C. R. Bard, Inc.v.Medical Components, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2016

13549998 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
571-272-7822 Entered: February 4, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

C.R. BARD, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
____________

Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, C.R. Bard, Inc., filed a Petition for inter partes review of
claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,852,160 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’160 patent”).
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
2
Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Medical Components, Inc., filed a
Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter
partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude
the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of
claims 1–22 of the ’160 patent.
A. Related Matters
Petitioner concurrently filed a petition in IPR2015-01660, seeking
inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,257,325 B2, the parent of the
’160 patent. See Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
B. The ’160 Patent
The ’160 patent discloses a venous access port assembly having a
marking that identifies a characteristic of the port and is visible by X-ray
examination when the port is implanted in a patient. Ex. 1001, 1:44–47.
One such characteristic may be power injection capability, i.e., the port is
rated for power injection of a contrast fluid. Id. at 1:64–66. The letters
“CT,” for “computed tomography,” indicate an access port can withstand
high pressures used during power injection of a contrast fluid into a patient.
Id. at 1:66–2:6.
Embodiments of a venous access port disclosed in the ’160 patent
include a housing and a septum that receives a needle. Id. at 2:10–11. One
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
3
embodiment of a venous access port housing is shown in the following
portion of Figure 11:

Housing base 74, shown in Figure 11 above, is illustrated in isometric view
in Figure 13, reproduced below:

IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
4
In the embodiment shown in Figure 13, housing base 74 comprises housing
base 28, including well 30, bottom floor 32, and side walls 34. Id. at 3:35–
38, 4:54–56. Housing base 74 also includes flange 36, which features
integrally molded “CT” markings alongside suture openings 40. Id. at 4:62–
65. The “CT” markings are voids in the flange, “as if cut or punched out of”
the flange material. Id. at 4:65–67. If flange 36 is comprised of a metal
material, the letters “CT” will be visible by X-ray examination. Id. at 5:9–
12.
C. Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A venous access port assembly for implantation into a
patient, comprising:
a housing comprising:
a base defining at least one reservoir;
and a flange adjacent to the at least one reservoir,
the flange comprising an X-ray discernable material, a
top surface, a bottom surface, and one or more voids
extending through the X-ray discernable material of the
flange from the top surface of the flange to the bottom
surface of the flange, wherein the one or more voids are
X-ray discernable indicia configured to indicate, under
X-ray examination, that the assembly is rated for power
injection; and
a needle-penetrable septum communicating with the
housing.
Id. at 5:22–32 (formatting added).
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
5
D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner contends that claims 1–22 of the ’160 patent are
unpatentable based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 25–60):
References Basis Challenged
Claims
PORTS,1 Powers,2 PowerPort,3 and Hickman4 § 103(a) 1–22
PORTS, Powers, Sayre,5 and Hickman § 103(a) 1–22
PORTS, Powers, Meyer,6 and Hickman § 103(a) 1–22

II. DISCUSSION
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 4–6. Patent
Owner does not propose constructions for any terms. Prelim. Resp. 6–7.
For purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require
express construction.

1 Bard Access Systems, PORTS (2003) (Ex. 1002, “PORTS”).
2 U.S. Patent No. 7,785,302 B2, issued Aug. 31, 2010 (Ex. 1003, “Powers”).
3 Bard Access Systems, PowerPort Guidelines for CT Technologists
(Feb. 2007) (Ex. 1004, “PowerPort”).
4 Bard Access Systems, Hickman® Subcutaneous Ports &
Hickman®/Broviac® Catheters (1992) (Ex. 1017, “Hickman”).
5 U.S. Patent No. 6,826,257 B2, issued Nov. 30, 2004 (Ex. 1007, “Sayre”).
6 French Patent No. 1,509,165, issued Dec. 4, 1967 (Ex. 1005, “Meyer”).
Citations to Meyer in this decision are to the English language translation
provided by Petitioner (Ex. 1006).
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
6
B. Asserted Obviousness over PORTS, Powers, PowerPort, and Hickman
Petitioner asserts claims 1–22 of the ’160 patent are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of PORTS,
Powers, PowerPort, and Hickman. Pet. 25–40. To support its contentions,
Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Mr. Steven J. Tallarida. Id.
(citing Ex. 1009).
1. PORTS
PORTS is a Bard Access Systems brochure disclosing several
implanted access ports, including a Titanium Implanted Port. Ex. 1002, 10,
16. The following figure from page 10 of PORTS illustrates the Titanium
Implanted Port:

