throbber
KinderFarms LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Genexa Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`PGR2023-00051
`Patent 11,617,795
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`
`Oral Argument
`December 12, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Overview of Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`Introduction and Background
`I.
`II. Level of Skill
`III. Claim Construction
`IV. Legal Standards
`V. Material Errors in the Petition
`VI. Ground 1 Fails To Demonstrate Obviousness of Claims 1-24
`VII. Ground 2 Fails to Demonstrate Obviousness of Claims 1-17
`VIII.Ground 3 is moot
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Introduction and Background
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The ’795 Patent
`
`-Ex.1001, 1:30-35
`
`Ex.1001
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.1001, 2:12-27
`
`-POR, 8-10
`4
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Oral Pharmaceutical Suspensions: Viscosity 1,500-4,000 cP
`
`-Ex.2021, 8:17-21; see also Ex.2009, ¶51; POR at 6-7
`
`Ex.2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR at 6-7
`
`5
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Commercially-Available Analgesic Oral Formulations: >1,500 cP
`
`-Ex.2021, Abstract
`
`Ex.2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`-Ex.2020, 359; see also Ex.2009, ¶52; POR at 7
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The ’795 Patent: Claims Reciting Viscosity
`
`Ex.1001
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.1001, claims 1-4, 7, 15, 18-19; see also POR, 8-10
`7
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Grounds
`
`Pet. (Paper 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.1001, claims 1-4, 7, 15, 18-19
`8
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Level of Skill in the Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Level of Skill
`
`Institution Decision
`(Paper 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-ID, 6-7; see also POR at 10-12; Ex. 2009, 19-23
`10
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Claim Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Board Construes Only Those Terms Necessary for Resolution
`
`Institution Decision
`(Paper 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-ID, 7
`12
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Position Regarding Claim Construction
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 12
`13
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`“Agave Syrup”
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 13; see also Ex.2009, ¶¶106-108
`14
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Board Need Not Construe “palatable,” “stable,” or “consisting essentially of”
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 68; see also see also Ex.2009, ¶¶180-182
`15
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Board Construes Only Those Terms Necessary for Resolution
`
`Institution Decision
`(Paper 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-ID, 17-18
`16
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Legal Standards
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Burden for Unpatentability and Particularity
`
`“[T]he petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges
`is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring IPR petitions to identify ‘with particularity... the
`evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’).”
`—Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`see also 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3) (Petitions in post-grant review)
`
`“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that
`the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge
`to each claim.’ 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). . . [T]he expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for
`petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute. While the Board’s requirements are strict
`ones, they are requirements of which petitioners are aware when they seek to institute an IPR.”
`—Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“[T]he petitioner’s petition, not the Director’s discretion, is supposed to guide the life of the litigation.”
`—SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018)
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner Cannot Carry Burden with Conclusory Statements
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a
`preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”
`—Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`see also 35 U.S.C. § 326(e) (Conduct of post-grant review)
`
`Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by “mere conclusory statements,” but
`“must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.”
`
`—In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Obviousness must address the claims “as a whole”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“The determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a whole, not
`separate pieces of the claim.”
