- Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Altria Client Services LLC v. Yiwu Jingangke Trading Co., Ltd.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · PGR2026-00035 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner for abandoning the contest and canceled the sole challenged claim.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Pursuant to our rules, “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [a]bandonment of the contest.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Our prior order warned that a failure to respond would be construed as an abandonment of the contest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), and that entry of judgment adverse to Patent Owner and cancellation of the challenged claim may follow. Show Cause Order, 2. Because Patent Owner did not respond by the September 15, 2026, deadline and has not entered an appearance in this proceeding, we determine that Patent Owner has abandoned the contest. Under these circumstances, we enter judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancel the challenged design claim.” slip op. at 2
None - Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting / Elong International USA Inc. et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00698 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 18–20, 23–25, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over the two combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’539 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“¶ 39). Petitioner further relies on Stokes to teach an average particle size that preferentially scatter blue . . . LED light as compared to yellow . . . light from the luminescent material.” Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1108, 7:1–4). Petitioner argues that “a POSA would have been motivated to apply this principle to Krummacher, because it would increase the conversion of blue light to yellow light and improve the uniformity of the light source.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 237). Petitioner notes that “[c]onversion of blue light to yellow light is improved by maximizing the scattering of blue light.” Id. In addition, Petitioner asserts that “[u]niformity is improved by preferentially scattering the concentrated light from the blue-light LED chip instead of the disperse light emitted by the phosphor.” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 237). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success applying this principle to Krummacher, because the relevant particle size range includes the range disclosed by Krummacher.” Id. Petitioner argues that “[a] POSA would have recognized selecting an average particle size as a design decision to be made based on a number of factors, including the light scattering properties of the particles, and well within the skill of the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 238). We find this explanation and the supporting testimony of Dr. Doolittle well-reasoned and supported and entitled to significant weight. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Krummacher and Stokes teaches limitation 1[c], and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner proposed.” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“¶ 39). Petitioner further relies on Stokes to teach an average particle size that preferentially scatter blue . . . LED light as compared to yellow . . . light from the luminescent material.” Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1108, 7:1–4). Petitioner argues that “a POSA would have been motivated to apply this principle to Krummacher, because it would increase the conversion of blue light to yellow light and improve the uniformity of the light source.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 237). Petitioner notes that “[c]onversion of blue light to yellow light is improved by maximizing the scattering of blue light.” Id. In addition, Petitioner asserts that “[u]niformity is improved by preferentially scattering the concentrated light from the blue-light LED chip instead of the disperse light emitted by the phosphor.” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 237). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success applying this principle to Krummacher, because the relevant particle size range includes the range disclosed by Krummacher.” Id. Petitioner argues that “[a] POSA would have recognized selecting an average particle size as a design decision to be made based on a number of factors, including the light scattering properties of the particles, and well within the skill of the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 238). We find this explanation and the supporting testimony of Dr. Doolittle well-reasoned and supported and entitled to significant weight. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Krummacher and Stokes teaches limitation 1[c], and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner proposed.” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Finally, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “quantum efficiency” would have dissuaded a person of ordinary skill from making the combination. PO Resp. 36–38. To begin with, “[i]t’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Here, as demonstrated by, at least, Shimizu and Stokes, blue LEDs in this wavelength range were known to work as light sources for white-light LEDs. See Pet. 30–31. Additionally, we find persuasive Petitioner’s evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been concerned solely with quantum efficiency, but also with overall luminous efficacy of a complete white LED package. Reply 9. As Dr. Schubert’s textbook explains, A fundamental drawback of UV pumped white LEDs is the energy loss (Stoke’s shift). The potential luminous efficacy of UV pumped white LED lamps is, therefore, markedly lower than that of white sources based on a blue LED exciting a yellow phosphor. Ex. 2014, 358–59; see also Ex. 1148, 87:5–88:4 (acknowledging Stokes shift). Thus, the evidence shows that, whatever gain in quantum efficiency a lower wavelength might offer, there were other drawbacks that a person of ordinary skill would have to balance. But “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1165. Indeed, Petitioner has shown several references—including, Shimizu and Stokes—that made this tradeoff. Moreover, “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We find that the prior art of record demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have such an expectation in making the combination of Krummacher, Stokes, and Shimizu. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there would have been motivation to combine Krummacher, Stokes, and Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,614,539 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,614,539 - Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00153 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Tesla submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or an equivalent field) and at least two years of work experience involving automotive systems, including electric vehicle power management. . . . Additional industry 1 US 2009/0313034 A1, pub. Dec. 17, 2009 (Ex. 1004, “Ferro”). 2 EP 1,920,968 A1, pub. May 14, 2008 (Ex. 1005, “Oyobe”). 3 US 7,124,691 B2, iss. Oct. 24, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Donnelly”). 4 Steven E. Letendre, The V2G Concept: A New Model for Power? PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, Feb. 15, 2002, at 16 (Ex. 1007, “Letendre”). 5 US 5,654,621, iss. Aug. 5, 1997 (Ex. 1078, “Seelig”). 6 US 6,662,083 B1, iss. Sep. 16, 2003 (Ex. 1010, “Knockeart”). experience or technical training may offset less formal education, while advanced degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser levels of industry experience. Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–15). Charge Fusion “takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. For purposes of our analysis, we apply Tesla’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which we find to be consistent with the problems addressed in the ’987 patent and the prior art. B. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider” In the Petition, Tesla proposes that we construe “dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider,” as recited in every independent claim, to mean “a changing or otherwise fluctuating cost (or price) of electricity for purchase from an electric charge provider.” Pet. 4–5. Charge Fusion responds that Tesla improperly narrows the meaning of this claim limitation. PO Resp. 15 (arguing this claim term “is not just limited to ‘changing or otherwise fluctuating cost (or price)’ as alleged by the Petition” (emphasis added)). Although we consider Tesla’s proposed construction to identify an exemplary “dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider,” we see no need to limit the meaning of this limitation as proposed by Tesla. Indeed, Tesla agrees. See Pet. Reply. 7 (arguing only that this claim limitation “at least includes” such an example). And Charge Fusion does not contend otherwise. See PO Resp 15 (arguing only that this limitation “is not just limited to” cost fluctuations). As such, we see no need to further construe this claim limitation. 2. “determine . . . a charging schedule for the vehicle” Limitation 1[g] recites “determine, based at least on the one or more charging preferences and at least one current value of a dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider, a charging schedule for the vehicle.” Independent claim 8, 15, and 22 recite a materially identical limitation. Tesla submits that this limitation should not be construed as a means-plus- function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). See Pet. 5. Charge Fusion agrees that “nothing in the claim invokes [§] 112(6).” PO Resp. 16. As such, we discern no dispute regarding the meaning of this claim limitation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Initially, we note that, as claimed, there is no express restriction on the manner in which the “amount” or “charge” is specified or otherwise expressed. Indeed, the Specification uses both “desired charge percent level” and “desired charge range level” as alternative ways for a user to specify an “amount of charge.” Ex. 1001, 14:53–15:8 (emphases added). The Specification defines “desired charge range level” as meaning “a desired distance to travel.” Id. at 15:3–8. Elsewhere, the Specification describes that a user may specify the amount of charge as follows: “the user may indicate a desired charging level (and/or a desired charging level may be automatically calculated) based on a desired distance of travel.” Id. at 19:49–57 (emphasis added). More specifically, annotated Figure 7 of the ’987 patent, reproduced below, demonstrates