1. “Whether the PTAB relied on the wrong legal standard in determining structural obviousness, because it ignored whether a skilled artisan: would have been motivated to deuterate ruxolitinib to alter its pharmacokinetic properties; would have been motivated to make the specific molecular modifications claimed in the ’149 Patent; and would have had a reasonable expectation that the claimed modifications would lead to desired improvements in the compound’s characteristics.”
2. “Whether the PTAB erred in disregarding objective indicia of nonobviousness.”
3. “Whether the official who denied Concert’s request for Director review was a properly appointed ‘principal officer’ of the Executive Branch.”
1. “Thus, the Board had substantial evidence to support its findings that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify ruxolitinib to create the ’149 patent’s deuterated analogs to alter its pharmacokinetic properties and would have reasonably expected that such modifications would lead to the beneficial changes suggested by the Concert Backgrounder.”
2.“[T]he Board reasonably concluded that CTP-543’s increased time in the therapeutic window and increased clinical response at a given dose were differences in degree that did not indicate a marked superiority in these properties. . . . [and] substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Sun did not prove that CTP-543 has satisfied this long-felt need.”
3. “We have considered Sun’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive.”
