- PTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00066 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’258 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’258 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art would have either (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 48). Patent owner applies the same level proposed by Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’258 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner does not propose any explicit constructions. Pet. 12. Likewise, Patent Owner does not propose any explicit constructions. Prelim. Resp. 11. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“Planetary gear systems are designed differently for different purposes. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, iv (“All characteristics of the drive system from the driver to the driven equipment . . . can influence gearbox operation and must be considered . . . .”); Ex. 2024 ¶ 63 (testimony of Michael Nikolaou that “[f]ailing to meticulously design, test, and manufacture a gear system for a specific application can be catastrophic.”). Petitioner does not sufficiently show that a POSITA would have known that Bergan’s planetary gear system, which is designed to drive, and provide heave compensation to, a hoisting drum on a floating platform, would be suitable for use in Buckley to drive an electric drive pump used to drive a fluid end for the pumping of a fracturing fluid into a well. Petitioner appears to acknowledge that at least some changes would be needed to Bergan’s planetary gear system to make it suitable to drive Buckley’s fracturing pump. Pet. 18 (“A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Bergan’s planetary gear system, with appropriate changes to gear sizes that would have been obvious to a POSITA, with Buckley’s pump system . . . .”). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Durham sufficiently explains what changes would be needed or why a POSITA would have been motivated to make such changes. See id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 143, 149 ). We, thus, are not persuaded that a POSITA would have been motivated to used Bergan’s planetary gear system to drive Buckley’s fracturing pump. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Buckley is merely applying a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, that design incentives would have prompted the propose combination, or that the proposed combination is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,598,258 - Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · PGR2024-00048 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–6 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024). Upon considering the evidence and arguments presented, we determine, as discussed below, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny1 Petitioner’s request to institute post-grant review of claims 1–6.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Khatri, proposes a definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Dr. Khatri, however, notes that his opinions would be the same under either his proposal or Petitioner’s proposal. Id. ¶¶ 25–26. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the Preliminary Response, it “adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 22–23; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–26). We determine that the current record supports Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “MLC memory modules” and “SLC memory module.” Pet. 23–28. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s constructions, but does not contest them because it argues that construction of these terms is not necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. Prelim. Resp. 14. Based on the record presented, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “more likely than not” standard for instituting a post- grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he written description requirement is met when the disclosure relied on for support ‘reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citation omitted)). The written description inquiry is a question of fact, is context specific, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1357–58). Factors used to evaluate the sufficiency of a disclosure include: 1) “the existing knowledge in the particular field”; 2) “the extent and content of the prior art”; 3) “the maturity of the science or technology”; and 4) “the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1359). As support for the term “memory space,” the ’612 patent explains that because “the SLC NAND flash is used to boost the lifetime (endurance) of the storage system, it can be considerably lesser in amount than the MLC NAND flash.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–23; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. As an example, the ’612 specification states that “a system may set SLC NAND flash equal to 12.5% or 25% of MLC NAND flash (total non-volatile memory storage space=MLC+SLC).” Ex. 1001, 5:23–25; see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 51, 62. In addition, we find persuasive Dr. Khatri’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “there are two spaces—MLC and SLC—where data is stored, and the total memory space is the combination of the two.