- Par Health, Inc. v. Inforlife, S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 20, 2026 · PGR2026-00036 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Institution
The Director denied institution because the petition did not show that Biomed was publicly accessible as prior art, so it failed to show any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. In this case, Petitioner merely cites a “date of revision” appearing within Biomed. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 11). Yet, a revision date alone does not establish that Biomed was disseminated or made publicly available. And, although indicia appearing within a reference can sometimes support the printed publication status of the reference, I find the record to be devoid of any such indicia, or other evidence, supporting that Biomed was publicly disseminated or accessible by the June 15, 2021 “date of revision.” See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16–18. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that it is more likely” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. In this case, Petitioner merely cites a “date of revision” appearing within Biomed. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 11). Yet, a revision date alone does not establish that Biomed was disseminated or made publicly available. And, although indicia appearing within a reference can sometimes support the printed publication status of the reference, I find the record to be devoid of any such indicia, or other evidence, supporting that Biomed was publicly disseminated or accessible by the June 15, 2021 “date of revision.” See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16–18. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that it is more likely” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,370,153 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 2, 2026 · IPR2026-00112 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Institution was denied for claims 1–12 because the petition did not show that the cited search results taught the claimed “data feed.”
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Although Petitioner asserts that the ’463 patent “does not limit the form of a data feed,” Petitioner does not explain what the ordinary and customary meaning of “data feed” was at the time of the claimed invention or otherwise propose an express construction of “data feed.” Pet. 6–7, 23. Nor does Petitioner point to any prosecution history that bears on the meaning of “data feed.” Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. Accordingly, Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence showing that Kraft’s or Wong’s disclosure of search results in response to a user-entered search query teaches a “data feed,” as recited in each challenged claim of the ’463 patent. As such, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing at least one claim is unpatentable, as 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) requires.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“I agree with Patent Owner. Neither Kraft nor Wong uses the term “data feed” or characterizes its listing of Web pages (Kraft) or nodes (Wong) provided in response to a user-provided query as a “data feed.” See Ex. 1005, 5:8–12, 6:52–59, 16:52–59, 18:31–54, 18:61–19:23; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 22, 28, 35. Petitioner points to a disclosure in the ’463 patent of a user requesting a personal information aggregator (PIA) to “receive a data feed.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:52–64). But Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how this disclosure provides support for broadly construing “browsing a data feed” to encompass a user entering criteria for a search (and not specifically requesting a “data feed”) and receiving a listing of Web pages or nodes in response. See Pet. 23, 58–59; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 201–202; Ex. 1005, 6:57–59 (describing users searching a data store for models that match “user-specified criteria”), 18:41–54 (describing a user submitting a query); Ex. 1007 ¶ 28 (describing “searching and selecting from keyword identifiers or other search terms”). Petitioner’s reliance on a separate disclosure in the ’463 patent of the PIA “searching . . . the network for information about the situation or event” also is not persuasive, because the ’463 patent does not describe that embodiment as involving a data feed or browsing a data feed. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 20:46–51) (emphasis omitted); Ex. 1001, 20:46–51.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,256,463 - Apple Inc. v. Ginko LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 2, 2026 · IPR2025-01388 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution because the petition did not sufficiently show that the asserted prior art disclosed the challenged claims’ requirement that a contact request include a permission setting.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. Petitioner fails to show that Robertson discloses that the request to become a contact with a potential contact includes a first permission level for the potential contact. In other words, Petitioner does not establish that any of the cited passages in Robertson disclose that the request includes a first permission setting. See Pet. 15–17 (citing Robertson, 7:42–45, 7:55–58, 8:10–17, 8:23–24, Fig. 9). In particular, each passage is silent as to when the permission levels are set. At most, Robertson discloses specifying permissions after contact has been established. See Robertson, 7:50–53. But Petitioner fails to account for the claim requirement that the first permission level is part of the request to establish contact. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). “The IPR petition, thus, must provide an understandable explanation of the element-by-element specifics of the patentability challenges, including the identification of particular portions of prior art on which the petitioner is relying.” Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. Petitioner fails to show that Robertson discloses that the request to become a contact with a potential contact includes a first permission level for the potential contact. In other words, Petitioner does not establish that any of the cited passages in Robertson disclose that the request includes a first permission setting. See Pet. 15–17 (citing Robertson, 7:42–45, 7:55–58, 8:10–17, 8:23–24, Fig. 9). In particular, each passage is silent as to when the permission levels are set. At most, Robertson discloses specifying permissions after contact has been established. See Robertson, 7:50–53. But Petitioner fails to account for the claim requirement that the first permission level is part of the request to establish contact. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). “The IPR petition, thus, must provide an understandable explanation of the element-by-element specifics of the patentability challenges, including the identification of particular portions of prior art on which the petitioner is relying.” Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. Petitioner fails to show that Robertson discloses that the request to become a contact with a potential contact includes a first permission level for the potential contact. In other words, Petitioner does not establish that any of the cited passages in Robertson disclose that the request includes a first permission setting. See Pet. 15–17 (citing Robertson, 7:42–45, 7:55–58, 8:10–17, 8:23–24, Fig. 9). In particular, each passage is silent as to when the permission levels are set. At most, Robertson discloses specifying permissions after contact has been established. See Robertson, 7:50–53. But Petitioner fails to account for the claim requirement that the first permission level is part of the request to establish contact. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). “The IPR petition, thus, must provide an understandable explanation of the element-by-element specifics of the patentability challenges, including the identification of particular portions of prior art on which the petitioner is relying.” Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023).” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,025,573 - Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alipinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–22 under the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner misstates the Decision’s reasoning. As is clear from the previous discussion, we determined that Petitioner’s articulated reasons for combining EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning, not because “EP’536 does not relate to ‘air bags,’” but because the means by which EP’536’s device inflates differs fundamentally from that of CN’180’s device. Dec. 17–18. Petitioner did not acknowledge this critical difference in the Petition, and continues not to do so in its Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning because EP’536’s inflation mechanism differs fundamentally from CN’180’s inflation mechanism. Dec. 17–18. As we stated, whereas CN’180’s fall-protection belt uses an airbag that requires an external source of pressurized air to inflate, EP’536’s garment does not need an external inflation device because “the gas generating agent 18 in each envelope automatically generates gas and inflates the envelopes in response to rising temperatures.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 15; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 5, 19). This difference reflects the fundamentally different purposes of the two devices: CN’180’s device is designed to provide “fall protection” to, e.g., “elderly people,” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 1, 3), whereas EP’536’s device provides “adaptive thermal insulation” for, e.g., garments worn by fire fighters. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–3, 250. Because of the different means by which EP’536’s and CN’180’s devices inflate and the different purposes for doing so, we were not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references as Petitioner proposed. Dec. 18. We further noted that the modification would not have improved the reusability of EP’536’s device “by having only one mechanism to recharge,” because EP’536’s “gas generating agent does not need any ‘mechanism to recharge.’” Dec. 18. Instead, we noted EP’536’s teaching that its gas generating agent “automatically recombines or condenses in response to a temperature decrease to return the envelopes, and therefore the garment, to its original thickness, at which point the gas generating agent is ready for subsequent reactivation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139–141). Finally, we determined that replacing EP’536’s envelopes with CN’180’s airbag “would have made EP’536’s invention unsuitable for its intended purpose: providing a protective garment with ‘adaptive thermal insulation.’” Dec. 19. We stated that “Petitioner does not suggest, and we have found nothing in the record to establish, that CN’180’s airbag would provide this feature.” Id. at 20.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“rationales for combining EP’536 and CN’180. Reh’g Req. 6–7. First, Petitioner asserts that we “improperly rejected Petitioner’s ‘simple substitution’ evidence in view of [the Board’s] incorrect conclusion that EP’536 does not disclose an ‘external source of inflation [EP’536’s dosing aids].’” Id. at 6 (citing Dec. 18–19). This argument is unpersuasive at least because, as we discussed above, EP’536’s dosing aids do not constitute an external source of inflation. Petitioner further argues that we incorrectly evaluated its “obvious to try” rationale because, contrary to our analysis, Petitioner did in fact identify a problem to be solved by its “finite number of solutions”: “simplify[ing] the design and reduc[ing] the number of required inflation mechanisms.” Id. at 6–7. The Petition’s entire “obvious to try” discussion is as follows: [A] POSITA would have found it obvious to try a one-piece airbag 10 with strip-shaped inflation units 12 in the EP’536- CN’180 airbag system because it would have been a selection from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (i.e., using one chamber with connected individual inflation units 12 versus multiple individual envelopes 20). 5 Petitioner also argues that dosing aids are “needed in order to make the disclosed device reusable.” Reh’g Req. 5–6. This is incorrect, as EP’536 conveys that the reusability of the device is a result of the gas generating agent condensing or recombining when temperatures fall. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139– 141. Even if it were true, however, it is unclear how it would support Petitioner’s argument. Pet. 16. As is evident, Petitioner did not identify a design need, market pressure, or other problem that would have been addressed by its identified “solutions,” and therefore we were not persuaded by this rationale. Dec. 19. Petitioner’s attempt to cure this deficiency in its Rehearing Request is tardy. We cannot misapprehend or overlook an assertion that Petitioner fails to make in the Petition. It is also insufficient. Petitioner does not provide any evidence of a known design need or market pressure to “simplify [EP’536’s] design” or reduce the number of “required inflation mechanism” it uses.