- Helen Of Troy Limited v. Tomy International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2022 · IPR2021-01208 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–21 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Song or obviousness over Song alone, with Kilion, or with Kassai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’176 patent “would be someone with a Bachelor’s degree in industrial design or furniture design with a focus on designing adjustable or reconfigurable furniture, or with one to two years of experience designing adjustable furniture or other products for infants or children.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner indicates that it “does not submit a different level of ordinary skill than the Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that it “does not believe any special claim constructions are required for the Board to conclude that the asserted prior art renders the challenged claims unpatentable.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner generally agrees, stating that “the Board does not need to construe the claims to deny institution.” Prelim. Resp. 11. We determine that for the purposes of this Decision, it is unnecessary to expressly construe these claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only terms in controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that Patent Owner has the better position. With respect to Petitioner’s annotated versions of Song’s Figures 2 and 3, we agree that Petitioner’s arguments are not supported. To be sure, drawings may be relied upon for the purposes of anticipation. In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953 (CCPA 1931) (“Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.” (citation omitted)). Nonetheless, an ambiguous reference cannot anticipate a claim. Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). With respect to Figure 3, Song does not expressly teach that the bottom portion of water tank 3 is rigid. Rather, Song teaches that water tank 3 is made with foldable wall 2 that can be folded inward. Ex. 1005, 3. The support legs are also foldable to the inside of support levers 4 and each part can be joined and affixed in a small volume. Id. In other words, the walls, legs, and levers are folded together into a small volume to make the bathtub “convenient to carry.” Id. As such, we agree with Patent Owner that Figure 3 may very well depict the folded bathtub with a taut or folded wall (including the tank bottom) rather than a rigid material. The point, here, though is that we cannot tell from Figure 3 why the tank bottom is depicted as it is shown. Moreover, Song’s express description of the folded bathtub shown in Figure 3 does not support Petitioner’s position that the straight tank bottom must be rigid. Similarly, it is ambiguous as to whether Figure 2 uses cross-hatching to depict a rigid material for any illustrated structural components. Indeed, the left-side leg attachment of Figure 2 shows white dots against black. Id. at Fig. 2. But at the opposite side, the companion leg attachment near “6” does not show the same pattern. Id. Moreover, lid body 9, which is made from a synthetic resin, has no cross-hatching. Id. Further, the pattern presented in the magnified version (provided by Patent Owner) of Figure 2 shows uneven and inconsistent markings at the bottom of water tank 3. Thus, it is unclear whether the identified portion at the tank bottom contains any cross-hatching or intentional markings. Likewise, even if we were to apply purported drafting conventions (e.g., MPEP § 608.02) to a Japanese patent application, the relied upon markings shown in Figure 2 still do not show cross-hatching “with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.” Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,545,176 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com LLC et al. v. VB Assets, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2022 · IPR2020-01346 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–6, 10–16, and 20 as obvious over Kennewick, and claims 7–9 and 17–19 as obvious over Kennewick and Cooper.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have at least a Bachelor-level degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and two years of experience with automatic speech recognition and natural language understanding, or equivalent education, research experience, or knowledge.” Pet. 4. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion. Resp. 3. Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Gershman, both apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Id.; Ex. 2021 ¶ 41. On this record and given the absence of any dispute, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. C. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. “model” Petitioner asserts “the challenged claims should be interpreted in accordance with ‘the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.’” Pet. 6–7 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Petitioner then contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of “model” encompasses at least the following IEEE definition of “model”: “An approximation, representation, or idealization of selected aspects of the structure, behavior, operation, or other characteristics of a real-world process, concept, or system.” Pet. 19; Ex. 1007 (IEEE definition of “model”). In its Response, “Patent Owner does not dispute the use of the IEEE definition of ‘model.’” Resp. 32. Accordingly, and consistent with our Institution Decision (see Institution Decision, 11), we determine that the claim limitation “model” encompasses an “approximation, representation, or idealization of selected aspects of the structure, behavior, operation, or other characteristics of a real-world process, concept, or system.” See Pet. 19.2 We decline to further construe this claim term. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. 2 We note that this construction is consistent with the agreed-upon construction in the Related District Court Litigation. See Ex. 1032, 1.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not sought to exclude Dr. Smyth’s testimony; it has merely raised questions about Dr. Smyth’s credibility and the weight we should provide this evidence. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Dr. Smyth’s credibility and considered them when deciding how much weight to accord Dr. Smyth’s testimony. Notably, however, our Decision is supported by the entirety of the record, including the teachings of the prior art references detailed below.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,015,049 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,015,049 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01215 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, including over Yoshimura and Srinivas.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied
“pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. On the record before us, Petitioner has not produced evidence that a stay for the results of the instant inter partes review has been requested. The district court stay currently in force is for a limited time, until February 2022. Thus, the stay will expire approximately one month after issuance of this decision on institution. The effect of the current stay on the pending inter partes review proceeding would be extremely minimal, and would not appear to meaningfully allay any concerns of inefficiency or duplication of efforts. Furthermore, the parties’ reliance on other cases in which the district court judge considered requests for stay is misplaced. As the Board has explained, “[a] judge determines whether to grant a stay based on the facts of each specific case as presented in the briefs by the parties.” See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15, 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative) (“Fintiv II”). “We decline to infer, based on actions taken in a different case with different facts, how the District Court would rule should a stay be requested by the parties in the parallel case here.” Id. Accordingly, we find that this factor is neutral; i.e., it does not weigh for or against exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,407,655 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’655 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Synopsys, Inc., (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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) (2018). An inter partes review may not be instituted on fewer than all claims challenged in the Petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–24 of the ’655 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Pursuant to § 314, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–24 of the ’655 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“At this stage of the proceeding, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has provided sufficient explanation, supported by evidence, of how each limitation of these claims is disclosed by Yoshimura. In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail on its assertion that claims 1–3, 8, 11–13, 18, 21, and 22 would have been anticipated by Yoshimura.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner alleges that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to use capacitive load values as a parameter value in Yoshimura, because the capacitive load values at the pins affect the rate at which the pins’ voltage can change, and would be needed to determine whether a timing or power requirement has been violated. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 180–181). Petitioner further alleges that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of succeeding in including capacitive load values in Yoshimura’s scenario image and/or multi-scenario ECO database, because Yoshimura’s database already includes similar types of parameter values. Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181).” slip op. at 26
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,407,655 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01213 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 12, 13, and 16–19 based on both § 103 grounds: Block and Mehrotra, and Andreev and Sherwani.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Therefore, weighing the facts in this particular case, including the time invested by the parties and the district court in the parallel litigation, the extent to which the investment in the district court proceeding relates to issues of patent validity, and the timing of the filing of the Petition, we find that this factor weighs marginally, if at all, in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage of the proceeding, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has provided sufficient explanations and supporting evidence concerning these claims. These explanations identify how each limitation of these claims is taught or suggested by the applied combination of prior art. Petitioner has further provided a rationale for each proposed combination, as well as an explanation how each combination would be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 27–29.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the time the ’614 patent was filed. Pet. 4. For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert “adopt the [following] definition for the person of ordinary skill in the art”: a person with “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or electrical and computer engineering or equivalent and two or more years of experience with CMOS VLSI (very large-scale integration) circuit design, electronic design automation for VLSI, or ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit) design fields.” Id. at 11; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70 (Robins Declaration). Petitioner notes that this assessment was presented to the district court by Patent Owner, but that Petitioner has also argued for a higher level of skill in the art. Pet. 11. Here, Patent Owner has not provided an assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment 2 Patent Owner does not identify any secondary considerations to be considered. Accordingly, we do not consider this aspect of the obviousness analysis at this stage of the proceeding. offered by Petitioner as it is supported by the Robins Declaration and is consistent with the ’614 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We apply the same standard that is used to construe a patent claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. §282(b), and construe each claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the patent, and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent, as articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” 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)). For the purposes of institution, we do not expressly construe any claim terms beyond the extent necessary in our discussion of the parties’ arguments below.