• Deere & Company v. David’S Dozer V-Loc System, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01442 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–4 unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition and the Preliminary Response (including any other authorized submissions) “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.”” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art differs from that of Petitioner, primarily because Patent Owner contends that such a person of ordinary skill would have a certain degree of experience relating specifically to skid steers, or similar machinery, and their hydraulic systems. See Prelim. Resp. 8–10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 31). Insofar as we understand the significance of Patent Owner’s concerns about the differences between the parties’ proposals, these differences do not bear upon the issues addressed herein. Accordingly, for the purposes of the present Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, with regard to the issues addressed in this Decision, Petitioner’s proposed description of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill indicated by the ’300 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner made the deliberate choice to claim broadly,” eschewing “structural limitations that would have expressly or implicitly required the hydraulic of Element [1.4] to differ from the hydraulic of Element [1.5].” Reply 7. Further, Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner chose to generically recite ‘a hydraulic’ in each of Elements [1.4] and [1.5] without distinguishing labels, identifiers, or qualifiers.” Id. To the contrary, the two recited “hydraulic[s]” are distinguished by the language surrounding and modifying each instance in the method of claim 1. Indeed, the recitations of distinct operations performed by each “hydraulic,” in the claimed method, further support the understanding these are distinct and different structures. Additionally, as Patent Owner contends (see Prelim. Resp. 16), each instance of “hydraulic” is introduced with the indefinite article “a” — a signal that the two instances of “a hydraulic” do not refer to the same structure. See Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct components’ of the patented invention.”) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a “return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As Patent Owner argues, Petitioner’s proposed combination of Funk and Lewis “would interfere with the intended operation of the Funk control system to move the lift arms up and down in response to inter alia changes in the height signal.” Prelim. Resp. 20. This scenario is similar to that in Tec Air, 192 F.3d at 1356, which involved a claimed injection-molding technique that used screw-threaded adjustable plugs accessed from the inner, cavity-facing, side of the mold. The proposed combination included a prior art reference disclosing adjustment members accessed from the opposite, outer, side of the mold, and having a non-threaded smooth tip that extended through the mold and into the cavity. Id. at 1360. The Federal Circuit held that the prior art reference was properly determined to teach away from the claimed invention, because “no screw driver would be able to turn the smooth-headed screws from the cavity-side of the mold,” hence the proposed “combination would be inoperable for its intended purpose.” Id. Likewise, the proposed combination in the present matter teaches away from the subject matter of claim 1, because it would “immobilize [Funk’s] main arm,” and its associated hydraulic cylinder 18, “leaving just ‘one’ of Funk’s two adjustment mechanisms — blade tilt — available for grade control” (Pet. 10), thereby decreasing the system’s accuracy (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 113– 14) and negating the very technique that Funk relies upon to achieve its stated goal. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 7 (“[O]ne object of the present invention is to provide an automatic leveling control system that is sufficiently accurate for preparing the ground prior to the construction of concrete floors and foundations.”)” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,533,300
• Head Sport GmbH v. Vermont Safety Developments LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-01099 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show that the prior art met the claims under the Board’s construction of “release logic.”

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Other 314aNot reached

    “Thus, based in part on the “relatively minimal proceedings” in the District Court, and the “[t]he possibility of significant simplification” for the District Court from our claim construction of the term “release logic,” we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to discretionarily deny the petition. Moreover, we need not address Patent Owner’s contentions concerning discretionary denial because, as discussed below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits in demonstrating unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’953 patent. See MillerKnoll, Inc. v. Aaron DeJule, IPR2023-01428, Paper 8, 10 (PTAB March 22, 2024).” slip op. at 20

