PTAB Rejects Teaching Away Arguments That Did Not Take into Account the Combined Teaching of the Asserted References

Aug 19, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

In its response to the petition for inter partes review, MiMedx argued that the combination of references cited by the petitioner taught away from the claimed invention. Specifically, MiMedx argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have retained the amnion and/or the chorion layers when creating a placental tissue graft because one of the asserted references, Sulner, taught substantial removal of cells (and therefore the two claimed layers) from a graft. This “decellularization” procedure was believed to have reduced immunogenicity and thus reduced rejection rates. MiMedx, thus, argued that Sulner “taught away” because a person of ordinary skill would not have isolated and retained the amnion and/or chorion layers based on any combination of references involving Sulner.

The PTAB found MiMedx’s arguments unpersuasive. The PTAB acknowledged that Sulner taught “decellularization,” but that this disclosure did not amount to a “teaching away” because the first asserted reference, Klen, disclosed retaining the cellular material in placental grafts. The PTAB explained that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. According to the PTAB, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have retained the amnion and chorion layers because Klen taught that its cellularized grafts may be used in the treatment of burns, in treating skin defects caused by leprosy, in ophthalmology at burns of the cornea, and in varicose ulcers. The PTAB also rejected MiMedx’s argument that it was “conventional wisdom” to decellularize placental grafts because the specification did not include any discussion of decellularization.  The PTAB, thus, found that the specification of the ’437 patent itself did not support the patent owner’s argument that the lack of a decellularization went against conventional wisdom. 

Musculoskeletal Transplant Found. v. MiMedx Grp., Inc., Case IPR2015-00664, Paper No. 49, (PTAB, Aug. 16, 2016) [Green (opinion), Paulraj, and Harlow].

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

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

© 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.