• 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
• 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
• 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
• Motif Foodworks, Inc. v. Impossible Foods Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · IPR2022-00887 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–17 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “replica approximates the taste, texture or color of an equivalent muscle tissue derived from an animal source.” Ex. 1001, 5:34–36; Pet. 15. The ’761 patent describes many meat products comprising a high proportion of striated skeletal muscle in which individual muscle fibers are organized in an isotropic fashion and that replicas may mimic muscle by being “formed into asymmetric fibers” that “replicate muscle fibers” using extrusion and other methods known in the art. Ex. 1001, 25:48–50, 26:44–57; Pet. 15–16. These portions of the ’761 patent support Patent Owner’s position that “muscle replica” is not actual muscle because actual muscle tissue is “not a replica” of muscle tissue. Prelim. Resp. 8. Petitioner directs us to the ’761 patent’s disclosure that “[i]n some embodiments, the muscle replica and/or meat substitute product comprising the muscle replica are partially derived from animal sources.” Ex. 1001, 25:42–45; Pet. 16. Petitioner asserts that claim 1 encompasses “replicas made with animal products” because claim 12, which depends from claim 1, recites “wherein said beef replica product contains no animal products.” Ex. 1001, 50:26–28; Pet. 16. However, as Patent Owner points out, the ’761 patent discloses components derived from an animal source such as myoglobin, an isolated and purified heme-containing protein. Ex. 1001, 37:30–47, 38:25–32; Prelim. Resp. 8. The ’761 patent describes muscle replica being “partially derived from animal sources” or “entirely derived from non-animal sources.” Ex. 1001, 25:42–48 (emphasis added). The ’761 patent lists a number of components present in animal muscle tissue that may be included in the muscle replica and specifically describes protein components that are isolated, purified proteins or artificially designed proteins to emulate physical properties of animal muscle tissue. Ex. 1001, 26:59–27:43. Therefore, based on the context of “muscle replica” as used in the ’761 patent written description, the term “muscle replica” may include components derived from animal sources; however, animal muscle tissue itself is not “muscle replica.” As such, a “replica” does not encompass the actual material that it replicates or approximates. Accordingly, we construe “muscle replica” to mean “a composition approximating the taste, texture or color of an equivalent muscle tissue derived from an animal source; the muscle replica may include components derived from an animal source, but does not include muscle tissue itself” and “replica” such that it “excludes the actual material being replicated or approximated” for purposes of the present decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); see PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.”). In addition, a prior art reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim’” in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). slip op. at 12

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

    “animal-free embodiments in McMindes, Petitioner does not clearly articulate that it is relying on an embodiment of McMindes that does not contain any animal tissue in combination with hemoglobins from Ljublinksij as corresponding to the claimed muscle replica. Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate its challenge violates our rules, and is inadequate to satisfy Petitioner’s burden on institution. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (requiring, inter alia, that “[t]he petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon”). To the extent that Petitioner is relying on a combination that includes an entirely animal-free embodiment of McMindes, Petitioner contends that “a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Ljublinskij’s hemoglobin at a concentration between 0.1–5.0%, precisely as claimed in the ’761 patent” to attain desirable coloration of the McMindes product. Pet. 59. This argument is not persuasive, as Petitioner relies on the ’761 patent itself for the exact amount of heme protein that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated into McMindes’s animal-free product to achieve a desirable color. Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1001, 34:50–55, 37:24–26). In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s suggested motivation to combine McMindes and Ljublinskij is guided by improper hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 45–46. We recognize Petitioner’s assertion that “McMindes’s ‘preferred’ concentration of colorant is ‘between 0.1% to 5%.’” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). This statement in McMindes, however, refers to the concentration of colorants such as caramel color and other food dyes, and McMindes provides great detail for coloring a soy protein containing food product, including the use of carmine as “an internal color” and caramel as “the external color” to achieve contrasting red and brown coloring. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–91. Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would substitute Ljublinskij’s hemoglobin for these colorants because it purportedly provides “a more natural meat-like coloring than these ingredients,” but Petitioner does not direct us to evidence demonstrating that the use of hemoglobin achieves this result. Pet. 60. Petitioner cites to paragraph 372 of the Tarté Declaration to support its assertion, but that paragraph parrots the language in the Petition, and Dr. Tarté does not provide the underlying facts supporting his testimony. 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.”). Thus, we find Petitioner does not provide adequate support for its assertions regarding the substitution of Ljublinskij’s hemoglobin for the colorants of McMindes at all, let alone in the amounts recited in claim 1. In addition, Petitioner’s attempt to address separately “muscle replica” and “comprising 0.1%-5% of a heme-containing protein” is unavailing, as it effectively rewrites the claim language. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing claim 1, as well as its dependent claims, would have been obvious over McMindes in combination with Ljublinskij.” slip op. at 17

