- Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alipinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–22 under the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner misstates the Decision’s reasoning. As is clear from the previous discussion, we determined that Petitioner’s articulated reasons for combining EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning, not because “EP’536 does not relate to ‘air bags,’” but because the means by which EP’536’s device inflates differs fundamentally from that of CN’180’s device. Dec. 17–18. Petitioner did not acknowledge this critical difference in the Petition, and continues not to do so in its Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning because EP’536’s inflation mechanism differs fundamentally from CN’180’s inflation mechanism. Dec. 17–18. As we stated, whereas CN’180’s fall-protection belt uses an airbag that requires an external source of pressurized air to inflate, EP’536’s garment does not need an external inflation device because “the gas generating agent 18 in each envelope automatically generates gas and inflates the envelopes in response to rising temperatures.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 15; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 5, 19). This difference reflects the fundamentally different purposes of the two devices: CN’180’s device is designed to provide “fall protection” to, e.g., “elderly people,” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 1, 3), whereas EP’536’s device provides “adaptive thermal insulation” for, e.g., garments worn by fire fighters. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–3, 250. Because of the different means by which EP’536’s and CN’180’s devices inflate and the different purposes for doing so, we were not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references as Petitioner proposed. Dec. 18. We further noted that the modification would not have improved the reusability of EP’536’s device “by having only one mechanism to recharge,” because EP’536’s “gas generating agent does not need any ‘mechanism to recharge.’” Dec. 18. Instead, we noted EP’536’s teaching that its gas generating agent “automatically recombines or condenses in response to a temperature decrease to return the envelopes, and therefore the garment, to its original thickness, at which point the gas generating agent is ready for subsequent reactivation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139–141). Finally, we determined that replacing EP’536’s envelopes with CN’180’s airbag “would have made EP’536’s invention unsuitable for its intended purpose: providing a protective garment with ‘adaptive thermal insulation.’” Dec. 19. We stated that “Petitioner does not suggest, and we have found nothing in the record to establish, that CN’180’s airbag would provide this feature.” Id. at 20.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“rationales for combining EP’536 and CN’180. Reh’g Req. 6–7. First, Petitioner asserts that we “improperly rejected Petitioner’s ‘simple substitution’ evidence in view of [the Board’s] incorrect conclusion that EP’536 does not disclose an ‘external source of inflation [EP’536’s dosing aids].’” Id. at 6 (citing Dec. 18–19). This argument is unpersuasive at least because, as we discussed above, EP’536’s dosing aids do not constitute an external source of inflation. Petitioner further argues that we incorrectly evaluated its “obvious to try” rationale because, contrary to our analysis, Petitioner did in fact identify a problem to be solved by its “finite number of solutions”: “simplify[ing] the design and reduc[ing] the number of required inflation mechanisms.” Id. at 6–7. The Petition’s entire “obvious to try” discussion is as follows: [A] POSITA would have found it obvious to try a one-piece airbag 10 with strip-shaped inflation units 12 in the EP’536- CN’180 airbag system because it would have been a selection from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (i.e., using one chamber with connected individual inflation units 12 versus multiple individual envelopes 20). 5 Petitioner also argues that dosing aids are “needed in order to make the disclosed device reusable.” Reh’g Req. 5–6. This is incorrect, as EP’536 conveys that the reusability of the device is a result of the gas generating agent condensing or recombining when temperatures fall. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139– 141. Even if it were true, however, it is unclear how it would support Petitioner’s argument. Pet. 16. As is evident, Petitioner did not identify a design need, market pressure, or other problem that would have been addressed by its identified “solutions,” and therefore we were not persuaded by this rationale. Dec. 19. Petitioner’s attempt to cure this deficiency in its Rehearing Request is tardy. We cannot misapprehend or overlook an assertion that Petitioner fails to make in the Petition. It is also insufficient. Petitioner does not provide any evidence of a known design need or market pressure to “simplify [EP’536’s] design” or reduce the number of “required inflation mechanism” it uses.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alpinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–22 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its three obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined EP’536 (with or without Hatton) and CN’180 in the proposed manner, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1 and 18. 5. Claims 2–17 and 19–22 Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonably likelihood of prevailing with respect to independent claims 1 and 18, Petitioner also has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the claims that depend therefrom (claims 2–17 and 19–22).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not offer its own definition of the level of ordinary skill or dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s unchallenged description of an ordinarily skilled artisan appears consistent with the subject matter discussed in the references and that of the challenged claims, for purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“For purposes of our analysis, we need only address the meaning of “planar structure,” and only to note that this limitation requires that all portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00193 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 24–26, or 30 were unpatentable on any asserted 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 the information presented in the Petition shows “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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’030 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“What is missing from Petitioner’s stated motivation for modifying the array of Cantor is a reason why a POSA would seek to correlate the identification sequence with a location on the array at all. Prelim. Resp. 72. Indeed, the location of a bead on the substrate is not pertinent to the analysis disclosed in Cantor. Ex. 2002 ¶ 172; see also id. at ¶ 31 (Cantor “does not relate to the [spatial] analysis of tissue samples . . . .”). “[O]bviousness 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). Here, Cantor fails to teach or suggest capture probes distributed randomly on a substrate comprising a nucleic acid sequence that identifies a unique location on the substrate as required by the challenged claims, and Petitioner fails to adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Cantor to make the recited capture probes. In view of the above, we find that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to establish that Cantor teaches or suggests each element of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that any of claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 24–26, and 30 would have been obvious over Cantor.