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. Further, the ’612 patent’s Figure 1 depicts “memory space,” e.g., dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) 20, one or more disks 24, MLC NAND flash memory module 26, and SLC NAND flash memory module 28. Ex. 1001, 5:37–45, Fig. 1; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. The ’612 patent’s Figure 4 also depicts “memory space,” e.g., NAND flash memory bank 56 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60a and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62a” and NAND flash memory bank 58 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60b and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62b.” Ex. 1001, 7:8–14, Fig. 4; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. On the record before us, we find the above noted disclosures to be sufficient to support the disputed claim language. For these reasons, the ’612 patent’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,854,612 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01492 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner fails to establish that Coccia discloses “a resulting solvent valve” as required by claim 1 and as alleged in the Petition. See Pet. 35–42. 4. Conclusion Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Coccia and Anson. The remaining challenged claims, claims 2–9, all ultimately depend from claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 18:42–19:48. Petitioner’s obviousness challenges to claims 2–9 build on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 10, 43–70, 79–86. Accordingly, for the same reasons we discuss above in the context of claim 1, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood in prevailing on its challenge to any of the dependent claims.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“cites the specification for support, but that argument largely misses the point and elides the claim requirements tied to the resulting solvent valve. See Pet. 35; Prelim. Reply 4. Patent Owner agrees with the general proposition that “a resulting solvent valve” means one or more resulting solvent valves. See Prelim. Resp. 10 (acknowledging that “two duplicative resulting solvent valves having the three positions” could each qualify as “a resulting valve”); Prelim. Sur-reply 4–5 (“Had Petitioner cited to multiple ‘resulting solvent’ valves that each” meet the claim requirements, “Patent Owner would not have raised an issue.”). The general statement that “a” or “an” means “one or more than one,” however, does not support Petitioner’s argument that the limitation broadly covers systems where no single resulting valve meets the three claimed valve positions. The dispute does not turn on whether “a” means “one or more than one”; the dispute, rather, concerns whether the claim allows for multiple valves to meet the three claimed states or whether a single valve must meet those claim requirements.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that Coccia discloses the claimed “resulting solvent valve.” Importantly, Petitioner premises its argument for this limitation on a claim construction that we rejected in our analysis above. Because we determine that the claim requires at least one resulting valve to meet the three claimed states identified in the claim, Petitioner may not rely on a combination of Coccia’s valves 26 and 36 to provide the three claimed states, as Petitioner does throughout its analysis. See Pet. 35–42; Prelim. Reply 4. As to Petitioner’s alternative argument that Anson discloses the claimed resulting solvent valve, we decline to consider the argument because it was not included in the Petition and was made for the first time in Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply. See Pet. 35–42; Prelim. Reply 5. Petitioner relied on Anson in the Petition as an alternative reason to find that it would have been obvious to place Coccia’s valve 36 in the claimed location (downstream of the conduit joint and upstream of the brewing chamber), not to meet all of the limitations associated with the resulting solvent valve. See Pet. 38–39. Moreover, Petitioner’s limited argument and evidence in the Preliminary Reply lacks adequate development and fails to persuade us that Anson’s valve 28 performs all of the “claimed functions” associated with the resulting solvent valve, including the two “active” states that the Petition addresses with reliance on Coccia alone. See Pet. 40–42; Prelim. Reply 5. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner fails to establish that Coccia discloses “a resulting solvent valve” as required by claim 1 and as alleged in the Petition. See Pet. 35–42. 4. Conclusion Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Coccia and Anson. The remaining challenged claims, claims 2–9, all ultimately depend from claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 18:42–19:48. Petitioner’s obviousness challenges to claims 2–9 build on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 10, 43–70, 79–86. Accordingly, for the same reasons we discuss above in the context of claim 1, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood in prevailing on its challenge to any of the dependent claims.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,772,456 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01483 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–12 would be unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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 challenged claims in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenges in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least the following (or equivalents): a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering with at least five years of experience in product design; or an M.S. degree in mechanical engineering with at least two years of experience in product design.