• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01098 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12, finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis based on the schedule in the district court’s docket control order. Ex. 2007. The fact that the time-to-trial statistics cited by Petitioner predict that a trial in May 2024 (Pet. 89), a date even earlier than the trial date set in the court’s docket control order, confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that diligence in filing the Petition “in advance of the one-year bar date and within four months of PO’s infringement contentions in the Texas Litigation” should weigh in favor of institution. Pet. 89. As the Texas Litigation is scheduled to go to trial in August 2024, approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinarily skilled artisan”) as one having “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker (“Baker Decl.”) ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further states that slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,462,942
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01094 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Fintiv favored discretionary denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence that claims 1–4, 8, and 11–12 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section primary with a planar coil would modify Odendaal’s coil to add multiple taps to create multiple section and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 37. The Petition does not address how Odendaal’s planar could would be incorporated to provide this important functionality of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride,” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section primary with a planar coil would modify Odendaal’s coil to add multiple taps to create multiple section and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 37. The Petition does not address how Odendaal’s planar could would be incorporated to provide this important functionality of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,316,371
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2023-01099 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 21–26 because the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “It strikes us as inefficient to conduct, in parallel with the Texas Litigation, numerous inter partes reviews of the same seven patents. This is particularly the case here where the best available evidence indicates that the Texas Litigation will go to trial approximately six months prior to when a final written decision would be entered if inter partes review were to be instituted. Thus, this additional reason weighs in favor of discretionary denial. G. Fintiv Conclusion As a whole, the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of discretionary denial of the Petition, with factor 1 being neutral, factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 weighing in favor of discretionary denial and factor 4 weighing slightly against it. However, we “will not deny institution based on Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., No. IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“CommScope”). Thus, we now consider the merits of the Petition under this higher standard.” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “III. ANALYSIS UNDER COMPELLING MERITS STANDARD “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” Commscope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Put another way, the compelling merits standard is satisfied “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). For the reasons explained below, the Petition fails to meet this standard.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “The Petition’s reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have made the proposed modification, i.e., “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices” (Pet. 20), is not persuasive. Rather, it appears, based on the record presented, that the proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (A combination of references is “not a proper ground for rejection” where it “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown [in the prior art] as well as a change in the basic principles under which [the prior art] construction was designed to operate.”); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reversing BPAI decision affirming obviousness rejection where a proposed modification to the prior art would have “rendered [it] inoperable for its intended purpose”). For these reasons, the Petition does not present “compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Commscope at 4.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot reached

    “The Petition’s reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have made the proposed modification, i.e., “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices” (Pet. 20), is not persuasive. Rather, it appears, based on the record presented, that the proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (A combination of references is “not a proper ground for rejection” where it “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown [in the prior art] as well as a change in the basic principles under which [the prior art] construction was designed to operate.”); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reversing BPAI decision affirming obviousness rejection where a proposed modification to the prior art would have “rendered [it] inoperable for its intended purpose”). For these reasons, the Petition does not present “compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Commscope at 4.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,462,942
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2023-01096 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 20–23 and 30 because the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition lacked a compelling unpatentability challenge.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “NHK applies to the situation where the district court has set a trial date to occur earlier than the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision in an instituted proceeding. In a case where, in contrast to the facts present in NHK, the district court has set a trial date after the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision in an instituted proceeding, the Board may be less likely to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on district court trial timing depending on other factors as set forth below. Fintiv at 3. The instant situation is the former one described above by Fintiv and to which “NHK applies.”” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Here, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “modif[ied] the Okada system to use ‘a receiver coil which has a substantially planar shape and is located parallel to a surface of the portable device’ (and complimented such a design with corresponding planar primary coil).” Pet. 21 (quoting claim 20). Petitioner states that the skilled artisan would have done so “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶135). The cited declaration testimony repeats this statement and adds that the modification could reduce size and/or weight of a device and, due to the “close proximity of coupling,” could improve power transmission efficiency, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time. Ex. 1002 ¶135.” slip op. at 22

