• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01102 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 15, 17, and 20–23 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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). At the institution phase of an inter partes review, Petitioner’s burden is to show 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).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “POSITA”) would have had “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–22, 23–66). slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “requires a microcontroller configured for “operating in a first mode of operation using a first protocol,” wherein that protocol “is an inductive charging communication-and-control protocol that comprises uni-directional messaging.” In this mode, the claim requires a first communication sent from the receiver (the charged device) to the base system (the charger). Ex. 1001, 72:6–9 (“sending . . . a first communication”). The claim also requires the microcontroller to be configured for “operating in a second mode of operation using a second protocol,” wherein that protocol “is an inductive charging communication-and-control protocol that defines bi-directional messaging.” Id. at 72:12–16. In this mode, the claim requires a second communication sent from the receiver to the base system, and also a third communication sent from the base system to the receiver. Id. at 72:18– 26 (“sending . . . a second communication” and “receiving . . . [a] third communication”). We also note that claim 5, which depends from independent claim 1 (which is similar to claim 15), specifies that “the first mode of operation is a subset of the second mode of operation,” but also note that claim 15 does not have a similar claim that depends from it. Id. at 71:11–12. Independent claim 24 is similar, but states that the second protocol “comprises bi-directional messaging” (emphasis added), instead of claim 1’s recitation of “defines bi-directional messaging” (emphasis added). Compare id. at 72:16 with id. at 74:1. The fact that the two modes of operation specified in claim 15 are otherwise effectively identical but for the unidirectional and bidirectional aspects, suggests that the claims use these terms to distinguish the two modes. In other words, it tends to indicate that the words “uni-directional” and “bi-directional” in claim 15 are intended to refer to distinct messaging protocols (rather than “uni-directional” being merely half of “bi-directional”). See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”). Likewise, the first mode recites “sending . . . a first communication,” whereas the second mode recites both “sending” and “receiving” communications. Although not dispositive (given the “comprising” language of the claims), this language is consistent with an understanding that unidirectional modes only have a sending of information (from the perspective of the power receiving device) whereas bidirectional modes have two-way messaging between the charger and receiver.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s expert and find that it does not provide a factual basis for Petitioner’s assertion that unidirectional messaging is just one leg of bidirectional messaging. See, e.g., Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112). In particular, the expert’s testimony largely just repeats the assertions of the Petition, without providing sufficient additional analysis or evidence useful to determine how a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe those terms. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–114; see also 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.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Instead, Petitioner’s expert appears to largely assume that the prior art reference Sogabe discloses unidirectional messaging, giving the expert’s opinion little probative value. Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion 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 provide prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,342,777
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01101 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5–11, 13, 14, and 24 would have been obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review (“Decision”) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’777 patent is unpatentable, we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “are otherwise effectively identical but for the unidirectional and bidirectional aspects suggests that the claims use these terms to distinguish the two modes. In other words, it tends to indicate that the words “uni-directional” and “bi-directional” in claim 1 are intended to refer to distinct messaging protocols (rather than “uni-directional” being merely half of “bi-directional”). See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “POSITA”) would have had “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–22). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s expert and find that it does not provide a factual basis for Petitioner’s assertion that unidirectional messaging is just one leg of bidirectional messaging. See, e.g., Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121). In particular, the expert’s testimony largely just repeats the assertions of the Petition, without providing sufficient additional analysis or evidence useful to determine how a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe those terms. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–125; see also 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.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (holding a declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Instead, Petitioner’s expert in the cited paragraphs appears to largely assume that the prior art reference Sogabe discloses unidirectional messaging, giving the expert’s opinion little probative value. Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion 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 . . . it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,342,777
• Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01033 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–30, finding substantially the same art had been presented to the Office and no material error was shown under § 325(d).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “the following two-part framework: (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 [the] 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, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). The Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Id. at 9 (referencing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, 17– 18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph)).” slip op. at 12

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

    “presented to the Office, and (2) Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred. We therefore conclude that it is appropriate to exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny the Petition. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “enzyme complex” and “nucleic acid insert element.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner, for its part, states that “[n]o terms require construction for considering institution.” Prelim. Resp. 18. We determine that neither of the two limitations identified by Petitioner requires an express construction for purposes of this Decision. It bears mentioning, however, that the ’357 patent states that “[t]he insertional enzyme can be a transposase.” Ex. 1001, 3:47–48. There is no dispute that Grunenwald discloses the use of a transposase and, thus, an insertional enzyme complex. See Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17, 93–94, 162); Prelim. Resp. 13 (“Grunenwald further defines ‘transposase’ to mean ‘an enzyme that is capable of forming a functional complex . . . and catalyzing insertion or transposition of the transposon end-containing composition into the double-stranded target DNA with which it is incubated in an in vitro transposition reaction.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93)).” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “express construction of the term “chromatin.” The ’357 patent itself provides a definition, stating: The term “chromatin,” as used herein, refers to a complex of molecules including proteins and polynucleotides (e.g. DNA, RNA), as found in a nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. Chromatin is composed in part of histone proteins that form nucleosomes, genomic DNA, and other DNA binding proteins (e.g., transcription factors) that are generally bound to the genomic DNA. Ex. 1001, 12:61–67. This is the meaning that we apply in this Decision.” slip op. at 6

