- Google LLC v. Jenam Tech, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00928 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the challenged claims were entitled to the 2010 priority date, making Morris not prior art and defeating the sole obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claims challenged in the Petition. Thus, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“written-description requirement. Pet. 74. We disagree for two principal reasons. First, the paragraph explicitly describes a particular feature that is different from TCP: the ITP information may be in locations other than those specified by a particular version of TCP. Appl. ’454 ¶ 80. Second, Petitioner’s argument is based on a narrow reading that is divorced from the rest of the specification describing the invention’s purpose and scope: communication and cooperation between nodes. See Pet. 74. The nodes must communicate and cooperate because TCP has various” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)New argument disregardedDenied
“4 In an email to the Board on September 25, 2023, Petitioner requested authorization to file a four-page reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to address whether the claims fall within an exception of Gentry Gallery. Ex. 3001. Petitioner’s request was denied. Id. It may always be the case that a Petitioner disagrees with how Patent Owner characterizes the facts and law presented in the Petition. Our rules, however, provide for a Petitioner’s Reply only when good cause exists. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Petitioner failed to show good cause because the issues that Petitioner identified in its request could have been, but were not, addressed in the petition. See id.” slip op. at 13
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,986,217 - Google LLC v. Jenam Tech, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00927 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Morris was not prior art; the challenged claims were entitled to the February 27, 2010 priority date based on written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claims challenged in the Petition. Thus, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“The test for written description “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The specification must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed and “reasonably” convey to those skilled in the art “that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. The “level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“We disagree that the challenged claims are not entitled to February 27, 2010. Thus, Morris is not prior art, and Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“4 In an email to the Board on September 25, 2023, Petitioner requested authorization to file a four-page reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to address whether the claims fall within an exception of Gentry Gallery. Ex. 3001. Petitioner’s request was denied. Id. It may always be the case that a Petitioner disagrees with how Patent Owner characterizes the facts and law presented in the Petition. Our rules, however, provide for a Petitioner’s Reply only when good cause exists. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Petitioner failed to show good cause because the issues that Petitioner identified in its request could have been, but were not, addressed in the petition. See id.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,986,217 - Google LLC v. Jenam Tech, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2023-00925 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Morris was not prior art: claims 1 and 16 were entitled to the ’454 application’s priority date, so the obviousness challenge did not meet the institution threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claims challenged in the Petition. Thus, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“We disagree for two principal reasons. First, the ’454 application explicitly describes a particular feature that is different from TCP: the ITP information may be in locations other than those specified by a particular version of TCP. Appl. ’454 ¶ 80. Second, Petitioner’s argument about the non-TCP features is based on a narrow reading of that limitation and is divorced from the rest of the specification describing the invention’s purpose and scope: communication and cooperation between nodes. See Pet. 70–71.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“We disagree that the challenged claims are not entitled to February 27, 2010. Thus, Morris is not prior art, and Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,050,855 - Google LLC v. Jenam Tech, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2023-00926 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Morris was not prior art: the challenged claims were entitled to the ’454 application’s priority date, so the petition showed no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“We disagree for two principal reasons. First, the ’454 application explicitly describes a particular feature that is different from TCP: the ITP information may be in locations other than those specified by a particular version of TCP. Appl. ’454 ¶ 80. Second, Petitioner’s argument about the non-TCP features is based on a narrow reading of that limitation and is divorced from the rest of the specification describing the invention’s purpose and scope: communication and cooperation between nodes. See Pet. 64–65.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claims challenged in the Petition. Thus, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,050,855 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. G+ Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00665 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 9 was anticipated by Malladi or that claims 1–6 and 9–14 were obvious over Malladi-based combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In order to reach item 846, the UE must first perform step 820, which says “Decode the PDCCH for possible assignment.” Ex. 1005, Fig. 8. In order to decode a PDCCH, the PDCCH must first be detected. Additionally, the [0, 0] code which is sent in step 846 of Malladi Figure 8 also shows that the PDCCH was detected but improperly decoded. Malladi Figure 6 “shows four formats for fixed-size CQI and ACK information.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 16. In each of those formats, [0, 0] means “Missed PDCCH.” Ex. 1005, Fig. 6. Malladi further explains, in a detected, but incorrectly decoded such that the control information is missed: “[T]he UE incorrectly decodes the PDCCH and misses the control information.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 61 (emphasis added). In summary, the portions of Malladi describe a situation where a PDCCH was detected but incorrectly decoded, leading to a situation where the control information was missed/not received by the UE. In other words, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown, based on the current record, that Malladi discloses “when the user equipment fails to detect the physical downlink control channel corresponding to the transmitted data in the sub-frame which transmits the data” as recited in claim 9. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1001, 4:18–31 (highlighting added). The yellow highlighted language above describes a situation in which the UE “fails to detect.” The paragraph goes on with the disjunctive “or” (red) followed by a second situation where the UE “fails to receive the data” (light blue). See Ex. 1001, 4:18–31. The use of the disjunctive “or” implies that the failing to detect is different than failing to receive. Indeed, if the ’881 patent considered the fails to receive the same as fails to detect, there would be no need to list both items. However, the language recited in claim 9 only recites “fails to detect,” thus indicating that fails to receive is not encompassed by the claim. Thus the issue is whether Malladi discloses a UE that fails to detect or fails to receive. Based on the current record, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Malladi discloses a UE that fails to detect as recited in claim 9.