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied

    “the Petition, with factor 1 being neutral, factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 weighing in favor of discretionary denial and factor 4 weighing slightly against it. However, we “will not deny institution based on Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., No. IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“CommScope”). Thus, we now consider the merits of the Petition under this higher standard. III. ANALYSIS UNDER COMPELLING MERITS STANDARD “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” CommScope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Put another way, the compelling merits standard is satisfied “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). For the reasons explained below, the Petition fails to meet this standard.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the ’371 patent and the asserted prior art, and because there is no argument to the contrary at this stage of the proceeding, we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,316,371
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01088 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Samsung did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 3 and 13 would have been obvious over Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “A. Principles of Law “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc., 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which that subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations of nonobviousness when presented. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “that the POSA would have been motivated to modify Nakamura to include Odendaal’s spiral coils in place of Nakamura’s multiple winding sections wound around a ferrite core. As discussed above, the configuration of multiple winding sections wound around a common ferrite core allows Nakamura’s system to provide multiple different power levels and to align charging and receiving equipment for optimal transmission. The Petition asserts that “the Nakamura-Odendaal system/device [would] include features and perform functionalities like those described by Nakamura.” Pet. 25. But the Petition does not explain how it proposes to obtain multiple power level functionality using Odendaal’s simple untapped planar coils. Nor does the Petition explain how it proposes to preserve Nakamura’s alignment functionality using Odendaal’s untapped planar coils. See generally, Pet. 13–26 (discussing “planar” limitation without addressing this issue).9” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “techniques/technologies, with a reasonable expectation of success that the modified system/device operated as intended consistent with Nakamura’s teachings/designs.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 138). But Petitioner and Dr. Baker never explain what the combined system would look like or how it would work. Petitioner’s omission to address how its combined system would work is illustrated in how it addresses the claim requirement that a magnetic field is generated “in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the primary coil.” Ex. 1001, 27:57–61 (claim limitation reciting “each primary coil having a generally planar shape so that when current is passed through the primary coil a magnetic field is generated in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the primary coil”). To address this requirement, Petitioner relies not on a discussion of how the magnetic field in the proposed combined system of Nakamura and Odendaal would work (i.e., in the planar coil configuration), but on the magnetic field generated by Nakamura’s multi-section winding and ferrite core – i.e., the very winding it proposes to replace with Odendaal’s planar coils. Pet. 15– 17.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective date of the ’440 patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems. More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed definition of the POSA for purposes of its preliminary response. Prelim. Resp. 6. Petitioner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’440 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 10

