- PTAB · May 26, 2026 · IPR2025-00425 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution of IPR2025-00425 because it instituted the earlier-considered IPR2025-00424 challenging the same patent.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Request for Director Review. See Paper 35; IPR2025-00424, Paper 35. The request was denied without prejudice and the cases were remanded to the Board to “allow discovery, narrowly tailored to resolve the RPI and privity issues.” Paper 41, 4. Following such discovery, we were instructed to “then determine on the full record whether Petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating that the Petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b), applying the framework set forth in Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242– 44 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” Id. A later-issued Order Supplementing Director Review Decision instructed that “if the Board determines that Petitioners met their burden to identify all RPIs in the Petitions, then the Board should maintain at most one IPR challenging” the ’225 patent. Paper 64, 3. Concurrently herewith, we issue a decision in IPR2025-00424 finding that Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating that the Petition in that case is not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“In connection with the ’225 patent, Petitioner filed two petitions requesting inter partes review: the petition in this proceeding (IPR2025- 00425), and the petition in IPR2025-00424. In this proceeding and in IPR2025-00424, Petitioner filed an Explanation regarding the necessity of multiple petitions. Paper 2; IPR2025-00424, Paper 2. Petitioner requested that, “if the Board uses its discretion to institute the Petitions, the Board consider the merits of IPR2025-00424 . . . before IPR2025-00425.” Paper 2,” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,589,225 - Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company / Pacificorp v. Birchtech Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2026 · IPR2025-00423 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–4 and 6–29 because it instituted the ranked IPR2025-00422 under the Director’s instruction to maintain at most one IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Paper 34. Birchtech Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Request for Director Review in each case. See Paper 40; IPR2025-00422, Paper 39. The Director denied the request without prejudice in each case and remanded the cases to the Board to “allow discovery, narrowly tailored to resolve the RPI and privity issues.” Paper 49, 4. The Director later issued an Order Supplementing Director Review Decision in each case, instructing that “if the Board determines that Petitioners met their burden to identify all RPIs in the Petitions, then the Board should maintain at most one IPR challenging” the ’430 patent. Paper 72, 3.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,668,430 - Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company / Pacificorp v. Birchtech Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · May 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00278 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company and PacifiCorp’s petition because it had instituted the earlier-filed IPR2025-00274 challenging the same patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“request from Patent Owner for Director Review, finding that Patent Owner introduced “evidence sufficient to put RPI and privity at issue” and remanding with instructions to “allow discovery, narrowly tailored to resolve the RPI and privity issues” including “at least materials sufficient to clarify the evidence the Board found to be ‘ambiguous’ and to avoid the need for the Board to ‘speculate as to the nature of the redacted material.’” Paper 57 (Decision on Request for Director Review). The Director instructed that after allowing such discovery, we “should then determine on the full record whether Petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating that the Petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b), applying the framework set forth in Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242–44 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Concurrently herewith, we issue a decision in IPR2025- 00278 finding that Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating that its Petition is not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Review Decision instructing that “if the Board determines that Petitioners met their burden to identify all RPIs in the Petitions, then the Board should maintain at most one IPR challenging each of the ’114 patent, the ’517 patent, the ’430 patent, and the ’225 patent.” Paper 79, 3. Together with its Petition in this proceeding and the proceeding in IPR2025-00274, Petitioner filed an Explanation Regarding the Necessity of Multiple Petitions. Paper 2 (“Explanation”); IPR2025-00274, Paper 2. In the Explanation, Petitioner “request[s] that, if the Board uses its discretion to institute the Petitions, the Board consider the merits of IPR2025-00274 . . . before IPR2025-00278.” Explanation, 3. Further to Petitioner’s request, we first considered the merits of IPR2025-00274. For the reasons discussed in our concurrently issued decision in IPR2025-00274, we institute inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition in IPR2025-00274. Further to the Director’s instruction that we “maintain at most one IPR challenging . . . the ’114 patent,” and the Petitioner’s request that we consider the merits of IPR2025-00274 before IPR2025-00278, we deny institution of the Petition in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,343,114 - Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company / Pacificorp v. Birchtech Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · May 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00281 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because it had instituted IPR2025-00280 challenging the same patent, consistent with the Director’s instruction to maintain at most one IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Review Decision instructing that “if the Board determines that Petitioners met their burden to identify all RPIs in the Petitions, then the Board should maintain at most one IPR challenging each of the ’114 patent, the ’517 patent, the ’430 patent, and the ’225 patent.” Paper 79, 3. Together with its Petition in this proceeding and the proceeding in IPR2025-00280, Petitioner filed an Explanation Regarding the Necessity of Multiple Petitions. Paper 2 (“Explanation”); IPR2025-00281, Paper 2. In the Explanation, Petitioner “request[s] that, if the Board uses its discretion to institute the Petitions, the Board consider the merits of IPR2025-00280 . . . before IPR2025-00281.” Explanation, 3. Further to Petitioner’s request, we first considered the merits of IPR2025-00280. For the reasons discussed in our concurrently issued decision in IPR2025-00280, we institute inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition in IPR2025-00280. Further to the Director’s instruction that we “maintain at most one IPR challenging . . . the ’517 patent,” and the Petitioner’s request that we consider the merits of IPR2025-00280 before IPR2025-00281, we deny institution of the Petition in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,596,517 - PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00688 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–18 because this was the second-ranked petition and the Director directed institution of only one petition.