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

    “obviousness argument does not sufficiently explain what portions of McMindes’s disclosure would have been modified by a POSITA and how those portions would have been modified to form a “muscle replica” as required by claim 1. To the extent Petitioner’s argument relies on McMindes’s hybrid product containing meat, Petitioner has not established that McMindes discloses a “muscle replica comprising 0.1%–5% of a heme-containing protein, at least one sugar compound and at least one sulfur compound” as construed herein. To the extent that Petitioner’s argument relies on substituting Sonac’s colorant for meat with McMindes’s colorants for a nonmeat containing product, Petitioner does not establish sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make that substitution or that using different types of colorants for such different products are interchangeable. We recognize Petitioner’s assertion that Sonac teaches that Harimix gives meat products a “natural color,” but there is insufficient evidence to support a determination that the substitution would result in “better meat-like coloring” than those used in McMindes. Pet. 63– 64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). At best, Dr. Tarté’s testimony demonstrates Harimix provides a “meat color,” whereas carmine (used in McMindes) produces a “red/pink” color. Ex. 1003 ¶ 388. But Dr. Tarté does not explain sufficiently why one color is better than another, or address the fact that McMindes does not use only carmine as its colorant. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing claim 1, as well as its dependent claims, would have been obvious over McMindes in combination with Sonac.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,863,761
• Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited / Fonterra USA Inc. v. Arla Foods AmbaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 31, 2022 · IPR2022-00661 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Because the “total amount of protein . . . on a dry weight basis” required by claim 1 and taught by the asserted prior art is disputed in the parties’ papers, we construe this claim term in order to determine whether or not to institute trial. As Petitioner indicates, the ’146 patent states “the term ‘total protein’ pertains to the total amount of true protein of a composition or product and disregards non-protein nitrogen (NPN).” Ex. 1001, 3:53–56; Pet. 11. The ’146 patent also specifies “the term ‘dry weight’ of a composition or product relates to the weight of the composition or product when it has been dried to a water content of 3% (w/w) water.” Ex. 1001, 11:26–29; Pet. 11. These portions of the ’146 patent support Petitioner’s proposed construction of “total amount of protein . . . on a dry weight basis” as the total weight of true protein disregarding non-protein nitrogen when the composition in question has been dried to 3% (w/w) water. Pet. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction for purposes of the present decision.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); see PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.”). The proper inquiry for inherent anticipation is whether the claimed limitations “necessarily result” from practicing V Powder. See, e.g., Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 960–61 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming judgment that claims were not inherently anticipated where the prior art only showed that the limitation might occur, not that it inevitably occurred). Even if a theoretical value is appropriate to establish the claimed limitations “necessarily result” from practicing V Powder, Petitioner has not established that V Powder discloses a protein amount on a dry weight basis as construed herein. Petitioner argues that “[t]he V Powder Publication taught that ‘substantially denatured whey protein . . . is dried to a moisture content of less than 5%’” and that, “[t]hus, the protein content of Powder F was reported ‘on a dry weight basis.’” Pet. 28–29 (quoting Ex. 1004, 24:1– 2). V Powder does indeed teach that, “[i]n certain embodiments the heat treated, substantially denatured whey protein, for example the WPC or WPI, is dried to a moisture content of less than 5%.” Ex. 1004, 24:1–2. Petitioner, however, has not shown sufficiently that a dried to a moisture content of less than 5% necessarily discloses the required dried to a moisture content of 3%. Thus, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing V Powder anticipates claims 1–4, 6–9, and 22. slip op. at 8

