- PTAB · Sep 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00763 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Remand
Instituted review of claims 7 and 11 on the § 103 ground over Park and IEEE 802.16-2004.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“considering the factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential only as to Section II.B.4.i) (“General Plastic”), and expanded upon in Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (“Valve”). Paper 17 (“Decision”). Petitioner requested Director Review of the Decision, which was granted. Papers 18, 19. On March 22, 2024, the Director issued a Decision Vacating the Decision as an improper extension of the “significant relationship,” as set forth in General Plastic and Valve, and remanding to the Board to issue a decision on institution that addresses the merits of the Petition. Paper 28 (“Director’s Decision”).” slip op. at 2
- RemandOther
“considering the factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential only as to Section II.B.4.i) (“General Plastic”), and expanded upon in Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (“Valve”). Paper 17 (“Decision”). Petitioner requested Director Review of the Decision, which was granted. Papers 18, 19. On March 22, 2024, the Director issued a Decision Vacating the Decision as an improper extension of the “significant relationship,” as set forth in General Plastic and Valve, and remanding to the Board to issue a decision on institution that addresses the merits of the Petition. Paper 28 (“Director’s Decision”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”). Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,447,450 - PTAB · Sep 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00797 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution because Honda did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 23, 24, 26, or 27 were obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsRemand decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of challenged claims 23, 24, 26, and 27 of the ’302 patent. Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’302 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive, and the above testimony of its technical expert, Mr. Alberth, even more so. Based on the foregoing and the record before us, we find Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that the ’586 Provisional lacks written description support for the feature of a transmitter configured to form and transmit, in response to a received request, “the probing signal with a code sequence modulated in the frequency domain,” as recited in independent claim 23. Although not its burden, we find Patent Owner sufficiently evidences that the disclosure of the ’586 Provisional would have reasonably conveyed to skilled artisans that the inventor possessed the features of the subject limitation. 5. Conclusion For the reasons expressed above, and based on the record before us, we determine Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Koo is prior art to the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that any of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of 802.16a-2003, 802.16-2001, and Koo.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“But in doing so, Petitioner ignores the context in which the skilled artisan would have read Kitroser: where IEEE, the governing body issuing the Call for Contributions, itself explicitly questioned “if [implementing 802.16a in a mobile systems environment] is technically feasible and, if so, at what level” (Ex. 2007, 1 (emphasis added)), and where, as noted above, Kitroser provides no explanation, support, or other commentary for its “no changes” statements, and admits such statements are “subject to change in form and content after further study” and subject to amendment and withdrawal entirely (Ex. 1007, 1–4 (emphasis added)). Based on the foregoing, although Petitioner may have identified a “reason” that the skilled artisan allegedly would have combined 802.16a with Kitroser, we are not persuaded that it is a rational reason, i.e., a reason sufficiently shown to have a rational underpinning at the time of the invention of the Challenged Claims. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (To support the legal conclusion of obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” for combining elements in the manner claimed. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988)).” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’302 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Buehrer (Ex. 1003 ¶ 23), except that we omit the two instances of “at least” to remove the unbounded nature of the definition.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,771,302 - PTAB · Aug 15, 2024 · IPR2023-01339 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Remand
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 4–9, 12, and 14 on the asserted §103 ground based on Peev and Spitballs.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewOther
“(“Decision Denying Institution”). The Director has now reversed and remanded our Decision Denying Institution. Paper 12 (“Remand Dec.”). Further, the Director ordered institution of inter partes review. Id. at 21.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“in showing that at least one of the claims challenged . . . would have been obvious over Peev and Spitballs.” Remand Dec. 17. Additionally, having considered arguments from Patent Owner vying for discretionary denial of inter partes review, the Director “decline[d] to exercise . . . discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” Id. at 21. Accordingly, the Director “reverse[d] [our Decision Denying Institution] and remand[ed] to the Board to institute trial.” Id. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated in the Director Review Decision (Paper 12), the Director has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,640,683 - PTAB · May 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00268 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Remand
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–10, 16–18, and 21–25 based on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness.
