March 28, 2023
Authored and Edited by Jordan M. Cowger; Justin J. Hasford; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.; Stacy Lewis†
In Genus PLC v. Inguran, LLC, IPR2021-01027, Paper 25 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2022), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rejected Petitioner’s anticipation challenge to Genus’s method patent for swine genetic selection but found the patent unpatentable as obvious over the same references.
U.S. Patent No. 10,542,734 (“the ’734 patent”) disclosed “methods of increasing the genetic progress of breed or herd of swine through the use of sex-selected sperm cells in artificial insemination techniques” to increase efficiency and quality in pork production by selecting “superior” genetic lines for reproduction and breeding. Id. at *4. The patent explained that swine production can be represented as a multilevel pyramid, with certain offspring at each level being used in the next lower level for breeding. Id. at *5. The top level of the pyramid was described as the “nucleus herd” or “genetic nucleus,” with commercial farms at the bottom. Id. at *5, *13. The selection method disclosed in the ’734 patent allowed producers to “increase the rate of desirable genetic change” in swine breeding lines, all while “lower[ing] operational cost.” Id.
The ’734 patent claimed a method of “increasing the genetic progress” in swine breeds using a boar (male pig) and sow (female pig) from “a genetic nucleus.” In the claimed method, the boar and sow are selected based on certain genetic markers desirable for breeding, and a semen sample is collected from the boar. Id. at *6. The semen sample is then sorted into at least two subpopulations of sperm cells, “wherein at least 80% of a first subpopulation bears X-chromosomes or Y-chromosomes.” Id.
Petitioner argued that the ’734 patent was anticipated and obvious over four prior art references: Dekkers, Maxwell, Garner, and Kim.
Petitioner asserted the ’734 patent was anticipated by the Dekkers reference, as evidenced by either Maxwell or Garner. Id. at *14. Dekkers disclosed a three-tiered pyramid-based breeding structure for animal genetics to obtain “genetic improvement.” Specifically, Dekkers taught that artificial insemination and sex sorting technology could be used to improve genetic lines, while the Maxwell and Garner references disclosed sexed-chromosome sorting in swine at “85-95% accuracy.” Id. at *14, *18. Patent Owner asserted that Dekkers cannot anticipate the challenged claims because it does not, on its own, “explicitly or inherently disclose” sexed-chromosome sorting to an “at least 80% purity level.” The PTAB agreed with Patent Owner, noting that Petitioner’s argument was “more applicable to an obviousness-based challenge.” Id. at *20. “To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.” Id. at *9. The PTAB explained that in the case at hand:
Petitioner cannot rely upon specific disclosures in Maxwell or Gardner based on the generic reference to these publications cited [in] Dekkers. Merely citing Maxwell or Gardner in association with sorting sperm as discussed in Dekkers is not incorporation by reference with any level of particularity.
Id. at *19.
Turning to the obviousness challenge, Petitioner alleged the ’734 patent was obvious over Dekkers and the remaining prior art references. While Dekkers was not specific to swine breeding, it disclosed the identification of ideal genetic markers in a sire (male) and dam (female), and through artificial insemination and sexed-chromosome sorting, the desired genetic traits “trickle down” into offspring populations. As discussed above, the accuracy of 85-95% in swine chromosome sorting had already been disclosed in Maxwell and Garner, so the final question was whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to utilize Dekkers in light of those references.
The PTAB determined a person of ordinary skill would have understood the “genetic nucleus” of the ’734 patent to align with the top tier of Dekkers’s “breeding pyramid.” Id. at *24, 27. Furthermore, sexed-chromosome sorting, which was already being used in swine breeding with an 80% accuracy rate, “reasonably suggested” that Dekkers, in light of Maxwell, would utilize the sexed-chromosome sorting to advance the desired genetic traits stemming from the “genetic nucleus,” or top tier of the Dekkers’s pyramid. Id. at *35. As such, the PTAB held that the challenged claims of the ’734 patent were unpatentable as obvious.
Petitioners should exercise caution when relying on more than one reference to establish anticipation. Absent clear evidence of incorporation-by-reference, such multi-reference anticipation challenges could well fail.
Practitioners generally are reminded that when arguing the reasonable expectation of success aspect of an obviousness determination, the focus is on the invention as claimed. In this case, the PTAB faulted Patent Owner’s nonobviousness position for trying to frame the scope of the invention “as the commercial tier at the bottom of the pig production pyramid. However, the scope of the claimed invention is directed to the substantially smaller herd sitting at the top of the commercial pig breeding pyramid.” Id. at *32. This is seen in the claim construction of “genetic nucleus” as “an animal herd comprising one or more lines and positioned at the top of a multi-level pyramidal hierarchy in a commercial herd breeding structure.” Id. at *33.
†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 4, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Winning the Battle but Not the War: Disclaimer Requirement Overturned, Section 2(d) Objection Upheld
March 28, 2024
Federal Circuit IP Blog
March 21, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.