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not argue that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 22–23. Likewise, Patent Owner takes the position that “no claim terms 2 Person of ordinary skill in the art. require explicit construction” for purposes of determining whether to institute inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 19. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, we determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“What is missing from Petitioner’s stated motivation for modifying the array of Cantor is a reason why a POSA would seek to correlate the identification sequence with a location on the array at all. Prelim. Resp. 72. Indeed, the location of a bead on the substrate is not pertinent to the analysis disclosed in Cantor. Ex. 2002 ¶ 172; see also id. at ¶ 31 (Cantor “does not relate to the [spatial] analysis of tissue samples . . . .”). “[O]bviousness 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). Here, Cantor fails to teach or suggest capture probes distributed randomly on a substrate comprising a nucleic acid sequence that identifies a unique location on the substrate as required by the challenged claims, and Petitioner fails to adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Cantor to make the recited capture probes. In view of the above, we find that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to establish that Cantor teaches or suggests each element of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that any of claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 24–26, and 30 would have been obvious over Cantor.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,761,030 - PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00192 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 5, 17, 20, 23, 28, or 29 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
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 the information presented in the Petition shows “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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’138 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“[O]bviousness 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). Here, Cantor fails to teach or suggest capture probes distributed randomly on a substrate comprising a nucleic acid sequence that identifies a unique location on the substrate as required by the challenged claims, and Petitioner fails to adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Cantor to make the recited capture probes. In view of the above, we find that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to establish that Cantor teaches or suggests each element of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that any of claims 1, 5, 17, 20, 23, 28, and 29 would have been obvious over Cantor. slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“3. Discussion Petitioner challenges whether certain elements of independent claims 1 and 17 are supported by the ’124 provisional and/or whether the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact. Pet. 52–60. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, however, we agree with Patent Owner’s written description analysis, summarized above, and find (1) that the ’124 Provisional provides adequate written description support for each of the challenged claim elements; (2) that the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact; and (3) that the ’138 patent is therefore entitled to the priority date of April 5, 2010. Consequently, Frisen is not prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“3. Discussion Petitioner challenges whether certain elements of independent claims 1 and 17 are supported by the ’124 provisional and/or whether the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact. Pet. 52–60. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, however, we agree with Patent Owner’s written description analysis, summarized above, and find (1) that the ’124 Provisional provides adequate written description support for each of the challenged claim elements; (2) that the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact; and (3) that the ’138 patent is therefore entitled to the priority date of April 5, 2010. Consequently, Frisen is not prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,549,138 - SML Intelligent Inventory Solutions LLC / SML (USA) Inc. v. Adasa Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2025 · IPR2025-00125 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). 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 Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’967 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Petitioner adopts the following definition of a person of ordinarily skill in the art (hereafter, sometimes “POSITA”) of the ’967 patent proposed by Patent Owner in the Avery Dennison litigation: [A]t least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering, or a related discipline, and at least five years of experience which would consist of, A, designing, developing, evaluating and/or using RFID or other AIDC [automatic identification and data capture] technologies in inventory management, unique object identification, and/or security; or B, studying and conducting research related to RFID technologies and using RFID and other AIDC technologies in inventory management, unique object identification, and/or security. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1030, 707:3–13). Patent Owner does not offer a definition of an ordinarily skilled artisan of the ’967 patent at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references and the problems addressed in the ’967 patent.” slip op. at 17
