PGR Challenge to Genus Claims Fails Because of Enabling Disclosure of Species in Pre-AIA Priority Applications

Mar 15, 2022

Reading Time : 3 min

The challenged claims were methods of improving human endurance during exercise. The claims included the step of administering an amount of an inorganic nitrate from a specified range that was based on body weight. The petitioner did not dispute that the PCT applications disclosed the claimed range, rather, even with the disclosures, a skilled artisan would have to perform undue experimentation to practice the full scope of the claims. The petitioner argued that the upper end of the range encompassed lethal doses of the inorganic nitrate, as shown on a webpage archived by the Wayback Machine. The petitioner also argued that the only working example in the PCT applications was a much lower dose of nitrate, which could only show hope, but not support, for the higher range. The petitioner supported its arguments with expert testimony. The petitioner also challenged the dependent claims for lack of written description of various elements.

The PTAB first found that the archived webpage was inadmissible because it had not been authenticated. The PTAB explained that the petitioner could have verified the webpage as a business record under FRE 901(b)(1), further noting that other evidence had been authenticated by a declarant. But even though the webpage itself was inadmissible, the PTAB explained that the petitioner’s expert could rely on the webpage to form an opinion.

Turning to whether the priority applications were enabling under the Wands factors, the PTAB found the petitioner’s expert’s evidence unpersuasive. First, the working example of the challenged patent disclosed a dose that was tested and that, contrary to petitioner expert’s opinion, was not lethal. Second, the PTAB distinguished the challenged patent from the patent at issue in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In Amgen, the court found that undue experimentation was required because there were too few examples of antibodies compared with the scope of the large genus claims and amount of effort required to find all of the antibodies. By contrast, the challenged patent’s disclosure allowed the skilled artisan to practice the claims by “simply administer[ing] a different dosage to the human.” Moreover, the challenged patent explained that the particular condition that is the source of the lethality associated with nitrates does not result from the claimed method. Because the petitioner’s expert failed to address this discrepancy, the expert’s testimony was of little probative value.

Finally, the PTAB considered the petitioner’s written description arguments. The PTAB found that a skilled artisan would not have understood the inventors to lack possession of the inventions of the dependent claims. The limitation requiring that the dose be given “at least three days prior to exercise” was supported by the example in which a dose was given more than three days prior to exercise. Similarly, a limitation requiring administration “once a day” was supported by the disclosures of dosing ranges using units in the form “mmol/kg/24h” and administering “single bolus doses.” And the limitation requiring a combination of the nitrate and “at least one additive” had support from disclosures in the priority applications of using the nitrates with antimicrobials, pH stabilizers, flavors, sweeteners, colors, and emulsifiers.

The PTAB concluded that, on the record before it, the petitioner had not met its burden of showing that any of the claims failed to trace priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013. Thus, the challenged patent was ineligible for PGR, and the petition was denied.

Practice tip:

PGR is not available if the challenged claims trace priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013. It is petitioner’s burden to provide sufficient evidence to meet this threshold issue. Because this critical requirement for PGR eligibility often relies on expert testimony, a petitioner should scrutinize its written description and enablement arguments, as well as the supporting expert testimony. Conversely, a patent owner seeking denial of institution should review carefully petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, and challenge any identified weaknesses pre-institution.

Human Power of N Company v. Heartbeet Ltd., PGR2021-00110, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2022)

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.