- Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00289 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–15 under Grounds 2 and 3, and claim 10 under Ground 4; Ground 1 did not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We have construed the “filament” term in multiple related proceedings and agreed with Patent Owner that the claimed filament requires flexibility. See Ex. 1050 (Final Written Decision in 156 IPR); IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 (Final Written Decision) at 15–24. Specifically, we determined that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s position that “a POSA would have understood the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed ‘filament’ as a flexible length of material (e.g., one or more string(s), wire(s), tape(s)).” See, e.g., Ex. 1050, 23. We maintain that construction in this Decision for the reasons given by Patent Owner (see PO Resp. 24–32; PO Sur-reply 6–8), we disagree with Petitioner’s argument to the contrary (Pet. Reply 27–31), and we incorporate our analysis concerning the meaning of the filament term from the related proceedings identified above, which applies equally here.13 Ex. 1050 (Final Written Decision in 156 IPR); IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 (Final Written Decision) at 15–24. The parties agreed at the oral hearing that there is no additional argument or evidence 13 Although the ’005 patent is not directly related to the patents at issue in the 1157 and 156 IPRs, the ’519 Application that the ’005 patent purports to incorporate for providing all relevant disclosures about the filament term is a parent application to the challenged patents in the 1157 and 156 IPRs (see supra n.3). SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). We also construed the filament term consistently in other ongoing proceedings on related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1045 (Institution Decision in the 728 IPR), 12–18; Ex. 1046 (Institution Decision in the 989 IPR), 13–21. already addressed in those related matters. Tr. 6:13–23, 23:19–26.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in August 2018 “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline and 2–4 years of catheter design experience.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). Although Patent Owner states that it “disagrees” with Petitioner’s POSA definition, Patent Owner nevertheless applies that definition in this case. PO Resp. 32–33; see Tr. 22:23–23:5 (Patent Owner is “not disputing” Petitioner’s definition, asserting the definition “doesn’t make any difference in this case”).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert creditedMixed
“We credit Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer on whether the POSA would have understood Schaffer as describing rigid actuating members. Dr. Zalesky testifies, for example, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosures about the actuating members being “machined” from metal or plastic, that such actuating members would be rigid. Ex. 2026 ¶ 101 (explaining “machining is a manufacturing process in which the desired part . . . is created using the controlled removal of bulk material” to produce a “rigid material”); Ex. 1005 ¶ 82 (“The actuating member 55 and the actuating button 261 is machined from aluminum” and “[i]n another example, the actuating member 55 and the actuating button 261 are machined from plastic”); Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 102–103 (testifying the disclosed valve assembly technique in Schaffer (Ex. 1005 ¶ 83) also indicates that “rigid” actuating members are used). Mr. Thornton opines (without citation to any persuasive supporting disclosure) that a POSA “would have understood that Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members would have preferably been formed from a thin, flexible material.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 113. But, at deposition, Mr. Thornton conceded that machined plastics and aluminum, like disclosed in Schaffer, are rigid. Ex. 2005, 168:2–6 (“Q. And you said that plastic that would be machined would be rigid, correct? A. I think that’s a fair statement.”). Although Mr. Thornton opines that Schaffer’s actuating members would “preferably”” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed
“For the reasons above, Petitioner has not established that the claimed “filament” is disclosed in the combination of Garrison and Schaffer and, thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Garrison and Schaffer. Petitioner’s challenge to independent claim 10 (and the claims that depend from claim 1 and claim 10) fails for similar reasons. Each of the challenged claims requires a “filament” and, given our construction of that term and our findings above that Schaffer does not teach or suggest the claimed filament, Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 11,554,005 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,554,005 - Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 7, 2026 · IPR2025-00156 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Schaffer combined with Hartley or Eller, with or without Garrison; anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over Schaffer alone were not shown.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties propose essentially the same formal educational background for the POSA, but we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks some specificity concerning the POSA’s work experience. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person qualifies as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience with any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2008 ¶ 76. 10 Although unspecified in this proceeding, in the related 1157 IPR, Patent Owner stated that the field of the invention is “hemostasis valves for use during intravascular procedures.” IPR2024-01157, Paper 13 at 22. engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:24–60 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not necessarily limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for minimally-invasive vascular surgeries. Id. Furthermore, as pointed out by Petitioner and consistent with the testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had firsthand experience designing relevant medical devices, including hemostasis valves. Pet. Reply 28; see, e.g., Ex. 1019 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing” hemostasis valves or aspiration catheters is not necessary, but “general experience with vascular devices and procedures” is required); Ex. 2006 (Thornton Tr.), 180:13–19. As Dr. Zalesky testified, the POSA’s experience related to such devices “could be as simple as bench testing and looking at clinical data.” Ex. 1019, 74:5–75:1; see also id. at 82:3–6 (testifying a POSA need not “have specific experience with different methodologies of hemostasis”). Lastly, a POSA would have had an understanding of such devices’ design requirements as determined by the needs of the physician, patient, and procedure, which understanding may be informed by work experience and/or study. Ex. 2006, 24:5–21.