• Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00567 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Cho disclosed the claimed reservoir structure required by the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Therefore, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Cho describes “a liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber” in either of the “separated embodiment” or the “integrated embodiment.” For at least this reason, and based on the current record, Petitioner has failed to establish that claim 43 is anticipated by Cho. 3. Remaining Claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 Petitioner asserts that claims 44, 76, 77, 81, 86, 89, and 93 are anticipated by Cho. Pet. 35–46, 54–64. In addition, Petitioner alleges that the combination of Cho and Nielsen would have rendered obvious claim 80 of the ’114 patent. Pet. 64–70. Each of claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 requires a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” either by virtue of dependence (claims 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93) or independent recitation (claim 44). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:9, 19:1–19:63. Because Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that Cho teaches a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” we decline to institute on the remaining claims.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner has not shown that Cho describes a “liquid reservoir [that] is partially defined by the exterior of an atomizing chamber” in either of the “separated embodiment” or the “integrated embodiment.” Pet. 48–50. With respect to the “separated embodiment,” Petitioner identifies the inside of storage container 1201 as the “interior of the cartridge housing” and the outside of air inhalation tube 1313 as the “exterior of the atomizing chamber.” Id. But Annotated Figure 11 does not show air inhalation tube 1313 as part of atomizing chamber 1203. Therefore, the liquid reservoir, i.e., loading portion 1205, is not “at least partially defined by . . . an exterior of the atomizing chamber.”” slip op. at 18

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

    “3. Remaining Claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 Petitioner asserts that claims 44, 76, 77, 81, 86, 89, and 93 are anticipated by Cho. Pet. 35–46, 54–64. In addition, Petitioner alleges that the combination of Cho and Nielsen would have rendered obvious claim 80 of the ’114 patent. Pet. 64–70. Each of claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 requires a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” either by virtue of dependence (claims 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93) or independent recitation (claim 44). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:9, 19:1–19:63. Because Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that Cho teaches a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” we decline to institute on the remaining claims.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the ’114 patent would have had a B.S. in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and either at least two years of experience designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field.” Prelim. Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19). Patent Owner submits that “the arguments in this Response apply regardless of which standard is adopted,” and that “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. John Collins, was a POSITA at the time of the ’114 patent under either [Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s] definition.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’114 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’114 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
• Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00267 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed § 103 combination.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2

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

    “green, left), placed inside the housing between the housing and heating element (red), and surrounding the heating element and portions of the liquid storage portion (blue). Otherwise, Combined Figure 4 is nearly the same as Annotated Figure 4. Compare Combined Fig. 4, with Ann. Fig. 4. Thus, Petitioner does not propose a simple substitution to include the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 in the same manner as used in Thorens231. Rather, Petitioner proposes including the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 and then further modifying its placement by inserting it into the housing. See Combined Fig. 4. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Janet persuasively explain why this arrangement would be expected to be successful nor do they allege that such a modification would have been within the skill set of the ordinarily skilled artisan. In contrast, Patent Owner explains that Petitioner’s [Combined] Figure 4 appears to block any airflow through the device and out of the mouthpiece. Petitioner and its expert do not account for how the mouthpiece would be secured to the liquid storage portion in Thorens788. Moreover, as drawn by Petitioner, the wick touches what is presumably the air inlet for the mouthpiece (although Petitioner does not discuss where the air inlet is), which could adversely impact performance or user experience, such as draw resistance[.] Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have” slip op. at 8

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

    “Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have been obvious, including that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention”).” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,134,722
• Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00536 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because NJOY did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed prior art.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years of industry experience in one of these fields, and such POSA would have been familiar with electrically powered vaporizing articles, their components, or the underlying technologies.” Pet. 6–7. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and either at least two years of experience designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field,” and that “[m]ore education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 17–22). In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’981 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’981 patent and the prior art. However, our decision would not change if we applied Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 12