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, 13). Patent Owner “submits a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would be a mechanical or materials engineer, or other similar degree, having at least two to three years of personal experience in designing or development of espresso machines.” Prelim. Resp. 8. In the alternative, Patent Owner states that “because Petitioner’s definition is so close to that of Patent Owner’s definition, that no express finding is necessary to find Petitioner has not met its burden to show with particularity that claim 1 is unpatentable.” Id. We find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’524 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of this case would remain the same if we applied Patent Owner’s similar proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The parties propose constructions for several claim terms. For example, Petitioner contends that we should construe “conduit,” “coupled,” “another solvent,” and “dynamically modulate.” See Pet. 13–17. Patent Owner reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s constructions and proposes its own constructions for “another solvent” and “communicatively coupled.” Prelim. Resp. 9–11. We determine that we need not construe any of these additional terms to determine whether Petitioner met its burden as to any of its challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that any of them disclose an electronic controller coupled to two pumps and a thermal modulator, such as a heater. Petitioner suggests that Lai’s controller controls two “pump(s),” but Lai appears to describe a single pump 138, and Petitioner fails to point to any disclosure or suggestion in Lai that its system employs more than one pump. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1002, 41–42); Ex. 1007 ¶ 98, Fig. 60. Petitioner does not directly assert that Santi discloses a controller connected to two pumps, and it too, like Lai, appears to only disclose a single pump. See Pet. 39; Ex. 1005 ¶ 64, Fig. 1. Petitioner correctly notes that Majer discloses controller 9 connected to two pumps, but we agree with Patent Owner that only one of those pumps meets the requirements of the claimed pumps, which are both connected to conduits that eventually lead to the brewing chamber. See Pet. 40; Prelim. Resp. 28; Ex. 1008, 9:11–12 (describing circuit C2 containing pump 4bis as not including any “brewing means”). In addition, Petitioner does not allege, and Majer does not appear to disclose, a controller coupled to Majer’s heating elements. See Pet. 40. Based on the foregoing, none of the prior art Petitioner relies on discloses an electronic controller that controls both claimed pumps and a thermal modulator. Despite these deficiencies, Petitioner summarily concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that it would be obvious to combine Startz’s machine with the electronic controller of any of Lai, Santi, and/or Majer, and that such electronic controller would be communicatively coupled to both the thermal modulator and the pumps.” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002, 43). The Petition provides no additional rationale or argument in support of this conclusion, and the cited declarant testimony provides no further analysis. See id.; Ex. 1002, 43. Given the lack of any teaching of a controller coupled to two pumps and a thermal modulator, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to provide some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in a manner that meets the limitation.14 Because the Petition lacks any such statement or rationale, we find Petitioner’s obviousness argument and evidence lacking in this critical respect.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,576,524 - Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01462 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“experience working on the development of materials or components for electronic devices such as batteries.” Pet. 2. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education, such as a graduate degree, could compensate for less work experience, and additional work experience could compensate for less formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition because it appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’014 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). in this proceeding.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner contends that “[t]he Board need not construe any term in order to determine that institution should be denied.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Hanafusa in light of Dobashi with a reasonable expectation of success as Petitioner contends. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that the subject matter of claim 1, and claims 4 and 8 that depend therefrom, would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Hanafusa and Dobashi.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner also focuses on Hanafusa’s teaching that all known methods can be used to make a rough surface low-profile, and Dobashi’s teaching that RSm can be used as an indicator for judgment of the surface, to support its contention that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Dobashi’s RSm to further achieve Hanafusa’s purpose, without explaining how and why that would be the case. In particular, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz adequately explain why a POSITA looking for ways to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile would look to methods to achieve as the period of waviness, RSm can also be used as an indicator for judgment of the surface.” Ex. 1005, 2:66–3:1, 6:23–26. Dobashi explains that waviness is “an indicator for determining whether the fine pattern forming performance is good or bad,” and “[t]he surface has small waviness and is smooth when RSm is large, and the surface has large waviness and is rough when RSm is small.” Id. at 3:1–3, 6:27–29. Dobashi also teaches that surface roughness Rzjis is used as a low-profile indicator. Ex. 1005, 2:66– 3:1. Dobashi, therefore, teaches that RSm is an indicator of surface waviness, which Dobashi explains is different than surface roughness. Id. at 2:66–3:3, 6:23–29. Given these teachings in Dobashi, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz sufficiently explains how or why a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Dobashi’s RSm values to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile. See Pet. 10–12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–52.