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandDecided for patent owner
“Remand, do not institute inter partes review based on the second-ranked petition on this complete record. As stated in the Remand, “Petitioners present ten total grounds challenging the claims of the ’370 patent and thirteen total grounds challenging the claims of the ’218 patent [in IPR2025- 00717 and IPR2025-00718].” Remand 3. The Remand cites to the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, which “explains that ‘one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations’ and ‘multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.’” Id. (citing Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) § II.D.2 (Dec. 12, 2025)). The Remand states: “The TPG further explains that dispute requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.’ TPG § II.D.2.” Id. at 2–3. The Remand determines: “Given that Petitioners had ample room in each petition to present multiple grounds challenging the claims of each patent, this was not a ‘rare’ circumstance that justified the filing of multiple petitions against each patent.” Id. at 3. The Remand explains that “absent exceptional circumstances, in a case where there is a dispute over priority date, the Board should either resolve the priority date issue or institute, at most, the first-ranked petition.” Id. The Director instructed the Board panel “to determine which of the two petitions” to institute. Id. at 4. We interpret the Remand as stating that the Director has determined that only one petition for each patent should have been instituted, and as delegating the discretionary authority to the panel to determine which of the two petitions to institute. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and in view of Petitioner’s ranking of this Petition as the second-ranked petition, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 11
- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Remand, do not institute inter partes review based on the second-ranked petition on this complete record. As stated in the Remand, “Petitioners present ten total grounds challenging the claims of the ’370 patent and thirteen total grounds challenging the claims of the ’218 patent [in IPR2025- 00717 and IPR2025-00718].” Remand 3. The Remand cites to the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, which “explains that ‘one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations’ and ‘multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.’” Id. (citing Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) § II.D.2 (Dec. 12, 2025)). The Remand states: “The TPG further explains that dispute requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.’ TPG § II.D.2.” Id. at 2–3. The Remand determines: “Given that Petitioners had ample room in each petition to present multiple grounds challenging the claims of each patent, this was not a ‘rare’ circumstance that justified the filing of multiple petitions against each patent.” Id. at 3. The Remand explains that “absent exceptional circumstances, in a case where there is a dispute over priority date, the Board should either resolve the priority date issue or institute, at most, the first-ranked petition.” Id. The Director instructed the Board panel “to determine which of the two petitions” to institute. Id. at 4. We interpret the Remand as stating that the Director has determined that only one petition for each patent should have been instituted, and as delegating the discretionary authority to the panel to determine which of the two petitions to institute. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and in view of Petitioner’s ranking of this Petition as the second-ranked petition, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,933,370 - PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00718 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–4 and 6–26 because it instituted the higher-ranked competing petition, IPR2025-00717.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedOther
“The Director granted Director Review, finding that the panel “abused its discretion in granting institution of two petitions that each challenge the same claims” of the ’218 patent. Paper 38 (“Remand Order”), 2. The Director vacated the DI and remanded the case to the Board “to determine which of the two petitions” to institute. Id. at 4.” slip op. at 4
- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“In its Explanation regarding the necessity of multiple petitions, Petitioner requests that, “if the Board uses its discretion to institute the Petitions, the Board consider the merits of IPR2025-00[71]7 (“Vosteen589/Lissianski Petition”) before IPR2025-00[71]8 (“Sjostrom/Baldrey Petition”).” Paper 2, 3. Because we institute trial in IPR2025-00717 (see IPR2025-00717, Paper 41), under the Director’s instruction in the Remand Order, and based on Petitioner’s ranking of the petitions of IPR2025-00717 and IPR2025-00718, we deny institution in this case.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,926,218 - 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 - Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00267 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of the ’722 patent. IV. ORDER It is ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’722 patent and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 41