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - Ascentcare Dental Product, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2025-01104 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2025). 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon institution of inter partes review, the review proceeds “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Based on our consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“the ’329 patent was filed would have had “at least a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering or a related field with at least two years’ experience designing dental devices” and that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s definition is overly narrow and argues that “[n]othing in the claims of the ’329 Patent requires experience designing ‘dental devices.’” Prelim. Resp. 19. According to Patent Owner, “the claims are directed to the structural components of a dental isolation mouthpiece, and an individual with a mechanical engineering degree and experience designing medical devices would be a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for purposes of the ’329 Patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 2030 ¶ 83). We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill for purposes of this Decision. We determine that this level of ordinary skill in the art—i.e., an individual with a mechanical engineering degree and experience designing medical devices—is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’329 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the current record. Moreover, our determination in this Decision would be the same were we to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner asserted “[p]lain and ordinary meaning” for “a plurality of protrusions” in claims 9 and 30, whereas Petitioner proposed “an internal structure attached to the second wall that prevents the collapse of the first and second wall during suction.” Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2039). Here, Patent Owner argues that “protrusion” should be construed to mean “a structure attached to the second wall but not the first wall,” with respect to claims 1, 9, and 30, and to mean “a structure attached to the first wall but not the second wall,” with respect to claim 21. Id. at 24. Patent Owner also argues that structure attached to both the first wall and the second wall is inconsistent with “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘protrusions’ in light of the specification.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 111–112). We address Patent Owner’s arguments in the context of our analysis of Petitioner’s contentions below.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“combination deficient. Petitioner argues that Park’s walls are “likely to collapse under the suction force,” based not on Park, but on Baughan, which states that “discs” in Baughan are used to prevent the “flexible sleeve” of Baughan from collapsing. Pet. 89. (citing Ex. 1007, 3:46–48). Petitioner reasons that because Park uses silicone, a flexible material, Park’s walls must also collapse like Baughan. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32, 34). Petitioner, however, directs us to no disclosure in Park to suggest that the material used in Park or the arrangement of Park would collapse in the same manner as Baughan. Indeed, if Park’s mouthpiece collapses as Petitioner speculates, it would appear likely to render Park inoperable. See Ex. 2030 ¶ 205. Additionally, Petitioner recognizes that in Park “the sidewalls and the insertion part 111 would help resist this collapsing force,” and states that in Park it “is unclear whether the mouth prop 100 includes a spine or other rigid structure running through the middle of the mouth prop 100.” Pet. 89– 90. Thus, whether Park is susceptible to collapse is, at best, unknown. See Prelim. Resp. 48 (asserting that a person of ordinary skill would have known “that silicone can have varying degrees of hardness, tensile strength, and elasticity such that Park’s mouthpiece would not necessarily collapse under suction”) (citing Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 189–90; Ex. 2036; Ex. 2037). Even assuming, as Petitioner asserts, that “additional anti-collapsing structure would assist at the weakest areas of the tongue retractor” in Park, Petitioner offers insufficient reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill would have turned to Baughan and modified the structure taught by Baughan to instead conform to what is recited in claim 1. Petitioner’s suggestion that “common sense” would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structures of Baughan to solve a problem with collapse in Park that Park does not suggest was a problem is likewise unpersuasive and insufficient. Pet. 93 (further asserting that “it was well known in the art how to make projections on a flat surface”). Petitioner’s reliance on Johnson as generically teaching that protrusions can be on flat surfaces does not supply a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modifications outside of improper hindsight. See also Prelim. Resp. 58, 59 (arguing that the projections in Johnson are on a semicircular surface, not on a flat surface as Petitioner asserts) (citing Ex. 1008 Figs. 4, 5). Based on the evidence and arguments presented, we determine that Petitioner fails to show sufficiently for purposes of instituting inter partes review that the asserted combination of Park, Baughan, and Johnson, or in further combination with Zheng, teaches “protrusions protruding from an interior surface” of one wall of the mouthpiece “towards” an opposing wall of the mouthpiece, as required by claim 1, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the asserted references in the manner alleged by Petitioner.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,011,329 - Caption Health, Inc v. University Of British ColumbiaInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-01066 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, including failure to show the claimed image-receiving quality-assessment neural network.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). 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 . . . 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.” Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’591 patent. Thus, we do not institute this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Because Petitioner’s formulation is supported by declaratory testimony and appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’591 patent, and because Patent Owner does not provide any supporting evidence, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–33. Our decision would be the same regardless of the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not propose any express claim construction. Pet. 11– 12; Prelim Resp. 17. We also determine that no express claim construction is necessary for our Decision, apart from that discussed in our below analysis. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in controversy must be construed “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”) (citing 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 successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner also fails to provide sufficient rationale and a reasonable expectation of success in combining Krishnan and Lee to arrive at a quality assessment neural network configured to receive an image. See Pet. 34–37. For example, the Petition lacks an explanation of why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Krishnan’s quality assessment neural network to be configured to receive an image, instead of extracted features, in view of Lee’s image-receiving category classifying neural network. Id. Without such further explanation, Petitioner’s challenge falls short. Petitioner’s argument that neural networks for image quality assessment were “well-known” is not persuasive—it does not address the particular scope of limitation 1i, which also requires that the neural network is configured to receive images. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–51, 118; Exs. 1017, 1023, 1024, 1026). Petitioner’s argument that combining Krishnan and Lee “would merely amount to applying known work from the field . . . to yield predictable results” is not persuasive because the Petition ties this reasoning to modifying Krishnan with Lee’s view-category-specific assessment parameters, not modifying Krishnan’s quality assessment neural network to receive images instead of extracted features. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 126). Lastly, we note Petitioner’s expert’s discussion regarding neural networks for image quality assessments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43–53 (citing Exs. 1010, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1023, 1024, 1026). However, the Petition does not explain how this evidence demonstrates that the proposed combination teaches or suggests a quality assessment neural network configured to receive images, or that such would have been obvious in the context of the claimed invention. See Pet. 32–37.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,129,591 - Geotab Inc. / Geotab USA, Inc. v. Fractus, S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 3, 2025 · PGR2025-00056 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not 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
“to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, 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). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Hence, we deny the Petition and do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“effective filing date would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar degree and at least four years of experience in applied electromagnetics with an emphasis on antennas.” Pet. 10 (quoting Ex. 1018 ¶ 32). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]lternatively, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1018 ¶ 32). Dr. van der Weide’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 39. For purposes of the Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner employs Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Prelim. Resp. 22. Based on the current record and for purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’149 patent as well as the asserted references. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 1:35–6:56, 42:44–46:28, code (57); infra §§ III.E.1–III.E.2, III.G.1–III.G.2, III.H.1.” slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“4. DISCUSSION “[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on the current record, 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. As Petitioner recognizes, the ’149 patent defines many of the claim terms Petitioner discusses in the “Claim Interpretation” section of the Petition. See Pet. 14–16. For instance, the patent defines “antenna rectangle” as “the orthogonal projection of the antenna box along the normal to the face with largest area of the antenna box.” Ex. 1005, 14:21–24. Further, the patent defines “complexity factor F21” and “complexity factor F32” consistent with the independent claims. See id. at 17:16–21, 17:49–61, 18:8–18, 19:12–25, 20:5–17, 42:62–43:25, 44:5–30, 45:8–46:3. E. Alleged Obviousness over Dou and Ciais-Multiband: Claims 7–9, 11–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 Petitioner contends that claims 7–9, 11–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan who used Ciais-Quadband’s antenna for Dou’s two antennas 206 and 208 would have departed from the commonly accepted rule of thumb and Dou’s preference for at least a quarter-wavelength spacing between antennas at the lowest frequency to the extent needed to implement the proposed combination, i.e., with only about 55% of the preferred spacing between antennas. See Pet. 60–69; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 172–187. Hence, based on the current record, Petitioner does not establish sufficiently for purposes of institution that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ciais-Quadband’s teachings with Dou’s teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Further, the addition of two Nakano InvFL antennas extending from the ground plane both above and below the PCB does not remedy the insufficient spacing between “the swapped-in Ciais-Quadband antennas.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 67.” slip op. at 69
