PTAB

IPR2018-01180

Ivantis Inc v. Glaukos Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: SHUNT DEVICE AND METHOD FOR TREATING OCULAR DISORDERS
  • Brief Description: The ’143 patent discloses ocular implants and surgical methods for treating glaucoma. The technology involves placing a shunt device that bypasses the trabecular meshwork to divert aqueous humor from the anterior chamber of the eye into Schlemm’s canal, thereby reducing intraocular pressure. The independent claims require the implant to have a "non-tubular," "non-luminal," or "partially open" structure.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness over Grieshaber - Claims 1, 3-8, 11-16, 20-24, 26-29, 31, and 38-42 are anticipated and/or obvious over Grieshaber.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Grieshaber (Australian Patent Application Publication AU 199876197).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Grieshaber discloses every element of the challenged claims. Grieshaber teaches an indwelling ocular implant for treating glaucoma by maintaining the patency of Schlemm's canal. Petitioner contended that the implant shown in Grieshaber's Figures 9 and 10 has a "non-tubular" body, as it comprises longitudinal webs connected by end rings, creating large openings rather than an enclosed tube. This structure is also inherently "non-luminal" and "partially open" along its length, allowing aqueous humor to pass into collector channels. Grieshaber also disclosed that the implant can be curved ("longitudinally somewhat arcuate"), made of biocompatible materials (including metal), and has dimensions suitable for placement in Schlemm's canal.
    • Key Aspects: The applicability of Grieshaber hinges on the construction of terms like "non-tubular." Petitioner asserted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Grieshaber’s web-and-ring structure meets this limitation, thereby anticipating the claims. For elements arguably not explicitly disclosed (e.g., ovoid-shaped holes), Petitioner argued their inclusion would be an obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Grieshaber in view of Spiegel - Claims 2, 9, 10, 17-19, 25, and 32-37 are obvious over Grieshaber in view of Spiegel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Grieshaber (Australian Patent Application Publication AU 199876197) and Spiegel (Surgical Treatment of Glaucoma, 1998).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring a method of implanting a stent or a structure where a portion of the implant is positioned in the anterior chamber of the eye. While Grieshaber primarily teaches placing a stent within Schlemm’s canal, Spiegel explicitly teaches a method to bypass the trabecular meshwork by placing one end of a silicone tube in Schlemm’s canal and sliding the other end into the anterior chamber. Spiegel thus supplied the teaching of creating an incision in the trabecular meshwork and positioning a stent to fluidly connect the anterior chamber with Schlemm's canal.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine these references to solve the known problem of elevated intraocular pressure. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Grieshaber's stenting device using Spiegel's surgical approach to create a direct conduit from the anterior chamber (the site of fluid buildup) to the natural outflow pathways maintained by the Grieshaber implant.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known surgical technique (from Spiegel) to a known type of implant (from Grieshaber) to address a well-understood physiological problem.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that dependent claim 30 is obvious over Grieshaber, either alone as a design choice or in view of Minckler (a 1994 journal article). Minckler was cited for its teaching that a non-tubular, semi-circular or C-shaped "trough-like" shunt was a known design option to promote drainage and avoid occlusion.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Non-tubular" (claims 1, 12, 21, 24): Petitioner proposed this term means "not enclosed along its length." This construction was central to the argument that Grieshaber's implant—comprising longitudinal webs with large gaps between them—meets the claim limitation, distinguishing it from a fully enclosed, solid-walled tube.
  • "Non-luminal" (claims 32, 38): Petitioner proposed this term means "not having an enclosed space or cavity." Similar to the "non-tubular" construction, this interpretation allowed Petitioner to argue that Grieshaber’s open-frame structure, which lacks a continuous enclosed internal cavity, satisfies the claim language.
  • "Portal" (claims 5, 7-8, 38-40): Petitioner argued this term should be construed simply as an "opening," based on its usage in the ’143 patent specification to refer to various apertures on the implant body.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: A critical contention was that the ’143 patent is not entitled to its claimed April 26, 1999 priority date from a provisional application. Petitioner argued the provisional application failed to provide written description support for the key "non-tubular," "non-luminal," or "partially open" limitations. Therefore, the effective priority date is April 26, 2000, the filing date of the first non-provisional application that disclosed these features. This later priority date is crucial because it makes Grieshaber, published on February 25, 1999, valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of all challenged claims, 1-42, of the ’143 patent as unpatentable.