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes the following claim constructions: “an allocated block of serial numbers” as “a pre-authorized range of binary serial numbers” and “uniquely corresponding” as the “term’s plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the articulation of the plain and ordinary meaning” in the Avery Dennison litigation. Pet. 8–12. As to the remaining claim terms, Petitioner applies the district court’s constructions in the Avery Dennison litigation. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1028). Patent Owner applies the following constructions that were entered during in the Avery Dennison litigation: “object class information space” as “data field within the memory of the RFID integrated circuit chip for information identifying the class of an object, such as a company prefix, item reference code, partition value, and/or filter value,” “unique serial number space” as “data field within the memory of the RFID integrated circuit for information identifying a unique serial number,” “being assigned a limited number of most significant bits” as “includes a limited, predefined sequence at the leading end,” “remaining bits of lesser significance” as “the remaining lower order bits at the trailing end,” “is encoded with one serial number instance” as “has stored within it one serial number instance,” “an allocated block of serial numbers” as “a pre-authorized range of serial numbers,” and “uniquely corresponding” as its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 32. For purposes of resolving whether to institute trial, we adopt and apply the interpretations stated in the district court’s claim construction order and applied by the Federal Circuit on appeal, Ex. 1028.11 See 55 F.4th 900, 908–909, 912–913 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing the district court’s claim construction order).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“IBM200 and Kuhno would have made it obvious for a POSITA to commission RFID tags with unique serial numbers partitioned into MSBs and bits of lesser significance. See Pet. 34–39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 167–176. However, on this record, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the POSITA, having read IBM200 and Kuhno, would have been led to create a serial number space in which the limited number of “most significant bits” uniquely corresponds to those bits assigned to an allocated block of serial numbers, as recited in limitation [f].” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,798,967 - Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · May 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00136 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution
Institution of inter partes review was denied for claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we find that on the current record Petitioner has not shown that it has a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on these obviousness grounds. XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5. XIII. CONCLUSION After reviewing the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that, based on the evidence of record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 of the ’841 patent are unpatentable. XIV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds presented in the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 35
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Jansky provide specific data on the record before us showing the actual measured homozygosity of either of the inbred lines, US-W 5309 and US-W 5315. And Phumichai experimentally demonstrates that Dr. Jansky’s assumption that theoretical heterozygosity reduction of 50% per generation is not necessarily accurate, stating the “observed average percentage of reduction of heterozygosity per generation (38.4% or 38.5%) was lower than the theoretically expected value of 50%.” Ex. 1005, 982. Indeed, Phumichai disclosed that the “SOPH [Section-based observed percentage of heterozygosity] decreased steadily from the original 100% in 99H2–1 (S0) to the family means of 62.4% in 3H2 (S1), 37.9% in 3H3 (S2).” Id. at 981. That is, Phumichai experimentally shows that in an S2 generation of a potato line, the heterozygosity was 37.9%, resulting in homozygosity of about 62.1%, below the 75% theoretically expected and the 75% required by claim 1 of the ’841 patent. Therefore, the evidence of record does not show that the S2 generation of potato lines in Jong necessarily satisfies the homozygosity recitation in claim 1 of the ’841 patent, and so cannot establish on the record before us that Jong inherently teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Owner is telling. Petitioner does not refute Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia. On the current record, the objective indicia evidence is compelling. As to long felt need, Patent Owner cited evidence on record before the Examiner that showed a persistent need recognized by ordinarily skilled artisans. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538 (CCPA 1967). For example, Dr. Huang states “This research is the breakthrough we have been waiting for since nearly a century . . . This is crucial for the potato breeding worldwide.” Ex. 2009, 687. There is no evidence that this long-felt need was satisfied by another before Appellant’s invention. See Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved . . . .”). Lastly, Dr. Lindhout explains that this invention satisfies the long-felt need, stating “I have discovered, and disclosed in the present application for patent, how a fertile homozygote in” slip op. at 33
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,140,841 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currency Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00837 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“rehearing without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request must “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a surreply.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner misreads limitation [1d], and in particular fails to accord proper meaning to the word “each” in this limitation. “A claim must be read in accordance with the precepts of English grammar.” In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Importantly, “[e]ach is treated as singular . . . when it comes before a singular noun (e.g., each house): Each group is responsible for its own quality control—A. Francis, 1986;” and “when it is followed by of and a plural noun (e.g. each of the houses): each of the three parties has a right to a confidential briefing (not have).” Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage 242 (J. Butterfield ed., 4th ed. 2015). Thus, each refers to each singular (i.e., individual) set of micro mirrors, even though it is followed by “of the sets.” The plain language of limitation [1d] confirms that “each of the sets” is singular by using the singular verb tense “has” rather than the plural tense “have.” Ex. 1001, 28:31. Accordingly, as we held in the Decision (Dec. 17), limitation [1d] requires that each individual set of micro mirrors has a differing cone angle offset. The rest of the limitation’s subject language—“providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images”—does not change this result. “[P]roviding the pixels” identifies the relevant “each of the sets of the micro mirrors,” and “for each of the differing ones of the images” identifies the relevant “pixels.” In combination, “providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images” clarifies that “each of the sets of the micro mirrors” has, as an antecedent basis, the set (singular) of micro mirrors recited in limitation [1c]. This limitation reads: “the array of micro mirrors includes, for each of the pixels of each of the images, a set of the micro mirrors each having a reflective surface oriented to reflect the ambient light toward a point on the plane corresponding to one of the pixels.” Ex. 1001, 28:24–28 (emphasis added). Thus, each individual set of micro mirrors must have a different cone angle offset from that of the other sets of micro mirrors, whether or not they provide pixels for the same or different images. Petitioner’s interpretation of this language as not requiring differing cone angle offset for sets of micro mirrors forming pixels within the same image (Reh’g Req. 7) is therefore incorrect.