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “aspiration catheter” Claim 1’s preamble recites “[a]n aspiration catheter.” Ex. 1001, 22:10. Petitioner contends that, as a general rule, a preamble does not limit the scope of a claim, and that the term “aspiration” here merely describes a non-limiting “intended use” of an otherwise structurally-complete invention defined by the body of the claim. Pet. 18–19. Patent Owner responds that 11 In the related 1157 IPR, Patent Owner moved to exclude Mr. Thornton’s testimony, which motion we denied. IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 at 70–72. Patent Owner filed no motion to exclude here. Owner’s arguments here.” PO Resp. 30. We need not further construe “aspiration catheter” as no dispute turns on that term’s meaning or whether it is limiting. Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (explaining that claims need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve matters in dispute).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“That does not, however, resolve the dispute about “flexibility.” On that issue, after considering the full record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that a “filament” as claimed is flexible. The claims support Patent Owner’s interpretation. Patent Owner cites the claim language, including the recitation that “the first filament [is] formed into a loop around the collapsible tubular sidewall defining a valve lumen” and that “a diameter of the valve lumen decreases in response to reducing a diameter of the loop.” As Patent Owner argues, and as we recognized at the institution stage, the claimed filament “must be flexible to constrict the valve lumen.” PO Resp. 23; Inst. Dec. 15–16; Ex. 2008 ¶ 68 (testifying that a POSA would understand this property of flexibility is essential to achieving the claimed loop formation and function). The Specification supports this understanding. Consider the “loop” embodiments as illustrated in Figures 6 or 7. Ex. 1001, Figs. 6–7. If the filament forming each depicted loop was somehow rigid, applying a force that seeks to pull the respective ends of the filament in opposing directions would not decrease the size of the loop—the loop would stay the same size and the filament would not circumferentially constrict and seal the elongate member’s lumen as described in the patent. Ex. 1001, 13:18–29.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s argument is unavailing. A steel beam or a plastic broom handle are longer than they are wide and yet conventionally rigid. And, specific to the subject matter here, as Mr. Thornton admits, machining the valve’s actuating members from plastic or metal, which Schaffer actually describes, would produce rigid members. Ex. 2005, 168:2–6; see also Ex. 2006, 152:8–10 (testifying a flexible aluminum wire would not be made from machining aluminum). Moreover, considering Schaffer’s cited drawings— Figure 32, in particular—does not show the actuating members changing shape or dynamically conforming to the outer surface of the seal module that those members are compressing, which, had that been shown, might indicate flexibility. Maybe the absence of any dynamic conformance of the surface of the actuating members is an unintended limitation or artifact of the drawing. Or maybe not, and what is shown is a rigid structure consistent with Schaffer’s other disclosures as already explained. We decline to find anticipation where Schaffer does not, with sufficient clarity and detail, describe a valve with a “filament” as claimed.21 Ultimately, on whether Schaffer describes rigid or flexible U-shaped actuating members, Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of the reference is more plausible and we find greater evidentiary support for Patent Owner’s position on this issue. Notwithstanding Mr. Thornton’s testimony in his rebuttal declaration that a POSA reading Schaffer would have understood 21 Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Anticipation requires that a single reference describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.”) (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted). testimony on cross-examination was equivocal—he admitted “[i]t’s not clear” whether Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members are flexible or rigid. Ex. 2006, 115:16–23 (testifying “[t]he material properties of the U-shaped actuating members are not clearly defined in the Shafer [sic] application”). Dr. Zalesky, in contrast, has consistently testified that a POSA would have understood that Schaffer describes rigid actuating members. See, e.g., Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 66–74 (citing, inter alia, Schaffer’s illustrations of the valve in operation, and the disclosed manufacturing and assembly methods as indicating that “the actuating members 55 are rigid rather than flexible”).” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,697,012 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,012 - Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 7, 2026 · IPR2024-01439 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 and 13–21 are unpatentable under § 103 based on Ono and Corbett and Uchida and Grimshaw; the Board did not find Ichieda unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with . . . five years of work experience in computer science and embedded systems, or Master’s Degree in Computer Science with . . . five years of work experience in electrical and computer engineering and embedded systems. Additional educational experience could substitute for some of the work experience. level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 10. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’951 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“determine that none of the claim terms the parties provide constructions for require an express construction in this proceeding. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The parties do appear to disagree on the meaning of “trigger,” however. Although neither party actually identifies that term as needing interpretation and neither party actually provides a claim construction analysis to support its respective position, the parties do dispute whether the evidence presented shows a “trigger,” both presumably giving that term its plain and customary meaning. In other words, while both parties appear to agree “trigger” carries its plain meaning, in application, the parties’ dispute regarding the particular limitations including that term appears to turn, not over what the evidence discloses, but only on whether the disclosure satisfies the plain meaning of “trigger” (see infra § II.E.2). Accordingly, while we apply the plain meaning of “trigger” in this proceeding, and in doing so, we address which party has properly applied the plain meaning and, in doing that, we address the scope properly afforded to “trigger.” That analysis, however, is done below in the context of the limitation in which this issue arises (see id.).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“has now been developed, and in view of both parties’ arguments, we find Petitioner has persuasively shown that modifying Ono’s peripheral device (i.e., communications module 44) to include an input device/physical actuator like the one described for Ono’s remote controller 69 to control the display of image data from a particular user’s computer would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention. More specifically, Petitioner has shown persuasively Ono shows that the use of an input device/physical actuator to send a signal that causes a participant’s computer to transmit and control the image data presented on a shared display in an image display system was a known technique (see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 7, 44–48, 66– 71, 77–78, 80–89, 144, Figs. 3, 6, 8, 9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–100, 121–127) and available location for such an input device/physical actuator to initiate the transmission of data (see Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 6, 18, 20, 22–23, 26, 28, 46, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92–100). Petitioner has also persuasively shown that a skilled artisan recognized benefits to giving a participant the ability to locally control the display of their computer’s image data. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–91; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 4, 19–20, 27–28; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 10–13, 39–10, 70–72. When Ono and Corbett are considered together as a whole from the perspective of a skilled artisan, therefore, it is clear that applying a similar input device/physical actuator to Ono’s peripheral device would have been recognized to result in the benefit of providing a participant with the same ability to send a signal that causes a participant’s computer to transmit and control the image data presented on a shared display from their computer within an image display system. As a result, a motivation has been established because the combination is an application of a known technique to derive a known benefit using prior art elements according to their established functions. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023).” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“that, from their perspective, the plain meaning of the term “trigger” does not exclude intervening steps between a user’s action on an input device and the ultimate transfer of the user selected arbitrary media content. Pet. Reply 11– 12 (indicating that “trigger” encompasses “a process that begins with and thus is triggered by a user pressing a button followed by an ‘image transfer’ from a PC to a projector”). For its part, Patent Owner maintains (at least implicitly) that intervening steps are excluded from the plain meaning. Neither party addresses with more specificity why, or why not, the scope of “trigger” supports their positions, however. Having now the complete record before us, we find that out preliminary assessment was wrong because the plain meaning of the term “trigger” does not exclude intervening steps between the cause-and-effect relationship of the trigger and the result it is intended to cause. Take, for example, a simple gun. Pulling the “trigger” to fire a gun necessarily includes intervening steps to occur: the trigger releases a hammer that, in turn, contacts a blasting cap within a bullet casing, which is what actually causes the gunpowder to ignite (i.e., fire) and expel the bullet. And there is no evidence in this record to suggest that this customary understanding of the word “trigger” is any different in the electrical arts, other than the trigger and result are generally electrical in nature, rather than mechanical. We find no clear disavowal of claim scope within the intrinsic record of the ’951 patent to indicate that the term “trigger” was intended to be understood any differently to exclude any intervening steps between a user’s action on an input device and the resulting transfer of user selected arbitrary media content. intervening steps would exist because the input device does not actually do the transferring of the media content; instead, the claims recite the transferring is “from the transmitter to the wireless communications network and [then] to the base node.” See Ex. 1001, 11:3–48, 27:62–28:1 (claim 1), 28:62–67 (claim 9), 29:42–46 (claim 16), 30:36–44 (claim 21) (emphasis added). A skilled artisan would have recognized that there would be intervening steps between the input device being acted upon and the content being displayed by base node’s display. See Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 11–12. In the claims, the input device is analogous to a gun’s trigger, the user carrying out a user action on the input device is analogous to pulling a gun’s trigger, and the transfer of user selected arbitrary media content is analogous the gun expelling a bullet. In both cases, there can be, and usually are, intervening steps, moreover, in both cases, inadvertent things can happen that may prevent the intended result (e.g., in the case of a gun, the hammer can jam; in the case of an input device, a connection can be rejected). Nevertheless, in both cases, the trigger is the thing that initiates an automated process that leads to a particular result, unless a conditional error occurs.