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,346,014 - Dell Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01480 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), citing the Fintiv factors, including the earlier trial date and the petition’s not particularly strong merits, for claims 1–3, 10–13, 17, and 20–22.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“is our focus here. As stated, that trial is set to occur about six months before a final written decision would issue in this proceeding. The district court has stated that this trial date setting “cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause.” Prelim. Resp. 4, 8 (quoting Ex. 2001, 5). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported argument that the trial date is speculative. We also consider the fact that the median time-to-trial statistic projects a trial date of July 2025, earlier than the actual date set by the district court. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2007; Prelim. Resp. 8–9. The fact that the time-to-trial statistic is earlier than the scheduled trial date confirms that the scheduled trial date is credible and should be given weight. From this evidence, we are persuaded that we should rely on the scheduled trial date in the Lenovo Group litigation as the main indicator of a trial court reaching the merits of the invalidity of the patent-at-issue before we issue a final written decision. Accordingly, this factor strongly favors exercising discretionary denial. C.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“1. Analysis of Petitioner’s Challenges a) Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and three years of experience with data communications systems or interfaces, including at least some experience with serial or display data communications systems or interfaces. Additional education can substitute for less work experience, and vice versa. Pet. 14; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner does not dispute or comment on this proposal or propose an alternate level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’103 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“same standard used in district courts, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2023). Under this standard, claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner asserts that any claim term requires claim construction (Pet. 14–15; Prelim. Resp.) and we do not discern that any claim term requires construction to arrive at our conclusions herein. c)” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“2. Conclusion Regarding the Merits The discussion above identifies weaknesses in the Petition that we have considered in our evaluation of Fintiv factors. While we do not make a determination regarding whether the Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing were we to institute, for the reasons given, we determine that this Petition does not present particularly strong merits. G. Weighing the Fintiv Factors We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of the Fintiv factors. We take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv at 6. Because of the Sotera stipulation, factor 4 weighs strongly in favor of not exercising discretion. However, two other factors weigh in favor of exercising discretion, especially the trial date factor. The merits of Petitioner’s challenge are not particularly strong. A balanced assessment of the factors leads us to exercise discretion to deny the Petition. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence of record favors exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 22
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,852,103 - Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01271 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented and the evidence of record, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–21 of the ’342 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’342 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(3) Discussion We observe first that “[Halevy’s] first step in processing a web source is to locate the forms in the source and to extract the text corresponding to the fields in the form.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. According to Halevy, the “web source is subsequently classified into the ontology classes.” Id. ¶ 55. Then, the “forms on the page are classified into the classes in the ontology.” Id. ¶ 57 (emphasis added). Halevy explains that this classification is used to predict what kinds of objects are in the databases queried by the form. Id. For “Schema Matching,” Halevy discloses “a mapping between the fields in the form and the SO-properties of the SO-classes[.]” Id. ¶¶ 61–62. Missing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that fields are mapped “to one another using normalized variables stored in a normalized variable data database” as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a POSITA “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with web programming and search engine systems[; m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–36) (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this definition.