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

    “We now turn to the merits of Petitioner’s asserted Grounds of unpatentability. Analysis of Claims We focus our analysis on the term “release logic,” which appears in all the challenged claims. As we explained above, we determined that the term “release logic” along with its recited functions should be construed under Section 112 ¶ 6 to cover “corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof,” that perform the recited functions. Petitioner did not identify how the asserted prior art described those structures or their equivalents. Instead, as discussed above, Petitioner relied on Patent Owner’s preliminary construction in the District Court, which Patent Owner identified in wholly functional terms as a “specific sequence of actions.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1010; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53); Prelim. CC Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1010, 5). Thus, Petitioner’s analysis fails to address how the prior art meets the limitations set forth in the claims as we have interpreted those claims. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Thus we deny institution of an inter partes review. See Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, IPR2024-00319, Paper 16, slip op. 16–23 (PTAB Jun. 24, 2024) (holding that because Petitioner’s obviousness showing was based on an incorrect claim construction, Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a claim limitation was disclosed by, or would have been obvious over, the cited reference).” slip op. at 49

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “be persuasive, we conclude that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have understood “release logic” to refer to, or to have a definite meaning as the name for structure. Accordingly, we find that any presumption that the claims at issue do not invoke § 112, ¶ 6 is overcome, and we conclude that “release logic” introduces claim language that is properly interpreted under § 112, ¶ 6. Dr. Hull’s testimony in the District Court appears to address only the embodiment disclosed in Figures 9–11 of the ’953 patent. He did not opine on the other embodiments disclosed in the patent, such as the embodiment in Figures 22–24 disclosing electronic third-quadrant release-logic binding system 2204. However, his testimony that the words of the claim would not be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to have definite meaning as the name for structure remains persuasive.” slip op. at 48

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “sophistication of the technology; and (5) educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. ¶ 30. Dr. Hull fails to state whether these factors were relied upon in forming his opinion, and if so, he also fails to state the underlying facts or data relating to these factors on which the opinion is based. There is no evidence to support why an “advanced degree” in mechanical engineering and five years of relevant experience is required. His opinion is supported only by his statement that he is “familiar with the technology at issue here and the state of the art at the time the application leading to the ’953 patent was filed.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 31. Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Here, based on Dr. Hull’s extensive experience, we give his testimony some, but little, weight. Patent Owner states that “for purposes of this Preliminary Response only, VSD does not now dispute the definition of the POSITA as set forth by Dr. Hull.” Prelim. Resp. 7. We note that Patent Owner’s position is based on Dr. Hull’s full testimony, not the excerpt asserted by Petitioner. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the limited record before us, we determine, based on Dr. Hull’s testimony, the cited prior art, and Patent Owner’s qualified agreement with Dr. Hull’s testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technology would have had an advanced degree in mechanical engineering or a related discipline and five years of experience in either ski binding design, manufacture, or testing; research concerning ski bindings and related equipment; or the development of standards concerning ski bindings or related equipment. This level of skill is approximate, and more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 25

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,523,953
• Dyson Technology Ltd. / Dyson, Inc. v. Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00766 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious over the prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5