RulingsRemand decision- RehearingOther
“On August 11, 2023, a majority of the panel entered a Decision denying institution of inter partes review. Paper 9 (“Board Decision”). On September 11, 2023, Petitioner timely filed a request for Director Review of the Board Decision. Paper 10. On November 7, 2023, the Director delegated Director Review of the Board Decision to a Delegated Review Panel (“DRP”). Paper 11. On February 21, 2024, the DRP issued a decision granting Petitioner’s request for Director Review rehearing, vacating the Board Decision, and remanding to the original panel to reconsider whether to institute review. Paper 14 (“DRP Dec.”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“[T]he Board’s cases addressing earlier trial dates as a basis for denial under NHK have sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (designated precedential). Fintiv sets forth six non-exclusive factors for determining “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. In evaluating the factors, we take a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review. Id. We are also guided by the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”),1 which provides several clarifications concerning the application of the Fintiv factors. One such clarification instructs that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Guidance Memo 3; see also id. at 7–8. Thus, we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution if a petitioner makes a stipulation similar to that provided in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (designated precedential in relevant part). 1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. Petitioner stipulates “not to pursue, in the[Delaware litigation], any argument that the Challenged Claims are invalid on any ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in this [inter partes review], should th[e] petition be instituted.” Pet. 86; see also Ex. 1057, 1 (“If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes a proceeding for [this inter partes review], [Petitioner] will not pursue in the [Delaware litigation], any argument that the challenged claims of the patent in [this inter partes review] are invalid on any ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in [this inter partes review] proceeding.”). Accordingly, pursuant to the Guidance Memo, we decline to exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution. slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims or any underlying factual and legal issues. See TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that “there is a significant difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence at trial”). Accordingly, inter partes review is instituted as to all challenged claims and all proposed grounds of unpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). V. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–10, 16–18, and 21–25 of the ’779 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 33
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. We note that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Vancura, uses essentially the same definition as Petitioner. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 33. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,200,779 - PTAB · Apr 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00074 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Original claims 1–13 were canceled by amendment; proposed substitute claims 14–26 were denied because “high pressure” is indefinite under § 112.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“original claims 1–13 of the ’732 patent, which are all of the claims challenged in the Petition. See Mot. Caption (“NON-CONTINGENT”), 1 (stating the motion is “Non-Contingent”), 2 (“The claim listing cancels original claims 1–13 . . . .”); Mot. App. A, 1 (stating original claims 1–13 are “Cancelled”); Pet. 17. Petitioner does not oppose this portion of the Motion to Amend. See generally Mot. Opp. Therefore, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original claims 1–13. As a result, we do not reach the unpatentability grounds asserted in the Petition against these original claims.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“b) Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’732 patent would have either: “(1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production”; or “(2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner utilizes the same formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 13. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. The parties’ agreed-upon formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’732 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“witnesses cannot agree on a numerical definition of “high pressure.” Mr. Marscher says high pressure is between 5,000 psi and 15,000 psi (see Ex. 1030, 111:1–112:3), whereas Mr. Schaaf says high pressure is between 8,000 psi and 12,000 psi and specifically disagrees with Mr. Marscher’s testimony that high pressure can be below 8,000 psi (see Ex. 1031, 43:6–44:13). Although there are overlapping values in the witness testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the testimony does not evidence clear boundaries for how an ordinarily skilled artisan would interpret “high pressure.” See Mot. Sur-reply 6 (citing Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901–02 (2014); Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1371). Thus, the testimony of Patent Owner’s own witnesses is contrary to Patent Owner’s position that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the meaning of “high pressure.” Furthermore, neither Mr. Marscher nor Mr. Schaaf cites any objective evidence to support their respective notions of what “high pressure” might be, in the context of