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the invention would have had a B.S. in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and either at least two years of experience designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 12–22). Patent Owner also states that “no issue relevant to this Preliminary Response turns on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). 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 ’722 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 the ’722 patent and the prior art. However, our decision would not change if we applied Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“equalizer absorbs liquid and the heat equalizer is coupled to the electric wire (Ex. 1024, 2:57–60, 5:2–3, 8:43–45), we question whether the absorption of liquid by the heat equalizer discloses the delivery of the liquid to the heating wire, i.e., the heating element. Pan clearly describes the relationship between the heat equalizer and the heating wire as follows: This electric current preferably flows through the electric heat wire inside the atomizer tube, which then heats up the heat equalizer with absorbed liquid from the liquid-container. The heated equalizer converts the liquid into a form of vapor mist, which is finally drawn into the mouth of the user. Ex. 1024, 2:57–62 (emphasis added). We acknowledge Petitioner’s position, and Dr. Janet’s testimony, that Pan discloses that “[t]he heat equalizer 269 absorbs liquid from the liquid container and is twined with the heating wire 265 to allow the heating wire to vaporize the liquid.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1024, 2:57–60, 8:43–45); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 136–137. However, column 2 of Pan states that the heating wire heats the heat equalizer that contains the absorbed liquid. Ex. 1024, 2:57–60. In short, nowhere does Pan teach that heat equalizer 269 delivers the vaporizable material to heating wire 265 for vaporization. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Pan teaches or suggests “wicking element . . . configured to deliver the vaporizable liquid to the heating element.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Pan and Levin.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s assertions fail to account for disruptions to the air intake, and that Petitioner’s allegations of reasonable expectation of success are deficient. Pan’s cigarette cap 13 has small holes for airflow (see Ex. 1024, 5:9–11, 5:30–32), but Petitioner’s proposed combination requires incorporating Levin’s charging port into the cigarette cap (see Pet. 24–25, 35–36). Petitioner, however, does not explain how this modification would be accomplished. Petitioner simply asserts that “[m]icro-USB receptacles were standardized, well-known in the art, and specifically disclosed in prior art evapor devices” and that “Levin’s micro-USB charger contacts are installed at its end cap; Pan likewise has an end cap 13.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 105; Ex. 1026, 6:26–32; Ex. 1042, 5:57–60; Ex. 1003, 23:58–60). Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected Levin’s micro-USB charger contacts to work equally well at Pan’s end cap.” Id. Dr. Janet offers little more. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 105. Petitioner and Dr. Janet imply that including Levin’s micro-USB port is “plug and play” or a matter of simple substitution. Pet. 24; Ex. 1005 ¶ 105. But, Patent Owner explains that modifying Pan’s device to include Levin’s micro-USB port “would also entail adding the associated internal circuitry necessary to support the externally-visible micro-USB connector.” Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 105). For example, Levin states that “the device includes a port 31 to recharge the power source 30, such as a micro-USB charging port located on a printed circuit board behind a distal lens tip or endcap.” Ex. 1003, 14:10–13 (describing Figures 14A–14C). Petitioner does not sufficiently address how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Pan’s device to account for the changes necessary to incorporate Levin’s micro-USB port. Furthermore, Petitioner does not account for the disruption of air flow in the Pan device that would occur if the micro-USB port of Levin were positioned at a distal end from the insertion end. See generally Pet. As Pan describes, the holes for air flow through the device are located in the end cap Petitioner proposes to replace. Specifically, Pan states that “[t]he user inhales through the air-puffing hole at an end of the electronic cigarette to create an air inflow, which triggers the atomization process” and that the electronic cigarette includes “cigarette cap 13 with small holes for air inflow.” Ex. 1024, code (57), 5:10–11. According to Dr. Collins, “blocking or otherwise restricting this airflow will impact the performance and functionality of Pan’s device, and adding Levin’s micro-USB connector will naturally affect the airflow” because “air inflow is critical to the operation of Pan’s device.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 107 (emphasis added). Dr. Collins further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that things like changes in pressure inside the device, friction force, the volume and speed of the airflow, and how hard it is to draw air could all affect how well the device works. Therefore, the micro- USB port from Levin could not just be transplanted at the end of Pan’s device without affecting the air inlet holes and the overall way air flows through the device. Id. Patent Owner, through the testimony of Dr. Collins, further states None of the changes are straightforward. Instead, these modifications would require completely redesigning the device from scratch, including changing the electrical connections of the battery and the airflow connections to the sensor. . . . Having the correct airflow, connections, and fit are crucial. The draw resistance—how hard you have to pull to inhale the vapor—is a key factor and hard to get right. Among other things, the draw resistance affects how much effort the user needs to inhale; how much vapor is produced; the size of the visible vapor cloud exhaled; the “throat hit” sensation; and the particle size of the inhaled aerosol. All of these factors have to be carefully balanced to provide a satisfying user experience. But the proposed changes to Pan’s device would disrupt all of these interrelated factors. . . . As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the changes are challenging. So they would not expect to be able to make the suggested changes successfully. Id. ¶ 112. Petitioner’s conclusory assertions that because Pan has an end cap and Levin’s micro-USB charger contacts are in an end cap, “Levin’s micro- USB charger receptacle would work equally well when placed at Pan’s end cap” (Pet. 24; Ex. 1005 ¶ 105), are insufficient to account for the disruption of air flow in the Pan device.” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,134,722 - Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00223 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on the merits because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 18–25, 28, and 30 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition based on Verleur and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. E. Challenge based on Verleur, Knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Plojoux Petitioner also contends Verleur, the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and Plojoux would have rendered claims 2, 4, 21, and 23 obvious. Pet. 70–78. Petitioner does not present any arguments or evidence with respect to claims 2, 4, 21, and 23 that would remedy the defects noted above with respect to independent claims 1 and 20. Thus, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the subject matter of claims 2, 4, 21, and 23 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Verleur, the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and Plojoux.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years of industry experience in one of these fields, and such [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been familiar with electrically powered vaporizing articles, their components, or the underlying technologies. Pet. 5. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and either at least two years of experience designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field.” Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 19). Patent Owner also states that “Patent Owner’s arguments herein apply regardless of which definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] is adopted.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 20–21). On this record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the prior art of record, and apply it for this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings on 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
“Petitioner “contend[s] the term ‘mouthpiece’ means a ‘separate component from the storage compartment to be used by a mouth.’” Pet. 6. Petitioner additionally contends the construction of the term “is not material to the grounds in the Petition.” Id. Patent Owner contends that the term “mouthpiece” “means ‘portion to be used by a mouth.’” Prelim. Resp. 5. Patent Owner additionally “agrees with Petitioners that, at least in this preliminary stage, it is not necessary for the Board to resolve this construction.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s position is unpersuasive. It is not evident from the record that the skilled artisan would have understood that a window equates to a hole or “air inlet passage” as claimed. Indeed, the record suggests otherwise. For example, Verleur explains that: The shell may include a window provided at the cartomizer receiving segment so that a portion of the chamber is visible from outside the shell. [Ex. 1005 ¶ 27]. One or more windows 130 may be provided in outer shell 106 (see FIG. 1). Windows 130 may be made of a translucent material, such as glass or substantially clear plastic, in order to view internal components of battery portion 100. [Id. ¶ 37] For instance, in one embodiment, window 130 may be provided on or proximate to cartomizer receiving segment 104 and, more particularly, cartomizer chamber 108 so as to permit a user of electronic cigarette 10 to view the cartomizer 200 when it is inserted into cartomizer chamber 108. [Id.]. At least a portion of body 208 may be composed of translucent or substantially translucent material, such as glass or plastic, so that a user may see fluid 300A held within. The portion of body 208 composed of translucent material may be alignable with window 130 . . . . [Id. ¶ 38]. Petitioner itself acknowledges that window 130 of Verleur “may be made of a translucent material, such as glass or substantially clear plastic” and that the purpose of window 130 is “to view internal components of battery portion 100.” Pet. 29 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 37). Thus, Verleur provides that window 130 may be translucent to allow a user to view internal components, and Verleur makes no mention that window 130 is a hole or slit that allows air to enter. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37–38. Neither Petitioner nor its declarant Dr. Singhose adequately explains why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood window 130 to be an air inlet passage that allows air to enter gap “formed by an exterior surface of the cartridge and . . . an internal surface of the receptacle.” In contrast, Patent Owner, through the testimony of Dr. Collins, persuasively explains that the skilled artisan would have understood that Verleur’s window 130 is not an air inlet passage. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–49; Prelim. Resp. 11–13. Dr. Collins explains that “[w]indow 130 is a window . . . ‘to view internal components of battery portion 100,’ such as ‘to permit a user . . . to view the cartomizer 200 when it is inserted into cartomizer chamber 108.’” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 46–47 (third alteration in original). Dr. Collins further testifies that “Verleur knew how to describe an air inlet on the outside of the shell, since one is described in a different embodiment.” Id. ¶ 45. Alternatively, Petitioner contends that “to the extent window 130 is not a slit, but instead comprises glass or plastic, a hole would nonetheless be needed elsewhere in the shell to permit air into the gap between the cartomizer 200/200A and the outer shell 106.” Pet. 34. Petitioner points to Verleur paragraph 39, which describes holes or ducts in the outer shell. Id. However, where Verleur describes the existence of holes or ducts for air flow, the air flow is described as flowing though the cartomizer body itself and not through the gap or channel formed where the cartomizer is inserted into the shell chamber. Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (stating that “[i]nhalation tube 222 may also be in fluid communication with one or more holes or ducts provided, for instance, in sides of outer shell 106 in order to permit air flow through cartomizer body 208” (emphasis added)). This is consistent with Dr. Collins’s testimony that “[s]uch a mechanism would allow air to flow directly into the cartomizer through aligned holes.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 66 (emphasis added). In addition, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that an air inlet passage” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,709,173
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.