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“Claim 1, like claim 9, recites substantially the same limitation discussed in the preceding section. Compare limitations [9.pre-1] and [9.c] (Ex. 1001, 12:55–58 and 13:18–20) with limitation [1.e] (Ex. 1001, 11:44– 47). Petitioner argues that “[t]he Malladi-TDTech combination discloses claim element[] . . . 1.e for substantially the same reasons Malladi discloses claim element[] . . . 9.c, . . . which recite the same or substantially the same features.” Pet. 53 (omission relate to other claim limitations). Petitioner further argues that the difference between Malladi and the Malladi-TDTech combination are “immaterial” for this limitation. Pet. 54. Stated differently, Petitioner does not argue that TDTech cures the deficiency associated with limitation [1.e]. deficiency associated with limitation [9.c]. Pet. 57. Nor does Petitioner argue that any of the other references it relies on relate to limitation [1.e] or [9.c]. See Pet. 58–71. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the previous section, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of showing that the subject matter of claims 1–6 and 9–14 would have been unpatentable based on Malladi and TDTech, either alone or in combination with additional references. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of wireless communication technology.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–25). Petitioner further argues that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner argues that “[b]ecause the proposed level of ordinary skill does not affect the ultimate analysis, Patent Owner takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 15. and undisputed by Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed formulation and apply it in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,184,881 - Google LLC v. Singular Computing LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 25, 2023 · IPR2023-00396 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence before us, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’775 patent. The Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the alleged invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Applied Mathematics, or the equivalent, and two years of academic or industry experience in computer architecture” and that “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–36).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“specification of the ’775 patent. But that does not mean “input-output unit” automatically can be construed as encompassing anything that has some tangential involvement in getting data into and out of a component which accepts and provides data. The construction still has to be reasonable and consistent with the specification, even under a broadest reasonable interpretation rule of claim construction that is more lenient than the Phillips standard which applies here. See In re Smith International, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). A particular reading is not deemed consistent with the specification simply because the specification does not expressly preclude that reading. Id. at 1382 (“Therefore, the Board’s reasoning that because the specification does not ‘in and of itself proscribe the Examiner’s construction,’ the examiner’s interpretation was reasonable, Board Decision, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 3764, at *4, was erroneous.”). Although an input-output unit must be connected to a system component to function as an input-output unit with respect to that component, it would be unreasonable to regard that connection, such as a data bus, as itself an input-output unit. A data bus carries data from place to place but does not have a significant role on when to place data onto the bus or when to off load data from the bus, or what data to place on the bus.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We need not resolve whether, as Petitioner contends, one with ordinary skill in the art would have modified Schmidt-2000’s 16-bit architecture to an 8-bit architecture, to perform, primarily, image processing applications. Even assuming that one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modification to Schmidt-2000’s KPROC chip, and successfully in doing so, Petitioner still has not made a sufficient accounting for limitations [1E] and [1J] as we explain below. We proceed to analyze claim 1, assuming as Petitioner contends, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Schmidt-2000’s 16-bit architecture to an 8-bit architecture, i.e., registers having 8 bits instead of 16 bits and all execution units, e.g., adders, multipliers, processing 8 bits at a time rather than 16 bits.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,169,775 - Google LLC v. Singular Computing LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 25, 2023 · IPR2023-00394 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“l) Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing obviousness of claim 1 over Schmidt-2000.” slip op. at 38
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not proposed its own articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Nor has Patent Owner expressed disagreement with Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill. Patent Owner states: “For the purpose of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 9. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. It appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). B.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Although an input-output unit must be connected to a system component to function as an input-output unit with respect to that component, it would be unreasonable to regard that connection, such as a data bus, as itself an input-output unit. A data bus carries data from place to place but does not have a significant role on when to place data onto the bus or when to off load data from the bus, or what data to place on the bus.” slip op. at 17
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“First, we explained above in Claim Construction Section III.B that it is unreasonable and not consistent with the specification of the ’616 patent to regard a data bus as an “input-output unit.” The analysis need not be reiterated here. Second, because limitation [1E] recites “an input-output unit connected to the first edge processing element and the second edge processing element,” it is unreasonable to treat registers within the first or second edge processing element as the input-output unit. Patent Owner correctly notes (Prelim. Resp. 24) that that would regard an internal reading is illogical and Petitioner points to nothing in the specification of the ’616 patent to indicate that the ’616 patent itself used the “connected to” term in this manner. Third, because neither the global data bus nor registers R48–R63 within each processor can be the claimed “input-output unit,” Petitioner provides no adequate reasoning how the two in combination can be the claimed “input-output unit.” We determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Schmidt- 2000 discloses limitation [1E].” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,754,616 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 14, 2023 · IPR2023-00105 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any claim unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’013 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’013 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’013 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“understand the claim term “a support pattern, provided on the second surface” recited in all challenged independent claims to mean a “support section that is part of a wiring pattern formed on the substrate’s second surface.