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,738,357
• Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim would be obvious, including a reasonable expectation of success in adding a distinguishing second tag.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, 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, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Based on the information presented here, there is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in showing that a skilled artisan, even if motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references as proposed by Petitioner, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention, including “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell.”” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “In an inter partes review, 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, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Based on the information presented here, there is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in showing that a skilled artisan, even if motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references as proposed by Petitioner, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention, including “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell.”” slip op. at 16

  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,240,197
• Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–28 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, 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, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Based on the information presented here, there is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in showing that a skilled artisan, even if motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references and knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the subject matter of claim 1, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 16

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

    “In an inter partes review, 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, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Based on the information presented here, there is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in showing that a skilled artisan, even if motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references and knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the subject matter of claim 1, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 16

  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,697,013
• Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-01016 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable over the asserted Shim- or Fujiki-based grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Because Petitioner relies on Shim and Fey to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that fluorine would be present in a crack portion of the Shim or Shim/Lee particle, because the requirement for fluorine to be present in a crack portion appears in all the challenged claims, and because Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Shim and Fey would have suggested the presence of fluorine in a crack portion, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged on the basis of Shim.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, or materials science and at least five years of experience in the field of batteries and battery materials.” Pet. 33. According to Petitioner, “[i]ndividuals with different education and additional experience could still be of ordinary skill in the art if that additional experience compensates for a deficit in their education and experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–91). On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19–20. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’828 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’828 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “As explained more fully below, we need not construe any claim terms to determine that Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that the prior art teaches or suggests the subject matter of the challenged claims. Thus, after considering the arguments and information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that we do not need to construe any terms expressly for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Because Petitioner relies on Shim and Fey to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that fluorine would be present in a crack portion of the Shim or Shim/Lee particle, because the requirement for fluorine to be present in a crack portion appears in all the challenged claims, and because Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Shim and Fey would have suggested the presence of fluorine in a crack portion, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged on the basis of Shim.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,741,828
• Mahle Behr Charleston Inc. v. Frank Amidio CatalanoInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “On this record, we determine that Petitioner advances Dr. Medlin’s testimony to make out a claim limitation that is not suggested, much less taught, by the text of the prior art reference at hand. Because that testimony lacks objective support or adequate technical reasoning, it is entitled “little weight” and, moreover, is insufficient to support institution of trial. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). Dr. Medlin’s remaining testimony relies on the testimony we have discussed so far. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 201–204, 207–210, 224–226. Accordingly, this testimony does not show sufficiently that Tomosada would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that anodes should be placed within 10 inches of Tomosada’s hot liquid inlet. Because Petitioner relies on Dr. Medlin’s testimony to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Tomosada suggested placing an anode within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to a radiator, and because that testimony does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had such an understanding, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged on the basis of Tomosada.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “To show obviousness, it is not enough to merely show that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a challenged claim. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). “This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19. On the other hand, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418; accord In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering, or materials science engineering, and have two or more years of experience in mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering, or materials science engineering and/or corrosion prevention system design.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 72–75). According to Petitioner, “[a] person could also have qualified as a [person of ordinary skill in the art] with some combination of more formal education (e.g., a Ph.D.) and less technical experience,” or vice versa. Id. at 16–17. “To the extent necessary, the [person of ordinary skill in the art] may have collaborated with other skilled artisans, such that the individual and/or team collectively would have had experience and/or knowledge or particular characteristics of a radiator system.” Id. at 17. “For the limited purpose of [its] Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but it reserves the right to do so if trial is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’494 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’494 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. Both parties argue that we need not construe any terms in order to decide whether to institute trial. Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 8. We agree. After considering the arguments and information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that we do not need to construe any terms expressly for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2023 · IPR2023-01030 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.

  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) (2018). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 15–16. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications. See generally, Prelim. Resp. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal for the level of skill in the art, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner proposes constructions of four limitations: “insertional enzyme complex,” “nucleic acid insert element,” “adapter sequence,” “barcode sequence,” and “tagged fragments.” Pet. 20–23. Patent Owner, for its part, states that “[n]o terms require construction for considering institution.” Prelim. Resp. 15. We determine that none of the four limitations identified by Petitioner requires an express construction for purposes of this Decision. It bears” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “express construction of the term “chromatin.” The ’207 patent itself provides a definition, stating: The term “chromatin,” as used herein, refers to a complex of molecules including proteins and polynucleotides (e.g. DNA, RNA), as found in a nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. Chromatin is composed in part of histone proteins that form nucleosomes, genomic DNA, and other DNA binding proteins (e.g., transcription factors) that are generally bound to the genomic DNA. Ex. 1001, 12:58–64. This is the meaning that we apply in this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,619,207
• Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2023 · IPR2023-00878 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Grunenwald anticipates claim 1 or that the asserted combinations cure its failure to disclose contacting chromatin.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Determining whether to institute has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions of four limitations: “insertional enzyme complex,” “nucleic acid insert element,” “adapter sequence,” and “barcode sequence.” Pet. 21–25. Patent Owner, for its part, states that “[n]o terms require construction for considering institution.” Prelim. Resp. 16. We determine that none of the four limitations identified by Petitioner requires an express construction for purposes of this Decision. It bears mentioning, however, that the ’995 patent states that “[t]he insertional enzyme can be a transposase.” Ex. 1001, 3:41–42. There is no dispute that Grunenwald discloses the use of a transposase and, thus, an insertional enzyme complex. See Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶98, 161); Prelim. Resp. 34 (“Grunenwald defines ‘transposase’ to include any transposase, thus including those that comprise antibodies that are specific to a protein that is part of said chromatin.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶93)).” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “express construction of the term “chromatin.” The ’995 patent itself provides a definition, stating: The term “chromatin,” as used herein, refers to a complex of molecules including proteins and polynucleotides (e.g. DNA, RNA), as found in a nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. Chromatin is composed in part of histone proteins that form nucleosomes, genomic DNA, and other DNA binding proteins (e.g., transcription factors) that are generally bound to the genomic DNA. Ex. 1001, 12:54–60. This is the meaning that we apply in this Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “B. Ground 1 Petitioner asserts that Grunenwald anticipates independent claim 1, as well some of the dependent claims. Pet. 25. “Anticipation requires that all of the claim elements and their limitations are shown in a single prior art reference.” In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Patent Owner argues that Grunenwald fails to anticipate claim 1, which failure undermines the entire Petition. Prelim. Resp. 16–17 (“Petitioner has failed to show that Grunenwald discloses each and every limitation as arranged in the claims, including, e.g., ‘contacting chromatin of a genome region,’ and thus cannot meet its burden as to any claim in Ground 1.” (quoting claim 1)), 38 (“Petitioner cannot meet its burden as to Grounds 2–8 for the same reasons Petitioner cannot meet its burden for Ground 1.”). Accordingly, we turn first to claim 1.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 10,150,995
• Ademco Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00409 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “under the statutory ground advanced. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Thus, the Petition must identify how “the claimed invention [of each challenged claim] as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art” in view of Leen, Trundle, and Ehlers. 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petition does not do this. In particular, and as Patent Owner argues and as we explain below, the Petition fails to show what it maps to the recited “thermostat system”/“thermostat” includes, or would have been modified to include, a processor configured to “receive geo-positioning data from the location-aware mobile device and automatically adjust a temperature value based on the geo-positioning data,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 11–19.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study and (2) at least two years of experience with (i) process control, (ii) automation systems, (iii) or a comparable field of work.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶12). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the ’890 patent and the asserted prior art and is not challenged by Patent Owner, we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “(Ex. 1021 at 2) in a related civil action, but neither party offers an express construction of the preamble. Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 8. In fact, both parties state that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability do not turn on whether the preamble is limiting. Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 8. We do not explicitly construe any limitations, as it unnecessary to decide the Petition. However, we agree with the court and the parties that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This is the case here as the body of claim 1 twice refers to “the thermostat” for which the only antecedent basis could be “A thermostat system.” Ex. 1001, at claim 1.” slip op. at 7

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “E. Analysis of Ground I (Petition Ground “1A”) A Petition must “identify” how a challenged claim is unpatentable under the statutory ground advanced. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Thus, the Petition must identify how “the claimed invention [of each challenged claim] as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art” in view of Leen, Trundle, and Ehlers. 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petition does not do this. In particular, and as Patent Owner argues and as we explain below, the Petition fails to show what it maps to the recited “thermostat system”/“thermostat” includes, or would have been modified to include, a processor configured to “receive geo-positioning data from the location-aware mobile device and automatically adjust a temperature value based on the geo-positioning data,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 11–19.” slip op. at 11

  Claim constructioncites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,584,890

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.