Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC

130 F.4th 941 (Fed. Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · March 4, 2025 · No. 23-2054

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final written decision upholding the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 directed to isolated stem cells. The court reviewed the Board's claim construction and factual findings, concluding there was no legal error in interpreting the 'placing' and 'isolated cell' limitations. Additionally, the court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the cited prior art did not inherently anticipate or render the claimed cell populations obvious.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Writing for the Court
Moore; Schall; Taranto
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decision date
March 4, 2025
Docket number
23-2054
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, IPR2021-01535
Standard of review
de novo for claim construction; substantial evidence for factual findings
Precedential value
published
Parties
Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

patent lawobviousnessintellectual property

Practice areas

intellectual property

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Board erred in its construction of the “placing” step of claim 1.
  2. Whether the Board erred in its construction of “isolated cell” as a cell population.
  3. Whether the Board erred in finding that Majore does not inherently anticipate claim 1.
  4. Whether claim 9 is obvious.

Holdings

  1. The Board’s construction of the “placing” step is correct; no error.
  2. The Board correctly construed “isolated cell” to refer to a cell population.
  3. The Board correctly held that Majore does not inherently anticipate claim 1 because the prior art does not inevitably produce the required cell‑marker expression profile.
  4. The Board correctly found claim 9 is not obvious for the same reasons as claim 1.

Key quotations

We do not agree with Restem that the Board’s analysis constituted an implicit construction of the “placing” step beyond its stated construction. (at 1)
We see no error in the Board’s construction of “an isolated cell” as “a cell population.” (at 1)

Factual background

Jadi Cell owns U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 covering isolated stem cells derived from the subepithelial layer of umbilical cord tissue. Restem challenged claims 1‑15 as anticipated or obvious over prior art references Majore, Phan, and Kita.

Procedural history

Restem appealed the Board's final written decision that it failed to prove claims 1–15 of the ’176 patent were unpatentable. The Board had previously construed claim terms and held no anticipation or obviousness.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…