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

    “None of the constructions proffered by Petitioner is dispositive of the issue of whether to institute inter partes review. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction for any term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “integrate Liu783’s connector with its battery component in order to decrease the possibility of damage to the device during assembly/disassembly. Pet. 23. Petitioner, however, does not provide any evidence that such damage was a point of concern. See generally Pet. Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain how the integrated battery component/connector would result in less damage. See id. (failing to quantify the alleged benefit nor providing any evidence to support its contention that an integrated connector/battery component would decrease damage to the device). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently support its contention that the modified Liu783 device would be more beneficial to the consumer because there are fewer pieces to assemble or misplace. See id. Indeed, Petitioner’s argument runs directly counter to Liu783’s own disclosure which asserts that its three-piece design is more convenient than the previous two-piece design. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 19 (stating “assembly and detachment of the atomizer and the connector become very convenient”), ¶ 3 (stating an “object of the present invention is to . . . facilitate the installation, detachment, and replacement of the electronic cigarette). Similarly, Petitioner does not sufficiently support its contention that integrating the components would reduce the complexity and expense of manufacturing the device (Pet. 23), which is counter to Liu783’s statement that the object of its invention is to “decrease manufacture and use cost” (Ex. 1010 ¶ 3). Conclusory statements by an expert that do not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based are entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,606,981
• Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00397 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 and 11 were obvious, failing to show that the graphical user interface generates the claimed signals.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’381 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute inter partes review of claims 1–9 and 11 of the ’381 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner for the purposes of this Decision because it is consistent with the ’381 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “a. Claim 1 We determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that Kalayjian and Vauclair would have rendered claim 1 obvious. This determination is based on the evidence and argument presented for limitations 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(ii), so we solely address issues relating to these limitations below.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,768,381
• Mahle Behr Charleston Inc. v. Frank Amidio CatalanoOther
  PTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Remand

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under any asserted ground.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Accordingly, the Director instructed us to “determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Figure 1 of Godefroy ‘is clear on its face’ or would have reasonably suggested the placement of Godefroy’s sacrificial anode ‘within 10 inches’ of the hot liquid inlet.” Id. at 9. “In making this determination,” the Director instructed us to “consider whether the expert testimony provides sufficient ‘technical detail, explanation, or statements supporting why the expert determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.’” Id. In addition, although the Director’s decision “is limited to [our] application of Hockerson to the grounds in the Petition involving Godefroy,” the Director instructed us also to “consider what effect, if any, this decision has on the other asserted grounds.” Id. Finally, the Director instructed us to “set forth [our] interpretation” of “the limitation ‘within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.’” Id. at 8 n.4.” slip op. at 4

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

    “original decision, the Director’s decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “evidence. The challenged claims require that a sacrificial anode be placed within a certain distance—10 inches—of the hot liquid inlet, and, because the inlet has some non-zero size, it might be possible for an anode to be within that distance from some parts, but not from all parts, of the inlet. Accordingly, specifying the center axis of the inlet as the point from which to measure the distance to the anode improves on the plain words of the claim in terms of achieving the claim’s objective of placing the anode within a specified distance of the inlet. Moreover, when discussing the distance from the inlet to the anode, the specification of the ’494 patent uses the language “within 10 inches in any direction of the center axis of the inlet connection.” Ex. 1001, 7:61–64. Thus, the intrinsic evidence supports adopting Petitioner’s claim construction. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Medlin, relies on Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20 (noting that the construction “within 10 inches of the center axis of [a] hot liquid inlet” “ha[s] been adopted by Petitioner”), 96 (“the sacrificial anodes contained in each of the turbulators 2 would be placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator of Tomosada”), 144 (“A POSITA would understand from Figure 1 that the sacrificial anode 14 is within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet”), 267 (“These teachings would further motivate a POSITA to located the sacrificial anode 12 within 10 inches of a center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”). This support for Petitioner’s proposed construction provides further reason for us to adopt it. Because it is supported by the intrinsic evidence of record, because Patent Owner proposes no alternative construction, and because Petitioner’s expert supports it, we adopt the construction of “within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator” that Petitioner proposes. Thus, we construe this term as “within 10 inches of the center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.” In other words, when discussing the distance between a hot liquid inlet and a sacrificial anode, we interpret “hot liquid inlet” as “center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Inherency may be relied upon in arguing either anticipation or obviousness. Schering, 339 F.3d at 1377 (applying inherency in an anticipation context); Par Pharma. Inc. v. TWI Pharma., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying inherency in an obviousness context). In both cases, however, “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements expressly disclosed by the prior art.” Par Pharma., 773 F.3d at 1195–96. Here, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that, in Godefroy, the sacrificial anode necessarily is placed within 10 inches of the center axis of the hot liquid inlet. Dr. Medlin testifies that Figure 1 of Godefroy shows that “an entirety . . . or at least a significant portion of the sacrificial anode 14, is within 10 inches of a center axis of the inlet.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 144. But we cannot say that Figure 1 of Godefroy is clear on its face, or reasonably suggests, that this is necessarily the case. There are no dimensions shown on Figure 1, so it is unclear from the figure what the diameter of pipe 12 is. If that diameter is larger than 20 inches, then it simply is untrue that “sacrificial anode 14 is . . . necessarily placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator,” as Dr. Medlin testifies. Id. ¶ 361. As noted above, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Medlin relies on the hot liquid inlet of Godefroy having any particular diameter, and Godefroy is silent as to the diameter of its inlet. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 144, 359–361, 381–382, 406–408; Ex. 1008, 1–15. Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, there is a wide range of sizes of radiators, including automobile radiators, available. Prelim. Resp. 3–5; Exs. 2001–2003. In the absence of any testimony or other evidence that tends to show that radiator inlet pipes necessarily have diameters less than 20 inches, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the diameter of Godefroy’s inlet pipe is small enough to ensure that any portion of the anode necessarily is within 10 inches of the center axis of the inlet.” slip op. at 11

