- Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00814 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim over the asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any objective indicia of nonobviousness.7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness determination requires finding a reason to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the challenged patent. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“tripping” as “any motion of a tooth in any direction other than directly toward the desired final position.” Ex. 1004, 4:12–13. Chishti-511 teaches minimizing round-tripping (“teeth are moved in the quickest fashion with the least amount of round-tripping”), but acknowledges that “[r]ound-tripping is sometimes necessary to allow teeth to move past each other.” Id. at 4:9–15. In an attempt to counter Patent Owner’s teaching away arguments, Petitioner relies heavily on Chishti-511’s statement that “[r]ound[-]tripping is sometimes necessary.” See Pet. 29–30; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 83 (Dr. Yadav relying on Chishti-511). This reliance is unavailing, because as noted above, Chishti-511 defines “round-tripping” more broadly than is claimed here. Indeed, in the ’444 IPR, the Board stated that “the ‘round tripping’ described in Chishti ’511 is something different than the ‘round tripping’ required by the ’444 patent.”10 Ex. 1008, 16. Despite being aware of this prior finding 10 In the ’444 IPR, the Board employed the same construction of “round-tripping” that we use here. Compare Ex. 1008, 6, with Section II.C supra. (see Pet. 6), Petitioner here fails to address the difference between Chishti- 511’s round-tripping and the claimed round-tripping. That is, Petitioner places great weight on Chishti-511’s statement that “round-tripping is sometimes necessary,” but has not established that Chishti-511 contemplates round-tripping as claimed, as opposed to some other, different movement pattern encompassed by Chishti-511’s broader statement about round-tripping.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“discussion of “need[ing] collision-free treatment paths,” skilled artisans would have turned to Becker. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:15–22). But on this record, and especially in view of the teachings away from round-tripping, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would have combined Becker’s movement pattern with the Chishti systems and Sachdeva. In particular, the Petition and supporting materials lack sufficient argument and evidence for us to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Becker’s movement pattern in the context of an aligner treatment. Becker is a textbook relating to the orthodontic treatment of impacted teeth. Ex. 1006, 1 (Title). Patent Owner correctly states that “Becker is a different orthodontic treatment modality compared to the Chishti references,” using “braces and numerous brackets, wires, and rubber bands, with the wire-and-bracket systems being attached directly and permanently to the teeth.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22; see also supra Section II.D.4. “Becker involves traditional orthodontic practice: manual, by-eye adjustment of its archwires, elastic thread, and palatal wires by a treating orthodontist in repeated office visits.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Chishti-511, in contrast, uses “treatment planning software” to “pre-stag[e] a series of tooth positions from which a sequence of appliances can be manufactured.” Id. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Becker at best shows that round-tripping was an option in limited circumstances involving wire-and-bracket treatment.” See Prelim. Resp. 3. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that using aligners to effect Becker’s tooth transposition “would be appropriate or even possible.” Id. at 22. As Patent Owner correctly notes, Petitioner does not point to any teaching in Becker regarding aligner treatment or corresponding treatment planning software. Id. at 23. Nor are we directed to any portions of Chishti-511, Chishti-876, or Sachdeva that mention using aligners to transpose teeth. These omissions are important because “[i]n contrast to treatment with braces, in which wires are manually adjusted by the orthodontist to move teeth reactively, aligner treatment involves treatment planning in which a detailed path of teeth is calculated in advance.” Id. at 4. Given these differences, Petitioner has not persuasively explained why Becker’s tooth movement pattern and mechanism would have been of interest to a skilled artisan who was” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“as of the August 30, 2006 claimed priority date would have been part of an interdisciplinary team. This team would have included a member with an advanced degree related to dentistry (e.g., BDS, MDS, DDS, DMD) with experience in orthodontics, including 1–3 years of orthodontic training or equivalent experience, and experience using clear aligners. The team may have also included members with a degree in a technical area related to software, graphics, computers, or a related discipline. This technical team member would have had 1–3 years of software development experience. For all team members, more education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 23–25; Ex. 1029; Ex. 1030). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,456,217 - Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00815 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because ClearCorrect did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 would have been obvious over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, Sachdeva, and Becker.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“3. Analysis In view of the arguments and cited evidence, we find on this record that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Becker’s round-tripping with the teachings of the Chishti patents and Sachdeva.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Neither party indicates that any other claim term requires express construction. Only claim terms in controversy need be construed. 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.”). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no other claim term requires construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA
“Court for the Western District of Texas (see supra Section I.B), they jointly adopted the definition of “round-tripping” set forth in the ’879 patent Specification. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 8; Ex. 1013, 8. The ’879 patent Specification defines “round-tripping” as moving a first tooth out of the path of a second tooth, and once the second tooth has moved sufficiently, moving the first tooth back to its previous position before proceeding to a desired final position of that first tooth. See Ex. 1001, 13:9–13. We adopt this agreed-upon construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,879 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00285 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence had already failed the reasonable-likelihood threshold in the Samsung IPR, and denied joinder.