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

    “Although the ’146 patent defines “dry weight basis” as requiring drying “to a water content of 3% (w/w) water,” V Powder teaches only drying “to a moisture content of less than 5%.” Ex. 1001, 11:26–29; Ex. 1004, 24:1–2. Petitioner does not explain why the obviousness of a claim requiring a specific water content of 3% is supported by a reference teaching a much broader range of water contents between 0% and 5%. Pet. 28–29. Nor is it clear to us why such an obviousness argument should prevail. It is true that “a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But the specific water content of the challenged claims (precisely “a water content of 3% (w/w) water”) is not a “somewhat narrower claimed range” that is encompassed by the broader range of V Powder. Id. It is not a range at all; rather, it is a single, discrete point. This distinguishes the present situation from that in Peterson, in which the claims at issue recited ranges formed from single values that were modified in each case by the term “about.” Id. at 1327 (reciting, e.g., “about 14 percent chromium,” “about 9.5 percent cobalt,” and “about 3.8 percent tungsten”). Instead, this case presents a situation more analogous to that in In re Baird, in which the prior art taught a wide range of chemical compounds and the claims at issue recited a single compound within that range. 16 F.3d 380, 382 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“the generic diphenol formula disclosed in [the reference] . . . encompasses more than 100 million different diphenols, only one of which is [the claimed] bisphenol A”). The teaching of a genus by a prior-art reference does not necessarily establish the obviousness of all possible species or subgenera that are encompassed by that genus. In re Baird, 16 F.3d at 382. Here, the challenged claims require a specific water content unmodified by “about” or any similar term. Ex. 1001, 13:18–21. There are numerous discrete points within the continuous range of 0% to 5% water content taught by V Powder. Under these facts, in the absence of some explanation from Petitioner as to why the conclusion would be warranted, we cannot conclude that the disclosure in V Powder supports the obviousness of the challenged claims. The present record provides no such explanation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the prior art teaches or suggests the “dry weight basis” limitation present in all the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of V” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,709,146
• Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01173 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Weiss-based grounds teach or suggest the claimed residual marine fuel oil.

  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

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “D. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). Prelim. Resp. 12–31. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 6–12. Because we deny institution based on the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments, we need not decide whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We determine we need not expressly construe any terms of the challenged claims at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “feedstock HMFO and the product HMFO of the challenged claims, as Petitioner argues it does, Petitioner must show that Weiss ’974 teaches or suggests four facts: (1) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is a residual petroleum 10 Petitioner defines “HSFO” as being a “high-sulfur HMFO” and “LSFO” as being a “low-sulfur HMFO.” Pet. 1. product, (2) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is ISO-8217-compliant, (3) the post-hydrotreatment LSFO is a residual petroleum product, and (4) the posthydrotreatment LSFO is ISO-8217-compliant. Petitioner does not show all four of these facts sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims are anticipated by Weiss ’974 or obvious over the combination of Weiss ’974 and Weiss ’515.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,584,287
• Berkeley Lights, Inc. v. The University Of British ColumbiaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01250 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2020). Applying that standard, we do not institute an inter partes review, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on Dr. Meinhart’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, (bio)chemistry, or an equivalent degree relevant to microfluidic biological cell analysis, and three to five years of experience with the construction of and application of microfluidic devices to cell culture and analysis.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of ordinary skill in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Because it is supported by testimonial evidence and appears reasonable at this stage in light of the subject matter of the ’936 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for this decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Regardless of whether Patent Owner is correct that the Petition is deficient under § 42.104(b)(3), our decision not to institute does not depend on the construction of “chamber” or whether claim 6 invokes § 112 para. 6. Thus, we do not need to construe either term explicitly for our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner has the ultimate burden of persuasion on the question of whether a claim is entitled to the priority date of an earlier application. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[A] patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In particular, “[t]o be entitled to a parent’s effective filing date, a continuation must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.” In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). The test for the written description requirement “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). A prior application need not contain precisely the same words as are found in the asserted claims. See Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Purdue Pharma LP v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.”). On the other hand, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A key factor in this written description analysis, which Petitioner did not clearly address in its Petition, is the meaning of “measuring a cell product” in limitation 1D. The ’936 patent discloses that “[t]he measuring the cell product [step] may be selected from one or more of: lineage staining; cell-surface protein staining; antibody staining; enzymatic assay; RT-PCR analysis; PCR analysis; sequencing; functional assay; and bead capture assay to characterize the cells.” Ex. 1001, 6:47–51. This appears to be definitional, such that the meaning of “measuring a cell product secreted by the individual clonal cell populations, or subset thereof,” as in limitation 1D, would include using any one of these listed techniques to analyze cell secretion products. This passage is also consistent with the other claims in the ’936 patent, such as claim 18, which depends from claim 1 and further states that the “measuring the cell product” step “comprises flowing a fluid comprising an immunostaining agent, an enzymatic reagent, a dye or a functionalized bead into the individual chambers.” Id. at 48:29–32; see also id. at 48:33–48 (similar limitations in claims 19–23). As Patent Owner persuasively shows on the present record, the ’213 application discloses many of these analytical techniques, including staining, functional assay, and bead capture. See Prelim. Resp. 15–17. We also find persuasive Dr. Pelanda’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the references in the ’213 application to these analytical techniques relate to analysis of secreted cell products, and that a particular focus of the ’213 application was to use the microfluidic device for analyzing autocrine signaling, which involves detecting or analyzing cell secretions. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 22–32. For the above reasons, on the present record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’213 application lacks disclosure such that Lecault is prior art to the challenged patent. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its first and third grounds with respect to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,421,936
• Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. The United States Of America, Represented By The Secretary Of The Department Of Health & Human ServicesInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2020 · IPR2019-01453 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11 and 13 unpatentable over Szekeres, Smith, or their combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “Neither Szekeres nor Smith was cited during examination of the ’509 patent. Pet. 87–88. Instead, they “were considered during examination of a subsequently filed application.” Id. at 88; see also Prelim. Resp. 20 (Patent Owner conceding that “the Examiner considered Petitioner’s asserted references in the ’191 patent after the ’509 patent issued”). Under such circumstances, and because, as explained below, we deny institution based on substantive analysis of the Petition, we decline to decide whether institution should be denied on a discretionary basis under § 325(d).” slip op. at 6