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,234,614 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01212 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–8, 11–20, and 23–25 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Sano.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“a stay for the results of the instant inter partes review has been requested. The district court stay currently in force is for a limited time, until February 2022. Thus, the stay will expire approximately one month after issuance of this decision on institution. The effect of the current stay on the pending inter partes review proceeding would be extremely minimal, and would not appear to meaningfully allay any concerns of inefficiency or duplication of efforts. Furthermore, the parties’ reliance on other cases in which the district court judge considered requests for stay is misplaced. As the Board has explained, “[a] judge determines whether to grant a stay based on the facts of each specific case as presented in the briefs by the parties.” See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative) (“Fintiv DI”). “We decline to infer, based on actions taken in a different case with different facts, how the District Court would rule should a stay be requested by the parties in the parallel case here.” Id. Accordingly, we find that this factor is neutral; i.e., it does not weigh for or against exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Conclusion as to Claim 1 Petitioner’s contentions and cited evidence as to claim 1, summarized above, are persuasive on the preliminary record now before us. As noted, Patent Owner does not present any argument directed to the patentability of the challenged claims at this stage of the proceeding. Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Sano. 3. Independent Claims 13 and 25 Independent claims 13 and 25 recite a computer-readable storage medium and computer system, respectively, for generating a clock-tree on an integrated circuit, but otherwise recite limitations similar to those of claim 1. Petitioner relies on the same teachings of Sano for claims 13 and 25 as those discussed above for claim 1. See Pet. 57–58; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138, 140–141. Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that independent claims 13 and 25 would have been obvious in view of Sano.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.8 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; accord In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with these principles to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial.” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,546,567 - Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. / Seoul Semiconductor, Inc. v. Document Security Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00938 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 7 are unpatentable as anticipated by Nichia-614; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“PO Resp. 9 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶ 29) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not, however, explain how this difference in experience level would affect our analysis. Indeed, we see nothing in the record that indicates that viewing the ordinarily skilled artisan as having two more years of experience would change the outcome here. To the extent necessary, we apply Patent Owner’s adopted definition above because it is consistent with the ’119 patent and the asserted prior art and is supported by the Doolittle Declaration submitted by Petitioner. But our analysis would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“16. In particular, the patentee has not defined “conformal” or “substantially uniform” in the patent’s written description. See id. In fact, the terms do not appear in the Specification as originally filed. Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002, 152–162). And we see no other evidence of lexicography or disavowal with respect to these terms. See Ex. 1001. So, consistent with Petitioner’s articulation of the case law, the terms “conformal” and “substantially uniform” should be given “their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” See Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. Amer., 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012), cited in Pet. Reply 3. As evidence of the “ordinary usage,” Petitioner cites the patent’s” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“To be sure, a patent “specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Or it may reveal “an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope.” Id. “The patentee’s lexicography must, of course, appear ‘with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision’ before it can affect the claim.’” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The patentee can disavow claim scope with language in the specification or the prosecution history. Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “In either case, the standard for disavowal is exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal evidence that the claimed invention includes or does not include a particular feature.” Id. For the phrase “layer of phosphor particles” recited in the claims here, we see no reasonably clear, deliberate, and precise lexicography in the ’119 patent’s written description. When read in context, the sentence that Patent Owner characterizes as definitional simply explains that the drawings are not to scale: To simplify the drawings and better explain the present invention, the above figures show layers of relatively large phosphor particles that are only a few particles thick. However, it is to be understood that the phosphor layers are actually uniform layers constructed from much smaller particles, and the layers are many particles thick.