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

    “However, each of these asserted modifications is based on a teaching that is not present in Brown. Brown does not teach “a projection that provides resistance against ‘handle’ movement” or that “opening Brown’s ‘cover’ requires bending Brown’s ‘port,’” as asserted by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 22. As repeatedly noted, the identified “projection” appears to be nothing more than a portion of cover 14 the accessory/hose port. Petitioner’s arguments regarding a projection that provides resistance and a bendable port in Brown, appear to be nothing more than an effort to create the limitations of the claims in the prior art based on improper hindsight. For at least the above reasons, the Petition does not show how Brown teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the independent claims.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner argues that when cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) is in position on the vacuum, end wall 26 cannot open and, thus, that end wall is inhibited from opening. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 37, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–145 (similar statements from Petitioner’s declarant)). Petitioner then asserts that the catch is therefore inhibited from moving to the disengaged position. Id. at 46. The combination of Dimbylow and Howes does not teach this limitation and Petitioner’s assertions are not persuasive. As can be seen from the above annotated Figure, nothing inhibits Dimbylow’s catch 42 from moving to a disengaged position. See also Prelim. Resp 11–14. Rather, any time Howe’s button is pressed, thereby moving the push-rod (to the right in the Figure), catch 42 would disengage, whether the door opened or not. Though cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) inhibits end wall 26 from opening, it has no impact on movement of catch 42 (i.e. lock engaging member) from the engaged to disengaged position as required by the claim. Thus, the lock engaging member of Petitioner’s combination, i.e., the catch, is not inhibited from moving to a disengaged position when the accessory, i.e., the cleaning” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA”). Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner’s declarant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field and 2-3 years of experience in machine design, such as vacuum cleaners. Additional education could offset less experience and vice versa, and a POSA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means. Ex. 1002 ¶ 42; see also Pet. 22 (making the same assertion without citation to declarant). Patent Owner does not contest the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 2. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s (and its declarant’s) proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’477 patent and prior art of record. We adopt the above definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,568,477
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00520 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Dexcom did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 were unpatentable under either Stafford–Raymond ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Burden of Proof “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”)). Therefore, in an inter partes review, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable; that burden never shifts to the patentee. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). At the institution stage, Petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We do not find these arguments persuasive. It may be so that Turner teaches that its recesses 77 receive rotation-restricting protrusions 71, which “extend[] into each recess 77 such that the recess side walls interfere with the protrusions to prevent rotation of the insertion device relative to body 20.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 69. And, it may also be so that Turner teaches this assembly as an advantage in that it prevents rotation of body 20. Id. However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its” slip op. at 32

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

    “In each of the ’335 Specification, Stafford, Raymond, and Turner, the OBU is universally depicted as having a circular perimeter oriented around a longitudinal axis, and possessing either a cylindrical shape (’335 patent, Stafford, Raymond) or a roughly domed shape, with a circular, circumferential collar. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8, 17, 52, 54; Ex. 1009, Figs 3A–C, 4A; Ex. 1010, Figs. 14–16, Ex. 1011, Figs. 2A–B, 5G, 7A-B, 9, 11, 13A–B, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 30, 37, 38. Moreover, in each description of the location of recesses 3766 in the ’335 Specification, the recesses are described as being located “on the side walls” of the OBU. See Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 8–12; col. 45, ll. 61–64. Given the circular perimeter of all of these embodiments of the disclosures of the ’335 Specification, the teachings of Petitioner’s cited references, the dictionary definition of “periphery” as being “the perimeter of a circle or other closed curve,” and the ordinary meaning that the terms would have had to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention, in view of the ’335 Specification and file history” (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13), we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on body electronics unit housing” would be located “on the circumference of the on-body housing,” as we concluded in the ’01396 IPR Decision. See Dec. 48; see also Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 9–14 (stating that “gripping arms 3762 [of medical device carrier 3730] are provided with engagement boss 3764 which are configured to engage with corresponding recesses 3766 provided on the side walls of the on body housing 322”).” slip op. at 38

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its 12 The Petition makes a design choice argument with respect to the teachings of Raymond on Ground 1, contending that “it would have been an obvious design choice to implement two spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing—one to engage the protrusions on each of the two arms taught by Raymond.” Pet. 38. However, Petitioner adduced no prior art teaching or evidence of record of “spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing” that Reply Brief if that argument could first have been raised in its Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Univ. of Massachusetts, 2018 WL 4278992, *5 n.4 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2018); Matterport, Inc. v. Appliance Comp. III, Inc., 2021 WL 6340164, *9–10 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2021).” slip op. at 32

