• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,266,335
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,266,335
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01325 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

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

  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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,491,033
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01151 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

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

  In the decision

  …result had been established. Ex. 2124, 33–34. Patent Owner, in any case, presents no argument on nexus issues. 15 IPR2023-01151 Patent 11,337,834 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 meritsDenied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 2, 9, 17, and 18 of the ’834 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

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

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

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

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,337,834
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2022 · IPR2022-00549 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9, 11, and 12 were obvious over the asserted grounds.

  In the decision

  …consideration of these limitations. Petitioner relies on Walther (Grounds 1, 2, and 4), Spenser II (Grounds 3 and 5) and Levi (Grounds 4 and 5) as teaching these limitations. Pet. 49–54, 84–87, 109–111. We consider each in turn. 2. Grounds 1 and 2: Cribier or Spenser and Walther a. Overview of…

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review to be instituted 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.” Having considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Supplemental and Reply Briefs, and the evidence of record, we determine that the evidence presented fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. Pet. 30. Petitioner contends that such a skilled artisan would, when necessary, work as a member of a team in combination with a medical device engineer to experiment with, or manufacture, a prosthetic heart valve. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. See generally Prelim. Resp. Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because we find that that definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See generally, e.g., Exs. 1007, 1010, 1011, 1012; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 100(b) (2020). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In determining the evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes a construction for any claim terms apart from their plain and customary meaning. Pet. 30; see generally Prelim. Resp. Nor do we perceive a need to construe any claim terms of the ’735 patent for purposes of determining whether to institute trial. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 295, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner argues additionally that “POSITAs were motivated to routinely adjust the size and shape of outer cloths to maximize sealing while minimizing the profile of the valve.” Pet. 52. Even accepting that, however, does not provide an adequate motivation to modify Walther’s valve in a way that would result in the claimed valve. Petitioner has not shown, for example, that the small reduction possible in the outer cloth (which protruded below the native valve no more than 2 mm) would have meaningfully minimized the Walther’s valve profile. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not adequately justified modifying Walther’s valve such that the apices extend proximally beyond the outer cloth. Having found that Walther, upon which Petitioner relies, neither teaches nor suggests the limitations at issue, we are consequently not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in prevailing at trial on Grounds 1 and 2.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,129,735
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2022 · IPR2022-00637 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25 were obvious over either asserted combination.

  In the decision

  …one or both legs of the torsion spring would have been received within Yodfat’s cylindrical rotor. On this record, we have not been directed to a teaching indicating that the spring is within the rotor.9 See also Prelim. Resp. 67–68 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 121 (Yodfat teaching that torsion spring 922…

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. Conclusion After considering the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition.10 Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review. IV. Order In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Regarding a motivation to replace Gravesen’s lever with Yodfat’s cylindrical rotor, Petitioner argues that (1) “[t]he ’440 patent does not describe any benefit conferred by the claimed cylindrical rotor shape,” and (2) cylindrical rotors and levers were “similar solution[s]” for translating a torsion spring’s rotation to linear movement of an inserter. Pet. 96, 99; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 219, 233, 234. On this record, Petitioner’s contentions amount to little more than a statement that cylindrical rotors were known in the prior art. As stated in KSR, however, “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, Petitioner must demonstrate that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. While it may have been technically feasible for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Yodfat’s cylindrical rotor for Gravesen’s lever to achieve linear movement, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Standing alone, Petitioner’s allegation of interchangeability of a cylindrical rotor and a lever to effect linear movement of an inserter is insufficient to provide a reason to combine. Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized the utility of a cylindrically shaped rotor for positioning Gravesen’s driving spring 215 to provide both insertion force and at least some retraction force.” Pet. 96 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 124; Ex. 1004 ¶ 8). In Petitioner’s obviousness combination, however, separate driving springs effect insertion and retraction. See, e.g., id. at 52–53 (arguing that rotation of lever 211 operates to insert the needle), 46 (arguing that torsion spring 215 rotates lever 211), 58–59 (arguing that retraction spring 22 operates to retract the needle).8 Indeed, Petitioner contends that separating the operation of the insertion and retraction springs advantageously reduces the weight of the retraction apparatus, and thus the pain experienced by the subject. See id. at 24, 59; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 57, 114. Thus, on this record, Petitioner’s proffered motivation to use Yodfat’s cylindrical rotor to drive a spring for “both insertion force and at least some retraction” (Pet. 96) conflicts with the two-spring embodiment of Gravesen that is the basis for Petitioner’s obviousness argument. See Prelim. Resp. 58; Ex. 2001 ¶ 117.” slip op. at 18

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

    “and does not offer any express claim constructions. Pet. 17. Patent Owner also does not offer any express claim constructions, but disputes Petitioner’s understanding of the terms “rotor” and “recess.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22, 49, 51–53. For purposes of institution, we conclude that we need only address the term “recess.” We do so below in the context of analyzing Petitioner’s obviousness challenge based on Gravesen and Brister. See supra Section II.C.4; see also 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 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,013,440
• Autostore System Inc. v. Ocado Innovation LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00443 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable over Hognaland, alone or with Lert.

  In the decision

  …¶ 131). This arrangement, according to Petitioner, “would be a necessary result of the modification” and would remain consistent with Hognaland’s teaching of rolling means near the lower corners of the vehicle to allow more vehicle stability. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 131; Ex. 1005, 3:9–12). In the…

  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) (2021). 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 evidence and arguments in the record, we decline to institute inter partes review of the ’602 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “We note that the parties’ respective proposals overlap considerably, with Petitioner’s alternative proposal nearly identical to Patent Owner’s proposal. We need not resolve which proposal most closely aligns with the level of ordinary skill in the art here, however, because even if we adopt Petitioner’s proposal we would come to the same ultimate conclusion that Petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9

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

    “occupy a grid space.” Pet. 32–39. Patent Owner proposes different constructions for both terms. Prelim. Resp. 26–30. The “wheel hub motor” limitation only appears in dependent claims and we need not reach the merits of Petitioner’s allegations as to those claims in order to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See id. at 29. Accordingly, we do not address the merits of the parties’ claim destruction dispute as to “wheel hub motor.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “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 10

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

    “adequately that Hognaland discloses either the No Obstruction limitation or the No Extension limitation. As to the No Obstruction limitation, Petitioner premises its argument on the assertion that Hognaland discloses a vehicle occupying only one grid space, but the only embodiment Hognaland discloses shows a vehicle occupying portions of two adjacent spaces that obstruct those spaces in the Y-direction and fail to meet the requirements of the No Obstruction limitation. See Pet. 56–58; Ex. 1005, 2:38–3:3, Fig. 9. Petitioner’s reliance on other text in Hognaland that allegedly “implies” that Hognaland discloses a device with no obstructions in the Y-direction lacks adequate support. For example, Petitioner relies on Hognaland’s statement that the wheels can be placed on the lower corners of the vehicle and that alterations may enable smaller-sized robots. Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:9– 12, 4:31–32). Placing wheels near the lower corners of the vehicle merely describes the existing Hognaland device shown in Hognaland’s figures, a device that fails to meet the claim limitations. See Ex. 1005, 3:9–12. Neither this description of Hognaland’s device nor the general statement that Hognaland’s approach enables smaller-sized robots, taken alone or together, suggest an express or inherent disclosure of an embodiment without any obstruction of adjacent grid spaces in the Y-direction that meets the No Obstruction limitation.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,913,602

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.