`
`—Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`“The ‘as a whole’ instruction in title 35 prevents evaluation of the invention part by part. Without this
`important requirement, an obviousness assessment might break an invention into its component
`parts (A + B + C), then find a prior art reference containing A, another containing B, and another
`containing C, and on that basis alone declare the invention obvious. . . . . Section 103 precludes this
`hindsight discounting of the value of new combinations by requiring assessment of the invention as a
`whole. ”
`
`—Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Material Errors in the Petition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Agave Syrup Does Not Have an Inherent
`Viscosity of 212 cP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Petition Fails Because It Relied on an Unsubstantiated and Incorrect Viscosity
`Value for Agave Syrup
`• Petitioner’s cited Ex.1031 shows a mean viscosity of 2,560 cP for agave syrup
`• Dr. Berkland could not identify any evidence from within Dr. Crowley’s Declaration
`or exhibits to support agave syrup viscosity of 212 cP (Ex.1051, 24:3-17, 47:5-
`49:18)
`• Petitioner presents to evidence to rebut that agave syrup with a mean viscosity of
`2,560 cP cannot support obviousness within FR458-Example 1 and WO742-
`Example IX because a POSA would understand the resulting formulations would
`have viscosities >1,500 cP (Ex.2009, ¶¶118-119; see POR 47, 48, 30)
`• A POSA would not have been motivated to select an agave syrup of low 212 cP
`viscosity (low quality) over a higher 2,560 cP viscosity (higher quality) agave
`syrup (Ex.2009, ¶¶120-121)
`• Dr. Crowley did not submit a reply declaration
`• Petitioner’s attorney arguments in reply cannot rebut Dr. Berkland’s declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Petition Relies on an Incorrect Viscosity Value for Agave Syrup
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 25; see also Ex.2009, ¶¶111-113
`24
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Ex.1031: Agave Syrup Has Mean Viscosity Value of 2,560 cP
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 25; see also Ex.2009, ¶¶114-115
`25
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ex.1031 Shows Agave Syrup with a Viscosity Over 10 times more than 212 cP
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶¶115-117; see also POR, 25-26; Ex.1051 (Berkland Tr.), 24:3-17, 47:5-49:18
`26
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`It Is Undisputed that Agave Syrup with the Reported Viscosity of 2,560 cP in
`Petitioner’s Ex.1031 Could Not Support a Finding of Obviousness
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶118; see also POR, 26-28
`27
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`It Is Undisputed that Agave Syrup with the Reported Viscosity of 2,560 cP in
`Petitioner’s Ex.1031 Could Not Support a Finding of Obviousness
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶119; see also POR, 26-28
`28
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`It Is Undisputed that a POSA Would Select a High Quality Agave Syrup with the
`Reported Viscosity of 2,560 cP in Petitioner’s Ex.1031 over one with 212 cP
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶121; see also Ex.2009, ¶120; POR, 25-28
`29
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Claims Should Be Upheld as Patentable Because the Petition Relied on an
`Incorrect Viscosity Value for Agave Syrup
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 28; Ex.2009, ¶114 (citing Ex.1031); see also Reply, 10, n.4 (“Exhibit 1031, which
`describes samples of agave syrup with a mean viscosity of 2,560 cP”)
`30
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Agave Syrup Is Not an “Old” Ingredient for
`Performing Viscosity-Control in Oral
`Pharmaceutical Syrup Formulations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Agave Syrup Was Not Well-Known in the Art for Performing a Viscosity-Control
`Function
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 41; Ex.2009, ¶¶142-146
`32
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Agave Syrup Was Not Well-Known in the Art for Performing a Viscosity-Control
`Function
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶142; see also POR, 41
`33
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Agave Syrup is Not a Well-Known Staple Component of Pharmaceutical Formulations
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶144; see also POR, 42
`34
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Agave Syrup has Widely Variable Physicochemical Quality Properties
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶¶44-45; see also POR, 4-6
`35
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Agave Syrup is Widely Variable
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶48; see also POR, 4-6
`36
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Agave Syrup is Widely Variable
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶143; see also POR, 41
`37
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Petition Improperly Relies on an Obvious
`Typographical Error in the ’4666 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner Relied on an Obvious Error in Claim 11 of the ’4666 Patent
`
`Pet. (Paper 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Pet. 31-32
`39
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Dr. Crowley Relied on the Obvious Error in Claim 11 of the ’4666 Patent
`
`Ex.1003
`(Crowley Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`- Ex.2009, ¶119
`40
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Claim 11 of the ’4666 Patent Recites an Obvious Typographical Error
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 30-31; Ex.2009, ¶¶125-133
`41
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Dr. Berkland’s Testimony Demonstrating the Obvious Error in Claim 11 of the ’4666
`Patent is Unaddressed and Unrebutted by Petitioner
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶¶125-128; see also POR, 31-34
`42
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Dr. Berkland’s Testimony Demonstrating the Obvious Error in Claim 11 of the ’4666