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,266,335
• Millerknoll, Inc. v. Aaron DejuleInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01428 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–10, 14, 15, and 18–22 because Petitioner did not identify corresponding structure for the § 112(f) adjusting assembly limitation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under these circumstances, the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claim 1. See Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v Power2B Inc., IPR2022-01378, Paper 12 at 15, 17 (PTAB March 15, 2023) (“Because Petitioner has not identified structure corresponding to the functions recited in claims 1 and 5, we cannot ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the asserted prior art, as required [to evaluate obviousness]. . . . Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing claims 1 and 5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bird and Ishii.”); HTC Corp. v Lemaire Illumination Techs., LLC, IPR2019-00092, Paper 7 at 20 (PTAB Apr. 29, 2019) (“Petitioner . . . fails to identify structure described in the Specification of the ’266 patent that corresponds to the claimed function as is required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) . . . . Consequently, Petitioner also fails to explain how that corresponding structure or an equivalent thereof is met by its proposed combination of [prior art references].”); ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2018-00235, Paper 9 at 11 (PTAB June 1, 2018) (“Petitioner has not satisfied the claim construction requirement set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) with respect to certain limitations in independent claims 1, 6, and 10. Based on this deficiency in the Petition, which affects all of the challenged claims, we deny institution of inter partes review.”); Unified Patents Inc. v. Blackbird Tech LLC, IPR2017-01525, Paper 11 at 14 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017) (“Petitioner does not ‘identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function,’ as required by our Rules (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)), to enable us to determine if the asserted prior art teaches such structure. Thus, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to independent claims 2, 7, and 10 as well as its challenge to claims 11, 13, 16, and 19.”); Panel Claw, Inc. v. SunPower Corp., IPR2014-00386, Paper 7 at 9–10 (PTAB June 30, 2014) (Petitioner’s failure to identify corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation warranted denial of institution for all claims that included that limitation). Because the claims 2–10, 14, 15, and 18–22 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, Petitioner’s challenge to these claims fails for the same reasons.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Petitioner contends that person of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’498 patent pertains “would have had a bachelor’s degree in industrial design, mechanical engineering, and/or a related field, and at least 2–3 years of experience designing furniture.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1108 ¶ 29). Patent Owner “forgoes offering a competing definition of the level of ordinary skill,” at the current stage of this proceeding, stating that “under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner’s challenges fail to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to any claim of the ’498 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 7. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, and in view of the parties’ representations, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the relevant level of skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’498 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “‘[a]djusting assembly’ is not a recognized term of art in the field of the ’498 Patent” and “[a]s used in the claims of the ’498 Patent, it should be construed as a means-plus-function (‘MPF’) claim element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1108 ¶ 47). Petitioner bases this assertion on its expert’s opinions that “claim 1 does not recite sufficient structure for performing th[e] function” recited in the “adjusting assembly” limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not consider ‘adjusting assembly’ to refer to any specific structure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1108 ¶ 52); see also id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 54–59) (“Nor do the claims otherwise recite sufficient structure for providing the claimed function.”) Further, Petitioner contends that “[c]laim 1 uses ‘adjusting assembly’ as a ‘nonce’ term that operates as a substitute for ‘means’ to claim a function.” Id. at 10 (citing MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336, 1341–45 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding “mechanical control assembly” operated as nonce term)). For its part, “Patent Owner agrees that means-plus-function treatment is appropriate for the ‘adjusting assembly,’” although taking this position “[f]or purposes of this proceeding only.” Prelim. Resp. 8 n.5. Based on the current record, we agree with the parties’ positions that the “adjusting assembly” limitation of the ’498 patent should be construed according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Although the word “means” does not appear in the limitation, the claim language itself does not recite structure that, per the recited function, “cooperat[es] between the first component and the at least second component” and “changes [the] magnitude” of “the force required to be applied in the second manner to reconfigure the apparatus and move the second component relative to the first component,” “as an incident of the force being applied in the first manner changing in magnitude.” In other words, claim 1 appears to lack sufficient structure for performing the stated function of the “adjusting assembly.” See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Mr. Koepke’s opinion, which is unrebutted at this point, that the term “adjusting assembly” would not connote any specific structure, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the relevant time (see Ex. 1108 ¶ 52), supports our conclusion that 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applies to the “adjusting assembly” limitation. slip op. at 19

  • BurdenDenied

    “As to the purportedly corresponding structure, in the ’498 patent Specification, Petitioner identifies only two structures for performing the recited function of the “adjusting assembly”: a “tilting spring” and a “weighing spring.” See Pet. 10–14. Petitioner characterizes a “tilting spring” as “a spring structure that” slip op. at 21

