UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK No.1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    26-Apr-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    214
  • download

    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK No.1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT...

  • Paper No. 1

    UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

    BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

    ABS GLOBAL, INC.,Petitioner

    v.

    XY, LLC,Patent Owner

    Patent No. 7,208,265Issued: April 24, 2007Filed: January 5, 2000

    Inventor: John L. Schenk

    Title: METHOD OF CRYOPRESERVING SELECTED SPERM CELLS

    Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-02184

    PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

  • i

    Table of Contents

    I. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ......................................................... 1A. Certification that the Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner ... 1B. Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. 42.15(a)) ................... 1C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)) .................................. 1

    1. Real Party in Interest ( 42.8(b)(1))................................. 12. Other Proceedings ( 42.8(b)(2))..................................... 23. Lead and Backup Lead Counsel ( 42.8(b)(3)) ............... 2

    D. Service on Petitioner .................................................................. 2E. Proof of Service (37 C.F.R. 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)).............. 3

    II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 3III. IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED............... 4IV. NO PROHIBITION BASED ON 35 U.S.C. 325(d) ......................... 6V. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE

    CONTESTED PATENT....................................................................... 7A. Background of the Technology.................................................. 9

    1. Methods of sorting sperm were well known.................... 92. Methods of freezing sperm were well known................ 103. Methods of freezing sorted sperm were well known..... 10

    B. Detailed Description of the Prior Art ....................................... 121. Detailed description of Seidel 1997............................... 122. Detailed description of Salisbury................................... 133. Detailed description of Spaulding.................................. 154. Detailed description of Fugger....................................... 16

    C. Prosecution History and Effective Filing Date of the '265 Patent ................................................................................ 171. Prosecution of the '265 patent........................................ 172. Effective filing date of the '265 patent........................... 18

  • ii

    D. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................... 18E. Construction of Terms Used in the Claims .............................. 18

    1. "sorting" sperm cells ...................................................... 182. "without the presence of protective compounds in

    seminal plasma" ............................................................. 203. "based on sex-type to provide a collection of

    sex-selected sperm cells obtained using flow cytometry or fluorescence-activated cell-sorting" ......... 21

    4. "extender"....................................................................... 225. "about 5 million per milliliter of extender to about

    10 million per milliliter of extender" ............................. 226. "freezing" ....................................................................... 23

    VI. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ......................... 24A. Claims 1-4, 8-20, 22, and 26-28 Are Unpatentable in View of

    Seidel 1997 in Combination with Salisbury and Spaulding .... 241. Claim 1........................................................................... 262. Claim 2 ........................................................................... 303. Claim 3 ........................................................................... 314. Claim 4 ........................................................................... 325. Claim 8 ........................................................................... 336. Claim 9 ........................................................................... 337. Claim 10......................................................................... 348. Claim 11......................................................................... 349. Claim 12......................................................................... 3510. Claim 13......................................................................... 3611. Claim 14......................................................................... 3612. Claim 15......................................................................... 3713. Claim 16......................................................................... 3814. Claim 17......................................................................... 3915. Claim 18......................................................................... 39

  • iii

    16. Claim 19......................................................................... 4017. Claim 20......................................................................... 4118. Claim 22......................................................................... 4219. Claim 26......................................................................... 4220. Claim 27......................................................................... 4321. Claim 28......................................................................... 44

    B. Claims 1-4, 8-20, 22 and 26-28 are Unpatentable in View of Fugger in Combination with Salisbury .................................... 451. Claim 1........................................................................... 472. Claim 2 ........................................................................... 503. Claim 3 ........................................................................... 504. Claim 4 ........................................................................... 515. Claim 8 ........................................................................... 526. Claim 9 ........................................................................... 537. Claim 10......................................................................... 548. Claim 11......................................................................... 549. Claim 12......................................................................... 5510. Claim 13......................................................................... 5611. Claim 14......................................................................... 5712. Claim 15......................................................................... 5813. Claim 16......................................................................... 5814. Claim 17......................................................................... 5915. Claim 18......................................................................... 6016. Claim 19......................................................................... 6117. Claim 20......................................................................... 6218. Claim 22......................................................................... 6219. Claim 26......................................................................... 6320. Claim 27......................................................................... 6421. Claim 28......................................................................... 65

  • iv

    VII. CONCLUSION................................................................................... 66

  • 1

    I. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

    A. Certification that the Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner

    ABS Global, Inc. ("Petitioner") certifies it is not barred or estopped from

    requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,208,265 ("the '265 patent")

    (Ex. 1001). Neither Petitioner, nor any party in privity with Petitioner: (1) has

    filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the '265 patent; or

    (2) has been served a complaint alleging infringement of the '265 patent more than

    a year prior to the present date. Also, the patent has not been the subject of a prior

    inter partes review or a finally concluded district court litigation involving

    Petitioner. Petitioner therefore certifies that the '265 patent is available for inter

    partes review.

    B. Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. 42.15(a))

    The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R.

    42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 50-1597.

    C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b))

    1. Real Party in Interest ( 42.8(b)(1))

    The real parties in interest are Petitioner ABS Global, Inc., located at 1525

    River Road, DeForest, Wisconsin 53532; and Genus plc, located at Belvedere

    House, Basing View, Hampshire RG21 4DZ, United Kingdom.

  • 2

    2. Other Proceedings ( 42.8(b)(2))

    The '265 patent is the subject of pending litigation in the United States

    District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (No. 3:17-cv-00446), which

    names ABS Global, Inc. and Genus plc, among others, as defendants. The

    '265 patent is also the subject of pending litigation in the United States District

    Court for the District of Colorado (XY, LLC et al. v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC,

    No. 1:17-cv-00944), which was transferred from an earlier filed case in the United

    States District Court for the Western District of Texas between the same parties

    (No. 6:16-cv-00447).

    3. Lead and Backup Lead Counsel ( 42.8(b)(3))

    Lead Counsel

    Jeffrey P. KushanReg. No. 43,401jku