Id. at 10. As shown in the above figure from page 10 of PORTS, the
Titanium Implanted Port includes a “silicone-encapsulated base” and a
silicone septum. Id. The base includes a flange portion with “[s]uture slots
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
7
and orientation holes [that] simplify implantation and promote port
securement.” Id.
2. Hickman
Hickman is a Bard Access Systems chart providing information about
various subcutaneous ports and catheters. Ex. 1017. Hickman discloses a
Hickman® subcutaneous port that is similar in appearance to the Titanium
Implanted Port shown in PORTS. Id. at 4. A portion of a figure from
Hickman illustrating a cutaway of a Hickman® subcutaneous port is
reproduced below:

Id. The portion of the figure from Hickman shown above depicts a cross-
section of the base of a Hickman® subcutaneous port.
3. Powers
Powers describes a venous access port with a feature structured to
identify the port as being rated for power injection subsequent to
subcutaneous implantation. Ex. 1003, 1:67–2:2, 3:60–63. Figures 52A and
52B of Powers illustrate a top and bottom perspective view of an
embodiment of an access port with an alphanumeric message in the bottom:
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
8

See id. at 3:17–21. The port shown in Figures 52A and 52B includes the
letters “CT” etched in disk or plate 120 in the bottom of the port to identify
the port as being power injectable. Id. at 3:48–52, 4:8–10, 11:58–61. If the
plate is metal, the alphanumeric message will be visible on an X-ray.
Id. at 11:56–58, 11:66–12:2.
4. PowerPort
PowerPort is a one-page sheet with guidelines for CT technologists
using PowerPort implanted power injectable venous access ports provided
by Bard Access Systems. Ex. 1004, 1. One of the ports disclosed in
PowerPort is the PowerPort - M.R.I. Device, shown in the following picture:

IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
9
Id. The above picture from PowerPort appears to show the PowerPort -
M.R.I. Device under X-ray examination, with the characters “C” and “T”
formed as voids. See id.
5. Analysis
Beginning with independent claim 1, Petitioner contends the
combination of PORTS and Powers teaches all of the recited limitations, and
further cites PowerPort and Hickman for emphasis or confirmation of
particular aspects of the combination. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 117). For
example, Petitioner asserts PORTS and Powers each disclose a venous
access port with a housing comprising a base defining at least one reservoir.
Id. at 26. According to Petitioner, Hickman confirms that the base inside the
Titanium Implanted Port in PORTS defines a reservoir. Id. Petitioner also
asserts that the Titanium Implanted Port in PORTS has a flange comprising
an X-ray discernable material (titanium) that is adjacent to the reservoir,
voids extending through the X-ray discernable material of the flange, and a
needle-penetrable septum communicating with the housing. Id. at 26–28.
Claim 1 further requires the voids extending through the X-ray
discernable material of the flange to be “X-ray discernable indicia
configured to indicate, under X-ray examination, that the assembly is rated
for power injection.” For this limitation, Petitioner cites the disclosure in
Powers of a power injectable port with an alphanumeric message that, under
X-ray examination, indicates the port is rated for power injection. Id. at 27
(citing Ex. 1003, 11:44–47). Petitioner also alleges Powers discloses that
suture apertures may be positioned so as to identify the port after
subcutaneous implantation. Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:16–18). In
addition, Petitioner cites PowerPort for disclosing the PowerPort - M.R.I.
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
10
Device with the characters “C” and “T” identifying the port as rated for
power injection. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1004). Notably, Petitioner does not
contend either Powers or PowerPort discloses X-ray discernable indicia in a
flange, as required by claim 1. Id. at 27–28.
Acknowledging that the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS is not
power injectable and does not have indicia indicating “the assembly is rated
for power injection,” as required by claim 1, Petitioner argues a person
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
known the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS “could be constructed to
handle power injection,” and specifically “would be modified in view of
Powers to handle the higher pressure and flow rates associated with power
injection for injecting contrast media.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 139–
40). Then, according to Petitioner, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Titanium Implanted Port, modified
to handle power injection, with X-ray discernable indicia to indicate the
assembly is rated for power injection, particularly in view of the ports in
Powers and PowerPort with X-ray discernable alphanumeric messages
indicating they are rated for power injection. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1009
¶¶ 141–45). Next, Petitioner contends it would have been obvious in view
of Powers to form such X-ray discernable indicia as voids extending through
the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port because the flange of the Titanium
Implanted Port already includes voids (orientation holes) that function as
indicia of orientation under X-ray examination. Id. at 30. Petitioner also
submits that the obviousness of including X-ray discernable indicia in the
form of voids in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port is “emphasized”
by PowerPort’s disclosure of X-ray discernable alphanumeric characters in
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
11
the form of voids indicating a port is power injectable. Id. at 30–31.
Finally, Petitioner argues that voids in the flange would be expected to
provide high contrast so that alphanumeric characters would be readily
discernable under X-ray examination after implantation, achieving the same
result as indicia already included in the flange of the Titanium Implanted
Port. Id. at 31.
Patent Owner’s primary contention in its Preliminary Response is that
the Petition fails to provide adequate reasoning for combining the references
in the manner asserted to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Prelim.
Resp. 7–38. Having reviewed both parties’ arguments and evidence, we
agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated sufficient
rationale with support in the record for modifying the Titanium Implanted
Port of PORTS as suggested in the Petition. In particular, we are persuaded
by the following arguments presented by Patent Owner.
First, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide
adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings for why it would have
been obvious in view of Powers to modify the Titanium Implanted Port of
PORTS—which Petitioner does not allege can handle power injection—to
be rated for power injection. See id. at 8–11. Although claim 1 does not
require the recited port assembly actually be rated for power injection,
modifying the Titanium Implanted Port to handle power injection is an
important first step in Petitioner’s obviousness analysis. See Pet. 29.
Specifically, as noted above, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have known the Titanium Implanted Port could be
constructed to handle power injection by modifying it in view of Powers to
handle higher pressures and flow rates associated with power injection. Id.
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
12
Petitioner’s assertion, however, is conclusory, and relies only on
Mr. Tallarida’s declaration testimony, which merely repeats the conclusory
statements in the Petition without citation to the asserted prior art references
or any other evidence. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 139. Accordingly, his testimony has
little, if any, probative value. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony
that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is
based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, neither the Petition nor
Mr. Tallarida’s testimony explains how the Titanium Implanted Port would
have been modified so as to be rated for power injection, nor do they point
