PTAB

IPR2025-01460

Porta Sophia v. Ellis GREG

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Delivery system for ayahuasca-like substances
  • Brief Description: The ’110 patent discloses a vaporization device for delivering certain psychedelic substances. The device comprises a chamber containing a vaporizable formulation of dimethyltryptamine (DMT), 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DMT), or 2-5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 17-19 by the ’396 application

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rands (Application # 2022/0081396, "the '396 application").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claims 17-19, which recite an "isotopomer or isotopologue" of the claimed substances (specifically comprising deuterium), have an effective filing date no earlier than July 18, 2021. The ’396 application, filed before this date, explicitly discloses the synthesis and use of deuterated DMT compounds (isotopologues of DMT) in vaporizable formulations. The ’396 application further taught placing these formulations into the chamber of a commercially available electronic vaporizer, thereby teaching every limitation of claims 17-19.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 20 by DMT-NEXUS 2012

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DMT-NEXUS 2012 (a 2012 online forum discussion).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that DMT-NEXUS 2012, a public forum post, described all elements of the challenged claims years before the patent's priority date. The reference allegedly taught formulating DMT in common solvents like propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), and polyethylene glycol (PEG) (claim 20) and placing this formulation into a standard vape cartridge, or "chamber" (claim 1, 16). The post also described using refillable cartridges (claim 14) with standard 510 thread connectors (claims 11, 12) coupled to a battery power unit (claims 7, 8) and noted that cartridges could be removed and replaced by the user (claim 9).

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 2-8, 10, and 13 over DMT-NEXUS 2012 in view of Giroud and/or the Visual Vaping Dictionary

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DMT-NEXUS 2012 (a 2012 online forum discussion), Giroud (a 2015 journal article reviewing e-cigarette trends), and the Visual Vaping Dictionary (a 2019 CDC publication).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that DMT-NEXUS 2012 established the common practice of vaporizing DMT using commercially available e-cigarette hardware. Giroud and the Visual Vaping Dictionary were presented as evidence of the state of the art for such hardware, disclosing all the specific device features recited in the dependent claims. These features included standard mouthpieces with apertures (claims 2, 3), seals (claim 4), releasable components (claim 5), "lockably coupled" single-use designs (claims 6, 10), transparent chambers (claim 13), and the connection of a chamber to a power unit (claims 7, 8).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA), knowing from DMT-NEXUS 2012 that DMT could be vaporized, would be motivated to use the well-known, off-the-shelf vaporizer components detailed in Giroud and the Visual Vaping Dictionary to do so. The motivation was to apply a known delivery method (vaping) to a known substance (DMT) using standard, readily available equipment for convenience and efficacy.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success, as combining a known substance with a standard delivery device for that class of substance was routine and predictable.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including a broader combination of public use references (DMT-NEXUS 2015/2018, Erowid 2014, etc.) with Giroud and the Visual Vaping Dictionary to invalidate claims 1-16 and 20. Other grounds targeted claim 15 (adding a monoamine oxidase inhibitor) based on the known combination in ayahuasca preparations and claim 20 based on the well-known use of PG, VG, and PEG as vape solvents.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "lockably coupled," recited in dependent claims 6 and 10, does not require a specific locking mechanism. Based on the patent's specification, Petitioner contended the term is defined by the intent that the components are for single-use and not meant to be separated by the consumer, as opposed to "releasably coupled" reusable components. This construction allows single-use, disposable vaporizer designs to meet the limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 11,235,110 as unpatentable.