- NXP USA, Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00142 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
In the decision…and thus teaches away from, combining Marques and Lee in the manner Petitioner does. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (teaching away requires that a reference “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the claimed solution); Pet. 41–44. We also…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may be instituted if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under 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). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’330 patent “would have had at least the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and one to two years of experience in the field of circuit design, particularly the design of circuits operating at high frequencies.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’330 patent or identify any specific shortcoming in Petitioner’s definition. See Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 4. This definition is consistent with the ’330 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “no express constructions of the claims are necessary to assess whether the prior art reads on the challenged claims.” Pet. 8. However, Petitioner also cites to a Special Master Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction where “node” was construed to mean “a point of connection or intersection in an electrical circuit.” Id. at 9 (quoting Ex. 1015, 29). Patent Owner adopts this construction for purposes of this Decision on Institution. Prelim. Resp. 8. We find that this construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “node.” We thus apply the construction as such to our analysis below, and we determine that we need not provide an express construction of any other claim term for purposes of this institution decision.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“[claim] limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “A claim limitation is inherent in the prior art if it is necessarily present in the prior art, not merely probably or possibly present.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite, Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Moreover, “[t]o anticipate, the 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.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F. 3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, it is not enough to be able to find all of the pieces of the claimed invention somewhere in a prior art reference; rather, those elements must be set out in the prior art reference in the same way they are in the claimed invention. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,535,330 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01397 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Dexcom did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 11–27 were unpatentable.
In the decision…based on obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the 14 IPR2023-01397 Patent 11,266,335 B2 teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. Figure 29 is a “cross-sectional view,… of the insertion device” disclosed by Raymond. Ex. 1110 ¶ 55. Another view of base 122 is depicted in Raymond’s Figure 18, a detail of which is reproduced below: Detail of Figure 18 of Raymond showing base 122 As depicted in Figure 18, base 122 of Raymond’s device comprises a circular disk, with an annular ring on the proximal side. This view is consistent with the cross-sectional view of base 122 in Raymond’s Figure 29, reproduced below: Detail of Raymond’s Figure 29 depicting a cross-sectional view of base 122 The annular ring of base 122, as depicted in Raymond’s Figures 18 and 29 thus comprises, at most, a single recess encircling base 122 beneath the annular ring at the periphery of the base. As such, it neither teaches nor suggests “a plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on-body electronics unit housing, wherein the plurality of recesses comprises a first recess in a spaced relation to a second recess,” as required by challenged claim 1 of the ’335 patent. Petitioner’s argument that Figures 20 and 30 of Raymond depict” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Detail of Raymond’s Figure 29 depicting a cross-sectional view of base 122 The annular ring of base 122, as depicted in Raymond’s Figures 18 and 29 thus comprises, at most, a single recess encircling base 122 beneath the annular ring at the periphery of the base. As such, it neither teaches nor suggests “a plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on-body electronics unit housing, wherein the plurality of recesses comprises a first recess in a spaced relation to a second recess,” as required by challenged claim 1 of the ’335 patent. Petitioner’s argument that Figures 20 and 30 of Raymond depict plural recesses in Raymond’s base 122 is based upon a false premise. See Pet. 37–38. The depiction of base 122 in these Figures is entirely consistent with the depiction of base 122 in Raymond’s Figure 18 as having an annular ring with a single recess situated beneath its rim. With respect to Petitioner’s argument that it would have been an obvious design choice to implement two spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing (see Pet. 38), neither Petitioner nor its Declarant, Dr. Fletcher, adduces any evidence beyond that conclusory statement. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 70; Ex. 1110, Figs. 18, 25–27); Ex. 1003, 77. Petitioner makes no persuasive argument as to why a skilled artisan would substitute multiple recesses for a single annular ring, which seemingly serves the purpose of allowing base 122 to be held in position by base-retaining arms 1226. To the contrary, substituting multiple recesses in base 122 to engage retaining arms 1226, and ensuring that each retaining arm 1226 suitably engages each recess, would seem only to add needless complexity to the design, without producing a substantial benefit or improvement.