to any disclosure in Powers that would have suggested how such a
modification would have been made. See Pet. 29; Ex. 1009 ¶ 139.
We also find persuasive certain aspects of Patent Owner’s argument
that the Petition fails to explain sufficiently why it would have been obvious
to modify the flange of the Titanium Implantable Port in PORTS to have X-
ray discernable indicia in the form of voids configured to indicate the port
assembly is rated for power injection. See Prelim. Resp. 14–30. Initially,
Patent Owner finds fault with Petitioner’s assertion that the flange of the
Titanium Implanted Port has orientation holes that function as indicia of
orientation under X-ray examination, a linchpin of Petitioner’s obviousness
analysis. Id. at 15–16 (citing Pet. 30). As Patent Owner points out, PORTS
provides that the function of the suture slots and orientation holes of the
Titanium Implanted Port is to “simplify implantation and promote port
securement.” Ex. 1002, 10; see Prelim. Resp. 16. Thus, according to Patent
Owner, PORTS indicates the orientation holes are used to secure orientation
of the port, not to provide X-ray discernable indicia of orientation after
implantation. Prelim. Resp. 16.
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
13
We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently
that the orientation holes in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of
PORTS function as X-ray discernable indicia. Petitioner does not direct us
to any specific disclosure in PORTS describing the orientation holes as X-
ray discernable after implantation. See Pet. 18, 30. Furthermore,
Mr. Tallarida’s testimony that the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port is
known as a location for X-ray discernable indicia lacks citation to PORTS or
any other evidence in the record and is not otherwise supported by
underlying facts or data. See Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 62, 146–48, 150. Consequently,
his testimony on this point is entitled to little or no weight. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.65(a).
In addition, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have modified the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of
PORTS to include voids indicating the port is rated for power injection. See
Prelim. Resp. 20–22. As just discussed, and as shown in the figure on
page 10 of PORTS, the Titanium Implanted Port has multiple suture slots
and orientation holes that “simplify implantation and promote port
securement.” Ex. 1002, 10. Petitioner and Mr. Tallarida provide no
explanation of how a person of ordinary skill would have added voids
shaped like alphanumeric characters to the flange of the Titanium Implanted
Port while still accommodating the suture slots and orientation holes already
present in the flange for simplifying implantation and securing the port. See
Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 147–49. Nor do they suggest that a person of
ordinary skill would have replaced either suture slots or orientation holes
with alphanumeric voids. See Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 147–49.
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
14
Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not
provided adequate reasoning based on Powers for including X-ray
discernable indicia of power injection capability in the form of voids in the
flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS. See Prelim. Resp. 22–25.
Powers discloses an alphanumeric message indicating power injection
capability etched in a disk in the bottom of a port and visible under X-ray
examination. Ex. 1003, 11:56–58. The alphanumeric message disclosed in
Powers, however, is not in the form of voids or in a flange. Id. Petitioner
also refers to suture apertures in Powers that may be positioned so as to
identify the access port after implantation, but Petitioner does not contend
these apertures are in a flange or are indicia of power injection capability.
Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:16–18). Although Powers may disclose X-ray
discernable indicia and apertures that are voids, Petitioner does not assert
that these teachings of Powers suggest placing X-ray discernable indicia
configured to indicate a port is rated for power injection in the flange of the
port. See Pet. 30–31.
Finally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that
PowerPort cures the deficiencies of PORTS and Powers. See Prelim.
Resp. 26–29. PowerPort’s X-ray discernable indicia of power injection
capability are in the form of voids, but they are not located in a flange of an
access port. Ex. 1004. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
argument that PowerPort “emphasize[s]” the obviousness of including X-ray
discernable indicia in the form of voids in the flange of the Titanium
Implanted Port of PORTS. See Pet. 30–31.
For at least these reasons, Petitioner has not provided adequate
reasoning based on rational underpinnings for combining the asserted
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
15
references to achieve the invention as recited in claim 1. Independent
claims 9 and 16, like claim 1, both require a “flange comprising an X-ray
discernable material” with voids that are “X-ray discernable indicia
configured to indicate, under X-ray examination, that the assembly is rated
for power injection.” Ex. 1001, 5:54–6:4, 6:29–36. Claims 9 and 16
otherwise differ only slightly from claim 1, and Petitioner contends they
would have been obvious for the same reasons presented with respect to
claim 1. Pet. 34–36. Thus, for reasons similar to those discussed above with
respect to claim 1, we also determine Petitioner has not articulated a
sufficient rationale for combining the references to arrive at the invention as
recited in claims 9 and 16.
Because we conclude Petitioner has not provided sufficient reasoning
for combining the references in the manner asserted, we need not address
Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition fails to specify where PORTS
discloses certain claim limitations. See Prelim. Resp. 38–42. We also need
not address Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner has presented
insufficient evidence to establish that PORTS, Hickman, and PowerPort
qualify as printed publications that were publicly accessible at the relevant
times. See id. at 43–54.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the information presented
does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