  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,292,498
• Millerknoll, Inc. v. Aaron DejuleInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01427 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Schmitz or Takamatsu anticipates any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary 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.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenges in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther

    “may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function . . . and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The use of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applies and, conversely, the absence of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that this statutory mandate does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, in relevant part). These presumptions can be overcome, however, if the claim limitation “fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (citing Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Indeed, as the Federal Circuit has emphasized, the essential inquiry is not merely the presence or absence of the word “means” but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownOther

    “on incorrect aspects of Petitioner’s proposed construction because Petitioner’s faulty construction fatally undermines Petitioner’s anticipation challenges. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s construction fails to give adequate weight, or any weight, to the “plurality of gears” aspect of the “adjusting assembly” limitation. Petitioner acknowledges the “plurality of gears” language when arguing that the presence of this structure in the claim does not prevent that the “adjusting assembly” limitation from being construed as a means-plus-function limitation, but Petitioner does not include the functional requirements of the gears in its identification of the claimed function or identify the gears as part of the structure in the Specification that performs the claimed function. See Pet. 13–17. Both of these approaches are erroneous and lead to an incorrect construction of the “adjusting assembly” limitation. The adjusting assembly limitation requires “an adjusting assembly comprising a plurality of gears that cooperate and move relative to each other as an incident of the seat moving from the first position into the loaded position configured to thereby increase a resistance to changing of the angular orientation of the back rest from the starting angular position.” Ex. 1001, claim 1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the plain language of the claim requires an adjusting assembly that includes gears that perform a certain function (“cooperate and move relative to each other . . .”). Petitioner’s identified function focuses on the “increase a resistance” functional language and improperly omits the functional language associated” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “This reference point prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or, worse yet, hindsight, to gauge obviousness.” Id. Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field. Env’t Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In determining a level of ordinary skill, we also may look to the prior art, which may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in industrial design, mechanical engineering, and/or a related field, and at least 2–3 years of experience designing furniture.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 22–23). Patent Owner states that “for the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner forgoes offering a competing definition of the level of ordinary skill.” Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we view as consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’753 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,893,753
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01325 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–6 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 1, 4, and 4–6 of the ’033 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “concerning the ’834 patent, the intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful in revealing an affirmative meaning for the claims’ “spacing(s)” terms. IPR2023-01151, Paper 12, 39–41. The Specification does not use the term “spacings” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful, but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them. And, portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. For example, the applicant distinguished claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 2140, 1001 (suggesting a more “loosely defined fiber structure” may be covered); see also Ex. 1002, 29–30 (asserting the claimed design has “a lesser [fiber] density construction” compared to Walther). This begs the question, at what point does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” convert to a cloth having a “loosely defined” fiber structure that would come within the scope of the claimed “spacings?” The record does not answer. Applicant’s suggestion during prosecution that the claimed spacings between fibers are “intentionally placed” about the frame and not simply “the spacing that may be inherent” in fibrous cloths is also unavailing on this record in clearly defining the metes and bounds of the term. Ex. 1002, 28–29. Whether the alleged absence of “objective boundaries” for the term “spacings” supports a conclusion that the claims are invalid as indefinite would be a question for the court. Paper 11, 5 (arguing There is insufficient technical detail available to determine whether the SAPIEN 3 Ultra does or does not include “spacings” as claimed and we take no position on whether such device infringes any claim of the ’033 patent. that a conclusion that the claims are indefinite is “outside the Board’s [IPR] jurisdiction”).12 Notwithstanding the lack of any express claim construction for the “spacings” term from either party, claim 1 of the ’033 patent requires something more than just “spacings.” Claim 1 requires “spacings extending through a thickness of the sealing assembly that allow fluid to pass therethrough when the prosthetic heart valve assembly is in an undeployed state.” Ex. 1001, 22:11–15 (emphasis added). In other words, the spacings must allow fluid to pass through the sealing assembly’s thickness when the valve is undeployed. For reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded on this record that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that this limitation is met—particularly the fluid-passing element—in the proposed combinations of Spenser or Levi with Spenser II.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We, thus, find Dr. Brecker’s testimony more credible that “[i]t would, accordingly, be counterintuitive for a [POSA] to look to a device designed to occlude a blood vessel when designing a TAVR.” Id. ¶¶ 119–120 (testifying “[n]o [POSA] would look to this [occluder] design when considering a TAVR valve and . . . would further have concerns about the pro-thrombotic potential of the arrangement of fibers in Chuter”). Where a proposed combination would run counter to the primary reference’s stated purpose, the POSA would not generally be motivated to make that combination. Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 43