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,577,440
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01087 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 27 would have been obvious over Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Harmonic Inc., 815 F.3d at 1363; 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). 2. Conclusion Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not presented adequate reasoning to show a reasonable likelihood that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Nakamura with the teachings of Odendaal in the manner claimed. Having considered all of the arguments and evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of that it will prevail in establishing that claims 1 and 27 would have been obvious over the combination of Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon. IV. CONCLUSION On this preliminary record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the ground advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “On the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that the POSA would have been motivated to modify Nakamura to include Odendaal’s spiral coils in place of Nakamura’s multiple winding sections wound around a ferrite core. As discussed above, the configuration of multiple winding sections wound around a common ferrite core allows Nakamura’s system to provide multiple different power levels and to align charging and receiving equipment for optimal transmission. The Petition asserts that “the Nakamura-Odendaal system/device [would] include features and perform functionalities like those described by Nakamura.” Pet. 29. But the Petition does not explain how it proposes to obtain multiple power level functionality using Odendaal’s simple untapped planar coils. Nor does the Petition explain how it proposes to preserve Nakamura’s alignment functionality using Odendaal’s untapped planar coils. See 8 Odendaal also discloses bi-filar and multi-filar spirals (id. at 2:51–55; Fig 1B) but Petitioner does not rely on those disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–77; 129–134 (discussing the disclosures of Odendaal relied upon for obviousness without discussing bi-filar and multi-filar spirals)). In addition, as Patent Owner explains (Prelim. Resp. 47–48), Odendaal does not describe these bi- and multi-filar spirals as having the ability to act separately. Rather, Odendaal teaches that the spirals are placed on top of each other and separated by a dielectric film that forms a capacitor. Ex. 1008, 3:32–40. Thus, Odendaal’s bi- and multi-filar spirals would act like a single coil. Id.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “have known how to configure the modified system/device such that it operated as intended consistent with Nakamura’s teachings/designs.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 141). But Petitioner and Dr. Baker never explain what the combined system would look like or how it would work. Petitioner’s omission to address how its combined system would work is illustrated in how it addresses the claim requirement that a magnetic field is received “in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the receiver coil.” Ex. 1001, 27:17–18 (claim limitation reciting “the receiver coil has a generally planar shape so that a magnetic field received in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the receiver coil is used to inductively generate a current in the receiver coil,”); 30:15–18 (same). To address this requirement, Petitioner relies not on a discussion of how the magnetic field in the proposed combined system of Nakamura and Odendaal would work (i.e., in the planar coil configuration), but on the magnetic field generated by Nakamura’s multi-section winding and ferrite core – i.e., the very winding it proposes to replace with Odendaal’s planar coils. Pet. 19–20. The significant differences between Nakamura’s multiple winding sections and Odendaal’s simple planar coil make it difficult to discern, on this record, how Odendaal’s coils would be incorporated in Nakamura’s 9 To the extent Petitioner contends that the combined Nakamura/Odendaal system would lack these functionalities, it undermines the POSA’s motivation to use planar coils in Nakamura’s system. 21 system without compromising functionality.10 Absent further explanation as to how the combined system of Nakamura and Odendaal would preserve Nakamura’s functionality, we give little weight to Dr. Baker’s conclusory testimony that the POSA would have known how to do so. Ex. 1002 ¶ 141; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no 10 Petitioner extensively relies on internal cross-references in both the Petition and in Dr. Baker’s Declaration. For example, paragraph 141 of Dr. Baker’s Declaration, refers to “my analysis and discussions above in this section,” “my analysis and discussions in Sections IX.A.1(a)-1(b),” and “my analysis and discussions in Sections VIII.A-B, IX.A.1(a)-(b).” As another example, paragraph 140 of Dr. Baker’s Declaration refers to “my analysis and discussions above in this section,” “my analysis and discussions above regarding state of art disclosures such as those in Exs. 1006–1007, 1009– 1011, 1015, 1024–1030,” “my discussions above in Section V.B and those above where I reference state-of-art references supporting such understanding,” and “my analysis and discussions in Sections IX.A.1(a)– (l).” Similarly, the Petition states that “[o]ther disclosed features would have been included in the Nakamura-Odendaal system (including as further modified below) for reasons explained,” and provides a citation to “§§IX.A.1(a)–(l)).” Pet. 30. Although there is no rule against internal crossreferencing, and we recognize that it can be useful to avoid duplication, Petitioner’s cross-referencing here results in a lack of clarity. Our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) provides that “parties should avoid submitting a repository of all of the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized arguments, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” Petitioner has failed to follow this guidance, which has made it difficult to discern Petitioner’s precise contentions as to the combination of Nakamura and Odendaal, and further supports that Petitioner has not shown “with particularity” why the ’440 patent is unpatentable over Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon. 22 weight.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends: A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the ’440 patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems. More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed definition of the POSA for purposes of its preliminary response. Prelim. Resp. 6. Petitioner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’440 9 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,577,440
