PTAB Refuses to Ignore Reference Where Patent Owner Fails to Overcome Prima Facie Evidence of ‘Different Inventive Entity’

December 2, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that a reference could be used as prior art because patent owner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prior art’s disclosure was invented by all four named inventors, and thus the same “inventive entity,” as the challenged claims.

Petitioner sought inter partes review of certain claims of a patent directed to the use of a drug for treatment of multiple sclerosis. The claims at issue were invented by four inventors, including patent owner’s chief IP attorney. Petitioner relied on a reference that named two authors, neither of whom were named inventors on the patent.

To qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e), a reference must be “by another.” This analysis examines not merely the differences in the listed inventors/authors, but also whether the portions of the reference relied on as prior art, and the subject matter of the challenged claims, represent the work of a “common inventive entity.”

Patent owner argued that the reference must be excluded as prior art because it was not “by another.” Although the listed inventors were different between the reference and the patent, patent owner argued that, through a collaboration agreement, the patent inventors were responsible for the dosing regimen disclosed in the reference, which was the basis for petitioner’s obviousness challenge. Thus, according to patent owner, the same inventive entity had invented both disclosures. In support, patent owner submitted testimony from one of the patent inventors in which the inventor explained that the teams involved under the agreement included all the named inventors of the patent and the reference, among others. It also provided draft meeting minutes and a draft briefing document which listed some—but not all—of the inventors, notably missing from both documents was patent owner’s chief IP attorney. The authors of the reference testified that they did not invent the described dosing regimen. Petitioner argued that there was insufficient corroborating evidence to determine that the dosing regimen was the work of the patent inventors, and, at a minimum, the two reference authors are co-inventors of the relevant disclosure and thus, the reference was still not invented by the same inventive entity.

The board concluded that petitioner met its initial burden in showing that the reference was prior art. Nothing on the face of the reference showed a common inventive entity, and neither the patent nor its file history mentioned a joint research agreement or tried to disqualify the reference as prior art. The burden thus shifted to patent owner to present evidence supporting that the reference was not prior art. But the evidence did not corroborate that patent owner’s chief IP attorney provided an inventive contribution to the relevant disclosure in the reference. None of the documents produced by patent owner mentioned its chief IP attorney’s name, and the named authors of the reference could not testify whether the attorney did anything in relation to the collaboration. Furthermore, the only testifying patent inventor could not recall any specific contribution by the attorney. The attorney’s presence as a named inventor on the patent did not sway the board as there was no evidence of his specific contribution to the claims. Although the claims had similarities to the reference’s disclosure, they also had key differences, which prevented a showing that the attorney would necessarily be a co-inventor of the disclosure.

Practice Tip: A party looking to survive a challenge that prior art is not “by another” should make sure to present evidence that there is a common inventive entity between the reference and the patent. This evidence should clearly substantiate that all inventors are the same as the individuals listed as authors or inventors of the prior art reference. Proof of some, or even most inventors matching, is not sufficient to disqualify the reference as prior art.

Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc. v. Merck Seronos S.A., IPR2023-00481, Paper 62 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.