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner

    “Grounds 1 and 2 is based on the combination of either Levi and Spenser II, or Spenser and Spenser II. Yet Petitioner purports to modify Spenser II’s compressible material, or supplant it with something else, based on “porous” fabrics allegedly known elsewhere in the art, which art is not identified in the Petition itself as part of any asserted combination. Pet. 49. To see what specific modifications or combinations Petitioner might be suggesting, requires we look to three paragraphs of Dr. Buller’s Declaration, cited but not discussed by Petitioner, where eight additional references are mentioned. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (identifying Exs. 1106–1112, and 1129). This format is an improper incorporation-by-reference of argument and evidence that, had Petitioner wanted to pursue some other combination of asserted art beyond Levi, Spenser, and Spenser II, needed to be set forth explicitly in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Moreover, it leaves the record unclear and forces Patent Owner, the Board, and the public to guess at what combination(s) are, in fact, being urged. We also find that Petitioner’s position reveals a hindsight bias insofar as it suggests, with the aim of arriving at the claimed subject matter, removing Spenser II’s “sufficiently dense” and fluid impermeable compressible material (Ex. 2128 ¶ 222) in favor of some other sufficiently “porous” and fluid permeable material. Hindsight is further evidenced because Spenser II’s cited material is already described as being compressible and adapted to allow coagulation and tissue ingrowth—factors cited by Patent Owner as allegedly motivating a change to some other material. Ex. 1011 ¶ 145. Altogether, we find unpersuasive Petitioner’s position based on unspecified combinations of unasserted prior art to achieve benefits that Spenser II’s existing compressible material already provides.” slip op. at 36

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,491,033
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01232 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 11–13 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 11–13 of the ’310 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in November 2012 “would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. This [POSA] would, where necessary, work with a medical device engineer to experiment with or manufacture a prosthetic heart valve.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50). Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s proposed definition or offer an alternative. See generally Prelim. Resp. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This POSA level is also consistent with the level the Board applied in earlier decisions involving the same parties and related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 2124, 11; Ex. 1120, 11–12.” slip op. at 14

