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

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

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

© 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.