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,095,149 - Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Inflexion Point Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2025 · PGR2025-00045 · APJ Debra L Dennett · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). The burden is on Petitioner to show that the challenged patent is eligible for postgrant review. Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., PGR2016- 00010, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016) (holding that the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with a petitioner to demonstrate that the challenged patent is eligible for post-grant review). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable. We thus determine to not institute a post-grant review of the ’027 patent based on the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural or Mechanical Engineering with 2–4 years of practical, applied experience in the field of agricultural machinery, including systems integration and fluid handling and sprayer control systems, or equivalent experience. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 59). Patent Owner states that the differences in the asserted levels of ordinary skill should not change the outcome of the Petition. Id. For the purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, which appears consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art references of record and the ’027 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))). Our analysis, however, would not change were we to adopt Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends that claim construction is necessary for the “seed-applied substance” term because Petitioner allegedly ignores the teaching of the specification in evaluating the term. Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent Owner points to the specification, which defines a “seed-applied substance” as “includ[ing] any composition applied to seeds prior to the seeds being planted (e.g., when the seed comes in contact with the soil in a field).” Id. at 13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45-48). Patent Owner contends that the term means “a substance that is applied directly to the seed before the seed comes into contact with the soil in a field.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 55). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner erroneously uses a definition that “allows the ‘seedapplied substance’ to be applied to the seed (and soil) as the seed lay planted in the soil.’” Id. For the purpose of addressing Petitioner’s grounds, we use the definition of “seed-applied substance” provided in the ’027 patent, i.e., “any composition applied to seeds prior to the seeds being planted (e.g., when the seed comes in contact with the soil in a field).” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[A] patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.”).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“3. Analysis Our analysis of whether Wagers discloses the limitation “individually applying the desired application amount of the selected type of the seed-applied substance to each seed as it is being delivered to the soil” is dispositive of Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 as anticipated.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,102,027 - Google LLC v. Cellular South, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00877 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–11 because the Zhao-Kouzani combination did not sufficiently show a fractal representation based on landmarks.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’853 patent is unpatentable, and we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“generally known in the art, and that this is acknowledged by the ’853 patent. Pet. 40–41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:40–44). Petitioner asserts that Kouzani touts the benefits of fractal models and that it would have been obvious to use Kouzani’s fractal model as the object model in Zhou. Pet 44 (asserting that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have therefore been motivated to implement Kouzani’s techniques in Zhao’s system”); see also id. 42–45. (entire argument). Patent Owner argues that Kouzani’s fractals would not result in the claimed limitation. Prelim. Resp. 21–23. In particular, Patent Owner points out that Kouzani’s fractals use a block-based fractal system, which do not include “a representation of the object based on landmarks associated with the object” as required by claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312–13 (quoting in Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We do not need to construe any claim terms to reach a decision in this proceeding. Realtime, 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 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,126,853 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-01055 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Applying those standards, and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that any one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’326 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 also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’326 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, which is supported with testimony of Dr. Easttom (Ex. 1004 ¶ 22–23), we apply the level of skill set forth above.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Claim 1 explicitly recites “partially,” not “fully” or “completely.” On its face, “partially” appears to have its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., not completely. The use of “partially” in the subject limitation shows or at least strongly suggests that the claimed invention contemplates at least some frequency gap to remain between the first channel and the second channel. In addition, as argued persuasively by Patent Owner, this interpretation is further supported by claim 1’s requirement of “transmitting data subcarriers occupying the first channel, the second channel, and the frequency gap in parallel to a receiver”: [T]he “transmitting” step in claim 1 requires that the frequency gap be included in the transmitted signal. Inclusion of the frequency gap in the transmitted signal necessarily requires that the frequency gap be only partially filled -- but not fully filled -- with added data subcarriers at the time of transmission, because if the frequency gap were fully filled it would no longer exist at the time of signal transmission. Prelim. Resp. 23. Petitioner offers no explanation for how the language of claim 1 itself would allow for “partially” to encompass “completely.”” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“For all but one sentence of Petitioner’s arguments for how each of the subject combinations allegedly would have taught the Partially Filling Limitation as variously recited in claims 1, 16, and 18, Petitioner relies (implicitly) on a construction of “partially” that allows for completely filling the frequency gap between the first channel and the second channel, and alleges that the asserted combinations teach completely filling such gap. See Pet. 26–28 (Gardner and Mori), 64–67 (Mori, Lu, and Williams); Prelim. Resp. 25–29, 38–40 (Patent Owner agreeing that the asserted combinations teach only completely or fully filling the frequency gap.). We reject such a construction of “partially” as discussed above in Section III.C.2, and thus find Petitioner’s arguments unpersuasive.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,027,326
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.