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

    “facts unique to each patent. See, e.g., Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., 935 F.3d 1370, 1373–76 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming construction that result or efficacy language appearing in a wherein clause was limiting in light of the intrinsic evidence as a whole). Indeed, determining whether allegedly non-limiting language in a preamble or otherwise “involves examination of the entire patent record to determine what invention the patentee intended to define and protect.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478–80 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Allergan, 935 F.3d at 1374 (holding the court “must read the claims in view of the entire specification” and prosecution history) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Based on the entire intrinsic record, we find “protection” is at the heart of the ’509 patent’s invention. In the body of claim 1, step (a) recites “selecting a primate host not infected with the immunodeficiency retrovirus.” Ex. 1001, 12:41–42 (emphases added). The “immunodeficiency retrovirus” in step (a), therefore, requires the preamble language for antecedent basis. Also, the preamble provides meaning about the nature of the infection recited in the body of the claim: “a self-replicating infection by an immunodeficiency retrovirus.”4 Id. at 12:38–39.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Moreover, the brief, high-level mention in Szekeres of Truvada’s FDA-approval does not sufficiently describe Truvada’s use in a PrEP treatment that satisfies step (b) of the claims. When anticipation is the issue, close is not enough. Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 756 F.2d 1556, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding “anticipation is not shown by a prior art disclosure which is only ‘substantially the same’ as the claimed invention”), overruled on other grounds, A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). Indeed, “[a] prior art disclosure that ‘almost’” discloses all the elements arranged exactly as in the claim, “may render the claim invalid under § 103, [but] it does not 18 ‘anticipate.’” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.”). Here, Petitioner’s theory pieces together a host of disclosures, such as a potential for resistance with certain agents, and then filters and combines those disclosures based on what an ordinarily skilled person allegedly would have “understood” to ultimately conclude that Szekeres unambiguously describes PrEP combination therapy with Truvada.5 Pet. 38–42. But Szekeres simply does not describe in any adequate detail actual or prophetic use of Truvada in a PrEP regimen. In sum, Szekeres does not disclose step (b).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,044,509

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.