showing that any of claims 1–22 would have been obvious over PORTS,
Powers, PowerPort, and Hickman.
C. Asserted Obviousness over PORTS, Powers, Sayre, and Hickman
Petitioner asserts claims 1–22 of the ’160 patent are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of PORTS,
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
16
Powers, Sayre, and Hickman. Pet. 40–50. Sayre discloses a marking device
for defining the margins and orientation of radiography specimens removed
from a patient’s body. Ex. 1007, Abstract. A marker with a distinctive
shape and indicia photoetched from radiopaque material is attached to a
specimen to indicate the orientation of the specimen prior to removal from
the patient. Id. at 4:6–10, Figs. 1, 2A–C. Indicia also may be formed in
radiopaque markers by stamping, laser cutting, or other means. Id. at 4:24–
26.
Petitioner argues claims 1–22 would have been obvious over PORTS,
Powers, Sayre, and Hickman “for substantially the same reasons” that
claims 1–22 would have been obvious over PORTS, Powers, PowerPort, and
Hickman. Pet. 40–41. In its analysis, Petitioner replaces PowerPort with
Sayre, arguing that the obviousness of including X-ray discernable indicia in
the form of voids in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS is
“emphasized by Sayre’s disclosure of X-ray discernable indicia, such as
alphanumeric characters, defined by apertures (voids) in radiopaque material
that can also aid in indicating orientation and receive sutures.” Id. at 42–43.
For substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to the
asserted obviousness ground based on PORTS, Powers, PowerPort, and
Hickman, Petitioner has not provided adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings for combining the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. With regard to Sayre, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner
has not shown Sayre cures the deficiencies of PORTS and Powers. See
Prelim. Resp. 31–34. In particular, Sayre’s radiopaque indicia are not in a
flange, much less in a flange of a venous access port. See Ex. 1007,
Abstract, Figs. 2A–C. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
17
argument that Sayre “emphasize[s]” the obviousness of including X-ray
discernable indicia in the form of voids in the flange of the Titanium
Implanted Port. See Pet. 42–43.
Accordingly, we conclude the information presented does not show a
reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that any of
claims 1–22 would have been obvious over PORTS, Powers, Sayre, and
Hickman.
D. Asserted Obviousness over PORTS, Powers, Meyer, and Hickman
Petitioner asserts claims 1–22 of the ’160 patent are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of PORTS,
Powers, Meyer, and Hickman. Pet. 50–60. Meyer discloses a plastic collar
for a container with characters used for identification or inspection purposes.
Ex. 1006, 3, col. 1. In one embodiment, characters are formed by cutouts in
the body of the collar. Id.
Petitioner argues claims 1–22 would have been obvious over PORTS,
Powers, Meyer, and Hickman “for substantially the same reasons” that
claims 1–22 would have been obvious over PORTS, Powers, PowerPort, and
Hickman. Pet. 51. Similar to the ground based in part on Sayre, Petitioner
replaces PowerPort with Meyer in its analysis, arguing that the obviousness
of including X-ray discernable indicia in the form of voids in the flange of
the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS is “emphasized by Meyer’s
disclosure of indicia in the form of alphanumeric voids in a flange adjacent
to a container.” Id. at 53.
For substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to the
asserted obviousness ground based on PORTS, Powers, PowerPort, and
Hickman, Petitioner has not provided adequate reasoning based on rational
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
18
underpinnings for combining the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. With regard to Meyer, we agree with Patent Owner that
Petitioner has not shown Meyer cures the deficiencies of PORTS and
Powers. See Prelim. Resp. 35–38. Petitioner alleges the alphanumeric
cutouts in Meyer would be visible under X-ray examination, yet neither
Meyer nor the cited paragraphs from Mr. Tallarida’s declaration testimony
sufficiently support such a statement. See Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1006;
Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 227–31). Moreover, even if the collar in Meyer can be
considered a flange, it is not a flange of anything resembling a venous access
port. Petitioner has not shown adequately that Meyer, which discloses
collars for containers, is “from the same field of endeavor” or “reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem” addressed by the inventors of the
’160 patent in developing the recited venous access port, as required to be
prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t,
Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see Ex. 1006, 3 (summary). Therefore, we are
not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Meyer “emphasize[s]” the
obviousness of including X-ray discernable indicia in the form of voids in
the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS. See Pet. 53.
Accordingly, we conclude the information presented does not show a
reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that any of
claims 1–22 would have been obvious over PORTS, Powers, Meyer, and
Hickman.
E. Real Party-in-Interest
Patent Owner alleges in its Preliminary Response that the Petition
should have named Bard Access Systems, Inc. as a real party-in-interest in
IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
19
addition to C.R. Bard, Inc. Prelim. Resp. 54–59. In view of our
determination that the information presented does not show a reasonable
likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the
challenged claims, we do not reach this issue.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
prevail in showing that any of claims 1–22 of the ’160 patent are
unpatentable.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.

IPR2015-01654
Patent 8,852,160 B2
20
PETITIONER:

Michael J. Fink
Arnold Turk
Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
mfink@gbpatent.com
aturk@gbpatent.com

PATENT OWNER:

Alfred W. Zaher
Jonathan Bowser
Shawn S. Li
Roger Lee
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
alfred.zaher@bipc.com
jon.bowser@bipc.com
shawn.li@bipc.com
roger.lee@bipc.com