United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CYTIVA BIOPROCESS R&D AB, Appellant

v.

JSR CORP., JSR LIFE SCIENCES, LLC, Cross-Appellants ______________________

2023-2074, 2023-2075, 2023-2191, 2023-2192, 2023-2193, 2023-2194, 2023-2239, 2023-2252, 2023-2253, 2023-2255 ______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2022- 00036, IPR2022-00041, IPR2022-00042, IPR2022-00043, IPR2022-00044, IPR2022-00045. ______________________

Decided: December 4, 2024 ______________________

DAVID M. KRINSKY, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by ANDREW LEON HOFFMAN.

ERIC WILLIAM DITTMANN, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY, argued for cross-appellants. Also represented by ISAAC S. ASHKENAZI, KRYSTINA L. HO, CARL J. MINNITI, III; PHILLIP W. CITROEN, STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, NAVEEN MODI, MICHAEL WOLFE, Washington, DC; HIROYUKI HAGIWARA, Tokyo, Japan. Case: 23-2074 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 12/04/2024

2 CYTIVA BIOPROCESS R&D AB v. JSR CORP.

______________________

Before PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PROST, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated appeal, Cytiva BioProcess R&D AB (“Cytiva”) appeals the final written decisions from six inter partes reviews (“IPRs”), determining that 79 claims of the three challenged patents are unpatentable. JSR Corp. and JSR Life Sciences, LLC (collectively, “JSR”) cross appeal the final written decisions in four of these IPRs, which held the remaining four challenged claims not unpatentable. We affirm the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) determination that claims 1–7, 10–20, 23–26 of the ’765 patent,1 claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, 18–20, 23–30 of the ’142 patent,2 and claims 1–10, 12–14, 16–28, 30–32, and 34–37 of the ’007 patent3 are unpatentable (i.e., the 79 claims the Board held are unpatentable), and we reverse the Board’s determination that claims 4 and 17 of the ’142 patent4 and claims 11 and 29 of the ’007 patent are not unpatentable.

1 U.S. Patent No. 10,213,765. 2 U.S. Patent No. 10,343,142. 3 U.S. Patent No. 10,875,007. 4 JSR’s briefing suggests that the cross-appeal claims include claim 7 instead of claim 17 of the ’142 patent. E.g., Cross-Appellant’s Br. 58 n.12. Because the Board found claims 4 and 17 not unpatentable, because claims 4 and 17 mirror each other (and claim 7 is substantively different), and because the limitation disputed here appears in claims 4 and 17 (and not claim 7), we interpret JSR’s dispute to apply to claims 4 and 17 of the ’142 patent. Case: 23-2074 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 12/04/2024

CYTIVA BIOPROCESS R&D AB v. JSR CORP. 3

BACKGROUND I JSR filed six IPRs challenging claims 1–7, 10–20, and 23–26 of the ’765 patent5; claims 1–7, 10–20, and 23–30 of the ’142 patent6; and claims 1–14, 16–32, and 34–37 of the ’007 patent.7 Each of the challenged patents generally relates to chromatography matrices and processes for isolating target compounds using those matrices. A Chromatography is the process of separating components in a mixture, which can be accomplished through a variety of separation methods. The challenged patents relate to a certain type of chromatography called affinity chromatography. In affinity chromatography, a biomolecule is separated from a mixture using molecular binding. This is done by creating a chromatography matrix (a solid support attached to a ligand), where the ligand selected has a high affinity for binding to the t