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Turner’s rotation-resisting recesses 77 are not located on the periphery of its body 20. Instead, they are disclosed as being located upon the upper surface of body 20, between its central axis and its edge, and are configured to receive rotation-resisting protrusions 71 of insertion device 70. This placement of rotation-resisting recesses 77 is depicted in Figure 9 of Turner, which is reproduced again below: Figure 9 of Turner is a perspective, exploded view of its fluid delivery system including body 20 and rotation-restricting recesses 77 We therefore find that Turner does not teach or suggest the limitation of challenged claim 1 (and all claims by their dependency) reciting “an on body electronics unit housing comprising a plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on body electronics unit housing.” We further conclude that Petitioner provides no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to alter the location of Turner’s rotation-resisting recesses 77 from the upper surface to the circumferential periphery of body 20, because Turner and the ’335 patent teach that their respective recesses serve different functions. Turner teaches that:” slip op. at 47
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“Because we deny institution of inter partes review on the merits, we need not reach the parties’ arguments with respect to whether we should exercise our discretion and deny institution of inter partes review under Section 325(d). As we conclude in Sections IV.B.2.d and IV.C.2.c above, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating at trial that the challenged claims are unpatentable over the combination of Thomas and Raymond, or of Thomas, Raymond, and Turner. That remains true even if, arguendo, the Examiner materially erred in concluding that Thomas is not prior art to the ’335 patent, an issue upon 13 Thomas et al. (US 2010/0198034 A1, August 5, 2010) (“Thomas ’034”), Ex. 2101. 14 The publication date of the Thomas reference that is a basis of Grounds 1 and 2 in this inter partes review is August 12, 2010, one week after the publication of Thomas ’034. which we express no view. We consequently deny as moot Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion under Section 325(d).” slip op. at 51
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,266,335 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01396 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 11–27 were unpatentable.
In the decision…based on obviousness must 14 IPR2023-001396 Patent 11,266,335 B2 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…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Board “may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless … the information presented in the petition … and any response … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the 1 The other Petition seeking inter partes review of challenged claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 11–27 of the ’335 patent is in Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., IPR2023-01397 (filed October 6, 2023). 2 Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, the Explanation, the Explanation Response, and the evidence of record as presently developed, we determine that the evidence presented fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would ultimately prevail at trial in establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims of the ’335 patent. We consequently deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We further conclude that Petitioner provides no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to alter the location of Turner’s rotation-resisting recesses 77 from the upper surface of body 20 to the periphery of body 20, because Turner and the ’335 patent teach that their respective recesses serve different functions. Turner teaches that: Body 20 and insertion device 70 may be configured such that insertion device 70 cannot rotate with respect to body 20 when fully inserted in body 20. One manner of achieving this configuration comprises providing hub 74 with rotation-restricting protrusions 71, which extend in a downstream or downward direction from the main portion of insertion device hub 74, and by providing cap element 24 of body 20 with rotation-restricting recesses 77. When insertion device 70 is fully inserted in body 20, as shown in FIG. 3, at least a portion of each protrusion 71 extends into each recess 77 such that the recess side walls interfere with the protrusions to prevent rotation of the insertion device relative to body 20.” slip op. at 49
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,266,335 - Medit Corporation v. 3shape A/SInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01314 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
In the decision…where any object detected is therefore a moving or ‘non-rigid’ object at the location.” Id. As support, Petitioner directs us to Newcombe’s teaching that “Fig. 6 shows the case where differences between the previous depth image 500 and the current depth image 600 (e.g. due to new or moving…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner. Claim 1 requires “determining . . . a first excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the first 3D representation and the second 3D representation.” Petitioner contends that Newcombe’s “first compatibility test can be used to determine an excluded volume,” where “the first compatibility test relies on defining a threshold distance for a measurement between points in two 3D depth images – i.e., a ‘source point’ in a previous depth image and a ‘destination point’ in a current depth image.” Pet. 26. According to Petitioner, “by defining a distance threshold for the two three-dimensional depth images beyond which any point will be deemed an outlier, Newcombe teaches the determination of an excluded volume.” Id. at 28. Without more, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how defining a threshold distance teaches determining a first excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the previous and current depth images. Nor is it clear from the record how defining a threshold distance in Newcombe teaches determining a first excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the previous and current depth images. Regarding Figure 6 of Newcombe, for instance, “only a single destination point is selected for each source point.” Ex. 1005, 8:22–23. According to Newcombe, if that single destination point is in space beyond the distance threshold, then it will be labeled as belonging to a moving object. See id. at 1:57–61, 8:42–48. Contrary to Petitioner’s position, Newcombe does not say that any point in space beyond the distance threshold will be labeled as belonging to a moving object. See Pet. 28.