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also quotes the sentence that reads in full: “In the proposed invention, a wavelength converting material such as phosphor is laid over the LED chip in a manner such that substantially all the phosphor particles are in contact with the LED chip and the walls of the cavity where the LED is mounted.” Ex. 1001, 3:16–19, quoted in PO Resp. 11 (emphasis added). The written description also discloses that “the phosphor particles all settle down and are deposited around the LED chip and at least some portions of the cavity walls.” Id. at 4:24–26, quoted in PO Resp. 12. Yet these sentences do not define the term “layer of phosphor” with the reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision required to limit the claim as Patent Owner proposes. In fact, the cited passages do not even explicitly use the term “layer of phosphor.” Id. Instead, these sentences describe a single, exemplary embodiment, which is not definitional. See id. Lastly, Patent Owner points to the drawings to support its position. PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2–4, 6). But the drawings are merely exemplary, non-limiting embodiments. See Ex. 1001, 5:20–24; supra § II.C.1.b(1). In sum, we see no reason to interpret the claimed “layer of phosphor particles” as limited to the phosphor particles themselves. And we see no requirement in the claims that a “conformal layer of phosphor particles covering said die and in direct contact therewith” requires that the bottom layer of phosphor particles directly contact the LED, as Patent Owner has proposed. PO Resp. 11–13. Rather, consistent with the patent’s written description and the evidence of record, we determine that the recited “layer of phosphor particles” simply requires a layer that includes phosphor particles, without limitation to the position of the bottom phosphor particles relative to the LED.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,315,119 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,315,119 - Nichia Corporation v. Document Security Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 16, 2021 · IPR2020-00908 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 8, and 11 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner’s planar construction of “mounting surface” was unsupported and the references did not disclose the claimed surface.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioner, “a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSA’) would have had at least a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and four [years of] experience designing or developing semiconductor—including LED—packages.” Pet. 13 (citing Shealy Decl. ¶ 31). Petitioner adds that “a higher education or skill level might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. at 13–14. Patent Owner does not propose an alternative assessment but states: “For the purposes of this IPR proceeding, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 26). We apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of this decision, we need only address the proper construction of “mounting surface,” which is disputed by the parties. Here, Patent Owner’s argument and evidence produced during trial show that Petitioner’s construction of “mounting surface” is not in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that “the mounting surface having a plurality of recesses,” as recited in claim 1, means that the recesses are in the mounting surface itself. PO Resp. 10–11. As we discuss further here, this requirement cannot be satisfied by a single planar surface, as used in Petitioner’s analysis. See, e.g., Pet. 18. Both parties acknowledge the argument that the claimed recesses could be interpreted in at least two ways: The recesses could be (1) only in the packaged body, excluding the contacts; or (2) in the device as a whole. PO Resp. 12 n.6; see also Pet. 18–19 (reviewing the second interpretation). Under both interpretations, Petitioner asks the Board to construe the mounting surface as a plane. See Pet. 18–19. We need not resolve which” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“For the reasons discussed in the Claim Construction Section, we disagree that the recited mounting surface can be a plane and still satisfy all the claim limitations. Supra § II.B. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s planar mounting surface does not include “recesses” at the side edges of the body as the claim requires. PO Resp. 15. Rather, the planar surface identified by Petitioner sits below the recesses in Kim’s device—i.e., “the depressions or indentations in molded resin package body 37” or the device as a whole. Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 3. Petitioner argues that, even under Dr. Baker’s analysis, Kim discloses the claimed mounting surface. Pet. Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1027). Dr. Baker’s analysis, however, is not consistent with the written description or the claims. Supra § II.B. In its challenge, Petitioner compares Kim’s device to the embodiment shown in Figure 4A of the ’040 patent. See Pet. 38–53. As discussed in the Claim Construction Section, however, of the challenged claim. Supra § II.B. Contrary to the claim’s requirement that the device itself comprise a mounting surface with “recesses and electrical contacts [that] are sized to provide offsets between said mounting surface and said electrical contacts,” both Kim’s device and the Figure 4A embodiment show recesses between the device and a flat surface on which the device is mounted. Compare Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 3, with Ex. 1001, Fig. 4A, 5:11–14. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Kim. Claims 2, 3, and 11 also require a “mounting surface” because those” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“D. Obviousness over Kim and Shirahata Petitioner asserts that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Kim and Shirahata. Pet. 54–59. Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 12:3–5. This ground relies on Kim for the limitations of claim 1, including the recited “mounting surface.” Pet. 54–59. Petitioner has not shown that Kim teaches the mounting surface in claim 1. Supra § II.C. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Kim and Shirahata.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 6,879,040 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,879,040 - Asetek Danmark A/S v. Coolit Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2020-00825 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 are unpatentable over Bezama or Bezama and Chiang; claims 13–15 were not shown unpatentable over Kang or Anderson.