- Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00286 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to teach or render obvious system-selected virtual bus stops and a pair of associated stops.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Discussion We have considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, and we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’824 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 10–11; see also PO Resp. 31–32. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’824 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 31–32. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent in determining the relevant skill in the art to explain why the art of the ’824 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components. See id.; Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’824 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims, without support, that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that an artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’824 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Having addressed the relevant skill in the art, we address Patent Owner’s contention that Mr. Andrews “is not qualified to offer opinions concerning the artificial intelligence components of a ride-sharing system that are at issue in the ’824 patent.” PO Resp. 37. As discussed previously, we disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and have adopted Petitioner’s position. Patent Owner does not offer an opinion as to whether Mr. Andrews would be qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition. The record reflects that Mr. Andrews possessed an advanced degree in electronic engineering, had a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems, and had more than two years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces, and databases at the time of the ’824 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19; Ex. 1009. Therefore, we find that Mr. Andrews is qualified to offer opinions as a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’824 patent under the relevant definition. Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews testimony that he has experience in “location-based systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. Furthermore, given Mr. Andrews’s advanced degree, Patent Owner’s definition would allow Mr. Andrews to have less than two years of experience in the pertinent fields. PO Resp. 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Under these circumstances, where the parties now agree that the ordinary meaning should apply to “virtual bus stops” and the district court adopted the same approach, we see no reason to depart from applying the ordinary meaning in this proceeding. We therefore apply the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by the parties, where “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” As to the construction of dependent claim 8, we agree with Patent Owner that we need not formally construe the term to resolve the issues before us. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As to Petitioner’s remaining arguments, we do not read artificial intelligence or other limitations into the claims as Petitioner warns against, and Petitioner does not argue for any specific construction in relation to these arguments that would require us to resolve a specific claim construction dispute. See Pet. Reply 4–10.” slip op. at 16
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1004, 4:17–23. The Petition does not cite to any declarant support, additional prior art, other embodiments in Lambert, or any obviousness analysis when addressing “virtual bus stops.” See Pet. 25. Although for later aspects of claim 1 the Petition relies on Poykko and an obviousness analysis when arguing that it would have been obvious to configure Lambert’s server to operate in a certain way (e.g., to access memory that includes a database of locations as taught by Poykko), the Petition does not rely on such an analysis when first addressing “virtual bus stops” alone. See id. The combination of Lambert’s statement above with Poykko and other aspects of Lambert, potentially with allegedly obvious modifications of Lambert, may serve as the basis of Petitioner’s arguments for these later limitations involving “virtual bus stops,” but these later allegations do not reach back and redefine Petitioner’s more limited argument with respect to “virtual bus stops” in isolation.8 To the extent Petitioner argues in its Reply that a combination of Lambert and Poykko or other obviousness arguments 8 In our Institution Decision, we noted that Patent Owner, at that stage of the proceeding, failed to properly address Petitioner’s proposed combination of Lambert and Poykko for various “virtual bus stop” limitations. Inst. Dec. 22–23. That said, we do not view the Petition’s arguments and evidence as to “virtual bus stops” limitation in isolation, prior to addressing the “memory” limitation and adding Poykko and obviousness to the analysis, as relying on a combination of Lambert and Poykko or obviousness. See Pet. 25. satisfy the “virtual bus stops” limitation, we agree with Patent Owner that this introduces an improper new theory in the Reply. See PO Sur-reply 20– 22.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,816,824 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,816,824 - Nanobebe US Inc. v. Mayborn (UK) LimitedInstitutedPTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00467 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 on all asserted grounds; the Meyers and Sepehr obviousness challenge met the reasonable-likelihood threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Here, the record does not support a finding that Comotomo and Nanobebe have any relationship, let alone a “significant” one. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s co-founder and executive chairman, Mr. Lanternari, that Petitioner “was not involved in the preparation and/or filing of the Comotomo IPR petitions, nor was Comotomo involved in the preparation and/or filing of [Petitioner’s] petitions.” Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 1, 14. Additionally, Patent Owner accused Petitioner and Comotomo of patent infringement based on different products. See id. ¶ 14. This difference further distinguishes the facts from Valve Corporation. See Valve Corp. 9–10.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’930 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 of the ’930 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“engineering, industrial design, or similar technical field, and with 2 or more years of practical experience related to the design of infant feeding products or comparable industry.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 47). Petitioner further submits that “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears consistent with the ’930 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The Markman Order provided a thorough and reasoned explanation of the construction, citing evidence and argument submitted by both parties. See Ex. 2008, 12–15. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the District Court’s construction, and conclude that “domed configuration” shall mean “wide circular bottom with an arc-shaped cross-sectional profile.” Id. at 15. If either party disagrees with this construction, that party shall explain why the construction is in error in its next substantive brief. 2. “teat portion” In the Markman Order, the District Court adopted the parties agreed- upon construction that “teat portion” shall mean “the entire part projecting generally perpendicular to the mouth of the vessel and disposed above the areola portion.” Ex. 2008, 5 (citing transcript from Markman hearing). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the District Court’s construction. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). If either party disagrees with this construction, that party shall explain why the construction is in error in its next substantive brief.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,952,930 - Nanobebe US Inc. v. Mayborn (UK) LimitedInstitutedPTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00465 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 21–24, 26, and 27, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Ishimaru and Kurkjian; it also instituted the Ishimaru–Atkin ground under the all-or-nothing rule.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“Absent a “significant relationship” between Petitioner and Comotomo, on this record, the General Plastic factors are of “little probative value.” Cf. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Scramoge Tech. Ltd., IPR2022-00284, Paper 12 at 12 (PTAB Jun. 22, 2022) (finding Factor 2 “of little probative value” where “there is no significant relationship” between petitioners). Furthermore, “[a]ny ‘implicit’ relationship created merely by challenging the same claims of the same patent with similar allegations of unpatentability is not the sort of ‘significant relationship’ contemplated by Valve [Corporation].” See Ebates Performance Mktg., Inc. v. IBM, IPR2022-00646, Paper 10 at 9 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2022).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA” or “POSA”) “would have a B.S. in Mechanical or Industrial Engineering; Materials Science, Product Design, or equivalent field, with 3-5 years of academic or industry experience with fluid dynamics, or a comparable industry.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 47). Petitioner further submits that “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears consistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“(i) Domed Shape We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s repeated arguments that Kurkjian is a narrow nipple and bottle design and thereby cannot meet the dome shaped limitation as recited in claim element 21(H) (Prelim. Resp. 29, 34, 38); and that Petitioner has not provided “argument and evidence as to how the prior art applies to the construed term ‘domed shape.’” See Prelim. Resp. 26. Petitioner identifies that Kurkjian has a nipple and collar design where “the edge of the collar that has the widest circumference” and a sloping outer contour, thereby, meeting the domed shape limitation. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 415). Changes in the size and proportion do not render a product patentable unless it performs differently. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight [ ] requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.). The ’244 patent Specification does not define “wide” but suggests that the base portion of the teat be shaped like a breast. Ex. 1003, 4:3–5 (“The shape of the teat is also similar to the human breast, the base portion 116 being shaped like a breast and having a wide, domed configuration.”), see also id. at 7:17, 8:19. Suggesting that the design is intended to be shaped like a natural breast says nothing about the requisite width of the dome because breasts come in all shapes and sizes. Increasing the diameter of Kurkjian’s bottle and corresponding nipple and collar would not be expected to change the function of the feeding bottle. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,207,244 - Yita LLC / Jinrong (SH) Automotive Accessory Industrial Development Co. Ltd. v. Macneil IP LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00173 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6 on the asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need not explicitly construe the term “vehicle floor tray” or any other claim term for the purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). However, we offer the following reasons for not adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Claim 1 recites the term “vehicle floor tray” but does not recite any specific structural details of the tray. Ex. 1001, 19:42–60. Thus, nothing in the claim language suggests the structural aspects of a vehicle floor tray included in Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 14
