- Duplo U.S.A. Corporation v. Mgi Digital Technology S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00936 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and 12 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“G. Balancing the Fintiv Factors A holistic balancing of the Fintiv factors weighs in favor of discretionary denial. As discussed above, only factor 4 weighs somewhat against discretionary denial. The remaining factors either do not support institution (factors 1 and 6) or weigh in favor of denial of institution (factors 2, 3, and 5). Moreover, Petitioner has not submitted a Sotera-type stipulation or shown compelling evidence of unpatentability that would make discretionary denial inappropriate under the Guidance Memo. Given the late stage of the parallel District Court Proceeding, the substantial investment by the parties in that proceeding, and the lack of strong countervailing considerations, the evidence of record favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 32
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“As such, even if we were to determine that Petitioner’s Nagashima- based challenges met the lower threshold for instituting an inter partes review (a question we need not reach in our Fintiv analysis), these challenges, if unrebutted in trial, do not plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill is a factor to be considered when determining obviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and at least two years of practical experience with printer technology. Pet. 5. Petitioner further asserts that more relevant experience may compensate for less formal education and that more relevant formal education may compensate for less practical experience. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not propose its own definition but does assert that Petitioner has understated the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 9. For the purpose of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, because Patent Owner presents no countervailing definition and because we find Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art adequate and supported on this record. We also note that our analysis would not change if we were to apply a higher level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Nagashima discloses or suggests the claimed covering ink ordroplets of covering ink and, thus, Petitioner’s Nagashima-based grounds fail to present a compelling, meritorious, challenge. First, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’806 patent defines covering ink as synonymous with “viscous product” so that “covering ink” broadly covers any “viscous product” including printing ink. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 57–61). Rather, the ’806 patent states that “[i]n the present document, the terms of ‘covering ink’, ‘viscous product’ and ‘varnish’ are synonyms.” Ex. 1001, 3:21–22. We understand this sentence to mean that when ’806 patent uses the term “viscous product,” that the term is synonymous with “covering ink” within the ’806 patent, but is not intended to broadly mean that “covering ink” encompasses the entire universe of viscous products. We also determine that there are substantial issues with Petitioner’s argument that Nagashima discloses or suggests using covering ink in its device. Petitioner’s argument that Nagashima does not limit its device to any particular ink and identifies ink having different characteristics, including viscosity, does not plainly lead to a conclusion that Nagashima discloses use of covering ink. See Pet. 8. Nor does Petitioner’s argument that because some inkjet printers have been used to deposit covering ink, and those inkjet printers and Nagashima’s device both involve similar piezo-type ink ejection heads for ejecting different ink types and viscosities, plainly lead to a conclusion that a POSITA would have found it obvious to use Nagashima to apply a covering ink. See Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–66; see” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,783,806 - Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 24, 2023 · IPR2023-00585 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–3 and 5–12 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and no compelling unpatentability challenge overcame them.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“When determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution in view of a parallel proceeding, we consider the following factors: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 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.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Given the testimony regarding Wang’s use of relatively low- temperature “ultrasound welding” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 43, 48, 109; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 85– 86 (ultrasonic welding “involves the use of a high frequency of ultrasonic energy to produce oscillating shears to create solid-state bonds between two sheets clamped under pressure at elevated but relatively low temperatures”); Ex. 2005, 3), and in the absence of any articulation of the benefit of heat reduction in Wang’s process, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to combine Deng’s heat-dissipating notch with Wang’s secondary battery in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See also Prelim. Resp. 22 (arguing that the “use of resistance welding in Wang would cause significant damage to Wang’s current collector, rendering Wang’s lithium-ion battery inoperable”), 24–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 78). As Patent Owner also points out, Deng’s notch is not located in an electrode tab receiving groove to receive an electrode tab, nor does it mitigate a burr problem (Prelim. Resp. 16, Sur-Reply 5)), which calls into question Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine Deng’s notch with Wang’s electrode tab receiving groove in the manner proposed (Pet. 30 (“In view of Deng’s stated benefits of its electrode notch, such as to reduce the accumulation of heat and the resulting deformation and/or warping of the electrode to which the tab is welded,” one of ordinary skill in the art “would on the current collector where the first (e.g., anode) electrode tab will be welded.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 76))), because Deng’s notch lacks the location and function that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to make the combination. We also consider Patent Owner’s concerns about the suitability of Deng’s availability for combination with Wang sufficiently well-founded, based in part on Patent Owner’s argument and evidence indicating that Deng is directed to a flat metal plate type battery that would use a resistance welding process, instead of a lithium-ion wound battery that would use an ultrasonic welding process. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s rationale for the combination lacking. As discussed above, “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those 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.” Fintiv Memo, 4. While Petitioner’s arguments and evidence provide an explanation for the proposed combination with respect to limitation 1(g), they do not plainly lead to a conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination of Wang and Deng to attain limitation 1(g) and, thus, are not sufficiently supported by the record for purposes of an obviousness challenge under this framework. Consequently, Petitioner does not present a compelling, meritorious challenge to claim 1 as obvious over Wang and Deng.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner also argues that Deng is not analogous art. Id. at 23–30 (citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.”)). As to the first prong of the analogous art test, Patent Owner argues that Deng is a flat metal plate type battery, whereas Wang and the ’352 patent are lithium-ion batteries. Id. at 23. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art “would not weld electrode tabs in lithium-ion batteries in such a manner” as the resistance welding used in Deng. Id. at 25. As to the second prong of the analogous art test, Patent Owner argues that Deng is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor of the ’352 patent was involved, because “Deng discloses, at best, heat mitigation techniques related to resistance welding,” which “would damage the current collector of a lithium-ion battery,” and “would not have been considered by the inventors when solving the problems of the ’352 Patent.” Id. at 27. As argued by Patent Owner, Deng’s benefit of reducing heat accumulation and warping from resistance welding “is not an issue for the lithium-ion battery of Wang or the ’352 patent,” which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to benefit from the low operating temperature and good welding performance of ultrasonic welding. Id. at 29–30. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Wang’s current collector susceptible to damage and tearing. Id. at 30–32. Finally, Patent Owner argues that even if Wang” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,329,352 - Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00587 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–17 under § 314(a), finding the parallel litigation favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“Concerns about the degree of overlap may be mitigated where a petitioner agrees not to pursue in the parallel proceeding the grounds advanced in the petition. Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 11–12, 12 n.5 (June 16, 2020) (informative). “The PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Fintiv Memo, 7–8 (emphasis added); Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). Here, Petitioner’s stipulation extends to the same grounds raised in the Petition, but does not extend to any ground “that could have been reasonably raised,” pursuant to Sotera. Patent Owner points to the narrowness of the proffered stipulation in the Sur-Reply and asserts this factor “only marginally weighs in favor of institution.” Sur-Reply 3. Because Petitioner’s stipulation obviates some potential for duplication or redundancy with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims (albeit not to the extent a full Sotera-type stipulation would have) and the parallel litigation does not include claims 10–16, we determine that the fourth Fintiv factor weighs against denial of institution.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Inherent anticipation requires that the missing descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.” Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “[T]he reference must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, it is not enough to be able to find all of the pieces of the claimed invention somewhere in a prior art reference; rather, those elements must be set out in the prior art reference in the same way they are in the claimed invention. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those 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.” Fintiv Memo 4. While the Petition and Dr. Gido provide an explanation for the full range in which Iwai’s D90 necessarily would be found, the Petition and Dr. Gido identify only a single value for the adhesive porous layer thickness of Iwai’s Example 7 and Comparative Example 2. Pet. 48, 51; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 165, 174. The Petition and Dr. Gido direct us to the average thickness “a” of Iwai’s adhesive porous layer without taking into account Iwai’s disclosure of the ratio of the average thickness layer “a” to the volume average particle diameter “r.” Iwai describes the volume average particle diameter “r” being “projected at a proper height . . . formed on a surface of the adhesive porous layer.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 43. Thus, the evidence of record purportedly mapping claim 1’s recited “thickness of the porous layer” to Iwai does not plainly lead to a conclusion that Iwai necessarily discloses to a POSA the claimed “ratio of Dv90 of the inorganic particles to the thickness of the porous layer is in a range from 0.3 to 3.0.” Consequently, Petitioner does not present a compelling, meritorious challenge to claim 1 as anticipated by Iwai.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“In addition to the lack of support in the record for the Petition and Dr. Gido’s assumption that the porous layer thicknesses of Examples 4 and 5 are the same as the porous layer thickness of Example 1 discussed above in connection with the anticipation challenge of claim 1, the cited record does not plainly support Petitioner’s assertion that Nishikawa teaches or suggests claim 10’s recited “uniform coating solution.” The Petition acknowledges that Nishikawa teaches a mixed solvent containing DMAc and TPG to provide a coating slurry. Pet. 31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 64; Ex. 1005, 22:26–33 (Example 4), 22:46–51 (Example 5). Nishikawa teaches that the solvent mixture includes a polar solvent (DMAc preferred) and a poor solvent (such as TPG) that “induces a microscopic phase separation structure to facilitate formation of pores upon providing the heat resistant porous layer.” Ex. 1005, 11:1–5. The Petition does not sufficiently explain why such a phase separation structure produced by Nishikawa’s mixed solvent meets claim 10’s recited “uniform coating solution.” Consequently, Petitioner does not present a compelling, meritorious challenge to claim 10 as obvious over Nishikawa’s teachings.” slip op. at 25
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,964,987
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.