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“the 2007 Provisional describes the material of which plate 240 is made, much less indicates that the inventor had possession of an invention including a manifold body (i.e., plate 240) defining a pair of compliant surfaces. See generally Ex. 1005.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Bezama discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 9. See Pet. 23–39; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–86. Patent Owner’s attempt to disqualify Bezama as prior art fails because claims 1 and 9 are not entitled to a priority date earlier than July 27, 2011. See supra § II.E. On this record, and considering all of the evidence and arguments put forth by the parties, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated by Bezama. G.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“teach or suggest each limitation recited in claims 2, 4, and 5, and these contentions are supported by testimony from Dr. Tilton. See Pet. 54–66; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–137. Petitioner additionally identifies rationales for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Bezama and Chiang to arrive at the inventions recited in those claims. See id.” slip op. at 31
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“bifurcated flow limitation of claim 13. Resp. 46–52. In particular, Patent Owner asserts, with support from Dr. Pokharna, that the fluid entering any of Kang’s inlet channels 44 would mix with fluid from adjacent inlet channels, and that the bulk of the fluid from any inlet channel would exit through adjacent outlet channels, rather than traveling to the outer-most outlet channels as Petitioner suggests. Id. at 47–48; Ex. 2038 ¶¶ 105–114. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive and supported by well-reasoned testimony from Dr. Pokharna. For example, Dr. Pokharna correctly points out that Dr. Tilton has admitted that microchannels have high flow resistance. Ex. 2038 ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158). We agree with Dr. Pokharna that because of this high flow resistance, fluid entering a microchannel through any inlet channel 44 would tend to exit through the path of least resistance (i.e., the nearest outlet channel 47) rather than traveling to each end of the microchannel and exiting through the most distant outlets. See id. ¶ 112. contention that in Kang that the bulk of any fluid entering a microchannel would exit through the closest outlet channel 47. See Reply 17–18. Instead, Petitioner contends that at least some portion of the fluid will reach each end of the microchannel. See id. This argument is not persuasive because claim 13 recites that the flow that enters each channel through the one aperture “bifurcates into two sub flows,” and requires that each of the recited outlet regions receives “one of the two sub flows” or “the other of the two sub flows.” This claim language is not satisfied by an outlet region that receives only a portion of one of the two recited sub flows. Claim 13 requires that each outlet region receive one of the same two sub flows that originally entered the microchannel. See also Ex. 2038 ¶ 108. Petitioner neither proposes a claim construction that would encompass such an embodiment, nor offers any persuasive evidence that a POSITA would read claim 13 to encompass such an embodiment. Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that Kang teaches or suggests a flow of heat exchange fluid that is bifurcated into two sub flows within each of the microchannels, wherein each of these two sub flows is received by one of the two outlet regions adjacent to the opposing ends of the microchannels, in the manner required by claim 13.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,274,266 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,274,266 - Asetek Danmark A/S v. Coolit Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 30, 2021 · IPR2020-00747 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Lyon and Bezama; the Board did not reach anticipation by Bezama.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’567 Patent (hereinafter, a “POSITA”) would have had the following education and experience: (i) “completed college level course work in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer,” and (ii) “two or more years of experience in designing liquid cooling systems for computers, servers, or other electronic devices, or very similar technology, or one with a more advanced degree in the above fields may have had less practical experience.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner contends that a POSITA “would have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, such as a B.S. (bachelor of science), or equivalent thereof, in mechanical engineering or a closely related field and possessed at least three years of specialized experience in heat transfer devices for thermal management in electronics and computer systems, or in similar systems.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner represents, however, that none of its arguments or its declarant’s opinions turn on any differences between the parties’ alternative formulations concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 4 n.2. In its Reply, Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s alternative formulation, or identify any issues in this case that might turn on differences between the parties’ alternative formulations. See generally Reply. On this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed formulation” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Considering the intrinsic evidence summarized above, and the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, we determine that the claim limitation “a compliant member matingly engaged with the second side of the housing member” is satisfied when at least a portion of the recited compliant member is fitted within the recessed region defined by the second side of the housing member. This partial construction is sufficient to resolve the issues in dispute. On this record, we decline to address the issue of whether “matingly engaged” could also encompass other types of engagement, and we also decline to construe any other claim terms.9 See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). D.