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01102 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 15, 17, and 20–23 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). At the institution phase of an inter partes review, Petitioner’s burden is to show that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “POSITA”) would have had “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–22, 23–66). slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “requires a microcontroller configured for “operating in a first mode of operation using a first protocol,” wherein that protocol “is an inductive charging communication-and-control protocol that comprises uni-directional messaging.” In this mode, the claim requires a first communication sent from the receiver (the charged device) to the base system (the charger). Ex. 1001, 72:6–9 (“sending . . . a first communication”). The claim also requires the microcontroller to be configured for “operating in a second mode of operation using a second protocol,” wherein that protocol “is an inductive charging communication-and-control protocol that defines bi-directional messaging.” Id. at 72:12–16. In this mode, the claim requires a second communication sent from the receiver to the base system, and also a third communication sent from the base system to the receiver. Id. at 72:18– 26 (“sending . . . a second communication” and “receiving . . . [a] third communication”). We also note that claim 5, which depends from independent claim 1 (which is similar to claim 15), specifies that “the first mode of operation is a subset of the second mode of operation,” but also note that claim 15 does not have a similar claim that depends from it. Id. at 71:11–12. Independent claim 24 is similar, but states that the second protocol “comprises bi-directional messaging” (emphasis added), instead of claim 1’s recitation of “defines bi-directional messaging” (emphasis added). Compare id. at 72:16 with id. at 74:1. The fact that the two modes of operation specified in claim 15 are otherwise effectively identical but for the unidirectional and bidirectional aspects, suggests that the claims use these terms to distinguish the two modes. In other words, it tends to indicate that the words “uni-directional” and “bi-directional” in claim 15 are intended to refer to distinct messaging protocols (rather than “uni-directional” being merely half of “bi-directional”). See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”). Likewise, the first mode recites “sending . . . a first communication,” whereas the second mode recites both “sending” and “receiving” communications. Although not dispositive (given the “comprising” language of the claims), this language is consistent with an understanding that unidirectional modes only have a sending of information (from the perspective of the power receiving device) whereas bidirectional modes have two-way messaging between the charger and receiver.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s expert and find that it does not provide a factual basis for Petitioner’s assertion that unidirectional messaging is just one leg of bidirectional messaging. See, e.g., Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112). In particular, the expert’s testimony largely just repeats the assertions of the Petition, without providing sufficient additional analysis or evidence useful to determine how a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe those terms. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–114; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Instead, Petitioner’s expert appears to largely assume that the prior art reference Sogabe discloses unidirectional messaging, giving the expert’s opinion little probative value. Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to provide prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,342,777
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01101 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5–11, 13, 14, and 24 would have been obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “partes review (“Decision”) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’777 patent is unpatentable, we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “are otherwise effectively identical but for the unidirectional and bidirectional aspects suggests that the claims use these terms to distinguish the two modes. In other words, it tends to indicate that the words “uni-directional” and “bi-directional” in claim 1 are intended to refer to distinct messaging protocols (rather than “uni-directional” being merely half of “bi-directional”). See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “POSITA”) would have had “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–22). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s expert and find that it does not provide a factual basis for Petitioner’s assertion that unidirectional messaging is just one leg of bidirectional messaging. See, e.g., Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121). In particular, the expert’s testimony largely just repeats the assertions of the Petition, without providing sufficient additional analysis or evidence useful to determine how a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe those terms. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–125; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (holding a declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Instead, Petitioner’s expert in the cited paragraphs appears to largely assume that the prior art reference Sogabe discloses unidirectional messaging, giving the expert’s opinion little probative value. Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient . . . it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,342,777
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01093 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 2, 4, and 18 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner reports that it “believes that no special constructions are necessary to assess whether the challenged claims are unpatentable over the asserted prior art.” Pet. 5 (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 68). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position or discuss claim construction. Therefore, we determine there are no claim terms that need to be construed at this stage.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “patent would have possessed “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline,” and would have had “two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems,” with additional education supplementing “practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Baker Decl. ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. We regard Petitioner’s description as consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,201,500
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01092 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 23–31 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs slightly against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Accordingly, following CommScope, where, as here, our analysis of the first five Fintiv factors favors denial of institution, we address the merits of the Petition to determine whether the merits are compelling.” slip op. at 18