`Patent is Unaddressed and Unrebutted by Petitioner
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶¶129-133; see also POR, 31-34
`43
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Dr. Berkland’s Declaration Demonstrating the Obvious Error in Claim 11 of the ’4666
`Patent is Unaddressed and Unrebutted by Petitioner
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶¶129-133; see also POR, 31-34
`44
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1 Fails to Demonstrate Obviousness of
`any Challenged Claims 1-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1 Fails to Demonstrate Obviousness
`
`• The Petition failed to articulate with particularity any motivation to combine FR458
`with the viscosity ranges of the ’4666 patent or WO133 (e.g., POR, 38-40; Ex.2009, ¶140)
`• The Petition failed to articulate with particularity any reasonable expectation of
`success in achieving the viscosity ranges of the ’4666 patent or WO133 (e.g., POR,
`38-40; Ex.2009, ¶140)
`• The Petition does not identify or suggest any modifications to the example
`formulations in FR458 (e.g., POR, 35-36 (n.2), 48; Ex.2009, ¶150)
`• The Petition relies on the conclusory and incorrect assertion that agave syrup
`as a viscosity of 212 cP (e.g., POR, 43-44; Ex.2009, ¶147)
`• The Petition failed to address the claims “as a whole” (e.g., POR, 51-52; Surreply, 14-15)
`• There would be no motivation or expectation of success in using agave syrup
`with 212 cP in FR458-Example 1 (e.g., Ex.2009, ¶150; POR )
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`FR458 Does Not Disclose Any Viscosity Values for Agave Syrup or Its Formulations
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 14-15; Ex.2009, ¶80
`48
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`FR458 Uses Additional Ingredients Because Formulations Based on Natural Syrups
`are Not Easy to Obtain
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 15; Ex.2009, ¶79; ID, 9; Ex.1003 (Crowley Decl., ¶64)
`49
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`FR458-Example 1: 100 mL formulation with substantial water
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 15-16; Ex.2009, ¶¶ 81-82
`50
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`FR458-Example 1: No Disclosure re Viscosity of Agave or Final Formulation
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶¶82-83; see also POR, 16-17
`51
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The ’4666 Patent: No Agave Syrup; Viscosity Range of 1000-3000 cP
`
`Institution Decision
`(Paper 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-ID, 10
`52
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`WO133: No Agave Syrup; Viscosity Range of 200-900 cP
`
`Institution Decision
`(Paper 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-ID, 10
`53
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1: No Articulated Motivation or Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Combining FR458 with The Viscosity Ranges of the ’4666 Patent or WO133
`
`Pet. (Paper 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Pet. 28-29
`54
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1: No Articulated Motivation or Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Combining FR458 with The Viscosity Ranges of the ’4666 Patent or WO133
`
`Pet. (Paper 2)
`
`The Petition did not assert with particularity any motivation or reasonable expectation of success with
`respect to combining FR458 with the specific viscosity ranges of the ’4666 patent or WO133
`-see POR, 38-40, 43-45, 47-50, 62-63; Surreply, 20-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Pet. 28-29
`55
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Petitioner’s Motivation to Combine Never Mentions Viscosity and Does Not
`Propose Any Modifications to FR458 to Achieve a Particular Viscosity
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶140; see also POR, 40
`56
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Petitioner’s Motivation to Combine Never Mentions Viscosity and Does Not
`Propose Any Modifications to FR458 to Achieve a Particular Viscosity
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 40
`57
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1: The Petition Does Present Any Proposed Modifications to the Example
`Formulations of FR458 or WO133 to Achieve a Particular Viscosity Value
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 35-36 (n.2), 48; see also Ex.2009, ¶¶150, 167
`58
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Improper New Attorney Arguments on Reply Further Show the Petition’s
`Failures re Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Reply (Paper 25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Reply, 2; see also POR, 38-40,43; Ex.2009, ¶¶140, 147; Surreply (Paper 29), 20-21; Notice (Paper 27), 2-3
`59
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Improper New Attorney Arguments on Reply Further Show the Petition’s
`Failures re Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Surreply (Paper 29)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Surreply, 20-21; Notice (Paper 27), 2-3
`60
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1: The Viscosity Limitation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Assertions re the Viscosity Limitation of Claim 1 Fail to Address the
`Claims “as a whole”
`
`Pet. (Paper 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Pet. 31-32; see also POR, 43-44; Ex.2009, ¶147
`62
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Assertions re the Viscosity Limitation of Claim 1 Fail to Address the
`Claims “as a whole”
`
`Pet. (Paper 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Pet. 31-32; see also POR, 43-44; Ex.2009, ¶147
`63
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`It is Undisputed that a POSA Would Have Known That Using Agave Syrup with
`Viscosity of 212 cP in FR458-Example 1 Would Yield a “readily pourable” Formulation
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`--Ex.2009, ¶150; see also POR, 47-48
`64
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Petition Proposed No Modifications to FR458
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`--Ex.2009, ¶150.