hydraulic fracturing. For example, neither witness cites to any published industry standards to support their respective opinions. This lack of objective evidentiary support weakens the persuasiveness of both witness’s testimony on this issue, especially because their opinions conflict with each other. We are instead persuaded by the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Durham, who testifies that “[t]here is [no] general consensus about the precise boundaries of the term ‘high pressure,’ and different engineers can reasonably come to different conclusions as to the meaning of the term absent further guideposts.” Ex. 1036 ¶ 17; see also id. ¶ 19 (“There is no universally accepted definition of ‘high pressure.’”). Dr. Durham further testifies that “what might be sufficiently ‘high’ pressure for one fracturing application and according to one [person of ordinary skill in the art] may be not ‘high’ enough in another fracturing application and to another [such person].” Id. ¶ 18; see also id. ¶ 19 (“Merely stating that a pump fractures a formation says little to nothing about whether that pump should be deemed ‘high pressure’ or ‘not high pressure.’”).” slip op. at 30
- BurdenUnpatentable
“The intrinsic record does not “provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art” to determine whether a given pressure is “high pressure” as recited in the proposed substitute claims. See Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1370–71. Nor does the intrinsic record provide guidance to clarify the meaning of “high pressure.” As noted above, the ’732 patent refers only to “high pressure” without qualification or explanation as to how “high pressure” is determined. The prosecution history does not address “high pressure” in any meaningful way and, therefore, also fails to explain what pressures are “high” pressures. See generally Ex. 1003. Thus, the intrinsic record does not explain adequately what pressure(s) qualify as “high pressure,” nor differentiate “high pressure” from other pressures at which hydraulic fracturing can be performed.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,254,732 - PTAB · Feb 1, 2023 · IPR2021-01315 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 1–19 and denied substitute claims 20–38 because their 5,000–15,000 psi limitation added new matter without written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’500 patent would have either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production; or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 11–12. Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’500 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“for several reasons. First, as seen from the deposition testimony quoted above, Patent Owner’s own witnesses cannot agree on a numerical definition of “high pressure.” Mr. Marscher says high pressure is between 5,000 psi and 15,000 psi (see Ex. 1033, 111:1–112:3), whereas Mr. Schaaf says high pressure is between 8,000 psi and 12,000 psi and specifically disagrees with Mr. Marscher’s testimony that high pressure can be below 8,000 psi (see Ex. 1030, 43:6–44:13). Thus, the testimony of Patent Owner’s own witnesses is contrary to Patent Owner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the ’694 Application’s disclosure of “high pressure” pumping demonstrates possession of a specific numerical range of pumping pressures. Second, neither Mr. Marscher nor Mr. Schaaf cites any objective evidence to support their respective notions of what “high pressure” might be, in the context of hydraulic fracturing. For example, neither cites to any published industry standards to support their respective opinions. This lack of objective evidentiary support weakens the persuasiveness of both witness’s testimony on this issue, especially because their opinions conflict with each other.” slip op. at 19
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“specification that did not expressly claim that range, did not state either of the two end values (40% and 60%), and did not disclose the range (40– 60%). Indivior, 18 F.4th at 1325 (claim 1), 1327–30 (discussing claim 1). In particular: “In the case of a claimed range, a skilled artisan must be able to reasonably discern a disclosure of that range” in the specification at issue. Id. at 1328. We conclude Patent Owner’s reliance on the testimony of Mr. Marscher and Mr. Schaaf that a skilled artisan could reasonably discern the numerical pressure range at issue here, based on the bare disclosure in the ’694 Application of “high pressure” pumping, is not persuasive for the reasons provided above. The Indivior decision also considered a narrower claim directed to a film comprising “about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt % of the water-soluble polymetric matrix,” and concluded that it also did not have written description support in the specification at issue, even though the specification provided examples of films having the two end point values of the range (48.2% and 58.6%). See Indivior, 18 F.4th at 1325 (claim 7), 1329–30 (discussing claim 7). The Court concluded that finding written description support on those facts would “amount[] to cobbling together numbers after the fact” whereas “[a] written description sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the law requires a statement of an invention, not an invitation to go on a hunting expedition to patch together after the fact a synthetic definition of an invention.” Id. at 1329. We conclude in the present case that Patent Owner’s witnesses went on a hunting expedition which conflicts with the Indivior decision.” slip op. at 20
- BurdenNot reached