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“139); see also Pet. 62 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 110) (“Lyon teaches every limitation of the challenged claims, except a compliant material on top of the microchannel fins . . . and a recessed, transverse ‘groove’ on the microchannel fins.”). Petitioner relies on Bezama to supply both of these claim elements, and sets forth rationales for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine these teachings of Bezama with Lyon so as to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 67–68 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121–124) (contending that Bezama discloses a recessed transverse groove, and that a POSITA would have known that incorporating such a groove into Lyon’s microchannel walls would have improved fluid flow characteristics); 71–73 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128–132) (contending that Bezama discloses that the separator sheet overlying the fins can be made of a compliant material, and that a POSITA would have known that incorporating such a material into Lyon’s Plate 240 would have minimized coolant bypass between the fins and the plate). Patent Owner makes a single patentability argument for claim 1—it contends that neither Lyon nor Bezama discloses a compliant member that is “matingly engaged” with the second side of the housing member. See Resp. 44–49. We find that Petitioner’s contentions regarding the undisputed limitations of claim 1, and the proffered rationales for combining the teachings of Lyon and Bezama, are persuasive and adequately supported. See Pet. 59–77; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–139; see also Paper 11, 8 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”) We now turn to the single disputed limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, we find that Lyon and Bezama teach or suggest all limitations of claim 1, and that Petitioner has set forth adequate rationales for combining the teachings of these references in a manner that would satisfy claim 1. Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. b) Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 25 Petitioner also identifies portions of Lyon and Bezama that allegedly teach or suggest each limitation recited in claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 25, and that these contentions are supported by testimony from Dr. Tilton. See Pet. 78– 84; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140–151. Petitioner additionally identifies rationales for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Lyon and Bezama to arrive at the inventions recited in those claims. See id. Patent Owner does not dispute these contentions or set forth any separate arguments for the patentability of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 25, but instead relies solely on its arguments with respect to claim 1. See Resp. 49. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. On this record, we find that Lyon and Bezama teach or suggest all” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,057,567 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,057,567 - Cirrus Design Corporation v. Hoyt Augustus FlemingAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00762 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 95–124 and 126–131 are unpatentable as obvious over POH, James, and Hoffmann; claim 125 was disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“this standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been 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. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“in the art: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had (1) a degree in Aerospace Engineering or equivalent technical background and (2) familiarity with parachute systems, related sensing systems, and automated flight control.” Pet. 5 (citing the Hoffmann Declaration, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–32). Patent Owner contends the following: [A] person of ordinary skill would have had a degree in aerospace engineering, or an engineering degree coupled with experience evaluating and/or designing aircraft and/or avionics, on February 10, 2009, which is the date [Patent Owner] filed continuation-in-part Application No. 12/368,911. Ex. 1001 at 6:28–15:9 and bibliographical information. The person of ordinary skill also would be familiar with whole-aircraft ballistic parachute systems. PO Resp. 9. The parties are in apparent substantive agreement as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. We do not discern any material differences in the respective assessments of that level by the parties. For purposes of this Decision, we accept and adopt both assessments of the level of ordinary skill in the art and view them as equivalent to one another. We further find that the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references is consistent with the definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by the parties. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner and Mr. Hoffmann explain that a skilled artisan would have recognized that those parameters would have been parts of an evaluation to determine that parachute deployment can occur safely. It follows reasonably and logically that the necessary threshold levels for safe parachute deployment would constitute the “output” of any “evaluation” for deployment of a parachute.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Furthermore, a reference does not “teach away” if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the applicant’s claimed invention. DePuy Spine Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed Cir. 2004)). Here, Patent Owner does not explain how POH’s disclosure, even if it might contemplate overriding an autopilot in some emergency circumstance, constitutes criticism, disparagement, or discouragement of a disclosure, as in James, in which emergency procedures for an aircraft may be initiated automatically or by a pilot, even if such initiation may occur while an autopilot remains engaged. Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective positions, we conclude that Petitioner accounts adequately in the combined teachings of POH, James, and Hoffmann for the requirements of element (c) of claim 95. See Pet. 47–52.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS RE47,474 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
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.