• Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. California Institute Of TechnologyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01178 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Bio-Rad did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable, as relied-upon Saxonov disclosures were not shown to qualify as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “benefit of its provisional application’s filing date for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) prior art purposes when two conditions are met: (1) the provisional provides sufficient support for at least one claim in the reference patent or published patent application; and (2) the provisional application provide sufficient support for the subject matter relied upon for prior art purposes in the reference patent or application. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1377, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP §§ 2136 (I), 2136.03 (III), 2136 (Examples 2, 4, 7); see, e.g., Google LLC v. Ikorongo Tech, LLC, IPR 2021-00058, Paper 14 at 10–12 (PTAB May 10, 2021). The burden of production is on the Petitioner to show in its Petition that the asserted references qualify as prior art. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380 (explaining that a petitioner bears the initial burden of production to establish that the asserted references qualify as prior art).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Each of the remaining grounds asserted in the Petition relies on Saxonov to reach a number of limitations of independent claim 1 and the challenged dependent claims. Because Petitioner has not shown that all of the relied-upon portions of Saxonov are prior art to the ’170 patent, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’170 patent in any of the remaining grounds.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached

    “Because we deny institution upon consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s challenges, Patent Owner’s argument that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution is moot.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,770,170
• Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. California Institute Of TechnologyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01177 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–9 because Bio-Rad did not show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on any ground relying on Saxonov, which was not established as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 26. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’051 patent and the cited art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner has identified certain claim terms for which it has proposed constructions in a parallel proceeding. Pet. 27–29. Petitioner notes that it has that “[o]ther terms, as used herein, are consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments and positions in the parallel proceeding,” without identifying those terms. Id. at 28. Patent Owner requests that the Board adopt Patent Owner’s proposed constructions from the parallel proceeding for certain claim terms. PO Prelim. Resp. 26–27. Neither party provides a discussion for their proposed constructions. In any event, for purposes of this Decision, we determine there is no need to expressly construe any claim term, as the parties appear to agree to the ordinary and customary meaning of the identified terms.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “benefit of its provisional application’s filing date for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) prior art purposes when two conditions are met: (1) the provisional provides sufficient support for at least one claim in the reference patent or published patent application; and (2) the provisional application provides sufficient support for the subject matter relied upon for prior art purposes in the reference patent or application. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1377, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP §§ 2136 (I), 2136.03 (III), 2136 (Examples 2, 4, 7); see, e.g., Google LLC v. Ikorongo Tech, LLC, IPR2021-00058, Paper 14 at 10–12 (PTAB May 10, 2021). The burden of production is on the Petitioner to show in its Petition that the asserted references qualify as prior art. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380 (explaining that a petitioner bears the initial burden of production to establish that the asserted references qualify as prior art).” slip op. at 18

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

    “explains how each of the relied-upon disclosures in Saxonov Figures 9 and 10, and Saxonov paragraphs 17, 18, 37, 76, and 79, which are not present in the ’013 provisional, are supported by the ’013 provisional, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that those cited portions of Saxonov are entitled to the priority date of the ’013 provisional. Accordingly, on this record, we determine that those relied-upon portions of Saxonov do not qualify as prior art to the ’051 patent.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,068,051
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00977 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 7–13 and 15–20 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “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) (2023).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, physics, or a similar field and at least two years of experience designing semiconductor display devices, including LCD displays.” Pet. 19. Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional relevant work experience can compensate for less education, and vice versa.” Id. On the record presented, Patent Owner “does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . set forth in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any particular proffered definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’606 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “As discussed below, we are able to determine whether to institute review without resolving the construction of any claim terms. Accordingly, we need not and do not construe any terms expressly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8