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) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which states as follows: JOINDER.— If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. Because joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) is premised on an inter partes review having been instituted, and the Board did not institute review in the Samsung IPR to which Petitioner seeks to join, we deny the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 6,947,505 - Sma Solar Technology America, LLC v. Tigo Energy, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 2, 2024 · IPR2023-01175 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied SMA’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–20 because the request showed no overlooked matter, misapplication of law, or abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Rule 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 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 sur-reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. Moreover, “[w]hen 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.”). Our Institution Decision analyzed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and determined that Petitioner provided no persuasive argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Mieth’s load 20 is a micro-controller—i.e., that the claimed micro-controller reads onto Mieth’s load 20. Inst. Dec. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1014, 1180, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 102–103). The Request, as did the Petition, misapplies the anticipation analysis by arguing that a micro-controller is a load, rather than persuasively arguing that Mieth’s load is the claimed micro-controller. Id. at 10–12; Req. 8. None of Petitioner’s evidence or arguments explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that load 20 disclosed in Mieth is a micro-controller. As such, Petitioner has not shown any material error in our decision that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Mieth.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reads on the micro-controller recited in the claims of the ’848 patent” (Req. 6), the test for anticipation is not whether the prior art reads on the claims, but rather whether the claims read on the prior art. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.”). Our Institution Decision analyzed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and determined that Petitioner provided no persuasive argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Mieth’s load 20 is a micro-controller—i.e., that the claimed micro-controller reads onto Mieth’s load 20. Inst. Dec. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1014, 1180, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 102–103). The Request, as did the Petition, misapplies the anticipation analysis by arguing that a micro-controller is a load, rather than persuasively arguing that Mieth’s load is the claimed micro-controller. Id. at 10–12; Req. 8. None of Petitioner’s evidence or arguments explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that load 20 disclosed in Mieth is a micro-controller. As such, Petitioner has not shown any material error in our decision that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Mieth. slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“D. Petitioner’s Section 103 Argument Petitioner argues throughout the Request that Mieth also discloses the “micro-controller” limitation under 35 U.SC. § 103. See Req. 7, 9–11, 13– 15. As explained above, however, the Request does not identify any matters that the Board misapprehended or overlooked. We addressed Petitioner’s obviousness arguments in our Institution Decision, and determined that those arguments failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its arguments that Mieth and Balogh, or Mieth, Balogh, and Liu, teach or suggest the claimed “micro-controller” limitation. Inst. Dec. 13–15.” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,966,848 - Advanced Lighting Concepts LLC v. Mate LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01265 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9–13, 15–17, 19, and 20 were unpatentable over Leong or Leong and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“To institute inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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 and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Even if Petitioner were able to demonstrate that the voltage surge absorber in Leong is configured to absorb DC voltage, Petitioner fails to point to any embodiment or version of Leong in which the voltage surge absorber is configured to limit “converted power” i.e. DC power, to multiple current outputs supplied to the set of light fixture loads. “Not only must each claim element be shown in a single reference, but the elements must be ‘arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claims.’” TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano, LLC, 894 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1370). Here, Petitioner does not address the second portion of limitation 1(b). As discussed above, we are not directed to any portion of Leong in which the voltage surge absorber limits “converted power;” we also are not directed to any disclosure in Leong that shows the voltage surge absorber limiting converted power to multiple current outputs supplied to the set of light fixture loads, i.e. any disclosure in which the voltage surge absorber itself effects the limitation of converted power to multiple current outputs. Additionally, the relied-upon general disclosure in Leong, in and of itself, is insufficient to support Petitioner’s contentions without providing readily apparent specific details that teach limitation 1(b). The statement upon which Petitioner relies discusses generally how Leong is designed to work with existing ballast output configurations. See Ex. 1005, 14:16–18, 14:24–36. Our rules require the petition to include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). The Board may “give no weight to the evidence where a party as failed to state its relevance.