PTAB Not Convinced by Petitioner’s Argument a Provisional Application’s Inherent Disclosures Showed a Patent Qualified as 102(e) Art

Mar 30, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

In the petition, Benitec Biopharma Ltd. (“Petitioner”) asserted the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,202,846, owned by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (“Owner”), were invalid for anticipation by U.S. Patent 7,691,995 (“the Zamore patent”) under § 102(e). The technology at issue involves triggering biological responses using ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules.

PTAB stated that the Zamore patent could qualify as 102(e) art only if Petitioner “demonstrate[d] that the [] provisional application provide[d] written description support for at least one claim of the Zamore patent,” citing the Federal Circuit’s decision in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

In its analysis, PTAB first juxtaposed the claims of the Zamore patent, covering various lengths of RNA, with the description provided in the provisional application. PTAB agreed with Owner that the limitations of the claims in the Zamore patent (ranges of 18–40; 22–28; 18–30; and 18–40 nucleotides) were not found in, or supported by, the disclosure of the provisional application (ranges and specific lengths of 19–22; 21 or 22; and 21 or 40 nucleotides).

Next, PTAB disagreed with Petitioner’s argument the Zamore patent claims had inherent support. Petitioner argued that the necessary RNA lengths for the biological responses were “widely known” to a person having ordinary skill in the art (skilled artisan). PTAB stated that claims cannot be supported by “a description that merely renders the invention obvious,” and an “allegedly inherent characteristic” must “necessarily flow[] from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Noting that Petitioner had not presented any expert opinion about the understanding of a skilled artisan, PTAB was not otherwise convinced by Petitioner’s “limited evidence and assertion[s].”

Ultimately, because Petitioner did not show that the Zamore patent qualified as 102(e) art, PTAB found that Petitioner had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the asserted ground.

Benitec Biopharma Ltd. v. Cold Spring Harbor Lab., IPR201600014, Paper 7 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2016).

[Pollock (opinion), Scheiner, Snedden]

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

Ineffective Retroactive Amendment of Patent Assignment Dooms $20 Million Damages Verdict

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.

...

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

IPR Estoppel Under § 315(e)(1) Does Not Apply to Ongoing Ex Parte Reexamination

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.

...

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

Delaware District Court Clarifies That Enhanced Damages Are a Form of Relief, Not a Claim That Can Be Dismissed on a Motion under Rule 12(b)(6)

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).

...

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

Federal Circuit Denies Mandamus Petition Challenging the PTO Director’s Application of ‘Settled Expectations’ in IPR Proceedings

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.

...

© 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.

PTAB Not Convinced by Petitioner’s Argument a Provisional Application’s Inherent Disclosures Showed a Patent Qualified as 102(e) Art

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries