Vieth v. MOM Enterprises, LLC

Vieth v. MOM Enterprises, LLC The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's obviousness determination for claims directed to delivering vitamin D by applying one drop of a vitamin D/MCT composition to an object for sucking or licking. The court upheld the Board's forfeiture rulings and found substantial evidence supporting the Board's findings on the 'adheres' limitation, motivation to combine for the pacifier-dependent claim, and lack of persuasive objective indicia nexus. The decision is a practical reminder that IPR patent owners must develop all prior-art and claim-limitation arguments in the Patent Owner Response, and that product evidence with labeled nonclaimed uses may not support a presumption of nexus. AFFIRMED The Board applied the parties' agreed construction of the 'adheres' limitation, requiring both non-dripping and no coating/adherence that prevents efficient removal. The Federal Circuit held the Board did not abuse its discretion in treating as forfeited the patent owners' sur-reply argument that Harder's reference to MCT vegetable oil did not disclose only vitamin D in MCT. Substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Harder inherently disclosed, or at least suggested, the 'adheres' limitation for a vitamin D/MCT drop administered from a spoon. For dependent claim 3, the court upheld the Board's forfeiture ruling on non-analogous art and found substantial evidence of motivation to use a pacifier based on Blass's teaching that pacifiers trigger an infant sucking reflex. The court upheld the Board's rejection of objective indicia: product labels disclosed alternative prior-art/nonclaimed administration methods, and the record did not establish nexus for commercial success, praise, long-felt need, or copying sufficient to overcome obviousness. § 103 claim construction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 103 claim construction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 103 waiver / forfeiture non-precedential