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “the Fintiv factors. As discussed above, we have determined that factors 1–5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution. Moreover, we have further determined that the Petition does not show compelling evidence of unpatentability under factor 6. We therefore conclude that the evidence of record favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. V. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, Preliminary Sur-reply, and the accompanying evidence, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review challenging claims 23–31 of the ’500 patent. VI. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 41

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot reached

    “device.” Instead, the output current in Okada is determined in steps 6–12 of the flowchart, where the receiver transmits and the transmitter receives power consumption information derived from a code stored on the device being charged. Prelim. Resp. 28–29; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 69–73. The transmitter adjusts the power to one of three levels, a one-time selection that remains for the duration of the charging. Prelim. Resp. 28–29. We, therefore, do not find compelling evidence that Okada meets this claim element. Nor are we convinced by Petitioner’s “modifications” to Okada. Pet. 58 (referring to annotated Fig. 3). In Petitioner’s modified Okada system, the receiver circuit would “periodically communicate information corresponding to an output voltage or current of the receiver rectifier circuit to cradle 4.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Petitioner points to the testimony of its expert, Dr. Baker. Id. (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 210). We do not find that there is compelling evidence that Okada’s “carrier wave” would have enabled cradle 4 to ‘regulate in a closed loop manner the output voltage or current of the receiver rectifier circuit during the charging or powering of the portable device.’” Id. (emphasis omitted). We find Dr. Baker’s testimony confusing and, ultimately, not compelling. Instead of setting forth his support for his opinion, he incorporates by reference over 100 pages of his prior testimony. See Baker Decl. ¶ 210 (incorporating prior analysis for limitations 23(a)- 23(h) in Sections IX.A.1(a)–1(h) and analysis and discussions in Sections VIII.A–E). Patent Owner cites several instances of this lack of particularity in the Petition, and we agree. See Prelim. Resp. 22–25. Dr. Baker’s testimony similarly lacks focus and deprives us of a fair opportunity to assess the basis for his testimony. Our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)9 provides the following guidance on presenting cases and warns against lack of focus: Although parties are given wide latitude in how they present their cases, the Board’s experience is that the presentation of an overwhelming number of issues tends to detract from the argument being presented, and can otherwise cause meritorious issues to be missed or discounted. Thus, parties should avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record. Id. at 39 (emphasis added). Petitioner has failed to follow this guidance throughout its presentation. As a consequence, we find it difficult to discern compelling evidence in Petitioner’s argument for why Okada should be modified to provide closed-loop operation.” slip op. at 31

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “required by the claim would require the transmitter to regulate. But the Okada drive circuit . . . as described is not designed for this type of regulation.” Prelim. Resp. 30. As Patent Owner explains, “Okada teaches simply choosing one of three power levels through the use of a multi-tapped primary side coil.” Id. Modifying Okada would require “additional circuitry and control mechanisms required for closed loop regulation.” Id. Petitioner fails to provide compelling evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have modified Okada’s open-loop circuitry and controls employing a multitap helical coil, described supra, for closed-loop operation such as that disclosed in Berghegger, which operates on entirely different principles. We are not convinced that Petitioner provides a sufficiently compelling motivation to import closed-loop operation into Okada’s open-loop system. The Supreme Court has warned against “slipping into use of hindsight.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421(quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 36). In this regard, the Federal Circuit has said that “combinations that change the basic principles under which the [prior art] was designed to operate, . . . may fail to support a conclusion of obviousness.” Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG, 600 Fed. Appx. 755, 758 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Ratti, 46 CCPA 976, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (1959), In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)) (internal quotation marks and cites omitted) (alterations in original). For the reasons given, we are not persuaded that Petitioner presents a compelling reason to modify Okada for closed-loop operation in the manner suggested by Dr. Baker.” slip op. at 33

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,201,500

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.