reference to describe a process for making the claimed composition of particles, and that process was responsible for determining the morphology of the claimed particles.

Claim 1 of the challenged patent is directed to a composition of acid-lipid particles of a specific composition and with a specific non-lamellar morphology. The primary question before the PTAB was whether the prior art inherently disclosed the morphology limitation. According to the disclosures in the patent, two factors determine the morphology of the particles—their formulation and the process used to make them. It was undisputed that the prior art expressly disclosed the formulations of the particles. The prior art reference did not expressly disclose the process for making them, but did incorporate a second reference for that purpose. Because the challenged patent incorporated the exact same reference for the same purpose (i.e., as a disclosure of methods of making the particles), the PTAB found the limitation inherently anticipated.

Appellant-Patent Owner Arbutus argued on appeal that the method of making the particles did not meet the requirements for inherent anticipation because it would not necessarily result in the claimed morphology. By way of background, the prior art patent and the challenged patent are related, commonly owned by Arbutus, and share overlapping inventors.

On review, the Federal Circuit first confirmed that the prior art patent disclosed the formulations of the claimed particles. In particular, the written description in both patents are substantially similar—they describe two of the five relevant formulation with almost identical wording and the specificity provided in the disclosures is the same.

The Federal Circuit next compared the methods disclosed in the prior art and the challenged patent. In this regard, the challenged patent explained that the non-lamellar morphology could be determined using techniques known to and used by those of skill in the art. The challenged patent referred to a specific method, the Direct Dilution Method, as carrying out the process necessary to produce the non-lamellar morphology, and incorporated by reference a patent publication that provided the details of the Direct Dilution Method. Although the challenged patent provided some details about the Direct Dilution Method not found in the asserted prior art, the Federal Circuit found it was sufficient that the prior art incorporated the same patent publication.

Because the formulation and method of making the particles was disclosed in the prior art, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that the prior art inherently anticipated the morphology limitation. The court reasoned that to anticipate, the prior art need only meet the inherently disclosed limitation to the same extent as the patented invention. It was not persuaded by Arbutus’s argument that the morphology limitation would not necessarily result from the combination of the formulation and method of making. Here, there were a limited number of tools—five formulations and two processes—in the claims that a POSA would have to follow. As a result, the Court held that it was reasonable for the PTAB to have found that a POSA would follow the particular formulation and process disclosures that would inherently lead to the Morphology Limitation.

Practice Tip: When prosecuting claims that have the same or substantially the same written descriptions as patents and applications that could be prior art, it is important to include limitations that can be relied on to distinguish over those patents. This is particularly important where the claims include compositions with properties that result from specific methods of making those compositions.

Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. ModernaTX, Inc., No. 2020-1183 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.