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

    “construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims’ language in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA, in view of the patent’s specification and considering the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only as needed to resolve the matters in dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner contends that “[n]o terms of the ’310 patent require construction to resolve the patentability issues herein.” Pet. 19. Also, Petitioner contends, its “grounds are based on [Patent Owner’s] allegations that the ’310 patent covers Petitioner’s SAPIEN 3 Ultra valve and the scope of the claims asserted by [Patent Owner] in litigation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1122 (Complaint); Ex. 1123 (Infringement Contentions), 2, 262–476).11 Patent Owner does not propose any express claim construction. Instead, Patent Owner contends that the claims should be interpreted according to their ordinary and customary meaning. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 18–19, 35–36 (asserting that Petitioner’s mapping of the claims is, in respects, contrary to the “plain language” of the claims). 11 Petitioner identifies a claim construction order in related litigation where the district court construed an “outer frame” as a “self-expanding frame.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1140, 17). We need not further construe the “outer frame” term here because Petitioner contends, without dispute, that the prior art discloses self-expanding frames. Id. at 19–20, 26. Moreover, Patent Owner states that it has disclaimed those claims reciting the term “outer frame” to reduce the number of issues before the Board. Prelim. Resp. 75. about the scope of the claims, we address those arguments below in our discussion of the mapping of claims to the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “We are unpersuaded. The language of claim 11 states the “sealing material is attached to the frame,” but also that it is the plurality of outwardly-extending “fibers” that maintain “contact with the frame along the height of the sealing material” whether the valve assembly is compressed or expanded. Supra Section II(D). Thus, according to this plain language, Petitioner must demonstrate that Spenser II’s identified fibers contact with the frame in its modification of Spenser or Levi—not just that some portion of Spenser II’s compressible material be attached to and contact the frame. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contrary interpretation is “at-odds with the plain language of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 18, 35. The cited excerpt from the prosecution history does not support Petitioner’s position that the “in contact” limitation is met if the sealing material—but not necessarily the fibers—contacts the frame. Petitioner cites an assertion by applicant during prosecution that modifying Levi’s valve so that the “sealing material” is in contact with the frame would not show that the claimed subject matter is obvious. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002, 147–148). In its more complete context, however, applicant’s prosecution argument was made in furtherance of applicant’s repeated assertion that replacing Levi’s loosely-fit, “billowing” skirt with a tightly-held and bulky sleeve would change Levi’s principle of operation and make it too large and Resp. 35–36 (arguing applicant’s position is also “consistent” with claims’ plain language because, if Levi’s billowing skirt included outwardly-extending fibers, such fibers could not contact the frame along the skirt’s height when it billows out from the frame).15 Applicant’s argument does not rise to a concession that the “fibers in contact with the frame” limitation can be met so long as the sealing material contacts the frame. At best for Petitioner, the relevant prosecution history could be characterized as ambiguous; it does not justify rewriting claim 11’s plain language. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 127–128 (earlier version of proposed amendment to application claim 31, reciting “the sealing material is in contact with the outer frame”), 138–139 (later version of the proposed and as-entered amendment, expressly changing the language to require “the plurality of fibers is in contact with the outer frame”).” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,389,310
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01151 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged, undisclaimed claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 2, 9, 17, and 18 of the ’834 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in November 2012 “would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. This [POSA] would, where necessary, work with a medical device engineer to experiment with or manufacture a prosthetic heart valve.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s proposed definition. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This POSA level is also consistent with the level the Board applied in earlier decisions involving the same parties and related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 2124, 11; Ex. 1120, 11–12.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “during prosecution. Pet. 18, 99. According to Petitioner, Spenser II never describes its compressible material as including “tightly knitted fibers” and a POSA would, instead, have understood Spenser II’s compressible material as comprising “loose, porous materials.” Pet. 18, 99. We agree with Petitioner that the phrases “tightly knitted” and “tightly knitted fibers” do not appear in Spenser II. At the same time, neither does Spenser II describe its compressible material as being “loose” and “porous.” Notably, in prior proceedings before the Board, Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Buller testified that Spenser II’s compressible material “includes a plurality of PET fibers on the inward-facing surface of the compressible material” (i.e., the “base layer” and alleged “second plurality” of fibers here; Paper 9, 5), that is “sufficiently dense to prevent blood from leaking through the cloth/fabric.” Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2122, 20:2–22:18 (testifying that “nonporous” as used in the Specification means “that fluid would not pass through it” and such fluid includes “all components of blood”). We find that Dr. Buller’s description of Spenser II as having a dense, blood impermeable base layer is, on balance, more consistent with applicant’s characterization of Spenser II as having an arrangement of “tightly-knitted fibers”—even if some imagined or microscopic spaces between fibers might still exist in a base layer. Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2002 (Brecker testimony) ¶¶ 42–45 (testifying, inter alia, that the description of a “tight fitted outer seal is . . . consistent with Spenser II’s Figure 22” and “knitted” is consistent with Buller’s testimony describing Spenser II’s compressible material as “velour-like woven or knitted” PET (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 162; Ex. 2134 ¶ 56). We are, thus, unpersuaded on this record that applicant mischaracterized Spenser II.” slip op. at 38