- 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 had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field, or equivalent formal training, education, or practical experience in a field relating to product design, CAD, or manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner further contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art “would also have a minimum of three to five years of experience in plastics engineering, CAD, manufacturing, plastic product design, or a related industry,” but that “a higher level of training or practical experience might make up for less education, and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not, at this stage of the proceeding, dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’917 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“In his testimony concerning background prior art, Mr. Perreault relies on two prior art patents that disclose “floor mats” described similarly to Patent Owner’s description of a “vehicle floor tray.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30 (citing Ex. 1013 (“Bailey”); Ex. 1015 (“Tyler”)). Bailey describes a “floor mat” that is “molded or otherwise preformed into a tray-like shape which conforms to the contour of a portion of the carpeted automobile floor. The mat is dimensioned and configured to nest within and abut against the sides of a carpeted floor well of the vehicle.” Ex. 1013, 2:37–42, Fig. 6. Tyler describes “contoured vehicle floor mats” that “mate[] with the vehicle floorboard to hold the mat in place.” Ex. 1013, code (57), 1:52–54. Based on these exhibits, we find that Mr. Perreault’s testimony is not conclusory and not based on an improper definition of floor tray. Based on the present record and after considering Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner sufficiently establishes that Stanesic discloses the subject matter of the preamble. In particular, Stanesic discloses “a tray-like central area” and “the raised wall 22 has two walls that rise about one to about two inches from the base 15” (Ex. 1005, 2:61–62), which sufficiently supports Petitioner’s contention that Stanesic discloses, or at least suggests, a vehicle floor tray.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,138,917 - Yita LLC / Jinrong (SH) Automotive Accessory Industrial Development Co. Ltd. v. Macneil IP LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00172 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“and Cicotte, the dispute for the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework revolves around whether Rothkop is cumulative of Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 cited in an IDS considered by the Examiner. Petitioner does not dispute that Cicotte is cumulative of Exhibit 2005 or 2006. See Prel. Reply. For the purposes of the § 325(d) analysis, we will assume, without deciding, that Rothkop is cumulative of at least one of the references Patent Owner relies on, i.e., Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. We, thus, assume, without deciding, that the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied and move to the second prong. 4. Advanced Bionics Framework, Prong Two: Has Petitioner Demonstrated that the Office Erred in a Manner Material to the Patentability of the Challenged Claims? The ’655 patent issued from an application filed on August 6, 2014.” slip op. at 45
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the following reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Claim 1 recites a “vehicle floor tray” but does not recite any specific structural details of the tray. Ex. 1001, 19:46–2:2. Thus, nothing in the claim language suggests the aspects of a vehicle floor tray included in Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Patent Owner does not direct us to an explicit lexicographic definition of the term “vehicle floor tray” in the Specification of the ’655 patent. Rather, Patent Owner relies on descriptions of aspects of the embodiment disclosed in Figure 1 of the ’655 patent. For example, the ’655 patent generally describes that “[f]loor trays have sidewalls.” Ex. 1001, 1:58. The ’655 patent states that in an “aspect” of the invention, “a vehicle floor tray has a central panel for the placement on the floor of a vehicle foot well, and at least first and second upstanding panels.” Id. at 5:28–30. In column 7, the ’655 patent describes that “[d]isposed around the central or floor panel 102 are a series of upstanding side panels, which will vary in number and configuration from one vehicle model to the next.” Id. at 7:47–49 (emphasis added). These portions of the Specification suggest that the term “vehicle floor tray” should not be limited to any particular number of side panels or any particular configuration such as the side panels are joined to the floor panel and each other. In the Summary of the Invention, the ’655 patent discloses “a vehicle” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“For the following reasons, Patent Owner’s contentions are unavailing based on the present record. First, as discussed above, Patent Owner’s attempt to draw a distinction between floor trays and floor mats is unavailing based on the present record and undercut by its own exhibits describing Patent Owner’s vehicle floor trays as “mats.” See Ex. 2010; Ex. 2012; Ex. 2013; Ex. 2014. Second, as discussed above, the fact that Petitioner has not shown that someone previously scanned a vehicle footwell is unavailing because this challenge is based on obviousness, not anticipation. Third, the sentence in Rothkop that Patent Owner contends discloses a kind of scanner, not what is to be scanned, is “[t]he data input device may comprise a scanner 12 for scanning a physical part such as an existing seat, frame, or vehicle.” Ex. 1006, 4:61– 63. Based on the present record, we do not agree that this sentence discloses a type of scanner. Fourth, Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the claimed invention creating a new product versus reverse engineering an existing product in Rothkop raises potential fact questions that are best resolved at trial based on a fully developed record. Petitioner provides numerous reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Stanesic, Rothkop, and Cicotte in such a manner that teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1. Pet. 29–34. Petitioner sufficiently supports this reasoning with the testimony of Mr. Perreault that he supports with reference to Stanesic, Rothkop, Cicotte, and other references showing the background art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147–157. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s conclusion that the combination of Stanesic, Rothkop, and Cicotte “would be nothing more than applying known techniques . . . to a known method of producing a custom-fit vehicle floor tray . . . that is ready for improvement, yielding the predictable result of generating a custom-fit floor tray.” Compare Pet. 33, with Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record and after considering all of Patent” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,899,655 - Painteq, LLC v. Orthocision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00335 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 26–28 and 31 are unpatentable; proposed substitute claims 32–35 are also unpatentable, so the revised motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, even in the absence of any argument from Patent Owner,” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“2. Claim 26 Claim 26 recites “[a] method for repairing a sacroiliac joint.” Ex.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Combination of Stark and Stoffman In presenting this alternative challenge and combining Stark with” slip op. at 38
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 87
Patent outcomesUS 10,426,539 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,426,539 - Meridian Wildlife Services, LLC v. Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01340 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–8 because the petitioner did not show the Board misapprehended or overlooked its obviousness arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“C. STANDARD FOR REHEARING The party filing a request for rehearing of a decision whether to institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c)).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In our decision on institution (Paper 9, “Dec.” or “Decision”), we determined that Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the Challenged Claims and denied institution of inter partes review. Petitioner filed a timely Request for Rehearing in which it asks that we institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claims. Paper 10, 1 (“Reh’g Req.” or “Request”). For the reasons that follow, we deny Petitioner’s Request.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“to “then place nets where the birds are observed flying in the building.” Reh’g Req. 4 (citing Pet. 19; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15, 45; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71, 72, 75). Brugh does not “instruct” a POSA to perform either of these actions. Rather, Brugh provides a method comprising, in relevant part, “a) determining the species of flying vertebrate inside the building; b) selecting bird netting; . . . [and] d) positioning the netting for capture based on the species of flying vertebrate and their flight characteristics utilizing the height adjustable poles to raise the netting.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8–10, 15 (emphasis added). There is no “instruction” that the location of the netting is adjusted based on the flight pattern; rather, the height is adjusted. Brugh further provides for “determin[ing] how [the flying vertebrate] flies, e.g., a bat flies in a different pattern than a sparrow” and using the flight pattern “to place the netting in relationship to the position of the flying vertebrate.” Id. ¶ 45. There is no “instruction” that the determining of the flight pattern must be by observing the flying vertebrate (as opposed to researching the flight pattern of the species of the flying vertebrate) or that the netting is placed in relationship to and observed or expected position. b) “The Board’s analysis ignores common sense.” Reh’g Req. 4. Petitioner contends that the Board ignored common sense, as “at some point a POSA necessarily would have observed some species of bird flying near some perimeter walls within some building.” Reh’g Req. 4; see also id. at 6 (“It was common sense that a POSA would eventually observe a bird near a perimeter wall and place Brugh’s capture device accordingly.”), 7 (“[T]he Board . . . substitutes a rigid review of the prior art’s disclosure for common sense. . . .”)). This argument is unavailing. “[W]hile ‘common sense’ can be invoked, even potentially to supply a limitation missing from the prior art, it must still be supported by evidence and a reasoned explanation.” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As explained above, Petitioner’s argument discounts the inventor’s discovery, in which he spent “countless hours” before discovering that birds fly along the perimeter wall of a building’s interior. Ex. 2001 ¶ 16. Further, as discussed above, Brugh does not instruct nor teach a POSA to observe flight patterns and determine or adjust the locations of the nets accordingly. We are not persuaded that the inventor’s discovery was merely “common sense,” and if it was, Petitioner should have submitted sufficient evidence to support such a finding. See Arendi, 832 F.3d at 1363. As explained in our Decision, Petitioner did not. See, e.g., Dec. 32 (“Petitioner provides insufficient evidence that bats or other flying animals are likely to fly ‘at or proximate to a perimeter wall and at or near the ceiling’ such that a POSA would find it obvious to place a net at or proximate to the perimeter of a wall within a building”). A request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) is not an opportunity for Petitioner to simply reargue issues we previously addressed.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Owner’s expert, Mr. Tolley, is the inventor of the ’683 patent. We considered this fact but, nevertheless, found Mr. Tolley’s testimony more persuasive than Dr. Chamberlain’s testimony. We considered the provided evidence of Mr. Chamberlain’s declaration and the support thereof and found insufficient evidentiary support for why a POSA would place at least one net at or proximate to the perimeters and at or near the ceiling of the structure. Dec. 32 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71, 72). Id. at 33. As such, Mr. Chamberlain’s testimony is entitled to little weight. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (denying institution and holding that a declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations . . . may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quotation omitted); see also Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to prove prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”). Dr. Chamberlain’s testimony that at least one net would reduce the flying area was not supported by any evidence. Dec. 34. As such, Dr. Chamberlain’s testimony was afforded little weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,064,683 - Meridian Wildlife Services, LLC v. Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01254 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that the Board misapprehended or overlooked its obviousness arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“C. STANDARD FOR REHEARING The party filing a request for rehearing of a decision whether to institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c)).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenInstitution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s argument does not give enough credit to the inventor’s discovery. Mr. Tolley, the inventor, testified that he “spent countless hours monitoring bird flights and patterns within Walmart’s facilities and other indoor structures, focusing not only on where birds typically roosted in the facilities, but also where and how they flew within the enclosures . . . and experimenting with various placements of nets based on [his] observations.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 16. We do not find Petitioner’s citation to the inventor’s testimony, in which the inventor testifies to having “spent countless hours” working on his discovery, to support Petitioner’s argument that the inventor’s discovery would have been obvious based on Brugh’s “instruct[ions to] a POSA to observe the ‘flight patterns’ of these birds” and to “place nets where the birds are observed flying in the building.” Reh’g Req. 4 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15, 45; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 32, 72, 75). Brugh does not “instruct” a POSA to perform either of these actions. Rather, Brugh provides a method comprising, in relevant part, “a) determining the species of flying vertebrate inside the building; b) selecting bird netting; . . . [and] d) positioning the netting for capture based on the species of flying vertebrate and their flight characteristics utilizing the height adjustable poles to raise the netting.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8–10, 15 (emphasis added). There is no “instruction” that the location of the netting is adjusted based on the flight pattern; rather, the height is adjusted. Brugh further provides for “determin[ing] how [the flying vertebrate] flies, e.g., a bat flies in a different pattern than a sparrow” and using the flight pattern “to place the netting in relationship to the position of the flying vertebrate.” Id. ¶ 45. There is no “instruction” that the determining of the flight pattern must be by observing the flying vertebrate (as opposed to researching the flight pattern of the species of the flying vertebrate) or that the netting is placed in relationship to an observed or expected position.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“been obvious to place at least one net ‘along a perimeter wall . . . in response to observing flight patterns in those locations’ is premised on the alleged fact” that bats and other animals tend to roost in protected locations. Dec. 36 (citing Pet. 18). We then addressed Mr. Chamberlain’s declaration and the support thereof and found insufficient support for his testimony that birds would fly or roost “in or along the perimeter of a wall within a building or structure.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 32, 33; Ex. 1018, 81, 85.) As such, Mr. Chamberlain’s testimony is entitled to little weight. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (denying institution and holding that a declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations . . . may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quotation omitted); see also Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to prove prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The first reason was not written as observing flight patterns or, alternatively, expecting flight patterns, but as one reason resulting from “observing flight patterns,” premised on the tendency of birds to roost in a protected, expected location, such as, ostensibly, along the inside perimeter wall of a building. The second reason was that the placement of the nets along a perimeter wall and in another location would shrink the bird’s flying area and thus improve capture. The third reason was, ostensibly, that having more nets, i.e., increased net density, would increase the capture rate. The Decision addressed the first argument regarding observing flight patterns at pages 36–37, the second argument at pages 37–38, and the third argument at pages 38–39.