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 11,422,951 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,422,951 - Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 7, 2026 · IPR2024-01438 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 16, and 18–20 are unpatentable under § 103 based on the five asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (alteration in original)). This search for answers about whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention applies “an expansive and flexible art elements would have been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, “requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” 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.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“3. Conclusion as to Secondary Considerations We have considered all of Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence concerning secondary considerations. We give Patent Owner’s evidence regarding its revenue and profits from the ClickShare product line little weight. We give some weight to Patent Owner’s evidence of licensing. We, however, do not find the licensing evidence outweighs Petitioner’s showing of obviousness.” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 11,258,676 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,258,676 - Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 7, 2026 · IPR2024-01437 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 9, 18, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over Kaplan and Mardiks and over Maeda and Deforche.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering and five years of work experience in computer science and embedded systems, or a Master’s Degree in Computer Science and five years of work experience in electrical and computer engineering and embedded systems. Additional educational experience could substitute for some of the work experience. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 10. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’237 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying this standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for a number of claim terms. Pet. 9–14; PO Resp. 8–10. Only those terms in controversy, however, need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We need not construe explicitly any claim term.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“a) Whether Dr. Almeroth’s Testimony should Be Given Little Weight Patent Owner argues that we should give little weigh to the testimony of Dr. Almeroth because Dr. Almeroth’s testimony is allegedly inconsistent across the related inter partes reviews. PO Resp. 11–16; PO Sur-reply 21– 22. We have reviewed the disputed portions of Dr. Almeroth’s testimony and, when read in context, we are not persuaded that the testimony is inconsistent so as to be afforded little weight. As Petitioner points out (Pet. Reply 2), Patent Owner’s arguments do not properly account for the context in which the testimony was given in the related inter partes reviews.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the Deutschland Gmbh v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). We are persuaded by Petitioner that Mardiks meets at least the second test because both the ’237 patent and Mardiks “are directed to solving the same problem of using standard, pre-installed generic drivers, such as human interface device (HID) drivers, to access programs stored on peripheral devices.” Pet. Reply. 3–5; See Ex. 1001, 5:38–40; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 3, 28. We, thus, are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Mardisk is non-analogous art. slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,403,237 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,403,237 - Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 7, 2026 · IPR2024-01436 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 9–11, 19, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche, and over Maeda, Ahmed, and Deforche.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had at least a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering and five years of work experience in computer science and embedded systems, or a Master’s Degree in Computer Science and five years of work experience in electrical and computer engineering and embedded systems. the work experience. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 12. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’002 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“term “pre-installed generic driver.” Pet. 13; PO Resp. 9–10. Those proposed constructions are consistent with the lexicographic definition provided in the ’002 patent. In a section titled “Definitions,” the ’002 patent states: The term “pre-installed generic driver” is intended to mean a driver which is installed on a processing device such as a computer as a standard driver, e.g. is installed with the installation of the operating system. Such a driver is standard for the operating system and can drive a standard class of peripheral devices coupled to or connected to the processing device. Ex. 1001, 14:32–38. We apply this lexicographic definition in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“a) Whether Dr. Almeroth’s Testimony should Be Given Little Weight Patent Owner argues that we should give little weigh to the testimony of Dr. Almeroth because Dr. Almeroth’s testimony is allegedly inconsistent across the related inter partes reviews. PO Resp. 13–19; PO Sur-reply 21– 22. We have reviewed the disputed portions of Dr. Almeroth’s testimony and, when read in context, we are not persuaded that the testimony is inconsistent so as to be afforded little weight. As Petitioner points out (Pet. Reply 2–3), Patent Owner’s arguments do not properly account for the context in which the testimony was given in the related inter partes review.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive. We are not persuaded that these differences between Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche are dispositive. To the contrary, we find the differences establish why a POSITA would have further modified Kaplan and Ahmed with the teachings of Deforche. Deforche expressly teaches that a disadvantage of wireless modems is that they require installation of an appropriate driver before applications running on the computer device can use the functionality of the wireless modem to connect to wireless networks. Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 2–3. Deforche solves this problem by using the processing device’s pre-installed drivers, which can be for a human interface device, to set up a modem/host communication interface for communication. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9. Because “[d]ata traffic from the computer device towards the wireless communication network and vice versa is routed over this modem/host communication interface and uses the generic communication protocol provided by the preinstalled generic driver,” Deforche states this “has the advantage that the need for a specific driver for the communication between the wireless modem device and the computer device can avoided” and “the advantage that a user can use the wireless modem device on a computer device on which he has no administrator rights, i.e. a computer specific driver for the wireless modem device.” Id. ¶ 9. “The motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one. Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (internal quotations omitted). As the Federal Circuit held, “[t]here is a motivation to combine when a known technique has been used to improve one device, and a [skilled artisan] would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.” Intel Corp., 61 F.4th at 1380. Here, Deforche establishes that utilizing an operating system’s preinstalled generic driver to provide a generic protocol communications between the processing device and a peripheral device was known for improving wireless modems because it does not require administrator rights and a specific driver to be installed to enable communications between the wireless modem device and the processing device.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 10,762,002 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,762,002 - Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 11, 2026 · IPR2024-00635 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
The majority held claims 1–14 unpatentable under §103 over Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art; one judge dissented as to claims 8, 9, 12, and 13.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) with respect to the subject matter of the ’698 patent at the time of the priority date, March 11, 2004, would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, or other technical training in product design or equivalent work experience. This person would also possess at least one year of experience in developing and/or evaluating mechanical aspects of fluid systems. I consider myself a person of ordinary skill in the art under this definition. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Patent Owner argues: A POSITA in the field to which the ’698 Patent is directed would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering or a related field or, as a substitute, at least two years of work or research experience in the design or development of toilet products, parts, and accessories. PO Resp. 6. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSITA, as it is consistent with the ’698 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, we see no material difference between the level of skill proposed by Patent Owner and that proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Cameron such that our determinations would be the same under either proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that, because each of the Flow Limitations relate to water flow through the bowl fill valve, these limitations require adjusting the flow rate of water exiting the flow valve. PO Resp. 15–17 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 97); See also PO Sur-Reply 7. Petitioner responds that “the claim language of the ’698 Patent discusses adjusting the water flow, not specifically the ‘flow rate.’” Pet. Reply 13. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner, and the conclusory testimony of Mr. Jobin (Ex. 2013 ¶ 97), that because the Flow Limitations “relate” to water flow through the bowl fill valve, that this necessarily means that the flow rate must be adjusted. As Petitioner points out, neither the term “flowrate” nor any similar term appears in any of the Flow Limitations. Thus, the plain language of the Flow Limitations requires that, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the claim limitation should not be restricted to adjustments to “flow rate.”” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that Limitations 8B and 12B are directed to the configuration or structure of the bowl fill valve outlet port. Pet. Reply 2–4. According to Petitioner, because Limitations 8B and 12B do recite an overflow tube, the overflow tube is not separately claimed and is recited solely to define the function of the outlet port on the bowl fill valve. Id. at 3. Petitioner, thus, argues that an overflow tube is not separately claimed as a structural element, and that, to meet Limitations 8B and 12B, it is sufficient to show that the prior art discloses a bowl fill valve with an outlet port that is configured to attach directly to a tube that provides water from the outlet port to an overflow tube. Id. at 4. In contrast, Patent Owner argues that Limitations 8B and 12B separately claim the overflow tube, and that Petitioner must show that the prior art discloses a tube that transfers water from the bowl fill valve outlet port to the toilet tank overflow tube. PO Resp. 10–11; PO Sur-reply 2–3. We disagree with Patent Owner, because claims 8 and 12, on their face, require “bowl fill valve outlet port,” but do not require or recite an “overflow tube” as an element of the claimed “bowl fill valve.” When a structure is claimed as “configured to” perform a particular function, it generally requires a structure that is designed to perform the particular function claimed, i.e., it requires more than the mere capability of performing that function. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim language including the phrase “adapted to” is to be construed consistent with “configured to” language and requires that the structure must be “designed or configured to accomplish the specified objective, not simply that [it] can be made to serve that purpose.”); see also In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The plain language of Limitations 8B and 12B is clearly directed to the configuration of the bowl fill valve outlet port, in that these limitations recite “a bowl fill valve outlet port configured to.”8 The recited function is “attach directly to a tube that provides water from the bowl fill valve outlet port to an overflow tube.” The overflow tube is recited as part of the function in a clause identifying the tube to which the bowl fill valve outlet port is configured to attached — “that provides water from the bowl fill valve outlet port to an overflow tube.” The overflow tube, thus, is recited as part of the function defining the required structure of the bowl fill outlet port and is not separately claimed.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“1. Petitioner’s Contentions Petitioner contends that the combination of Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art teaches all of the limitations of claims 1–14 and provides a mapping showing where each claim limitation is found in the prior art. Pet. 21–59. We have reviewed the Petition’s mapping and determine that the Petition sufficiently shows that each limitation of claims 1–14 is disclosed by the combination of Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art. Further, we have reviewed Petitioner’s rationale for combining the prior art and determine that the Petition sufficiently shows that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,934,698 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,934,698 - Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-00634 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 8–13, 15, 16, and 19–24 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho, with claims 16 and 19 also relying on the Quick Connection Art; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner proposes that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] in the field to which the ’105 Patent is directed would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering or a related field or, as a substitute, at least two years of work or” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of “integrally molded with” as “molded together as a single structure.” Paper 21, 15.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that: a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the proposed modification, nor does the Petition include any analysis regarding why a POSITA would be motivated to move from a vertical extended portion to a radial extended portion. Indeed, a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar as it introduces another sudden directional change into the fluid flow system. PO Resp. 58–59 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 242).” slip op. at 32
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the ’105 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 63–65; PO Sur-reply 26–29. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 of the bowl fill valve 109, the flow of water through the bowl fill valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288. Further, the ’606 Application states: The bowl fill valve 109 may be, for example, a ball valve, a gate valve, a globe valve, a plug valve, a diaphragm valve, a butterfly valve, a needle valve, a sliding gate, a quick turn valve, a knife valve or any other appropriate type of valve as can be appreciated by those with ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 9,103,105 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,103,105 - Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Willow Blossom Holdco LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2026 · IPR2024-01296 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–46 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Chang, Fang, Yuen, Khalil, Park, and Chen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field and at least two years of experience designing human breast pump equipment” and that “[m]ore education could substitute for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–18). Mr. Bauer’s cited testimony supports Petitioner’s assertion.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“[parent application to the application that matured into the ’380 patent], the Examiner construed the term ‘self-contained, in-bra wearable device’ to mean ‘complete, or having all that is needed, in itself’ and is capable of being worn in a bra.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1005, 2290) (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “PO did not dispute this construction, and Petitioner applies it herein.” Id. Petitioner also states that “[o]ther terms of the Challenged Claims should receive their plain and ordinary meaning, and no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding because ‘claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Id. (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 69–70). Again, because Patent Owner did not file a Response, we exercise our discretion and look to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. We note that in the Preliminary Response Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, no claim terms require construction to resolve the prior art grounds raised in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 19. According to specific construction, any such terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification.” Id. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). There are no claim terms in controversy. Accordingly, we need not construe any terms for our analysis.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends (Pet. 17) that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Chang’s breast pump device as suggested by Fang” to achieve four benefits: (1) “to facilitate convenient cleaning and maintenance” (Pet. 19 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 102)); (2) “to facilitate more rapid assembly and disassembly (e.g., during use)” (id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 105)); (3) “as a particularly effective and suitable option to generate negative” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“a breast pump device having “a diaphragm pump that generates negative air pressure.” Pet. 33; see also id. at 38. Petitioner explains Chang’s pump “generates suction by cyclical compression and decompression of a conduit or flex-tube, and expressly notes that other configurations were known and suitable.