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner. Claim 1 requires “determining . . . a first excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the first 3D representation and the second 3D representation.” Petitioner contends that Newcombe’s “first compatibility test can be used to determine an excluded volume,” where “the first compatibility test relies on defining a threshold distance for a measurement between points in two 3D depth images – i.e., a ‘source point’ in a previous depth image and a ‘destination point’ in a current depth image.” Pet. 26. According to Petitioner, “by defining a distance threshold for the two three-dimensional depth images beyond which any point will be deemed an outlier, Newcombe teaches the determination of an excluded volume.” Id. at 28. Without more, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how defining a threshold distance teaches determining a first excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the previous and current depth images. Nor is it clear from the record how defining a threshold distance in Newcombe teaches determining a first excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the previous and current depth images. Regarding Figure 6 of Newcombe, for instance, “only a single destination point is selected for each source point.” Ex. 1005, 8:22–23. According to Newcombe, if that single destination point is in space beyond the distance threshold, then it will be labeled as belonging to a moving object. See id. at 1:57–61, 8:42–48. Contrary to Petitioner’s position, Newcombe does not say that any point in space beyond the distance threshold will be labeled as belonging to a moving object. See Pet. 28.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated on the record before us a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’553 patent.7 V. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted. 7 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Prelim. Resp. 43–48.” slip op. at 30
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Regarding the preambles of independent claims 1 and 22, as well as the claim term “excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the first 3D representation and the second 3D representation,” Petitioner asserts that it “applies the claim construction previously adopted by the district court in the co-pending litigation.” Pet. 9–10. Petitioner asserts that “the parties agreed that the preambles of independent claims 1 and 22 are limiting, and the district court adopted this construction in its order.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1011, 2 (district court claim construction order)). Petitioner also asserts that “the district court adopted Patent Owner’s preferred construction of [‘excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the first 3D representation and the second 3D representation’]: ‘excluded volume in space that is common to both the first and second 3D representations where no surface from either of the 3D representations should be present.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1011, 2). Patent Owner does not respond other than to repeat Petitioner’s assertions regarding the district court’s claim constructions. Prelim. Resp. 9. For purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim term requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,064,553 - Medit Corporation v. 3shape A/SInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01313 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
In the decision…where any object detected is therefore a moving or ‘non-rigid’ object at the location.” Id. As support, Petitioner directs us to Newcombe’s teaching that “FIG. 6 shows the case where differences between the previous depth image 500 and the current depth image 600 (e.g. due to new or moving…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated on the record before us a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’551 patent.7 V. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Claim 1 requires “determining . . . a first excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the first 3D representation and the second 3D representation.” Petitioner contends that Newcombe’s “first compatibility test can be used to determine an excluded volume,” where “the first compatibility test relies on defining a threshold distance for a measurement between points in two 3D depth images – i.e., a ‘source point’ in a previous depth image and a ‘destination point’ in a current depth image.” Pet. 26. According to Petitioner, “by defining a distance threshold for the two three-dimensional depth images beyond which any point will be deemed an outlier, Newcombe teaches the determination of an excluded volume.” Id. at 28. Without more, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how defining a threshold distance teaches determining a first excluded volume in space where no surface can be present in both the previous and current depth images.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated on the record before us a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’551 patent.7 V. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted. 7 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Prelim. Resp. 46–51.” slip op. at 33
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated on the record before us a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’551 patent.7 V. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted. 7 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Prelim. Resp. 46–51.” slip op. at 33