“E. Petitioner’s Unpatentability Grounds In light of our determination above that proposed substitute claims 20–38 lack written description support in the application that issued as the ’500 patent, we do not reach the grounds of unpatentability set forth in Petitioner’s Opposition for these claims. See Mot. Opp. 5–6 (listing the grounds).” slip op. at 21
NonePatents in suitUS 9,893,500 - PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00224 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion to terminate the proceedings as to Subaru of America, Inc. based on settlement and granted confidential treatment of the settlement agreement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“between the two parties “has been made in writing, and a true copy of the same is [filed] as Exhibit 2026” and “[t]here are no other collateral agreements between the Parties made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination sought.” Mot. 2. The Motion does not indicate that Subaru is a defendant in any pending district court litigation asserting the challenged patents. Id. at 2–3. Under these circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate the instant proceedings with respect to Subaru. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74. The proceedings shall continue with respect to Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Hyundai Motor America (in Case IPR2021-00720) (collectively, “Petitioner”), under the terms set forth in our decision granting the motion for joinder in each proceeding. See IPR2021-00720, Paper 39; IPR2021-00721, Paper 37.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,355,405 - PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01066 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–20 and denied substitute claims 21–40 because their numerical pressure ranges added new matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“The test for new matter is whether the original application’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Ariad as providing the test for determining new matter under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a)). We perform “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art,” to determine whether it demonstrates possession of the claimed subject matter. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“The test for new matter is whether the original application’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Ariad as providing the test for determining new matter under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a)). We perform “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art,” to determine whether it demonstrates possession of the claimed subject matter. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“to the ’711 patent would have either: “(1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production”; or (2) “at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner utilizes the same formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 10–11. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. The parties’ agreed-upon formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’711 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“disclosures of the ’656 Application into demonstrating possession of the numerical pressure ranges recited in proposed substitute claims 21 and 33 is unavailing, for several reasons. First, as seen from the deposition testimony quoted above, Patent Owner’s own witnesses cannot agree on a numerical definition of “high pressure.” Mr. Marscher says high pressure is between 5,000 psi and 15,000 psi (see Ex. 1020, 111:1–112:3), whereas Mr. Schaaf says high pressure is between 8,000 psi and 12,000 psi and specifically disagrees with Mr. Marscher’s testimony that high pressure can be below 8,000 psi (see Ex. 2014, 43:6–44:13). Thus, the testimony of Patent Owner’s own witnesses is contrary to Patent Owner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the ’656 Application’s disclosure of “high pressure” pumping demonstrates possession of a specific numerical range of pumping pressures. Second, neither Mr. Marscher nor Mr. Schaaf cites any objective evidence to support their respective notions of what “high pressure” might be, in the context of hydraulic fracturing. For example, neither cites to any published industry standards to support their respective opinions. This lack of objective evidentiary support weakens the persuasiveness of both witnesses’ testimony on this issue, especially because their opinions conflict with each other.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,020,711 - PTAB · Jan 17, 2023 · IPR2021-01036 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of original claims 1–13, denied substitute claims 14–19 and 21 for new matter, and denied claims 20 and 22–26 as unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“V. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS We grant Patent Owner’s non-contingent request to cancel original claims 1–13 of the ’728 patent, and we deny Patent Owner’s request to add proposed substitute claims 14–26 to the ’728 patent.16 Thus, the result of this Decision is summarized by the following table. Motion to Amend Outcome Claim(s) Original Claims Canceled by Amendment 1–13 Substitute Claims Proposed in the Amendment 14–26 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Granted Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 14–26 Substitute Claims: Not Reached VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is granted as to the non-contingent request to cancel original claims 1–13 of the ’728 patent; 16 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this Decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg. 16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2). FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’728 patent would have either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production; or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 12–13. Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’728 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision. 3.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We see no evidence of improper hindsight. The Robinson/Broussard/ Henry combination does not disclose the claimed load box. Morris discloses mobile source of electricity 103 to supply electric power to fracturing equipment within mobile fracturing system 103 that includes at least one switchgear transport 112, a plurality of drive transports 104, at least one auxiliary power transport 106, at least one blender transport 110, at least one data van 114 and a plurality of fracturing pump transports 108 that deliver fracturing fluid through wellhead 101 to subsurface geological formations. Ex. 1037 ¶ 43. Morris discloses that “switch gear transport 112 may comprise a plurality of electrical disconnect switches, fuses, transformers, and/or circuit protectors to protect the fracturing equipment.” Id. Dr. Ehsani, Petitioner’s expert, testifies that “the switchgear (with switches, fuses, and circuit protectors) described in Morris is one example of a ‘load box’” comparing it to the ’728 patent’s disclosure that “tie ins for devices that operate at the stepped down voltage” are exemplary load boxes. Ex. 1041 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:50–52). Dr. Ehsani further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that lube oil heaters would be part of the fracturing pump transport or the additional auxiliary equipment to which power would be directed from switchgear.” Id. We credit Dr. Ehsani’s unrebutted testimony, which is supported by Morris’ disclosures discussed above. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claim 20 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Robinson, Broussard, Henry, and Morris.” slip op. at 35
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,611,728 - PTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01034 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–11 and denied substitute claims 12–22 because their numerical pressure ranges introduced new matter unsupported by the original disclosure.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“The test for new matter is whether the original application’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Ariad as providing the test for determining new matter under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a)). We perform “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art,” to determine whether it demonstrates possession of the claimed subject matter. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’308 patent would have either: “(1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production”; or (2) “at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production.” Pet. 24–25. Patent Owner utilizes the same formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 8. The parties’ agreed-upon formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’308 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“the ’085 Application into demonstrating possession of the numerical pressure ranges recited in proposed substitute claims 12 and 16 is unavailing, for several reasons. First, as seen from the deposition testimony quoted above, Patent Owner’s own witnesses cannot agree on a numerical definition of “high pressure.” Mr. Marscher says high pressure is between 5,000 psi and 15,000 psi (see Ex. 1059, 111:1–112:3), whereas Mr. Schaaf says high pressure is between 8,000 psi and 12,000 psi and specifically disagrees with Mr. Marscher’s testimony that high pressure can be below 8,000 psi (see Ex. 1061, 43:6–44:13). Thus, the testimony of Patent Owner’s own witnesses is contrary to Patent Owner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the ’085 Application’s disclosure of “high pressure” pumping demonstrates possession of a specific numerical range of pumping pressures. Second, neither Mr. Marscher nor Mr. Schaaf cites any objective evidence to support their respective notions of what “high pressure” might be, in the context of hydraulic fracturing. For example, neither cites to any published industry standards to support their respective opinions. This lack of objective evidentiary support weakens the persuasiveness of both witness’s testimony on this issue, especially because their opinions conflict with each other. We are instead persuaded by the testimony of Petitioner’s witness Dr. Durham that “[t]he mere disclosure of ‘high pressure’ in the [’085 Application] specification[] . . . does not allow a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to recognize the ranges of pressures in” proposed substitute claims 12 and 16. Ex. 1079 ¶ 24. Further according to Dr. Durham: “What might be ‘high’ pressure according to one POSITA may not be ‘high’ pressure to another POSITA” and “[t]here is no universally accepted definition of ‘high pressure,’” as demonstrated by the testimony of Mr. Marscher and Mr. Schaaf and the lack of objective evidentiary support for their respective opinions. Id.” slip op. at 18
- ExcludeNot reached
“V. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence seeks to exclude evidence relating to Petitioner’s reliance on the S&S Proposal6 as a prior art 6 Stewart & Stevenson, Electric Fracturing Pump: Commercial Proposal, Quotation No., Rev. 4 (July 31, 2012) (Ex. 1056). reference to challenge the patentability of proposed substitute claims 11–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Papers 57 and 58 (moving to exclude Exs. 1071–1073). As discussed above, we do not reach these grounds of unpatentability, so we do not need to rule on the Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 23
NonePatents in suitUS 10,337,308
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.