  Claim constructioncites Phillips
• Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01349 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • 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 the Director determines . . . 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 set forth below, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim on any ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “Given this, to show that Blangero’s disclosure of MgO or LiF in its coating teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure, Petitioner needs to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood the compounds to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO or LiF in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. On the first point, Petitioner argues that “‘the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions’ of MgO is ‘a rocksalt cubic structure of NaCl (space group Fm-3m).’” Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1030, 16; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 142). But, as Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hayes, points out, Blangero does not teach forming MgO in a room-temperature process. Ex. 1003 ¶ 142 (Blangero’s “second firing step” occurs at “925 °C for 12 hours”); see Ex. 1005 ¶ 110 (teaching the firing step to which Dr. Hayes refers). Thus, the significance of rock-salt-type MgO being “the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions” is unclear. To the extent that Dr. Hayes explains why MgO, which “is well known to crystallize even at substantially lower temperatures,” such as “room temperature and pressure conditions,” would “do so more readily at [a higher temperature of] 925 °C,” this argument is not discussed, nor even cited, in the Petition. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–94; see Pet. 28. Accordingly, any reliance on this argument by Petitioner constitutes improper incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood MgO to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. Similarly, with respect to LiF, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Hayes sufficiently explains the choice of rock-salt-type material over other options. Pet. 29 (arguing only that Ex. 1013 shows that “LiF has rock salt structure”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 143 (same). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure by virtue of its teaching that either MgO or LiF is present.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The 2012 study on which Petitioner relies did not find “superior structural stability” over other lithium-titanium-oxygen compounds, as Petitioner argues. Instead, the study noted that the structure of “LiTiO2 prepared by high-temperature sintering TiO2 with lithium salt . . . impl[ies] LiTiO2 has superior structural stability in organic electrolyte as compared to other Li-Ti-O oxides.” Ex. 1029, 1. Thus, the structural stability was implied from the chemical structure of the material rather than found through study of the material. Moreover, the implied structural stability was only for LiTiO2 that was prepared in a particular way, by high-temperature sintering of TiO2 with lithium salt, and Petitioner does not allege that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared the LiTiO2 they substituted for Blangero’s Li2TiO3 using this method. As for Petitioner’s argument that the study found that LiTiO2 outperformed Li2TiO3, we are not persuaded. The study compared particles with an LiTiO2 coating to uncoated particles, not to particles coated with Li2TiO3. Ex. 1029, 4, Figs. 4(c), 4(d). Although the study notes that particles coated with “[m]onoclinic Li2TiO3 and spinel Li4Ti5O12” exhibit “a noticeable capacity decay . . . when charged at high operating voltage and cycled above room temperature,” it concludes only that particles coated with LiTiO2 “exhibited inspiring high-voltage cycling capability as well as thermal stability than the pristine counterpart.” Id. at 1, 4. In addition, the pristine particles used in the study were made from “Li[NixCoyMnz]O2 (0≤x,y,z<1) (called as LNCM),” and the particles in Blangero do not contain either nickel or manganese in their cores. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9–40 (particles contain lithium, oxygen, cobalt, and metals chosen from the group consisting of aluminum, gallium, boron, magnesium, titanium, iron, copper, calcium, barium, yttrium, tin, antimony, sodium, zinc, zirconium, silicon); Ex. 1029, 1. Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the study’s results to extend to Blangero’s particles made from a different material. Pet. 29–30. Because Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a second region comprising a rock-salt crystal structure or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to substitute rocksalt-type LiTiO2 for the materials disclosed in Blangero, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on claim 1 on its Blangero-based grounds.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, “[i]ndividuals with different education and additional experience could still [have been] of ordinary skill in the art if that additional experience compensate[d] for a deficit in their education and experience.” Id. On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’660 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’660 patent and the prior art. 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§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,043,660
• W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn v. Cochise Technology, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-01063 · APJ Jane E Inglese · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “The disclosures of the ’864 patent thus align with the Patent Owner’s position that the recitation of a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” in claim 1 constitutes a claim limitation because the disclosures show that the phrase is “necessary to give meaning to the claim[s] and properly define the invention” as described in the patent. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 151–152 (CCPA 1951) (determining that a preamble reciting “an abrasive article” should be given patentable weight for a claim further reciting that the article comprised abrasive grains and a binder because “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article” in view of the fact that “[e]very union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’”). The Patent Owner thus provides factual and legal bases for determining that a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter,” as recited in the preamble of claim 1, is a claim limitation. By not taking a position as to whether a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” constitutes a claim limitation, the Petitioner does not establish that this recitation is not limiting. We determine that the intrinsic evidence of record is sufficient to establish that a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” is a limitation of claim 1 because the evidence shows that this phrase is necessary to give meaning to the claim and to properly define the invention. This determination is consistent with the District Court’s corresponding determination in the Markman Memorandum and Order. Ex. 2024, 12–19.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find, at this stage, that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply the Petitioner’s definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review, because it is consistent, on this record, with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Under Rule 42.104(b)(3)–(4), a Petition must identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable,” by “specif[ing] where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(b)(4). The Petitioner’s provision of an unsupported, implicit interpretation of a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” does not meet these requirements. The Petitioner does not take a definitive position as to whether a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” constitutes a limitation of claim 1. Nor does the Petitioner provide an express construction of this phrase. Instead, the Petitioner implicitly interprets a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” in a particular manner, and bases assertions of the unpatentability of claim 1 on this implicit interpretation, without providing any support for the implicit interpretation. The Petitioner’s contentions, therefore, are not sufficient to support institution on Ground 1 because the Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to the patentability of at least one claim asserted in this ground. Nor are the Petitioner’s contentions sufficient to support institution on Grounds 1A and 1B, because the Petitioner does not rely on any disclosure in Vaughn ’290, Peters, or Vaughn ’516 for any information that remedies the deficiencies in the Petitioner’s showing for Ground 1.” slip op. at 23