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,629,551 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01325 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–6 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
In the decision…1, 17–18 (1966). Moreover, “[a]n obviousness determination requires finding both 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…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 1, 4, and 4–6 of the ’033 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“concerning the ’834 patent, the intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful in revealing an affirmative meaning for the claims’ “spacing(s)” terms. IPR2023-01151, Paper 12, 39–41. The Specification does not use the term “spacings” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful, but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them. And, portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. For example, the applicant distinguished claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 2140, 1001 (suggesting a more “loosely defined fiber structure” may be covered); see also Ex. 1002, 29–30 (asserting the claimed design has “a lesser [fiber] density construction” compared to Walther). This begs the question, at what point does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” convert to a cloth having a “loosely defined” fiber structure that would come within the scope of the claimed “spacings?” The record does not answer. Applicant’s suggestion during prosecution that the claimed spacings between fibers are “intentionally placed” about the frame and not simply “the spacing that may be inherent” in fibrous cloths is also unavailing on this record in clearly defining the metes and bounds of the term. Ex. 1002, 28–29. Whether the alleged absence of “objective boundaries” for the term “spacings” supports a conclusion that the claims are invalid as indefinite would be a question for the court. Paper 11, 5 (arguing There is insufficient technical detail available to determine whether the SAPIEN 3 Ultra does or does not include “spacings” as claimed and we take no position on whether such device infringes any claim of the ’033 patent. that a conclusion that the claims are indefinite is “outside the Board’s [IPR] jurisdiction”).12 Notwithstanding the lack of any express claim construction for the “spacings” term from either party, claim 1 of the ’033 patent requires something more than just “spacings.” Claim 1 requires “spacings extending through a thickness of the sealing assembly that allow fluid to pass therethrough when the prosthetic heart valve assembly is in an undeployed state.” Ex. 1001, 22:11–15 (emphasis added). In other words, the spacings must allow fluid to pass through the sealing assembly’s thickness when the valve is undeployed. For reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded on this record that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that this limitation is met—particularly the fluid-passing element—in the proposed combinations of Spenser or Levi with Spenser II.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We, thus, find Dr. Brecker’s testimony more credible that “[i]t would, accordingly, be counterintuitive for a [POSA] to look to a device designed to occlude a blood vessel when designing a TAVR.” Id. ¶¶ 119–120 (testifying “[n]o [POSA] would look to this [occluder] design when considering a TAVR valve and . . . would further have concerns about the pro-thrombotic potential of the arrangement of fibers in Chuter”). Where a proposed combination would run counter to the primary reference’s stated purpose, the POSA would not generally be motivated to make that combination. Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 43
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner
“Grounds 1 and 2 is based on the combination of either Levi and Spenser II, or Spenser and Spenser II. Yet Petitioner purports to modify Spenser II’s compressible material, or supplant it with something else, based on “porous” fabrics allegedly known elsewhere in the art, which art is not identified in the Petition itself as part of any asserted combination. Pet. 49. To see what specific modifications or combinations Petitioner might be suggesting, requires we look to three paragraphs of Dr. Buller’s Declaration, cited but not discussed by Petitioner, where eight additional references are mentioned. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (identifying Exs. 1106–1112, and 1129). This format is an improper incorporation-by-reference of argument and evidence that, had Petitioner wanted to pursue some other combination of asserted art beyond Levi, Spenser, and Spenser II, needed to be set forth explicitly in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Moreover, it leaves the record unclear and forces Patent Owner, the Board, and the public to guess at what combination(s) are, in fact, being urged. We also find that Petitioner’s position reveals a hindsight bias insofar as it suggests, with the aim of arriving at the claimed subject matter, removing Spenser II’s “sufficiently dense” and fluid impermeable compressible material (Ex. 2128 ¶ 222) in favor of some other sufficiently “porous” and fluid permeable material. Hindsight is further evidenced because Spenser II’s cited material is already described as being compressible and adapted to allow coagulation and tissue ingrowth—factors cited by Patent Owner as allegedly motivating a change to some other material. Ex. 1011 ¶ 145. Altogether, we find unpersuasive Petitioner’s position based on unspecified combinations of unasserted prior art to achieve benefits that Spenser II’s existing compressible material already provides.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,491,033 - Sram, LLC v. Fox Factory, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01301 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, chiefly because the references did not meet claim 1’s oil-retention limitation.
