Ariosa Loses Verinata Patent Challenge

22 August 2016 Personalized Medicine Bulletin Blog
Author(s): Antoinette F. Konski

Fetal diagnostic pioneer Ariosa Diagnostics lost its latest attempt to invalidate competitor Verinata Health’s U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430, “Methods of Fetal Abnormality Detection.” The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluded that Petitioner Ariosa Diagnostics (Ariosa) failed to demonstrate the unpatentability of challenged claims 1-30. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Verinata Health, Inc., IPR2013-0027/-00277 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016).

U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430

The decision is the latest in a long-running challenge by Petitioner Ariosa seeking two inter partes review of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430 (the ‘430 Patent). Ariosa initially sought review of the ‘430 Patent on the basis of three prior art documents:  Shoemaker,[1]  Dhallan,[2]  and  Binladen.[3] After trial and oral argument on the original petitions, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision concluding that Petitioner Ariosa had failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all claims of the ‘430 Patent were unpatentable over the combined teachings of Shoemaker, Dhallan, and Binladen. Ariosa appealed to the Federal Circuit.[4] In Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit noted in its review that the PTAB might have erred by failing to consider an additional piece of prior art, namely an Illumina Brochure for the Illumina Genome Analyzer, “‘simply because the brochure had not been identified at the petition stage as one of the pieces of prior art defining a combination for obviousness.'” Decision, page 4, quoting Ariosa at page 1365. The Federal Circuit vacated the PTABs finding of non-obviousness and remanded the case to allow the parties to brief how the PTAB may have overlooked the relevance of the Illumina Brochure.

Patentability of the Claims

On remand the PTAB again determined that Petitioner failed to establish the unpatentability of the ‘430 Patent claims from the combined teachings of the cited references, including the teachings of the Illumina Brochure. Importantly the PTAB stated that:

Petitioner, however, provided no further explanation of the combination in the Petition, such as a reason with rational underpinning as to why the ordinary artisan would have combined the references to arrive at the method of the challenged claims, but only presented a claim chart demonstrating where the limitations of each challenged claim could be found in the prior art.

Decision, page 16.

The decision serves as a cautionary tale to patent challengers to not only map the elements of the claims to the prior art but also to clearly articulate the rationale why the art would be combined by one of skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.


[1] Shoemaker et al., Pub. No. US 2008/0090239 A1, published April 17, 2008 (Shoemaker).

[2] Dhallan, Patent No. US 7,322,277 B2, issued February 19, 2008 (Dhallan).

[3] Jonas Binladen et al., The Use of Coded PCR Primers Enables High-Throughput Sequencing of Multiple Homolog Amplification Products by 454 Parallel Sequencing, 2 PLOS ONE 1-9 (2007) (Binladen).

[4] The procedural history has been abbreviated for the sake of brevity. The appeal was a consolidation of two proceedings initiated by Ariosa at the PTAB.


This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.