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

    “view. First, as Petitioner admits, data line 6a is not connected to image signal line 101d and line 109 other than when sample hold circuit 101c connects them due to shift register 101b outputting an enabling signal. Pet. 49. This is supported by the layout of the four elements in Fujikawa’s Figure 2. Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (depicting sample hold circuits 101c between and connecting data lines 6a and signal lines 101d). In addition, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. E. Fred Schubert, testifies that “two separate lines straddling circuitry are [not] one line.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. The dispute between the parties on this issue is largely one of claim construction: should the term “wiring line” in claim 7 be construed broadly enough to encompass a collection of lines separated by a sample hold circuit? In order to determine that Fujikawa discloses or teaches the recited wiring lines, we would need to answer this question in the affirmative. Yet, as discussed above, neither party proposes construing “wiring line,” or any other term used in the claims of the ’606 patent. Pet. 18; Prelim. Resp. 7. The failure to argue for and sufficiently support a broad construction of the term “wiring line” means that Petitioner does not show sufficiently, for purposes of supporting institution of review, that Fujikawa discloses or teaches the “wiring line” limitation of claim 7. b) Conclusion Regarding Claim 7 Based on the record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 7 is unpatentable as anticipated by or obvious in view of Fujikawa.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,557,606
• Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00567 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
• Apple Inc. v. Dodots Licensing Solutions LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00937 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–21 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the relied-upon Slivka Appendices qualified as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “On this record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are “(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), . . . or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent.” 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Accordingly, the relied-upon Slivka Appendices do not qualify as prior art under § 102(e) as Petitioner asserts. Pet. 9. III. CONCLUSION Petitioner’s invalidity contentions rely, in part, on disclosures from the Slivka Appendices, which Petitioner asserts qualify as prior art under § 102(e). Pet. 9. Because Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of showing that the material it relies on was available as prior art at the time of the invention, we determine that the Petitioner has not satisfied its burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).” slip op. at 18

  • BurdenDenied

    “We determine that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Our determination is based on finding that Petitioner’s challenge relies on appendices (Ex. 1005, 69–245) missing from the ’695 patent (Ex. 1004) and insufficient indication on the record that the appendices have been incorporated into the ’695 patent, and that as a result, the relied-upon appendices do not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as Petitioner asserts. Pet. 9.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Appendices (Ex. 1005, 69–245) missing from the ’695 patent (Ex. 1004) as published because the Slivka Appendices were not incorporated by reference into the ’695 patent specification. Thus, there is no sufficient indication on this record to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are available prior art for an inter partes review, as they are neither part of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); see Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper No. 29 at 12–13 (December 20, 2019) (precedential) (discussing the standard at institution for a showing regarding the public availability of non-patent art). On this record Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the Slivka Appendices, as separately-filed documents should be accorded their stamped “DEC 6 1996,” date for prior art purposes. As Patent Owner correctly explains, “the rule requiring publication of applications ‘after the expiration of a period of eighteen months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought’ was not effective until November 29, 2000.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing 65 Fed. Reg. 57,024; 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(1)). For applications filed before November 29, 2000, as here, “the prosecution history of an application remain[ed] confidential until the application itself issue[d] as a patent.” Hyatt v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 797 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The current record, at most, might support a likelihood that the Slivka Appendices could be accorded the date they were first made publicly available, which is May 9, 2000, the date the ’695 patent issued. See 37 C.F.R. 1.11 (a) (“After a patent has been issued or a statutory invention registration has been published, the specification, drawings, and all papers relating to the case in the file of the patent or statutory invention registration are open to inspection by the public, and copies may be obtained by paying the fees therefore.”). As Patent Owner points out, however, this is “at least thirteen months after the ’545 patent’s effective filing date,” i.e., April 26, 1999 (based on a claim for priority to, inter alia, U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/131,083). Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 1001, code (60), 1:13–15. In addition, Petitioner only presents a case for availability of the Slivka reference under pre-AIA § 102(e). On this record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are “(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), . . . or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent.” 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Accordingly, the relied-upon Slivka Appendices do not qualify as prior art under § 102(e) as Petitioner asserts. Pet. 9.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 9,369,545
• Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00476 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11 unpatentable, principally failing to establish distinct lead wiring lines.

