Court Opinion

ID: 9393082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 14:01:01.712487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.849623
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-1981   Document: 36    Page: 1   Filed: 05/09/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

     SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
                  Appellant

                           v.

         MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
                     Appellee
              ______________________

                       2021-1981
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
 01657.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: May 9, 2023
                 ______________________

      KENNETH WAYNE DARBY, Fish & Richardson PC, Aus-
 tin, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by MATT
 COLVIN, Dallas, TX; LAUREN ANN DEGNAN, WALTER KARL
 RENNER, Washington, DC; JOHN STEPHEN GOETZ, New
 York, NY.

     DOUGLAS H. CARSTEN, McDermott Will & Emery, Ir-
 vine, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by WENDY
 L. DEVINE, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, San
 Francisco, CA; ELHAM FIROUZI STEINER, San Diego, CA;
 TASHA THOMAS, RICHARD TORCZON, Washington, DC.
                  ______________________
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36      Page: 2    Filed: 05/09/2023

 2                     SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.
                               MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 Before REYNA, MAYER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
     Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH owns U.S. Patent
 No. RE47,614 (“the ’614 patent”). Mylan Pharmaceuticals
 Inc. petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
 (“Board”) for inter partes review of claims 1–18 of the ’614
 patent. In its final written decision, the Board found all
 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
 Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH,
 IPR2019-01657, Paper 39, 2021 WL 1158193 (P.T.A.B.
 Mar. 26, 2021) (“Decision”). Sanofi argues on appeal that
 Mylan failed to argue that U.S. Patent No. 4,144,957 (“de
 Gennes”) constitutes analogous art to the ’614 patent and
 instead compared de Gennes to another prior art reference.
 We agree with Sanofi. Because Mylan argued that de
 Gennes is analogous to another prior art reference and not
 the challenged patent, Mylan did not meet its burden to
 establish obviousness premised on de Gennes and the
 Board’s factual findings regarding analogousness are not
 supported by substantial evidence. We reverse.
                       I. BACKGROUND
                 A. The Challenged Patents
     The ’614 patent is entitled “Drug Delivery Device and
 Method of Manufacturing a Drug Delivery Device.” The
 ’614 patent’s stated invention relates to a “drug delivery
 device” that can be “configured to allow setting of different
 dose sizes.” ’614 patent col. 1 ll. 26–32.
     The ’614 patent seeks to provide a drug delivery device
 to improve “operability with respect to dosage control
 and/or improved reproducibility of the dosage in connection
 with different cartridges.” Id. col. 1 ll. 51–55. It purport-
 edly achieves this objective using a “spring washer” that
 can “exert a force on the cartridge and secure the cartridge
 against movement” and is “secured to the housing so as to
 prevent relative axial movement between [the] spring
Case: 21-1981      Document: 36      Page: 3     Filed: 05/09/2023

 SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH        v.                      3
 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 washer and housing.” Id. col. 1 ll. 59–67, col. 2 ll. 31–35.
 The ’614 patent explains that spring washers are advanta-
 geous because spring washers can secure the cartridge
 “without requiring much space,” allowing for “a very com-
 pact drug delivery device.” Id. col. 2 ll. 15–17.
      The ’614 patent has 18 claims, all of which require a
 “spring washer” secured by “at least two fixing elements.”
 Id. col. 8 l. 1 to col. 10 l. 18. As an example, claim 1 recites:
     1. A drug delivery device comprising:
     a housing with a proximal end and a distal end,
     a cartridge adapted to accommodate a drug,
     a cartridge retaining member adapted to retain
        the cartridge, the cartridge retaining member
        releasably secured to the housing, and
     a spring washer arranged within the housing so
        as to exert a force on the cartridge and to se-
        cure the cartridge against movement with re-
        spect to the cartridge retaining member,
     wherein the spring washer has at least two fixing
       elements configured to axially and rotation-
       ally fix the spring washer relative to the hous-
       ing.
 Id. col. 8 ll. 2–14 (emphases added).
                      B. IPR Proceedings
     Mylan petitioned the Board to institute IPR proceed-
 ings on the ground that all claims of the ’614 patent are
 obvious based on a combination of three prior art refer-
 ences: (1) U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0021718 (“Bur-
 ren”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 2,882,901 (“Venezia”); and (3) de
 Gennes. J.A. 92. Mylan relied on Burren—cited as prior
 art within the ’614 patent—to teach the use of springs
 within a drug-delivery device. J.A. 107–09. Mylan sought
 to combine Burren with Venezia to teach the use of spring
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36     Page: 4    Filed: 05/09/2023