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner present claim construction in the Petition or Preliminary Response. Pet. 9; see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s construction of “universal variable map” is too narrow, but does not appear to offer an alternative construction other than to state that a “universal variable map” includes “a database that links variables from different websites to each other.” See Reply 1-2 (emphasis omitted) (“PO’s arguments for why Halevy’s ‘form database’ is not a universal variable map are all premised on improperly narrowing the term’s scope by adding restrictions that are unsupported by the intrinsic record.”). In the Sur-Reply, Patent Owner reiterates that it has not proposed a construction for “universal variable map.” Sur-Reply 1 (“Patent Owner did not present any claim construction arguments regarding that term, nor does that term’s construction have any bearing on the arguments set forth in the POPR for denying the Petition.”). Based on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,262,342 - Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–26 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented and the evidence of record, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–26 of the ’378 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA or POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’378 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with web programming and search engine systems[; m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–36) (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this definition.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(3) Discussion We observe first that “[Halevy’s] first step in processing a web source is to locate the forms in the source and to extract the text corresponding to the fields in the form.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. According to Halevy, the “web source is subsequently classified into the ontology classes.” Id. ¶ 55. Then, the “forms on the page are classified into the classes in the ontology.” Id. ¶ 57 (emphasis added). Halevy explains that this classification is used to predict what kinds of objects are in the databases queried by the form. Id. For “Schema Matching,” Halevy discloses “a mapping between the fields in the form and the SO-properties of the SO-classes[.]” Id. ¶¶ 61–62. Missing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a “plurality of computer-readable field identifiers” are mapped “to one another” as required by claim 1. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Fox, testifies that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are identified for each form and used to map the fields in the form (i.e., “the plurality of computer-readable field identifiers”) to one another using “SOproperties,” as shown . . . in annotated Figure 3.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–40, 45, 49, 62, 67). Yet, those cited portions of Halevy do not support Dr. Fox’s testimony. As Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Sam Malek, explains: the language highlighted by Petitioner in Figure 3 does not actually show that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are . . . used to map the fields in the form . . . to one another using ‘SO-properties,’” as he contends. Id. Rather, the language in Figure 3 that Dr. Fox has highlighted merely shows that, for any given form, there is “mapping between fields” of that form and “class properties.” EX1006, Fig. 3. In other words, fields in a form are mapped to class properties. Figure 3 does not show any mapping of fields to each other, as Dr. Fox argues.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,633,378 - Catalyst Orthoscience Inc. v. Shoulder Innovations, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · PGR2025-00001 · APJ James A Tartal · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of post-grant review of claims 1–22, exercising its discretion under § 324(a) based on the Fintiv factors.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“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. Fintiv 5−6. We consider these factors to assess “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. at 6. In” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“parties, we do not find the merits to be particularly strong on the current record. For example, limitation [1-4] recites, in part, “a locking nut having . . . an external thread on an outside surface of the locking nut.” Ex. 1001, 9:46–47. In alleging obviousness based in part on Orphanos, Petitioner equates the claimed “locking nut” to Orphanos’s collet 230 in a first embodiment of Orphanos, or Orphanos’s collet portion 1052 in a second embodiment of Orphanos. Pet. 37–38. Petitioner acknowledges that the collet and collet portion do not have external threads, but rather are designed to have a snap-fit engagement with the inner sidewall of the baseplate’s central throughbore. Id. at 38. Petitioner argues that modifying the collet and collet portion to have external threads would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in view of Orphanos’s teachings and the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 38–42 (arguing, inter alia, that it would have been “a substitution of a known part for a known problem” and “obvious as a matter of design choice”). Petitioner does not allege that replacing the snap-fit coupling with external threads would either: (1) result in any advantages; or (2) preserve any of Orphanos’s stated benefits of its snap-fit arrangement. See Pet. 34–37. That Petitioner describes no advantages to making its proposed modification potentially undermines Petitioner’s case that the skilled artisan would have done so. Cf. Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANot reached