  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 an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that 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). We deny inter partes review, for example, where a petition fails to identify “with particularity” the challenges or evidence supporting them. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). For the reasons discussed below, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12

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

    “display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 7 Yoneda, JP2000267590A, published Mar. 19, 1999. Ex. 1011. 8 Tanaka, JP2004094020A, published Mar. 25, 2004, with exhibit including certified English language translation. Ex. 1012. 9 Hirosue, US 2003/0189686 A1, published Oct. 9, 2003. Ex. 1013. have either a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with three years of experience in the field of display technology or a master’s degree with one year of experience in the field of display technology.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41‒44). Patent Owner, “[f]or purposes of th[e] Preliminary Response . . . does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 7. On this record, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,335,913
• Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00475 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not sufficiently show that the counter-electrode potential line was one of the claimed main wiring lines coupled to peripheral driving circuits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). When challenging claims based on obviousness, the Petitioner must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The burden of persuasion, whether for anticipation or for unpatentability for obviousness, never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have either a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with three years of experience in the field of display technology or a master’s degree with one year of experience in the field of display technology.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38‒41). Patent Owner, “[f]or purposes of th[e]” slip op. at 6

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

    “5. Analysis Claim 1 recites “in a peripheral region of the image display region on the element substrate, a plurality of external circuit connection terminals, a plurality of main wiring lines . . . and peripheral driving circuits.” Ex. 1001, 21:55‒60. The plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase includes that the plurality of main wiring lines and peripheral driving circuits are formed on the element substrate. Claim 1 further recites, for the main wiring lines, “each having one end coupled to each of the plurality of external circuit connection terminals, and peripheral driving circuits coupled to the other ends of the main wiring lines.” Id. at 21:57‒59. The plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase is that each main wiring line is connected at one end to an external circuit connection terminal and, at the other end, to the peripheral driving circuits; this is how Petitioner addresses “a plurality of main wiring lines” as to this portion of claim 1 in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15 (“Figure 4 shows wiring lines coupled to the external connection terminals 102 at one end and coupled to peripheral circuits, including data line driving circuit 101, and scanning line driving circuit 104, at the other.”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 59. Petitioner and its driving circuit 104 as peripheral circuits. Pet. 15‒16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 78‒80, Fig. 4; reproducing Fig. 4 without annotation); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56‒59.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner fails, however, to address the clause, “which is at least one of the plurality of main wiring lines,” and the implication that follows from the plain language of the claim. Id. Specifically, as set forth above, the “plurality of main wiring lines” are coupled at one end to peripheral circuits, and Petitioner provides no basis for the wiring 400 (LCCOM) to be coupled to any element identified by Petitioner as a peripheral circuit. Id. at 15‒17 (identifying data line driving circuit 101 and scanning line driving circuit 104 as peripheral circuits). Rather, Petitioner sets forth that wiring 400 (LCCOM) “supplies potential from the external input terminal 102 to the vertical conduction terminal 106 and then to the counter electrode 21 on the counter substrate 20.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 85, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63‒65). Further, to the extent Petitioner states that Muraide “discloses a counter electrode provided in the peripheral region on a counter substrate that is arranged to face the element substrate” (id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 41; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60‒62)), Petitioner does not clearly identify the counter electrode as a peripheral circuit (id.) and, further, the counter electrode on the counter substrate is not a peripheral driving circuit on the element (“in a peripheral region of the image display region on the element substrate, . . . peripheral driving circuits” (emphasis added))). Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner fails to sufficiently establish “a counter electrode potential line that supplies counter electrode potential to the counter electrode, which is at least one of the plurality of main wiring lines.” Although Patent Owner did not clearly raise this particular issue, “[i]n an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). The burden of persuasion, whether for anticipation or for unpatentability for obviousness, never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Further, our role is not to remedy the deficiencies in Petitions that fall short. Sirona Dental Sys. GMBH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356–57 (2018)) (explaining that because “‘the petitioner’s contentions, not the Director’s discretion, define the scope . . . [,]’ [i]t would thus not be proper for the Board to deviate from the grounds in the petition and raise its own obviousness theory” “institut[ing] a different inter partes review”); cf. Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380–81 (rejecting an argument that the Board properly “ma[de] an obviousness argument on behalf of [petitioner]” that “could have been included in a properly-drafted petition,” because “petitioner . . . bears the burden of proof”).” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,116,390
• Vifor (International) AG v. Biofer S.P.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01608 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16, 19–21, and 23–25 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “step of reacting a sugar with bromine occurs “in a solution at a pH between 7.0 and 9.0.” Ex. 1001, 16:46–47. A dispositive question arises, on this record, as to whether Petitioner’s information, directed to this pH range limitation, is sufficient to support institution of review. For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner’s information is not sufficient and deny the Petition on that basis.” slip op. at 9