 4                     SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.
                               MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 washers within drug-delivery devices and de Gennes to add
 “snap-fit engagement grips” to secure the spring washer.
 J.A. 109–11. In its petition, Mylan argued that “De
 Gennes, while concerned with a clutch bearing [in automo-
 biles], addresses a problem analogous to that addressed in
 Burren (axially [sic] fixation and support of two compo-
 nents relative to one another).” J.A. 111 (emphasis added).
 Mylan’s expert reiterated the same point, stating that “alt-
 hough De Gennes is concerned with a clutch bearing, it ad-
 dresses a problem analogous to that addressed in Burren.”
 J.A. 1507 (emphasis added).
     In its patent owner response, Sanofi argued that de
 Gennes is not analogous art to the ’614 patent. J.A. 2309.
 Sanofi argued that de Gennes relates to cars and not drug
 delivery devices or medical devices, such that a person of
 ordinary skill in the art “would not have considered a
 clutch bearing to be within the same field of endeavor.”
 J.A. 2310. Sanofi further argued that de Gennes is not
 “reasonably pertinent” to the ’614 patent’s problem, J.A.
 2312, which it asserted is “secur[ing] a cartridge against
 movement within a housing.” J.A. 2313; accord J.A. 2415
 (Sanofi’s expert).
     Mylan responded by repeating its Burren-centric argu-
 ments. J.A. 3153–55; accord J.A. 3372–78 (Mylan’s ex-
 pert). In its petitioner reply, Mylan argued that Sanofi’s
 analogousness arguments relied on a “faulty understand-
 ing of controlling law.” J.A. 3136. Mylan criticized Sanofi
 as “tr[ying] to change the pertinent problem by importing
 extraneous goals from” the ’614 patent, asserting that
 “Burren’s suggestion . . . provides the pertinent problem in
 this case,” and that a skilled artisan “reading Burren (ra-
 ther than reading the goals of [the ’614 patent] with hind-
 sight) would have considered” de Gennes highly relevant.
 J.A. 3154–55. When asked during oral argument before
 the Board as to which “problem” should be examined for
 the analogous art test, Mylan’s counsel stated “[i]t doesn’t
 really matter” and that “the problem to be solved . . . is
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36      Page: 5    Filed: 05/09/2023

 SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH     v.                     5
 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 really identical[ly] presented between Burren and [the ’614
 patent]. They’re both interested in solving the same issue
 and that is on the Burren side accommodating various car-
 tridge lengths and on the [the ’614 patent] side identifying
 the cartridges.” J.A. 3705.
      In its final written decision, the Board determined that
 Burren in combination with Venezia does not render the
 challenged claims of the ’614 patent unpatentable. Deci-
 sion at *15. However, the Board found that Burren in com-
 bination with Venezia and de Gennes does render the
 challenged claims unpatentable because, among other
 things, the “snap-fit connection” of de Gennes taught the
 “fixing elements” of the ’614 patent. Id. at *15–18, *25.
      In reaching its conclusion, the Board found de Gennes
 constituted analogous art to the ’614 patent. Id. at *7–9.
 Because all parties agreed the ’614 patent and de Gennes
 belong to distinct fields of endeavor, the Board focused on
 whether de Gennes was “reasonably pertinent” to a prob-
 lem faced by the inventor of the ’614 patent. Id. at *7–8.
 The Board rejected Sanofi’s definition of the “problem” as
 too narrow and adopted Mylan’s definition: “axially fixing
 two components relative towards each other.” Id. at *8–9.
 In a footnote, the Board agreed Mylan “refer[red] to Burren
 when identifying a problem,” stating that Burren’s “defined
 problem is also relevant to the ’614 patent, especially given
 that the ’614 patent acknowledges that Burren’s spring
 performs the same function (that is, solves a same problem)
 as the ’614 patent.” Id. at *8 n.4. The Board found de
 Gennes “analogous to the ’614 patent” because it “is rea-
 sonably pertinent to axially fixing two components relative
 towards each other, a problem addressed by the inventors
 of the ’614 patent.” Id. at *9.
    Sanofi timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36     Page: 6    Filed: 05/09/2023