“Petitioner’s arguments regarding the central post and locking nut include an implicit claim construction argument that these components need not be separate structures. Pet. 74, 76–81. Patent Owner, on the other hand, would have us interpret the claim to require that they be separate structures. Patent Owner raises credible evidence to support its theory. Specifically, Patent Owner directs us to the language of claim 1, which separately recites “a central screw” and “a locking nut.” Prelim. Resp. 51; see Ex. 1001, 9:44–53. Patent Owner further contends, in view of the claim language, that the claimed central post and locking nut are separate and distinct components. According to Patent Owner, however, Lefebvre’s main head and anchor rod portions are parts of a single monolithic anchoring screw. Prelim. Resp. 53–58. Where a claim lists elements separately, there is a rebuttable presumption that these elements have separate and distinct physical structures. See Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 92 F.4th 1049, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citing Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–1232 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). The presumption may be rebutted by the intrinsic record. Id. At this stage, however, Petitioner does not address that claim 1 appears to separately recite a central post and a locking nut, and does not direct us to any portion of the intrinsic record that might rebut the presumption that these elements are, therefore, separate and distinct structures. See Pet. 73–77. Petitioner also argues that the claim terms “baseplate central channel” and “central channel . . . configured to interface with the baseplate” are indefinite. Pet. 95–102. Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms is clear and that Petitioner “had no problem” arguing how the asserted art purportedly rendered the claims obvious. Prelim. Resp. 69–77.” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not reached
“Petitioner also argues that the claim terms “baseplate central channel” and “central channel . . . configured to interface with the baseplate” are indefinite. Pet. 95–102. Patent Owner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms is clear and that Petitioner “had no problem” arguing how the asserted art purportedly rendered the claims obvious. Prelim. Resp. 69–77. In sum, even if Petitioner’s contentions show it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable, we find Patent Owner’s arguments identify credible weaknesses in Petitioner’s contentions. Accordingly, we find that that the sixth Fintiv factor is neutral and does not weigh against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,023,254 - PTAB · Apr 22, 2025 · IPR2024-00910 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Micron’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7–10 were obvious over Park.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“dummy source structure might not even be an inoperable structure,” and therefore “the ’872 Patent does not use ‘dummy’ to exclude the dummy source structure from being an operable, functioning element.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 85 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:41–43, 16:63–66). In support of his testimony, Dr. Banerjee points to the Specification’s teaching that “[i]n some embodiments, one or more dummy source structures are in contact with the substrate and may provide interconnect between the 3D memory device and peripheral devices” (Ex. 1001, 5:41–43), and “[w]hen conductive materials are used to fill dummy source hole 212 (e.g., contact 224), the dummy source structure 246 may function as an interconnect to connect 3D memory device 100 with other peripheral devices” (id. at 16:63–66), which we considered and relied upon in construing “dummy source structure” in the Decision. Dec. 11–13. None of the functions identified by Dr. Banerjee, however, relate to whether the dummy source structure would function as a source to the memory cells. Specification consistently describes that function as an interconnect with other peripheral devices, and does not teach or suggest that the dummy source structure may function to provide source to the memory cells. See Ex. 1001, 5:40–43 (“In some embodiments, one or more dummy source structures are in contact with the substrate and may provide interconnect between the 3D memory device and peripheral devices.”), 11:46–48 (“In some embodiments, dummy source structures 178 may function as interconnects to connect 3D memory device 100 with other peripheral devices.”), 16:63–66 (“When conductive materials are used to fill dummy source hole 212 (e.g., contact 244), the dummy source structure 246 may function as an interconnect to connect 3D memory device 100 with other peripheral devices.”). Our construction of “dummy source structure” is consistent with the Specification, and does not foreclose the dummy source structure from being operational, for example, as an interconnect to peripheral devices. Nor is it inconsistent with the Specification’s teaching that “[i]n some embodiments, dummy source structure 246 may not connect to channel structures in the inner region.” See Req. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:38–44). In the case where the dummy source structure connects with the channel structures, the other end may connect with peripheral devices, or may be a dead end. Thus, even if the dummy source structure is operable as an interconnect to connect the 3D memory device with other peripheral devices, it does not follow that a dummy source structure would function as an interconnect to a supply that provides source to the memory cells. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in our construction of the term “dummy source structure.”” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(Paper 14, “Request” or “Req.”) of our Decision (Paper 13, “Decision” or “Dec.”) denying institution of an inter partes review of claims 7–10 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,861,872 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’872 patent”). The Request challenges our determination that the information presented in the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 7–10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Park.1 Dec. 19–23.” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 10,861,872
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.