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

    “and 12 and that Stoll suggests a pH range of 7 or greater. Pet. 29–30 and n.7, 39. Those prior art pH ranges overlap or encompass the specified pH range of “between 7.0 and 9.0.” Pet. 38–39 and n.10. Under these circumstances, the burden of production shifts to Patent Owner to come forward with evidence of the criticality of the specified pH range limitation. See id. at 39–40 (quoting E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Patent Owner meets that burden by directing us to the Marchi Declaration. Resp. 9–12; Ex. 1004, 432–440. That evidence contains experimental results that support Dr. Marchi’s opinion that the claimed method, when performed at a pH of 8, “can be run with equimolar amounts of oxidant without increasing depolymerization,” but when performed at a pH of 10, results in an undesirable “depolymerizing attack on the main chain, even employing only 0.9 equivalents of oxidant.” Ex. 1004, 434–435 (¶ 7). As Patent Owner points out, moreover, the oxidation reaction in each of the examples in Geisser is carried out at a pH of 10. see Prelim. Resp. 26 and n.8 (citing Ex. 1006, Examples 1–8).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We assess the ground based on anticipation by Geisser in view of the principle that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim “if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The ground based on anticipation by Geisser rests on a conclusory opinion that Geisser’s disclosure of a pH range between 8 and 12 “describes” an oxidation reaction that occurs “at a pH between 7.0 and 9.0.” Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 178, which repeats that conclusory opinion verbatim without objective evidence or analysis). It is unclear on this record, and Petitioner does not explain adequately, how or why Geisser anticipates the pH range limitation of claim 1, which is “critical” for reasons explained above in our analysis of the ground based on obviousness over Geisser and Stoll. Ex. 1004, 435 (the Marchi Declaration, ¶ 7). Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing “with respect to at least [one] of the claims” based on any ground asserted in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner proposes that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would hold an advanced degree, such as an M.S. or doctorate, in chemistry, medicine, pharmacy, or a related degree,” as well as post-graduate experience “in areas of carbohydrate chemistry, synthetic chemistry, medicinal chemistry, inorganic chemistry, and/or metal carbohydrate complexes, or the clinical use of such complexes.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,759,320
• FTC Solar, Inc. v. FCX Solar, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-01101 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). 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.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, physics, or a similar discipline, and at least three to five years of work experience designing, analyzing, or evaluating solar trackers.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–39). Patent Owner supplements Petitioner’s description of a POSITA to include as similar disciplines “applied aerodynamics, aerospace engineering, fluid dynamics, photovoltaic systems engineering” and asserts that a POSITA in the field of solar trackers would “enlist the expertise of a damper expert in designing the dampers to provide desired characteristics to trackers.” Prelim. Resp. 14. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, as modified by Patent Owner; any differences between the parties’ descriptions do not affect our analysis. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). slip op. at 6