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

    “In light of the state of the art as demonstrated by the Patent Owner’s evidence, the Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to produce a CO to CO2 promoter would have looked to Miura’s disclosure of a three-way exhaust gas purifying catalyst capable of oxidizing CO formed of platinum supported on the surface layer of microparticles. Nor does the Petitioner explain why this disclosure in Miura would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to produce a CO to CO2 promoter to depart from the conventional approach in the art of producing such a catalyst by uniformly distributing platinum throughout a porous support, and instead distribute the platinum on the surface layer of a support. On the record before us, therefore, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient information and explanation to demonstrate that Miura in view of AAPA discloses or would have suggested a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,224,864
• Duplo U.S.A. Corporation v. Mgi Digital Technology S.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,783,806
• Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-01016 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable over the asserted Shim- or Fujiki-based grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Because Petitioner relies on Shim and Fey to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that fluorine would be present in a crack portion of the Shim or Shim/Lee particle, because the requirement for fluorine to be present in a crack portion appears in all the challenged claims, and because Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Shim and Fey would have suggested the presence of fluorine in a crack portion, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged on the basis of Shim.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, or materials science and at least five years of experience in the field of batteries and battery materials.” Pet. 33. According to Petitioner, “[i]ndividuals with different education and additional experience could still be of ordinary skill in the art if that additional experience compensates for a deficit in their education and experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–91). On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19–20. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’828 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’828 patent and the prior art. 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 7

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

    “As explained more fully below, we need not construe any claim terms to determine that Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that the prior art teaches or suggests the subject matter of the challenged claims. Thus, after considering the arguments and information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that we do not need to construe any terms expressly for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Because Petitioner relies on Shim and Fey to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that fluorine would be present in a crack portion of the Shim or Shim/Lee particle, because the requirement for fluorine to be present in a crack portion appears in all the challenged claims, and because Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Shim and Fey would have suggested the presence of fluorine in a crack portion, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged on the basis of Shim.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,741,828
• Duplo U.S.A. Corporation v. Mgi Digital Technology S.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00935 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1, 7, 12, and 18 under § 314(a), weighing the Fintiv factors in favor of discretionary denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 Fintiv 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 27

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

    “§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). 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.”) After considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine it is appropriate to exercise our discretion and decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “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 inkjet and related printer technology. Pet. 4. 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. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–29). 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. 9–10. For the purpose of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition. 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 17

  Discretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,506,031

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.