1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

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

By: Rubén H. Muñoz

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

Categories

Patent Trial & Appeal BoardLife Sciences Litigation
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

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.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

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.