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Petitioner does not provide sufficient explanation of the relied-upon general disclosure to remedy this problem. Petitioner also does not direct us to any specific embodiment to which this discussion applies. Cf. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t has long been understood that ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim.”); Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“A single reference must describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Mr. McAlexander’s testimony at paragraphs 57–59. These paragraphs of the declaration largely mirror the language of the Petition, with one citation to an article relied upon to provide a general description of ballasts and drivers (¶ 58). These paragraphs, however, provide little basis for Mr. McAlexander’s opinion. Unsupported declarant testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (finding that a declaration that “merely repeats, verbatim, the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support” and provides no additional supporting evidence or technical reasoning “is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight”); Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to prove prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 18
Nonecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,320,093 - Advanced Lighting Concepts LLC v. Mate LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01259 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, or 13 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 inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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 and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“comports with the standard for anticipation. Under the applicable standard for anticipation, neither Petitioner nor its declarant provides persuasive analysis that would show that one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from Zudrell-Koch that its input voltage pin discloses the claimed power limit. Eli Lilly, 849 F.3d at 1074–1075. Mr. McAlexander testifies: “As discussed above, a POSITA would understand that the input voltage pin is the power limiter that receives power from the power circuit.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Mr. McAlexander cites no evidence in paragraph 58. Regarding the “As discussed above” portion of paragraph 58, the only previous paragraph cited by Petitioner in connection with its limitation 1(b) argument is paragraph 57, in which Mr. McAlexander states that “IC power-supply pins denote voltage and current supply terminals in electric, electronics engineering, and in integrated circuit design.” Id. ¶ 57. Mr. McAlexander, however, provides no citation in support of this statement and does not provide any clarification if or how IC power-supply pins relate to the input voltage pin discussed in Zudrell-Koch. Id. The only support in paragraph 57 is a summary of a short website page titled “Digital Input,” which provides: “Digital input is where a pin will detect the presence of a voltage level that is either ‘high’ or ‘low,’” and which discusses the topic of” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“comports with the standard for anticipation. Under the applicable standard for anticipation, neither Petitioner nor its declarant provides persuasive analysis that would show that one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from Zudrell-Koch that its input voltage pin discloses the claimed power limit. Eli Lilly, 849 F.3d at 1074–1075. Mr. McAlexander testifies: “As discussed above, a POSITA would understand that the input voltage pin is the power limiter that receives power from the power circuit.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Mr. McAlexander cites no evidence in paragraph 58. Regarding the “As discussed above” portion of paragraph 58, the only previous paragraph cited by Petitioner in connection with its limitation 1(b) argument is paragraph 57, in which Mr. McAlexander states that “IC power-supply pins denote voltage and current supply terminals in electric, electronics engineering, and in integrated circuit design.” Id. ¶ 57. Mr. McAlexander, however, provides no citation in support of this statement and does not provide any clarification if or how IC power-supply pins relate to the input voltage pin discussed in Zudrell-Koch. Id. The only support in paragraph 57 is a summary of a short website page titled “Digital Input,” which provides: “Digital input is where a pin will detect the presence of a voltage level that is either ‘high’ or ‘low,’” and which discusses the topic of” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s obviousness grounds do not cure the deficiency in Petitioner’s argument and evidence about whether Zudrell-Koch discloses every element of claim 1. Here, in its obviousness grounds, Petitioner relies on the same reasoning as it presents for anticipation and has not provided any argument or evidence as to why Zudrell-Koch might disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 1 under an obviousness standard. Nor do Petitioner’s arguments present any reasoning as to why Zhdanau or Veskovic might disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 1 under an obviousness standard. On this record, Petitioner’s obviousness arguments fail to meet Petitioner’s burden of demonstrating that the prior art discloses or suggests every element of the challenged claims. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing obviousness of claims 12 and 13 by Zudrell-Koch, Zhdanau, and Veskovic.” slip op. at 27