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

    “Altogether, the parties’ alleged “plain meaning” yet otherwise undefined interpretation of the “spacing” limitations leaves the Board with insufficient clarity about what the claimed “spacing” means in the affirmative. Paper 9, 3 (arguing “plain meaning”); Paper 11, 3 (arguing applicant’s arguments are in “full harmony with the plain meaning”). The intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful: the Specification does not use the term “spacing” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them.15 The prosecution history provides clues, but portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. The applicant distinguished 15 For example, Dr. Brecker, in support of Patent Owner’s argument, identifies several of the patent drawings and testifies that, “as is particularly clear in Figure 13 (but also present elsewhere), there are gaps and spaces between the fibers that extend to the frame” and then proceeds to testify that prior art, like Spenser II’s compressible material, “bears no resemblance” to the “exemplary” spacings identified in prosecution. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–43. Dr. Brecker’s articulation of a “spacing” does not seem to add anything meaningful beyond the language of the claim as written. And, simply comparing the patent drawings to the prior art drawings presumes a sort of “know-it when you see it” interpretation—it is not an affirmative construction for a “spacing” as claimed. the claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 1002, 1001. At what point, however, does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” qualify as more “loosely defined” and come within the scope of the claimed “spacing?”16 Id. The applicant also described the “spacing” in semi-functional terms based on “advantages” provided by the claim feature. See, e.g., id. (asserting, e.g., that the spacing permits “expansion and contraction” with “lesser rigidity”); see also id. at 1133, 1140 (asserting, e.g., “reduce[d] restrictions” and avoidance of “restrained valve foreshortening” with the then-claimed “openings”). It is not, however, evident where the Specification supports such “advantages”—no citations were given in prosecution. And, in prosecution of related applications, applicant argued, for example, that “[w]hile all fibers have some degree of being spaced-apart, the construction from Applicant’s claimed invention clearly requires some level more spacing.” Ex. 1149, 13–14 (assertion differences over “Dehdashtian” (alias to Spenser II)) (emphasis added). On this record, what would suffice as “some level more spacing” is unclear. Id.” slip op. at 39

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,337,834
• Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Surgetech LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00738 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–6 because the Petition failed to identify its numerous, ambiguous obviousness grounds with the particularity required by § 312(a)(3).

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may be instituted if the information presented by the petitioner in the petition, in view of the patent owner’s preliminary response and the preliminary record, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenDenied

    “to the issue of thousands of asserted combinations of art. Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that Petitioner presents in the Petition “a single, omnibus claim chart that cites to numerous pages of prior art without any substantive explanation describing how those quotations are relevant or how they should be combined” and “exacerbates this confusion by citing to Dr. Regan’s seven-hundred seventy-eight page expert report, which, despite its length, is equally conclusory.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. Moreover, by citing “dozens of disparate passages from Jacob” in regard to a single limitation, along with “numerous citations to multiple prior art references,” the Petition fails to “identify how the prior art teachings should be combined in the grounds of a petition.” Id. at 18–19. In sum, rather than present its challenges with particularity, the Petition simply reproduces large excerpts from multiple references, while improperly incorporating by reference hundreds of pages from an expert declaration that frequently includes conclusory assertions. See generally Pet.; Ex. 1003. Accordingly, we find that the Petition falls short of the requirement that it present “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). In our view, the large number of ambiguous grounds is far out of proportion with the number of claims and the complexity of the issues involved. This excessiveness indicates that it would impose an undue burden for Patent Owner to respond to and for the Board to resolve all of the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts: POSITA would at minimum have a bachelor’s degree in software/computer/electrical engineering, computer science, or industrial engineering and management with at least two years’ experience in inventory and pricing management, including with respect to systems for dynamically managing inventory and pricing of transportation services or other types of inventory, or the equivalent. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant inventory and pricing management experience could substitute for formal education. EX1003, ¶17. POSITA are presumed knowledgeable of all relevant art, and would thus have been familiar with each reference cited herein and its full teachings. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner applies this same definition. Prelim. Resp. 10. For the purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’047 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim language “receiving . . . in real time.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not argue for any specific claim constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that, here, no construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. C. LEGAL STANDARDS CONCERNING INSTITUTION AND” slip op. at 11

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,475,047

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.