`65
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Improper New Attorney Arguments on Reply Further Show the Petition’s
`Failures re Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Reply (Paper 25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Reply, 11; see also POR, 35-36 (n.2), 48; Ex.2009, ¶¶150; Surreply (Paper 29), 5-10; Notice (Paper 27), 1-2
`66
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Improper New Attorney Arguments on Reply Further Show the Petition’s
`Failures re Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Surreply (Paper 29)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Surreply, 4; Notice (Paper 27), 1-2
`67
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Improper New Attorney Arguments on Reply Further Show the Petition’s
`Failures re Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Surreply (Paper 29)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Surreply, 7; Notice (Paper 27), 1-2
`68
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Petition Relied on Added Water to Achieve a Final Volume—Not a Final Desired
`Viscosity
`
`Surreply (Paper 29)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Surreply, 15-16; Notice (Paper 27), 1-2
`69
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Dependent Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1 Fails to Demonstrate Obviousness of Dependent Claims
`
`• The Petition fails to articulate any reasoned motivation to combine or reasonable
`expectation of success with respect to the dependent claims as a whole (e.g.,
`POR, 53-56; Ex.2009, ¶¶ 154-164)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Exemplary Failure to Address Dependent Claims as a Whole (Claim 9)
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 55-56; see also Ex.2009, ¶¶160-161
`72
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2 Fails to Demonstrate Obviousness of
`Challenged Claims 1-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`73
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2 Fails to Demonstrate Obviousness
`
`• The Petition failed to articulate with particularity any motivation to combine
`WO742 with the viscosity ranges of the ’4666 patent or WO133 (e.g., POR, 57-58;
`Ex.2009, ¶167)
`• The Petition failed to articulate with particularity any reasonable expectation of
`success in achieving the viscosity ranges of the ’4666 patent or WO133 (e.g., POR,
`58-63; Ex.2009, ¶¶ 168-171)
`• The Petition does not identify or suggest any modifications to the example
`formulations in FR458 (e.g., POR, 35-36 (n.2), 48; Ex.2009, ¶167)
`• The Petition relies on the conclusory and incorrect assertion that agave syrup
`as a viscosity of 212 cP (e.g., POR, 43-44; Ex.2009, ¶¶166-168)
`• The Petition failed to address the claims “as a whole” (e.g., Surreply, 14-15)
`• There would be no motivation or expectation of success in using agave syrup
`with 212 cP in FR458-Example 1 (e.g., Ex.2009, ¶¶ 168-171; POR 58-63; Surreply, 7-9)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`75
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`WO742 Does Not Disclose Any Viscosity Values for Agave Syrup or Its Formulations
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`--Ex.2009, ¶104; see also POR, 18-19
`76
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`WO742-Example IX: 15 mL formulation with various constituent ingredients
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 18; see also POR, 62; Ex.2009, ¶102; Ex.1003, ¶¶64-65; Pet., 57-58 (“Example IX of WO742, which
`consists mainly of agave syrup and other ingredients”)
`77
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2 Fails for the Same Reasons as Ground 1
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`--Ex.2009, ¶¶ 166-167; see also POR, 57-58
`78
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2: No Articulated Motivation or Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Combining WO742 with The Viscosity Ranges of the ’4666 Patent or WO133
`
`Pet. (Paper 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Pet. 54-55
`79
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2: No Articulated Motivation or Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Combining WO742 with The Viscosity Ranges of the ’4666 Patent or WO133
`
`Pet. (Paper 2)
`
`The Petition did not assert with particularity any motivation or reasonable expectation of success with
`respect to combining WO742 with the specific viscosity ranges of the ’4666 patent or WO133
`-see POR, 58.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Pet. 54-55
`80
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2: Petitioner’s Motivation to Combine Never Mentions Viscosity and Does Not
`Propose Any Modifications to FR458 to Achieve a Particular Viscosity
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 58
`81
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2: The Petition Does Present Any Proposed Modifications to the Example
`Formulations of FR458 or WO133 to Achieve a Particular Viscosity Value
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 35-36, n.2
`82
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Improper New Attorney Arguments on Reply Further Show the Petition’s
`Failures re Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Reply (Paper 25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`--Reply, 4; see also POR, 57-58; Ex.2009, ¶¶165-168; Surreply (Paper 29), 20-21; Notice (Paper 27), 2-3