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119–121, 133–134). At this time, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a support pattern, provided on the second surface.” See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe this term because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. 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 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“As discussed above in Section II.C, under the heading “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION,” the ’013 patent states that “[t]he object of the present invention is to provide a wiring substrate, a semiconductor device, and a package stack semiconductor device, all with improved reliability of connection by suppressing occurrence of inadequate electrical connection.” Ex. 1001, 3:60–64 (emphases added). The ’013 patent further states that A wiring substrate of the present invention, in order to achieve the foregoing object, includes an insulating substrate, a terminal section for wire bonding or flip-chip connection and a support pattern, provided on a surface of the other side of the surface where the terminal section is provided, and on a position corresponding to the terminal section, for improving reliability of connection of wire bonding. Therefore, this structure can suppress deformation of the insulating substrate by the support pattern, even when the terminal section is pressed in wire bonding or other connection methods. As a result, reliability of connection in wire bonding or other connection methods, can be improved than conventionally. Id. at 3:65–4:11 (emphases added). In view of these disclosures in the Specification and the express recitation “for improving wire bonding connection” in the claim, we determine that the limitation reciting “support pattern . . . for improving wire bonding connection” requires the recited “support pattern” to be capable of “improving wire bonding connection.” See GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“When a patent . . . describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.” (quoting Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007))); see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Statements that describe the invention as a whole are more likely to be found in certain sections of the specification, such as the Summary of the Invention.”).” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,731,013 - Eve Energy Co., Ltd. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01477 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–30 would be unpatentable, including a sufficient motivation to remove Brown’s stacking mechanism.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Id. Patent Owner states that the Preliminary Response “establishes that Petitioner’s arguments fail under its proffered definition of” a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 13. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See id. (“Patent Owner reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] if an IPR is instituted.”). To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“establishes that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Brown in the manner proposed. Brown teaches that its battery casing with the stacking mechanism is used in both single and multi-cell batteries: A cell casing for a primary dry cell battery of the button type is disclosed which includes a case with a first elongated electrically conductive member affixed centrally to its exterior surface, and a cover with a second elongated electrically conductive hollow member affixed centrally to its interior surface in communication with an aperture. Both a single and a multi-cell battery are described which include the above battery casing. Ex. 1005, 1:11–18 (emphasis added). Consistent with this teaching, Brown’s Example I describes a cell casing “formed generally in accordance” with the casing depicted in Brown’s Figure that includes a stacking mechanism, in particular a screw (member 14) welded to the outside center of case 11. Id. at 2:58–81. In Example II, the “non-stacking variant” cited by Petitioner, Pet. 15, Brown teaches using the “cell casing of Example I,” which includes the stacking mechanism, in a single-cell battery. Ex. 1005, 3:1–18. Brown explicitly states that the aperture in the cover is sealed when the cell is used in a single cell battery, but provides for no other” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In light of these disclosures in Brown, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Juzkow sufficiently explains why a POSITA would overlook Brown’s teaching that the casing includes the stacking mechanism regardless of the number of cells in the battery, in order to simplify the manufacturing process and produce a battery with a smooth cup surface that would reduce the space occupied by the battery when only a single cell is used. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); see Ex. 1005, 1:11–18, 3:1–18. Notably, Mr. Juzkow’s testimony in this regard merely repeats the conclusory and unsupported assertions in the Petition, without citing to additional evidence or providing any reasoning to support his statement. Mr. Juzkow’s testimony thus adds little to Petitioner’s conclusory assertions regarding a POSITA’s motivation to modify Brown, and is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential).” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,024,907 - Eve Energy Co., Ltd. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01484 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that the asserted combinations taught or suggested the claimed force-fitting connection holding the housing cup and top together.
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
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“top” that “are held together by a force-fitting connection.” Ex. 3001, 1:28– 29 (claim 1), 2:51–52 (claim 23). The parties disagree about whether the references on which Petitioner relies teach or suggest this limitation. Pet. 28–32, 64–66; Prelim. Resp. 53–61. As discussed more completely below, we are able to determine whether to institute trial without deciding precisely what the ’835 patent means when it describes two parts as “held together by a force-fitting connection.” Accordingly, we need not, and do not, construe this term expressly. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). Although we need not decide the precise meaning of “held together by a force-fitting connection” in order to decide whether to institute trial, we note (1) that, without some evidence to the contrary, a battery casing whose half-parts are “held together by” a particular condition must be a battery casing whose half-parts would no longer be held together if the condition were not present, and (2) that neither party has directed us to any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, whatever a “force-fitting connection” is, a battery made in accordance with the teachings of the prior art is not a battery that is “held together by a force-fitting connection” unless that battery would cease to be held together in the absence of the “force-fitting connection.”” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“Even if we accept Petitioner’s position that Kaun suggests radial forces around its seal, Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that such forces hold a housing cup and housing top together. With respect to the key “held together” recitation, Petitioner’s only argument or evidence in the Petition is a sole quote purportedly from Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Peckerar:” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,153,835
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.