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,729,108 - Meridian Wildlife Services LLC v. Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01253 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Meridian’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c)).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We disagree with Petitioner. The Petition did not cite sufficient evidence to support a finding that a bird would have flown along the interior perimeter of an interior wall. See, e.g., Dec. 19 (“Petitioner provides no evidence that bats or other flying animals are likely to fly or roost along the inner perimeter of a structure such that a POSITA would have found it obvious to place a net along the perimeter of a wall within a building.”). Petitioner’s attempt to cite the inventor’s (Mr. Tolley’s) expert testimony is equally unavailing. See Reh’g Req. 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Mr. Tolley’s testimony supports Petitioner’s obviousness challenge.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s fourth sub-argument is not persuasive. As explained in our Decision, Dr. Chamberlain’s testimony that birds would fly along the inner perimeter of a building is not supported by evidence. Dec. 18–19. As such, his testimony is entitled to little weight. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (denying institution and holding that a declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quotation omitted); see also Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to provide prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We disagree with Petitioner. The Petition did not cite sufficient evidence to support a finding that a bird would have flown along the interior perimeter of an interior wall. See, e.g., Dec. 19 (“Petitioner provides no evidence that bats or other flying animals are likely to fly or roost along the inner perimeter of a structure such that a POSITA would have found it obvious to place a net along the perimeter of a wall within a building.”). Petitioner’s attempt to cite the inventor’s (Mr. Tolley’s) expert testimony is equally unavailing. See Reh’g Req. 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Mr. Tolley’s testimony supports Petitioner’s obviousness challenge.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,251,374 - PTAB · Apr 3, 2023 · IPR2022-01605 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1 and 2 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that both claims would have been obvious over Schreibfeder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (iii) where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. 5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. Interim Procedure 9 (emphasis added); see also PO Sur-Reply 5 (acknowledging that Petitioner stipulated after the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response was filed). Under the Interim Procedure, “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). This is what Petitioner stipulates. Ex. 1021; see Reply 4 n.1 (stating that Petitioner is filing a “Sotera stipulation,” which “precludes discretionary denial” under the Interim Procedure); Sur-Reply 5. Accordingly, we decline to deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under Section 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). Turning to the first prong of Advanced Bionics, neither Schreibfeder nor Threlkel was cited during prosecution of the ’028 patent. See Ex. 1002; see also Ex. 1001, code (56). Further, we do not find anything in the prosecution history of the ’028 patent, such as an office action on the merits, that suggests the Examiner considered “the same or substantially the same prior art” as these references. See Ex. 1002. We disagree with Patent Owner that the Examiner considered “the same prior art” simply because Schreibfeder or Threlkel may have fallen within the same classes searched by the Examiner. See Sur-Reply 3. We are aware of no authority, and Patent Owner cites none, to support this position. Because we do not find that the same or substantially the same art or” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a minimum of a B.S. in engineering or a related field, as well as four to six years of industry experience designing or building amusement rides or motion simulator systems. Higher education by way of advanced degrees in a related field could substitute for years of experience. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally, Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as we find that it is consistent with the ’028 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“controller” “should be construed as ‘one or more computer-based devices that issue control signals to engage and control the projector, the motor system, and actuator system.’” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1020). Patent Owner similarly proposes that the term “controller” should be construed as “one or more computer-based devices that issue control signals to engage and control the projector, the motor system, and actuator system.” See Prelim. Resp. 12. As both parties propose identical interpretations of the term “controller” (compare Pet. 7, with Prelim. Resp. 2), and Patent Owner at this time does not dispute that the asserted prior art (Schreibfeder) teaches the recited “controller,” this term is not in controversy, and we do not construe it in this Decision. See infra Section III.E.3.h; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,266,028
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.