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

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.