 6                     SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.
                               MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

                       II. DISCUSSION
                   A. Standard of Review
      “We review the [Board’s] factual findings for substan-
 tial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo.” Donner
 Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1358
 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Redline
 Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 449
 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). “Obviousness is a question of law based
 on underlying facts.” Id. at 1359 (citing Eli Lilly & Co. v.
 Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc., 845 F.3d 1357, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
 2017)). “Whether a reference is analogous art is an issue
 of fact.” Id. (citing In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496
 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
                B. Analogous Art Arguments
     Sanofi argues that the Board “altered and extended
 Mylan’s deficient showing” by analyzing whether de
 Gennes constitutes analogous art to the ’614 patent when
 Mylan, the petitioner, only presented its arguments with
 respect to Burren. Appellant’s Br. 25–26. Sanofi cites our
 decision in In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. to
 argue that the Board cannot “raise, address, and decide un-
 patentability theories never presented by the petitioner
 and not supported by record evidence.” Id. at 28 (quoting
 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Sanofi argues the
 Board improperly shifted the burden of persuasion from
 Mylan—to prove the claims of the ’614 patent are un-
 patentable—to Sanofi—to defend the claims of the ’614 pa-
 tent as patentable. Id. at 26–27. Sanofi argues the Board
 “adopted Mylan’s problem statement derived from Burren
 and then worked backward to relate that problem to the
 ’614 patent,” which led the Board to a “legally erroneous
 conclusion that lacks substantial evidence.” Id. at 26.
     Mylan argues its petition permitted the Board to eval-
 uate de Gennes as analogous art because there is no func-
 tional difference between the problem of Burren and the
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36     Page: 7    Filed: 05/09/2023

 SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH     v.                    7
 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 problem of the ’614 patent. Appellee’s Br. 25. Mylan also
 argues Sanofi raises a distinction without a difference be-
 cause “[t]he evidence and arguments underlying the
 Board’s findings—whether linked to Burren or [the ’614 pa-
 tent]—remained the same.” Id. at 27. Mylan argues the
 Board “relied on substantial evidence to find Mylan’s defi-
 nition of the ‘problem’ more appropriately defined the scope
 of analogous art.” Id. at 28.
     We agree with Sanofi that Mylan did not carry its bur-
 den to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the ’614 patent.
 Moreover, the Board’s factual findings regarding analo-
 gousness are not supported by substantial evidence. See
 Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1381. Because the Board found
 that Burren and Venezia alone do not render all the chal-
 lenged claims unpatentable without the benefit of de
 Gennes, the Board’s finding that de Gennes constitutes
 analogous art is dispositive to its conclusion. Decision at
 *15–21. Accordingly, we reverse.
     We first examine the framework a fact finder must use
 to evaluate whether a reference constitutes analogous art.
 Next, we examine whether Mylan supported its arguments
 properly under this framework.
                   1. Analogous Art Test
      “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior
 art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
 regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the refer-
 ence is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor,
 whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
 particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In
 re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations
 omitted); see also In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed.
 Cir. 1992); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979).
 The “problem” being examined must not be defined so nar-
 rowly as to collapse these inquiries and only consider art
 within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Donner Tech., 979
 F.3d at 1360 (“Such a PHOSITA—resigned to considering
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36     Page: 8    Filed: 05/09/2023

 8                     SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.
                               MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 art outside her field of endeavor—would thus not identify
 the problems so narrowly so as to rule out all such art.”);
 ICON Health, 496 F.3d at 1380 (refusing to limit problem
 to treadmills and instead focusing on problems of “support-
 ing the weight” of folding mechanism and “providing a sta-
 ble resting position”).
     Mylan argues we should reject Sanofi’s “rigid and le-
 gally improper analogous-art test” that would set aside the
 Board’s findings “simply because the petition allegedly an-
 alyzed the ‘problem’ to be solved in terms of the prior art
 instead of [the ’614 patent].” Appellee’s Br. 34. We disa-
 gree.
     In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we
 have consistently held that a patent challenger must com-
 pare the reference to the challenged patent. Donner Tech.,
 979 F.3d at 1359 (examining whether reference is “reason-
 ably pertinent to one or more of the particular problems to
 which the [challenged] patent relates” (emphasis added));
 Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001
 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“If a reference disclosure and the claimed
 invention have a same purpose, the reference relates to the
 same problem.” (emphasis added)); Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325
 (examining whether prior art is “reasonably pertinent to
 the particular problem with which the inventor is involved”
 (emphasis added)). This conclusion is reinforced by the
 purpose of the analogous art test, which is to examine
 whether a reference can be considered as prior art to the
 challenged patent in the first place. Chemours Co. FC, LLC
 v. Daikin Indus., Ltd., 4 F.4th 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
 (analogous art test defines “scope of the relevant prior
 art”); Donner Tech., 979 F.3d at 1359 (“The scope of the
 prior art includes all analogous art.”); Cir. Check Inc. v.
 QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“To be con-
 sidered within the prior art for purposes of the obviousness
 analysis, a reference must be analogous.”).
Case: 21-1981      Document: 36      Page: 9     Filed: 05/09/2023

 SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH        v.                      9
 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

     At most, the cases cited by Mylan confirm that an ad-
 judicator must consider the “purposes of both the invention
 and the prior art”—Clay, 966 F.2d at 659—but the purpose
 of the “prior art” must be evaluated with reference to the
 inventor’s purported invention disclosed within the chal-
 lenged patent. Id. (“If a reference disclosure has the same
 purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to
 the same problem, and that fact supports use of that refer-
 ence in an obviousness rejection.” (emphasis added)).
 Mylan cites Mandel Bros., Inc. v. Wallace, 335 U.S. 291,
 295–96 (1948), and In re Mariani, 177 F.2d 293, 294–96
 (CCPA 1949), to argue it is proper to compare a reference
 to other references for analogous art purposes. Appellee’s
 Br. 35–36. We disagree with Mylan’s interpretation of
 those cases. In Mandel Bros., the Court held that prior art
 in the field of chemistry could be considered in examining
 the patentee’s use of urea in the field of cosmetics. 335 U.S.
 at 296; id. at 292 (“The claimed discovery of the patent is
 in adding to the old acid-salts cosmetics certain types of the
 reactive amino chemical group, particularly urea.”). Thus,
 the Court’s analysis undeniably focused on the problem in
 the challenged patent. Id. As to Mariani, that decision
 declined to “express[] any view upon the question of non-
 analogous art.” 177 F.2d at 296. Even so, Mylan appears
 to acknowledge that the patentee in Mariani sought to
 challenge that the prior art was “analogous to the claimed
 invention.” Appellee’s Br. 36 (emphasis added); see Mari-
 ani, 177 F.2d at 295 (“[T]he gravamen of the allegations of
 error . . . is that both [prior art] patents are in fields of art
 not analogous to the field of appellant’s application.” (em-
 phasis added)).
     Mylan’s arguments would allow a challenger to focus
 on the problems of alleged prior art references while ignor-
 ing the problems of the challenged patent. Even if a refer-
 ence is analogous to one problem considered in another
 reference, it does not necessarily follow that the reference
 would be analogous to the problems of the challenged
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36     Page: 10    Filed: 05/09/2023

 10                    SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.
                               MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 patent. Mylan argues that a fact finder must construe the
 scope of analogous art broadly because “familiar items may
 have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.” Appel-
 lee’s Br. 35 (emphasis in original) (quoting Wyers v. Master
 Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); see also
 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). We
 agree. But that conclusion does not allow a fact finder to
 focus on the problems contained in other prior art refer-
 ences to the exclusion of the problem of the challenged pa-
 tent.
           2. Mylan’s Analogous Art Arguments
     Next, we turn to whether Mylan properly supported its
 argument that de Gennes is analogous art to the ’614 pa-
 tent. Because it did not, the Board’s conclusion that de
 Gennes is analogous to the ’614 patent is not supported by
 substantial evidence.
     We have routinely held that the petitioner has the bur-
 den of proving unpatentability. Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at
 1375; see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cam-
 bridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of
 the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceed-
 ings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition
 identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the
 grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35
 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). A petitioner has the ultimate burden
 “to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evi-
 dence.’” Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1375 (quoting 35 U.S.C.
 § 316(e)).
     We have reversed the Board’s patentability determina-
 tion where a petitioner did not adequately present a moti-
 vation to combine. In Magnum Oil, the Petitioner analyzed
 and asserted a first combination of prior art references and
 argued that the “same analysis applies” to a second combi-
 nation of prior art references based on a different primary
 reference. Id. at 1372. The Board instituted the IPR and
 issued a final written decision in view of the second
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36     Page: 11   Filed: 05/09/2023

 SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH     v.                   11
 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 combination. Id. at 1373. We held that the Board erred
 because “[n]either the Board nor the petitioner explained
 why borrowing the rationale for combining the first set of
 references equally applies to the second set of references.”
 Id. at 1378. We reversed because, among other things, the
 petitioner’s conclusory statements could not satisfy the pe-
 titioner’s burden of demonstrating a motivation to combine
 and “the Board’s factual findings regarding the alleged mo-
 tivation to combine lacked substantial evidence.” Id. at
 1380–81. Similarly, in In re IPR Licensing, Inc., we re-
 versed a Board decision finding claims unpatentable that
 relied on draft Universal Mobile Telecommunications Sys-
 tem (“UMTS”) standards because the petitioner had “not
 relied on the UMTS standards in its petition” and “pointed
 to nothing” to support its motivation to combine argu-
 ments. 942 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
     Here, Mylan did not make the analogous art argument
 on which the Board’s obviousness finding relied—that de
 Gennes is analogous to the ’614 patent. E.g., J.A. 111 (IPR
 Petition) (“Professor Erdman explains how De Gennes,
 while concerned with a clutch bearing, addresses a problem
 analogous to that addressed in Burren . . . .”); J.A. 1507
 (Expert Declaration) (“[A]lthough De Gennes is concerned
 with a clutch bearing, it addresses a problem analogous to
 that addressed in Burren.”). As we explain, Mylan’s argu-
 ments as to Burren are insufficient to carry its burden be-
 cause they do not address the ’614 patent.
     Mylan cites several statements in its petition that dis-
 cuss the purported problem of the ’614 patent and the prior
 art generally to argue that it properly addressed the anal-
 ogous art issue. See, e.g., Appellee’s Br. 23–25. Mylan
 identified the alleged invention of the ’614 patent as “se-
 curely holding a cartridge within a drug-delivery device” by
 incorporating “a spring element—a spring washer—to ap-
 ply an axially-directed biasing force.” J.A. 89. In discuss-
 ing the level of ordinary skill in the art, Mylan explained
 that a person of skill in the art “would have been familiar
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36      Page: 12    Filed: 05/09/2023

 12                    SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.
                               MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 with elements commonly used to bias and secure compo-
 nents within mechanical devices (e.g., spring elements, fas-
 tening structures) and the mechanical principles involved,”
 as “confirmed by [the ’614 patent’s] specification.” J.A. 99.
 Mylan argued that Burren teaches “injection pens” with
 “components that perform the same function as those
 claimed by [the ’614 patent].” J.A. 112. Mylan also com-
 pared de Gennes to elements of the challenged claims
 within the ’614 patent. J.A. 114–48. None of these pas-
 sages, however, explain how de Gennes is analogous to the
 ’614 patent.
      A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise
 analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a peti-
 tioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in
 the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary re-
 sponse, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”
 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. However, Mylan did not use its reply
 to explain how de Gennes is analogous to the ’614 patent.
 See J.A. 3153–56 (Mylan Reply Brief); J.A. 3372–78, 3382
 (Mylan’s Second Expert Declaration). Instead, Mylan dis-
 puted that it needed to frame its arguments as to the ’614
 patent and accused Sanofi of misunderstanding the law.
 J.A. 3136 (“Sanofi’s analysis of de Gennes’ analogousness
 relies on a faulty understanding of controlling law . . . .”);
 J.A. 3154 (“Sanofi tries to change the pertinent problem by
 importing extraneous goals from [the ’614 patent] . . . .”);
 J.A. 3155 (“De Gennes provides these functions, which a
 POSA reading Burren (rather than reading the goals of
 [the ’614 patent] with hindsight) would have considered
 highly relevant.”). Thus, Mylan’s reply also did not argue
 that de Gennes is analogous to the ’614 patent.
      In a footnote, Mylan further argues that it carried its
 burden by arguing at oral argument before the Board that
 Burren and the ’614 patent have the same problem. Appel-
 lee’s Br. 27 n.2. Although Mylan argued that Burren and
 the ’614 patent address the “same problem,” Mylan pointed
 to a different problem than it relied upon to argue that de
Case: 21-1981    Document: 36      Page: 13     Filed: 05/09/2023

 SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH      v.                     13
 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 Gennes was analogous. Compare Decision at *8 (“Peti-
 tioner defines the problem as ‘axial[ ] fixation and support
 of two components relative to one another.’”), with J.A.
 3705 (“They’re both interest[ed] in solving the same issue
 and that is on the Burren side accommodating various car-
 tridge lengths and on the [’614 patent] side identifying the
 cartridges.” (emphases added)). Recognizing that Mylan
 raised a new problem, the Board questioned whether de
 Gennes “address[ed] that problem at all,” and Mylan ex-
 plained that de Gennes “address[es] the holding, the taking
 up end play in a bearing by applying axial force to hold one
 component and abut it against another[.]” J.A. 3706. Re-
 gardless, Mylan’s conclusory statements arguing that Bur-
 ren and the ’614 patent address the “same problem” are
 insufficient to carry its burden to argue de Gennes is anal-
 ogous to the ’614 patent. See Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380
 (holding that conclusory statements that “[t]he same anal-
 ysis” applied to different prior art did not provide sufficient
 evidence to base its legal conclusion of obviousness).
      We do not interpret the Board’s decision as concluding
 that Mylan argued de Gennes is analogous to the ’614 pa-
 tent. To the contrary, the Board appears to have agreed
 that “Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant refer to Burren
 when identifying a problem.” Decision at *8 n.4. Because
 Mylan argued that de Gennes is analogous to another prior
 art reference and not the challenged patent, Mylan did not
 meet its burden to establish obviousness premised on de
 Gennes. Thus, the Board’s factual finding that de Gennes
 is analogous to the ’614 patent is unsupported by substan-
 tial evidence.
                      III. CONCLUSION
     We have considered the parties’ other arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we re-
 verse.
                         REVERSED