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In the litigation, the District Court determined that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand “damping ratio” to refer to “the damper providing the photovoltaic system with different damping ratios depending on the conditions.” Ex. 2005, 6:15–20. The District Court noted that intrinsic evidence supports “references to a damper having a [damping] ratio are made in the context of a damper installed in a system and are not about a damper in isolation.” Id. at 6:21–25. The District Court also noted that FTC’s7 expert, Dr. Codd, recognized that “pluck testing is the primary tool for determining a damping ratio, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with how to perform pluck testing.” Id. at 8:4–7. In view of the parties’ agreed-upon definition of the term “damping ratio” and the District Court’s claim construction analysis, we construe “damping ratio” to mean “a ratio determined by dividing the actual damping coefficient of a system by the critical damping coefficient of the system.”” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “parameter that is used imprecisely in the claims of the ’782 Patent to signify the damping force provided by the damper to the system.” Pet. 7 n.4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40 n.7). Thus, the Petition acknowledges a difference between the terms “damping ratio” and “damping force.” The footnote concludes “[h]ere, Petitioner has adopted Patent Owner’s interpretation of ‘damping ratio’ to signify the damping force provided by the damper to the invariant system.” Id. Petitioner cites to paragraph 40 n.7 of the Codd Declaration to support its assertion, but that paragraph parrots the language in the Petition, and Dr. Codd does not provide the underlying facts supporting his testimony.9 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,903,782
• Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. The Trustees Of Purdue UniversityInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2022 · IPR2022-00723 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Ryu disclosed or suggested the claimed current spreading layer, defeating the sole obviousness ground for claims 1–8 and 12–15.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. ANALYSIS We have authority to institute an inter partes review only where “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision are provided solely for the purpose of explaining our determination that Petitioner has not met that standard on this record.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner directs us to Dr. Subramanian’s opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technical field at the time of the invention “would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s [D]egree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of semiconductor devices.” Pet. 3; Ex. 1035 ¶ 23. In Petitioner’s and Dr. Subramanian’s further view, “Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 3; Ex. 1035 ¶ 23. Patent Owner counters, “Petitioner’s asserted level of skill in the art is absurdly low given the silicon carbide technology” that is the subject of the ’633 patent. Prelim. Resp. 17. In Patent Owner’s view, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed a Master’s Degree in electrical engineering or a related field “with a concentration in design and fabrication of silicon carbide power semiconductor devices” or a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering or a related field combined with “two years of experience in design and fabrication of silicon carbide power semiconductor devices.” Id. at 18–19. Patent Owner directs us to evidence that “[t]his level of ordinary skill is consistent with the specialized nature of the field of silicon carbide power semiconductor devices.” Id. at 19; Ex. 2004, x. Patent Owner further advances evidence that the ’633 patent inventors, as well as a “few others who were active in the highly specialized field of silicon carbide power devices,” possessed backgrounds consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed narrower definition of the level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 20; Ex. 2007, 1–2, 19; Ex. 2017, 1; Ex. 2018, 1; Ex. 2019, 1–2. On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself” may “reflect[] 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))). A more specific definition is not necessary, for purposes of deciding whether to institute review, at least because neither party explains how the result would change based on our selection of a definition. To the extent a more specific definition is required, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art. In any event, even under Petitioner’s broader definition, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial with respect to any challenged claim based on the grounds of unpatentability advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “C. Claim Construction We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We agree with the parties that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision. Pet. 34–35; Prelim. Resp. 21–22. To the extent that the scope of a term requires discussion, however, we provide it in the following analysis of the challenge.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner, however, further argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood Ryu’s regions 26a and the strip to be a ‘current spreading layer’ both because . . . current spreads laterally within it and Ryu forms that layer in the same way as the ’633 patent forms its current spreading layer.” Pet. 40 (text shading omitted) (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 85). On that point, we agree with Patent Owner that this is an inherency argument. Prelim. Resp. 49; see id. at 53 (further distinguishing the process of Ryu from the process disclosed in the ’633 patent). Inherency “is a high bar that requires the missing element be ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 49 (citation omitted; Patent Owner’s emphasis). Although Petitioner points out that both Ryu and the ’633 patent involve p-wells that are “implanted” (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–42 (Ryu)) or formed by “ion implantation” (Ex. 1001, 5:57–60), Petitioner does not explain adequately why that asserted similarity supports a conclusion that Ryu’s process necessarily produces a MOSFET having a current spreading layer as claimed in the ’633 patent. Pet. 48–49. Petitioner, therefore, does not meet that “high bar” in the Petition. See Pet. 48–49 (inadequate analysis). In a nutshell, Petitioner does not explain adequately why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have distinguished two structural components from the single component––JFET region 21––that is illustrated in Ryu’s Figure 2A. Petitioner’s rationale is insufficient to support trial institution because it is not tethered adequately to any intrinsic disclosure within the four corners of the reference. Pet. 40. Petitioner relies largely on extrinsic opinion testimony and background publications. Id. at 43–48. We detect in this exercise the taint of impermissible hindsight reconstruction.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,498,633

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.