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,591,713 - Commscope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 30, 2023 · IPR2023-01058 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner effectively disclaimed all challenged claims 1–8 and 48–50.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“A conference call was held with the parties on October 24, 2023, pursuant to Petitioner’s request for permission to file a motion requesting that the Board construe Patent Owner’s disclaimer of all challenged claims as a request for adverse judgment. Patent Owner opposed this request. During the call, Petitioner argued that it intended to rely on Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to argue that Patent Owner’s disclaimer should be construed to be a request for adverse judgment, which Petitioner argued was appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Patent Owner opposed, citing the Board’s precedential General Electric decision as governing in the present circumstances. General Electric, Paper 9 (relying on 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), denying institution when Patent Owner had submitted a pre-institution disclaimer of all challenged claims). During the call, we denied Petitioner’s request for authorization to file the motion. Although Arthrex permits the Board to grant adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue prior to institution (see Arthrex, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1350 (“37 C.F.R. 42.73(b) permits the Board to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue after an IPR petition has been filed, but before an institution decision” (emphasis added)), Petitioner failed to identify any persuasive reason why the Board should do so in present circumstances. See also Cisco Systems, Inc. v. SecurityProfiling, LLC, IPR2021-01428, Paper 13 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2021) (determining that denial of institution without granting adverse judgment was sufficient when Patent Owner had submitted a pre-institution disclaimer of all challenged claims); General Electric, Paper 9.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A “patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e).” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 10,832,833 - Hugel, Inc. v. Medytox Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00604 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution: Ground 1 did not show claims 1–9 likely obvious over Jung and Ton; it denied Ground 2 under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner “has the burden from the outset 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); see also SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (“in an inter partes review, the petitioner is the master of its complaint”). A petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged claims are unpatentable, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the relied-upon prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (a petition must identify, “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”). A petition must also include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). What is missing from both the Petition and the supporting testimony is an adequate explanation of how or why a POSA would have understood that Jung teaches the isolation of a botulinum toxin type A macro complex in particular, when Jung is silent as to the form of the toxin being produced. In this case, it is not enough to simply cite evidence; an explanation of the significance of that evidence is necessary. Based on our review of the record, we find that there is insufficient explanation and insufficient supporting evidence that Jung teaches isolating a botulinum toxin type A macro complex. Petitioner’s statements, and Dr. Bates’s testimony, that Jung teaches isolating a botulinum toxin, and that botulinum toxins “naturally comprise[] a complex with a variety of non-toxic proteins bound thereto” that can be intermediate, large, or macro in size, are conclusory because they do not explain why the form of toxin ultimately isolated in Jung is a macro complex. Therefore, Petitioner does not sufficiently show that the combination of Jung and Ton discloses “[a] method of isolating a botulinum toxin type A macro complex from a botulinum containing solution” or “separating the botulinum toxin type A macro complex from the cation exchange chromatography medium” as required by claim 1 of the ’598 patent.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses a two-part framework for evaluating arguments under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). In applying this framework, we consider the Becton, Dickinson10 factors that address discretion to deny institution when a petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, including:” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“To support a conclusion of obviousness when combining the teachings of multiple references, an articulated reason with some rational underpinning to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed must be provided. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools, Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (It is the petitioner’s “burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention[s], and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, the Petition lacks an adequate explanation as to why a POSA reading Kim ’741 would have looked to Jung for its teachings regarding anion exchange chromatography, and how a POSA would have combined the teachings of Kim ’741 and Jung in the manner claimed. Because we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes a motivation to combine Kim ’741 and Jung with respect to the anion exchange chromatography limitation of claim 1, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s alternative assertion of Jung for this limitation warrants reconsideration of the prior art and arguments previously considered by the Office. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner’s failure to consider Jung in combination with Kim ’741 with respect to the anion exchange chromatography limitation of claim 1 is not an error that weighs in favor of institution.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the graduate degree.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶ 22). Patent Owner states that, for purposes of its Preliminary Response, it does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSA. Prelim. Resp. 20. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,331,598 - PTAB · Jun 5, 2023 · IPR2022-01437 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied SharkNinja’s rehearing request and left institution denied because the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the Xia-Park obviousness challenge.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“articulated why it would have been obvious to modify the recovery tank of Xia’s non-wet-filter vacuum to include a strainer basket like that shown in Park’s wet-filter water vacuum. Dec. 13.2 Based on review of the disclosure of Park, the Decision found that the strainer was used to help the wet-filter mechanism work. Id. at 8–10. The Decision noted that the strainer served its purpose at two times—during recirculation of the filtering water when in use and during draining of the filtering water when finished. Id. Thus, the Decision found that the strainer’s purpose was to solve problems unique to wet-filter vacuums. Id. at 11. The Decision found insufficient evidentiary support for Petitioner’s assertion that Park suggested its strainer would be useful in devices like Xia that did not have wet filters. Id. The Decision also found insufficient evidentiary support for Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would nevertheless recognize that Park’s strainer could be useful in devices that did not have wet filters. Id. at 12–13. Accordingly, the Decision determined that the Petition did not meet the burden for institution. Id. at 13.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). However, we disagree that Petitioner has established the factual underpinnings required to support such a theory. Petitioner’s Request directs us to no evidence the Decision missed on this topic. As noted in the Decision, the expert testimony relies on Park or on other devices in which the strainer is used to prevent clogging of recirculation devices. Dec. 13, n.3. These devices teach no more than Park—strainers used to permit recirculation systems to operate without clogging. See id. The Petition did not identify sufficient evidence that would support a finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, before the date of invention, the obviousness of using Park’s strainer in Xia, a device that operates in a different way than Park. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (noting a precondition of the application-of-a-known-technique rationale is that the technique used to improve a device improves the device “in the same way.”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner
“sense” reason to combine the references, premised on testimony alleging that debris dumped from a wet vacuum tank could clog the drain. Req. Reh’g. 11–12. Petitioner does not direct our attention to where this theory of unpatentability was raised; arguments not raised cannot have been overlooked. In any event, the expert testimony cited is not entitled to persuasive weight because it is not supported by sufficient evidence or technical reasoning. Xerox Corp. et al v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). As explained in the Decision, Petitioner points to no evidence that there was a known problem of drain clogs when disposing of waste water from devices like Xia, nor does Petitioner’s expert explain the reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have nevertheless recognized the problem and its solution. Dec. 12 (“Petitioner has not explained why it would have been obvious to modify Xia by borrowing features that are meant to solve problems unique to water-filter vacuum cleaners”), 13 n.3 (finding that Petitioner’s expert “does not provide an explanation of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to add a recirculation filter to devices that do not use recirculation”). Unless there is credible evidence showing otherwise, any perceived obviousness today is only apparent in hindsight. See, e.g., Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Prior knowledge in the field of the invention must be supported by tangible teachings of reference materials, and the suggestion to combine references must not be derived by hindsight from knowledge of the invention itself.”); see also Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“an invention can often be the recognition of a problem itself”); Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (holding that a proper obviousness analysis “precludes consideration of whether the invention would have been obvious . . . after learning all about the invention”).” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,185,205
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.