PTAB Denies Institution of IPR Based on Petitioner’s Failure to Rebut Strong Evidence of Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness

Oct 6, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The patents under review are directed to methods of reducing the risk of adverse events, such as pulmonary edema, associated with treating a patient with inhaled nitric oxide gas. The specification of the patents describes a study, INOT22 that was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of INOMax, an FDA-approved drug for treating neonates who have hypopoxic respiratory failure associated with evidence of pulmonary hypertension. Based on the results of this study, the inventors determined that patients with pre-existing left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) had an increased risk of experiencing serious adverse events, such as pulmonary edema, upon administration of INOMax. Therefore, the patents have a common limitation, which excludes a child from treatment with inhaled nitric oxide if the child has LVD.

The petitioners argued that the patents are obvious based on the disclosures in three references that were not presented in the prior set of petitions. In both the prior and current sets of petitions, the PTAB found that the INOT22 study provides compelling evidence that the claims were not obvious to a person of skill in the art because several leading experts in the field designed this study without excluding children with pre-existing LVD. The PTAB found that although the petitioners’ argument that the newly added references teach that children and neonates with LVD should be excluded from treatment, petitioners failed to rebut the evidence of secondary considerations because they do not explain why many experts in the field designed studies that did not exclude patients with pre-existing LVD if it were obvious to do so. In addition, the PTAB found that the newly added prior art references should have been known to Praxair when it filed its original petitions. Therefore, the PTAB declined to institute IPR reviews for any of the claims of the challenged patents.

Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products, Nos. IPR2016-00777, IPR2016-00778, IPR2016-00779, IPR2016-00780, Paper 10 (PTAB, Sep. 22, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

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.