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,317,691 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH v. Lumenco, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00837 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 were obvious over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 of the ’691 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s reading of limitation [1d]. This limitation requires that each set of micro mirrors has a differing cone angle offset. A claim requiring “each” of an item to have a particular structure requires all instances of the item to have that structure. See In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (claim reciting that “each wire leg” have an offset is not satisfied by prior-art device in which not all of its wire legs have an offset); cf. Micron Tech., Inc. v. U.S., 243 F.3d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The use of the words ‘each’ and ‘any’ to modify ‘employee . . . leaves no doubt as to the Congressional intention to include all employees within the scope of the [Fair Labor Standards] Act unless specifically excluded.”) (quoting U.S. v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 362–63 (1945)); ResQNet.com v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (excerpt in specification using words “each field” and “fields” refers to all, not just some, fields). Thus, for each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each image to have a “differing cone angle offset,” the cone angle offsets of all the sets of micro mirrors must differ from each other. Consequently, as Patent Owner states (Prelim. Resp. 12), a set of micromirrors producing a pixel for a first image must have a cone angle offset that is different from the other sets of micromirrors producing pixels for that image, and also different from the sets of micromirrors producing pixels for any other image. Petitioner has not made us aware of anything in the Specification that suggests otherwise. We are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d] under this interpretation. Petitioner has not identified, and we are unable to find, any teaching in Fuhse262 that each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images has a differing cone angle offset from those of the other sets of micro mirrors. Petitioner asserts instead that “a POSITA would understand that there is a differing cone angle offset for each image because the surface normal of each image, which dictate the cone of reflected rays and cone axis, are required to be different.” Pet. 41. But this assertion suggests, at most, that the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a first image have different cone angle offsets than the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a second image; Petitioner does not appear to be asserting that, e.g., all the sets of micro mirrors creating pixels for the first image are also different from each other, as limitation [1d] requires. Because we are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d], we are not persuaded that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious over Fuhse262 and Fuhse925.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the art “would have had a minimum of an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Patent Owner responds that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics, or a similar field and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ positions, and do not believe that our decision would differ under either definition. Nonetheless, at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We also presume that the cited prior art references reflect the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that no terms require construction. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 10. We also do not see the need to expressly construe any claim term, as the threshold question of institution can be decided without doing so. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,317,691 - Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00665 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
Institution denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the proposed obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law A petition must show how the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). 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).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art 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. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends the following assessment in connection with a person of ordinary skill in the art: The Challenged Claims pertain to a method of recovering geothermal heat. However, “[m]any of the techniques are derived from oil and gas industry.” EX1001 at 4:23-24. Accordingly, here, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a person with a Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, and/or Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering, Energy Resource Engineering, or the like, or at least five years of experience engineering, drilling, and constructing wells. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also have met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of a POSITA. For purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“own for any claim term. Patent Owner does, however, note that “claim element 9c[13] includes the terms ‘means for,’ which are presumed to invoke 13 The referenced “claim element 9c” reads in-part “Means for producing a water density difference and a pressure difference between said first means-plus-function treatment under Section 112.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B Inc., IPR2022-01378, Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2023) (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part))). Patent Owner further submits that “[u]nder Rule 104(b)(3),[14] Petitioner had an obligation to provide a construction of claim element 9c that includes both the claimed function and the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” Id. We agree with Patent Owner that the term “means for” when appearing in a claim triggers a rebuttable presumption that treatment under § 112 applies. On the record before us, however, Petitioner has not explained why the noted presumption has been rebutted or does not apply, and has not provided a construction of the pertinent “means for” term in the Petition in contradiction to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“While it is certainly the case that “a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art,” see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is incumbent on a petitioner, in advancing a permissible theory of obviousness, to explain why a skilled artisan would recognize to pick and choose certain aspects of a reference and combine them with other aspects of the reference, particularly so where the reference itself does not suggest such combination. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests” ) (citation and inner quotes omitted). Here, Petitioner’s oscillation between different embodiments of Rinaldi in an attempt to reach the requirements of claim 1 is not adequately explained, and more closely resembles impermissible hindsight. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). In sum, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable as a part of Petitioner’s proposed Ground 1.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,320,221 - Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00583 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Used in the Merits Analysis “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); 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
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that, for the ’779 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an engineering degree and two or more years’ wellrelated operations experience, or equivalent education/experience.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not offer an alternative definition, but its Declarant, Mr. Hughett, submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a degree in petroleum or mining engineering, mechanical engineering, or a comparable discipline, and at least two years of experience in oil and gas extraction, or an equivalent combination of education and experience.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 17. On the record, we do not discern a meaningful difference between Petitioner’s and Mr. Hughett’s proposed definitions, and therefore adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. We also presume that the cited prior-art references reflect the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The Specification does not suggest a particular definition of threshold, and neither party suggests that it is a term of art in the relevant field. Therefore, we consult a general dictionary for guidance. See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (If “the specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition [of a claim term], in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance.”). Because Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, Merriam-Webster.com, provides several definitions for threshold, we refer to the intrinsic record “to identify which of the different possible dictionary meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor.” Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Based on the context in which threshold is used in claims 1 and 8, we consider the most relevant definition to be “a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not.” Merriam- Webster.com/dictionary/threshold (accessed July 30, 2024). The claim context also indicates that threshold encompasses the opposite situation, i.e., the threshold may be a value below which something is true or will take place and above with it is not true or will not take place. Thus, a flow-rate value and time value are “thresholds” when there is an action that will or will not take place (or something is or is not true) depending on whether those values are met. The Specification identifies one particular action that occurs when these thresholds are met: performance of a CP swap from hydraulically fracturing the n1 well (i.e., a first well) to hydraulically fracturing the n1+1 well (i.e., a second well). Ex. 1001, 13:28–52, Figs. 1B, 12. To perform a CP swap, according to the Specification, zipper valves for the n1+1 well are opened while fluid is being pumped to the n1 well, allowing hydraulic fracturing fluid to flow to both wells, after which zipper valves for the n1 well are closed. Id. at 14:14–38, Figs. 15, 16A, 16B, 16C. This procedure is precisely what claims 1 and 8 recite. In addition to requiring “determining that the flow rate is below a flow-rate threshold . . . for a threshold amount of time,” claims 1 and 8 recite, e.g., “(c) during pumping of the fluid into the first well via the first valve, opening a second valve associated with a second well,” and “(e) during pumping of the fluid into the second well via the second valve, closing the first valve associated with the first well.” Ex. 1001, claims 1, 8. Thus, in the context of these claims, a flow-rate threshold and threshold amount of time would be flow-rate and time values that determine whether or not a second valve associated with a second well is opened during pumping of fluid into the first well via the first valve.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Ciezobka teaches or suggests limitation [1.3]. First, we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation necessarily requires comparing the measured flow rate to a threshold. Petitioner also appears to agree that such a comparison is necessary to perform limitation [1.3]. See Pet. 15 (“Ciezobka discloses determining the flowrate of the fluid and comparing the determined flowrate to certain thresholds . . . , and therefore discloses determining that the flow rate of the fluid being pumped into the first well is below a flowrate threshold.”) (emphasis added). Ciezobka does not, however, teach such a comparison. Assuming that the initial flow rate can be considered a “threshold,” Ciezobka’s teaching of the existence of an initial flow rate followed by the existence of a lower pulse flow rate does not constitute a teaching of a comparison of the two flow rates. Second, Petitioner has not established that the “initial flow rate” is a “threshold.” As discussed above, we construe “flow rate threshold” in the context of claim 1 to mean a flow rate value that an actual flow rate must drop below for a threshold amount of time in order for a second valve associated with a second well to be opened. See Section II.C. Ciezobka does not teach that a measured flow rate must drop below the initial flow rate or any other specific flowrate before one of valves 218 or 219 is opened. Instead, the valve is opened after a specific period of time and without comparing the actual flow rate to the initial flow rate. See Ex. 1037, 12:8– 12 (teaching that a pressure pulse is created by closing valve 219 “for a short period of time” ranging from 1 minute to 1 second, preferably 10 seconds). Indeed, opening valve 218/219 causes flow rate drop to one of the wells; it does not occur as a result of the flow-rate drop.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,401,779
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.