`83
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Improper New Attorney Arguments on Reply Further Show the Petition’s
`Failures re Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Surreply (Paper 29)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Surreply, 20-21; Notice (Paper 27), 2-3
`84
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2: The Viscosity Limitation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`85
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Assertions re the Viscosity Limitation of Claim 1 Fail to Address the
`Claims “as a whole” (same as Ground 1)
`
`Pet. (Paper 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Pet. 57-58; see also POR, 58-60; Ex.2009, ¶¶ 168-171
`86
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`It is Undisputed that a POSA Would Have Known That Using Agave Syrup with
`Viscosity of 212 cP in WO742-Example IX Would Be a “readily pourable” Formulation
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`--Ex.2009, ¶168; see also POR, 61-63
`87
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`It is Undisputed that a POSA Would Have Known That Using Agave Syrup with
`Viscosity of 212 cP in WO742-Example IX Would Be a “readily pourable” Formulation
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`--Ex.2009, ¶171; see also POR, 61-63
`88
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2: Dependent Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`89
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2 Fails to Demonstrate Obviousness of Dependent Claims
`
`• The Petition fails to articulate any reasoned motivation to combine or reasonable
`expectation of success with respect to the dependent claims as a whole (e.g.,
`POR, 63-68; Ex.2009, ¶¶173-179)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`90
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 2: Exemplary Failure to Address Dependent Claims as a Whole (Claim 9)
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Ex.2009, ¶178; see also POR, 66-67
`91
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Ground 3 is Moot
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`92
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Conditional Ground 3 Has Not Been Triggered and It is Moot
`
`POR (Paper 20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-POR, 68
`93
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Conditional Ground 3 Has Not Been Triggered and It is Moot
`
`Surreply (Paper 29)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Surreply, 1, n.1
`94
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`The Institution Decision re Ground 3
`
`Institution Decision
`(Paper 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-ID, 17-18
`95
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`All Challenged Claims Should Be Found
`Patentable
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`96
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Backup Slides
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`97
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Legal Standards
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“[T]he decision to institute and the final written decision are ‘two very different analyses,’ and each
`applies a ‘qualitatively different standard.’”
`—In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(quoting TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
`
`“This court has provided further assurance of an ‘as a whole’ assessment of the invention under § 103 by
`requiring a showing that an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the various elements
`from the prior art and combine them in the claimed manner.”
`—Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`98
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Dr. Crowley’s Declaration Teaches Away from “higher viscosity” and States a Desire
`for “readily pourable” formulations with 20-150 cP
`
`Ex.1003
`(Crowley Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`- Ex.1003, ¶59; see also Ex.2009, ¶55
`99
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Excipients in FR458 includes Agar-Agar and Xanthan Gum
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`--Ex.2009, ¶82; POR, 15-16.
`100
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Excipients in FR458 includes Agar-Agar and Xanthan Gum
`
`Ex.2009
`(Berkland Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`--Ex.2009, ¶55; see also POR, 7-8
`101
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Dr. Berkland’s Testimony Is More Credible than Dr. Crowley’s
`
`Institution Decision
`(Paper 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-ID, 17-18
`102
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Dr. Berkland’s Testimony is More Reliable than Dr. Crowley’s
`
`Surreply (Paper 29)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Surreply, 25
`103
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Dr. Crowley’s Error Regarding the Viscosity of Agave Syrup
`
`Ex.1003
`(Crowley Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`- Ex.1003, ¶52
`104
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

`

`Dr. Crowley’s Assertion of Water to Achieve a Final Formulation Volume
`
`Ex.1003
`(Crowley Decl.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`- Ex.1003, ¶117
`105
`
`KinderFarms v. Genexa, PGR2023-00051 - Ex. 2024
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket