Court Opinion

ID: 9389057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 15:01:33.114687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:24.672826
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1445   Document: 42     Page: 1   Filed: 04/24/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

            LEICA MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,
                     Appellant

                            v.

  REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,
                   Appellee
            ______________________

                       2022-1445
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
 01165.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: April 24, 2023
                 ______________________

     ANDREW RYAN SOMMER, Greenberg Traurig LLP,
 McLean, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by
 VIVIAN KUO, Washington, DC.

    RUSSELL TONKOVICH, Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich
 LLP, Burlingame, CA, argued for appellee. Also repre-
 sented by AIDAN BREWSTER, ROBERT KRAMER.
                 ______________________

      Before LOURIE, DYK, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1445    Document: 42     Page: 2    Filed: 04/24/2023

 2                               LEICA MICROSYSTEMS, INC. v.
                     REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

 LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
     Leica Microsystems, Inc. (“Leica”) appeals from a final
 written decision of the United States Patent and Trade-
 mark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”)
 holding that Leica failed to show that claims 1–26 of U.S.
 Patent 7,277,169 (the “’169 patent”) were unpatentable as
 obvious. See Leica Microsys. Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of
 Mich., No. IPR2020-01165, Paper No. 26 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7,
 2022), J.A. 1–27 (“Decision”). For the reasons provided be-
 low, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Regents of the University of Michigan (“Regents”) own
 the ’169 patent, which describes a fluorescence detection
 system that detects light that is emitted from a sample af-
 ter it is struck with an excitation light. The system uses
 ultrafast white light optical pulses to excite fluorophores
 and a detector to detect the emitted light. Claims 1, 10,
 and 19 are the three independent claims, each reciting a
 fluorescence detection system for testing a sample, com-
 prising a single-source white light generation system and
 a time-resolving detector for receiving fluorescence. Rep-
 resentative claim 1 is presented below:
       1. A fluorescence detection system for testing
       a sample, said sample having a plurality of
       fluorophores, said fluorescence detection sys-
       tem comprising:
       a single-source white light generation system
       outputting a supercontinuum white light
       pulse comprising an entire spectrum of white
       light, said supercontinuum white light pulse
       exciting the plurality of fluorophores of the
       sample to emit fluorescence; and
       a time-resolving detector receiving said fluo-
       rescence and at least a portion of said super-
       continuum white light pulse, said time-
Case: 22-1445     Document: 42    Page: 3   Filed: 04/24/2023

 LEICA MICROSYSTEMS, INC. v.                              3
 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

         resolving detector separating said fluores-
         cence from said portion of said supercontin-
         uum white light pulse.
 ’169 patent, col. 7 ll. 43–55.
     Relevant to this appeal, Leica petitioned for inter
 partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–26, asserting that the
 claims would have been obvious over PCT application WO
 01/022063 (“Folestad”) in view of various secondary refer-
 ences, including Wittmershaus. 1 Folestad discloses a
 method of analyzing a turbid pharmaceutical sample (e.g.,
 a tablet) using white light from a laser excitation source.
 Wittmershaus describes a method for analyzing fluoro-
 phores in chlorophyll from spinach leaves using a fluores-
 cence detection system.
     The Board concluded that Leica had not shown an ad-
 equate rationale for combining Folestad with other second-
 ary references, including Wittmershaus.         The Board
 rejected Leica’s expert testimony as conclusory and lacking
 evidentiary support, also holding that there was no evi-
 dence that Folestad would have provided any improvement
 or benefit over Wittmershaus. The Board also rejected
 Leica’s showing that substituting one sample for another
 in the same system was routine. Finally, the Board held
 that the record lacked evidence regarding whether a skilled
 artisan would have configured the system in Folestad to
 measure fluorescence as required by the claims in the ’169
 patent.
     Leica appealed the Board’s decision. We have jurisdic-
 tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

     1   Bruce Wittmershaus et al., Picosecond studies at
 77 K of energy transfer in chloroplasts at low and high ex-
 citation intensities, 806 BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA 93
 (1985).
Case: 22-1445     Document: 42      Page: 4    Filed: 04/24/2023

 4                                LEICA MICROSYSTEMS, INC. v.
                      REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

                          DISCUSSION
     We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In
 re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the
 Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re
 Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding
 is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind
 might accept the evidence as adequate to support the find-
 ing. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
     Leica argues that the Board applied too rigid an obvi-
 ousness analysis, focusing too heavily on the references
 themselves and not considering the background knowledge
 of a skilled artisan, in violation of KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
 Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Leica also contends that the
 Board’s finding that sample substitution was not simple
 was unsupported by substantial evidence. Leica asserts
 that the Board improperly focused on unclaimed sample
 preparation techniques, which, even if relevant, fell within
 the routine abilities of the skilled artisan. Leica further
 argues that the claimed invention is nothing more than a
 new use of Folestad’s old system, and that a new use of an
 old system would not be patentable.
      Regents respond that the Board’s finding that there
 was no motivation to combine Folestad and Wittmershaus
 was supported by substantial evidence, that the Board did
 not misapply the law of obviousness, and that the Board
 did not err in finding that Wittmershaus disclosed highly
 specialized sample preparation for use in highly specialized
 fluorescence detection systems. Regents also assert that
 the Board did not err in crediting Regents’ expert and re-
 jecting Leica’s expert’s testimony as conclusory. Regents
 further contend that the claimed invention and the Foles-
 tad reference describe different systems for different pur-
 poses, and so the claimed invention is not merely a new use
 of Folestad’s old system.
     We agree with Regents that the Board’s finding that
 there was no motivation to combine Folestad with
Case: 22-1445    Document: 42      Page: 5    Filed: 04/24/2023

 LEICA MICROSYSTEMS, INC. v.                                5
 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

 Wittmershaus was supported by substantial evidence. In
 arriving at its conclusion, the Board found that Leica’s pro-
 posed combination of Folestad with Wittmershaus required
 replacing Folestad’s teachings of detection of transmitted
 or reflected radiation with Wittmershaus’s detection of flu-
 orescence. Decision at 16–17, J.A. 16–17. The Board fur-
 ther found that the record lacks evidence regarding
 whether and how a skilled artisan would have configured
 Folestad to measure fluorescence. Decision at 18, J.A. 18.
 In other words, one would have needed to modify Folestad
 to arrive at the claimed invention.
     The Board also credited expert testimony from both
 parties in determining whether a skilled artisan would
 have been motivated to make the modifications necessary
 to combine Folestad and Wittmershaus. It is within the
 discretion of the Board to weigh the evidence of record.
 Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd. v. Barclays Cap. Inc., 35 F.4th
 1352, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Shoes by Firebug
 LLC v. Stride Rite Child.’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 1371
 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[I]t is not for us to second-guess the
 Board’s assessment of the evidence.”). Here, the Board did
 just that. We therefore hold that the Board’s finding that
 a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine
 Folestad with Wittmershaus was supported by substantial
 evidence.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Leica’s remaining arguments but
 find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
 firm the Board’s final written decision.
                        AFFIRMED