In the decision…needs, failure of others, etc.” Id. at 17–18; KSR, 550 U.S. at 407. “Whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the teachings of a reference is a question of fact.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). “[W]here a party…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of 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. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Nonetheless, Petitioner contends that because of prosecution history disclaimer, the claim term “air bleed assembly disposed on said lower fork tube” should be construed as “air bleed assembly located between the lower leg seal and the upper bushing.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1014, 7). Patent Owner contends that this claim term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 13. In particular, Petitioner argues that “[t]he claim language itself makes it clear that the ‘air bleed assembly’ is located on the lower fork between the lower leg seal and a resting level of the oil bath in the lower fork.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:56– 5:4). Based on our review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, no construction is necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“From this disclosure, we understand Kojima teaches expressly that chamber 210a is positively pressurized, rather than de-pressurized to ambient pressure. As such, the level of oil shown in Figure 9, which is positioned under the location of air valve 215, also reflects a positive pressure in chamber 210a. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 78. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Eric Wang, testified to the same at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing in the parallel district court proceeding. The cross-examination exchange between Patent Owner’s litigation counsel and Dr. Wang is provided below: Q So air chamber 210a, to which -- with which the air valve 215 communicates is -- has a positive air pressure, of example 50 PSI, correct? A Yes. Well according to this -- according to what’s written here for example, pressure 50 PSI; that's one example. Q So at least in this embodiment of figure nine, Kojima teaches that the chamber 210a has a positive air pressure of example 50 PSI, right? A That’s what it says here, yes. Ex. 2005, 191:9–17. Given that Kojima’s Figure 9 reflects a positive pressure scenario, it is” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,739,331 - Atea Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 21, 2024 · PGR2023-00046 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Atea did not show claim 1 was more likely than not unpatentable for lack of written description, lack of enablement, or anticipation.
In the decision…of the compounds, including the previously difficult to synthesize 2’methyl-up, 2’fluoro-down nucleotide analogs . . . and 12 synthetic examples teaching how to synthesize the full ground to provide the more appropriate rubric for addressing these arguments. 16 PGR2023-00046 Patent 11,642,361…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The major differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions of a skilled artisan include the number of years of drug discovery experience that is necessary and the breadth of the fields of endeavor with which a POSA should be familiar. We agree with Patent Owner that a POSA includes a team of skilled artisans with skill sets in the various aspects of drug development, but determine that Petitioner has addressed those necessary skill sets in its definition. We also determine on this record that Petitioner has assessed adequately the level of experience needed, and do not agree with Patent Owner that greater years of experience are necessary for a POSA in this instance. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Because Petitioner’s definition of a person of skill in the art appears commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the asserted art in this case as well as the ’361 patent itself, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail on its challenges to claim 1. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“C. Claim Construction We construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200. Therefore, we construe the challenged claims under the framework set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this framework, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Both parties agree that we need not construe any claim terms here to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Pet. 16; Prelim. Resp. 18–19. We agree with the parties that we need not construe any claim terms in this proceeding to resolve whether to institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In applying the rubric set forth in Ariad to determine whether claim 1 has appropriate written description support, we can look for structural features common to the members of the subgenus of claim 1 so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the subgenus. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. To do this, we look “for blaze marks within the disclosure that guide attention to the claimed species or subgenus.” See Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 61 F.4th at 1356. In this regard, the fourteenth aspect of the third embodiment is the blaze mark that points to the subgenus of claim 1. We do not need to find blaze marks that identify the fourteenth aspect of the third embodiment as the only formula of merit or the only one that should be claimed. Rather, we look to the written description to see if it describes sufficient structural features common to the members of the subgenus of claim 1 such that a POSA can visualize or recognize the members of that subgenus, thereby demonstrating that the inventors possessed the subject matter of the claim at the time they filed their application.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,642,361 - Advanced Lighting Concepts LLC v. Mate LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01266 · APJ Kimberly J Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
In the decision…question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.” (quoting In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir.…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a)(“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’601 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner’s declarant, Joseph McAlexander, testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which the ’601 patent pertains, would have “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field and significant experience with power regulation devices, like LED drivers and dimmers.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 31. Patent Owner, having waived its Preliminary Response, does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. Paper 7. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’601 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of this Decision, we apply Mr. McAlexander’s definition.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “[e]ach claim term challenged by this Petition should be construed in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning for purposes of resolving the issues raised in this Petition,” but does not otherwise explicitly articulate any particular claim construction. Pet. 14. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. 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 16
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, Petitioner’s mapping of the LED driver recited in claim elements 1(b), 1(c), and 1(e) to Peng’s phase controlled dimmer 101 is inconsistent with its mapping of the claimed components included in the LED driver of claim element 1(a) to components located external to Peng’s phase controlled dimmer 101. Because of Petitioner’s inconsistent mapping of Peng to the claimed LED driver, Petitioner fails to show that Peng discloses an LED driver that meets all of the limitations set forth in claim 1. See Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369 (stating for a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, it “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’”). Additionally, Petitioner’s failure to articulate, inter alia, which components in Peng correspond to either the LED driver or the power circuit recited in claim element 1(a) violates our rules requiring that the “petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon” (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (emphasis added)) and that the “petition must include a full statement of the reasons for relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material fact” (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (emphasis added)). See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (stating the Board may “give no weight to the evidence where a party as failed to state its relevance”). As such, Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that claim 1 is anticipated by Peng.” slip op. at 23
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,957,601 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01201 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, or 5 obvious over either asserted reference combination.
In the decision…electronic equipment. Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120–121; Ex. 1009, code (57), 7:9–11, Figs. 1, 2). Despite its seeming reliance on Karppanen for teaching limitation [1f], Petitioner makes the following statement: “Karppanen does not, however, expressly state that the paths are separate.…
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record before us, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any challenged claim of the RE ’117 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“We adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least,” which renders the statement vague by rendering the scope of ordinary skill unbounded at the top. This level of ordinary skill 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).9 C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“1. “display panel” According to Petitioner, “display panel” means “a flat type screen on which images are displayed, such as a Liquid Crystal Display or Plasma Display Panel.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner improperly limits “display panel” to only a “screen” on which images are displayed. Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner states, however, that “construction of this term does not impact the issues in this proceeding.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that “display panel” includes Liquid Crystal Display and Plasma Display Panel. Therefore, it is not necessary to construe “display panel” for purposes of this decision. “circuit board mounting part” 2. Petitioner proposes a construction for “circuit board mounting part” which appears in each of claims 1, 2, and 5. Pet. 19–25. Our decision, however, does not depend on any construction of the term “circuit board mounting part.” Thus, it is not necessary to construe this term.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“disclosed in Figure 1, especially since “the text of the ’117 patent does not limit the entry/exit of the cooling paths.” Prelim. Reply 2. However, given that the goal of the RE ’117 patent is to avoid inter-heating by providing separate cooling fluid paths, as discussed above, it is not consistent with the Specification to have mixing of the two cooling fluid paths within the panel display device. We are not reading an extraneous limitation from the Specification into the claim. Rather, we are interpreting the limitation “separated from each other” in light of the Specification, which is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
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.