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 22, 25, 28, 68, 79, 84–86). Chang, however, does not mention, specifically, that Chang’s pump is a “diaphragm” pump. We note, however, that this claim clause does not state or require any specific type of pump. It merely requires a “pump.” Clause 1[e]/29[e], discussed below, however, does require a “diaphragm” pump. Petitioner here merely lays the foundation for this later clause by asserting that “Fang provides a straightforward suggestion of a diaphragm pump including a diaphragm housing component formed in a wall of the pump housing.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 24–25, Fig. 7; Ex. 1003 ¶ 97). Thus, Petitioner asserts, Fang teaches “an ‘air pump’ in pneumatic connection with the diaphragm that serves to generate negative air pressure,” and Chang teaches “the location of pump components (e.g., ‘motor’ [46]).” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 72, 80, Fig, 6A; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 19, 24). Petitioner then asserts that “the ‘air pump’ components of the combined device are positioned within the pump housing,” and the air pump is powered by Chang’s rechargeable battery. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 72, 80).” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 11,413,380 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,413,380 - Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01157 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over Schaffer with Hartley or Eller, though Schaffer alone did not anticipate and Hartley with Eller did not show claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 9.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“background for the POSA, but we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks some specificity concerning the POSA’s work experience. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person qualifies as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2008 ¶ 68. We also find that a POSA would have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:21–57 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not necessarily limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for minimally-invasive vascular surgeries. Id. And, consistent with the testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had firsthand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1015 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing”” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Schaffer’s valve to include a single flexible string or wire that replaces the two U-shaped actuating members would have been seen by the POSA as potentially advantageous—giving further reason for the POSA to have made that change. Pet. 35–36. We credit Mr. Thornton’s testimony that a POSA would have understood that Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members may into the lumen. Ex. 1003 ¶ 81. On the other hand, a POSA would have recognized that a single flexible string or wire that is looped completely around the exterior of the seal module/lumen would provide more uniform constriction and compression around the outer diameter of some commonlyused tools and including tools with diverse shapes and sizes. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–88, 93–100. We observed this same reason for modifying the art at institution and, after considering the full trial record, our view has not changed. Inst. Dec. 37 (preliminarily finding that a POSA would have considered Hartley’s string or Eller’s wire “as providing expected benefits insofar as such a filament may more precisely and uniformly constrict a lumen against inserted tools of different sizes and shapes”). Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Zalesky, does not disagree that a flexible string or wire would have carried this advantage. Ex. 2008 ¶ 75 (testifying a “filament changes shape dynamically, allowing for better adaptability to the contours of the valve lumen as it is constricted”);21 Ex. 1015 (Zalesky Tr.), 86:19–87:4 (testifying that POSAs in 2017 would have recognized that the “cinching” effect provided by a filament would have been more effective for large-bore catheters based on “simple mechanical engineering and physics”). And, at the oral hearing, Patent Owner agreed that using Hartley’s string in Schaffer would help eliminate potential fluid gaps; but Patent Owner qualified its answer that such a benefit would allegedly only have arisen if “the highly-compliant” seal member material in Schaffer was removed,” slip op. at 53
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“that issue, after considering the full record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that a “filament” as claimed is flexible. On balance, the evidence supports Patent Owner’s interpretation. Patent Owner cites the claim language, including the recitation that “the filament circumferentially constricts the lumen to create a seal,” which Dr. Zalesky opines a POSA would have understood as implying a flexible structure. PO Resp. 25–26; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 71–76 (testifying, inter alia, that “[t]o ‘circumferentially constrict,’ the filament must be flexible and extend circumferentially about the lumen” such that “the filament will adapt to the shape of the lumen as the lumen is constricted and thus ‘circumferentially constrict’ the lumen as recited in Claim 1”).12 The Specification also describes the filament as being selectively “tightened” and “loosened” about the elongate member. Ex. 1001, 9:37–40, 9:55–59 (teaching “the filament 150 is tightened” when the actuator is released and “the filament 150 is loosened” when the actuator is pressed to open the valve)). Dr. Zalesky opines that a POSA would have understood the patent’s description of” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“challenge fails on this record whether the clearer prosecution drawings in Exhibit 1008 are considered in the analysis of anticipation by Schaffer, or not. Whether those prosecution drawings are considered “extrinsic evidence” to Schaffer (as argued by Patent Owner) or publicly-available “intrinsic evidence” with respect to Schaffer (as Petitioner argues) does not change our Decision on Ground 1. Opp. 10–11; Mot. Reply, 3–5. Patent Owner’s motion is, therefore, moot as to Ground 1.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS 11,697,011 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,011
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.