how a user may select “amount of charge” in terms of a desired mileage range 720 or a percentage level 718. See Pet. Reply 2. As shown in red, annotated Figure 7 illustrates that a user selects “desired charge level 720” on “vehicle charge indicator 714” by moving a slider to a value specified in “miles” (e.g., 110 miles). The Specification, after discussing selecting a desired charge percent level 718, explains: The user may also or alternatively view and/or change the desired charge range level 720. An estimate of how far the vehicle can travel on a given charge amount (which may be a general average and/or may be computed based on a specific itinerary and/or past driving habits) can be determined, for example, and utilized to express the desired charge level in terms of distance capable of being traveled. In such a manner, for example, a user may determine a desired distance to travel (e.g., how far it is from home to work or vice versa) and may set the desired charge range level 720 to match the desired distance. Ex. 1001, 14:65–15:8. Thus, the Specification confirms that “amount of charge” may be expressed in terms of a desired mileage as well as a desired percentage level.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. Charge Fusion’s reliance on Wonderland is misplaced and does not support the proposition for which it is cited. In Wonderland, the district court denied the accused infringer’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, in part, because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether there was sufficient motivation to combine the prior art. Wonderland, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 511. As such, the district court’s Wonderland decision does not constitute a final ruling on the motivation to combine issue, and the Federal Circuit’s summary affirmance of the district court’s ruling neither addresses the issue nor reflects how the issue was resolved at trial. See Wonderland NurseryGoods Co. v. Thorley Indus., LLC, 644 F. App’x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, contrary to Charge Fusion’s assertion, Tesla correctly notes that although Ferro refers to wireless charging, it provides no implementation details. Ex. 1004 ¶ 36; Ex. 2006, 54:8–55:9. Nonetheless, Ferro does describe manual options for initiating charging, and Tesla’s expert credibly testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Oyobe’s vehicle sensor to allow a user to initiate Ferro’s charging methods more easily without having to leave the vehicle. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 146, 151, 152 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 109). Accordingly, we find that Tesla establishes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Oyobe’s use of a sensor to establish presence of a vehicle near a charging station into Ferro’s system.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,631,987 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,631,987 - Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00152 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–14 over Sutardja, Donnelly, and Letendre; claims 5, 10, and 15 with Seelig; claims 16 and 17 with Knockeart.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Tesla submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or an equivalent field) and at least two years of work experience involving automotive systems, including electric vehicle power management. . . . Additional industry experience or technical training may offset less formal education, 1 US 2008/0136371 A1, pub. Jun. 12, 2008 (Ex. 1011, “Sutardja”). 2 US 7,124,691 B2, iss. Oct. 24, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Donnelly”). 3 Steven E. Letendre, The V2G Concept: A New Model for Power? PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, Feb. 15, 2002, at 16 (Ex. 1007, “Letendre”). 4 US 5,654,621, iss. Aug. 5, 1997 (Ex. 1078, “Seelig”). 5 US 6,622,083 B1, iss. Sep. 16, 2003 (Ex. 1010, “Knockeart”). while advanced degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser levels of industry experience. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Charge Fusion “takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 9. For purposes of our analysis, we apply Tesla’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which we find to be consistent with the problems addressed in the ’788 patent and the prior art. B. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“shown in Figure 7 of the ’788 patent. Pet. 4–5. Charge Fusion responds that Tesla’s proposed construction should be rejected because it “wrongly import[s] embodiments from the specification.” PO Resp. 14–16. We discern no dispute over the meaning of “unitary vehicle charge indicator” because, contrary to what Charge Fusion argues, Tesla does not contend that this limitation is “required to be limited to” the bar graph embodiment of Figure 7, only that it “at least includes” that embodiment. Compare Pet. 5, with PO Resp. 14–16. Tesla also argues that the “first” and “second” portions of the unitary vehicle charge indicator—which indicate the charged and uncharged capacities of the battery—recite merely “communicative content,” and thus, are “not entitled to any patentable weight” because they are directed to nonfunctional printed matter. Pet. 5–7 (citing various case law). At the same time, however, Tesla maintains that “[r]egardless, Donnelly teaches a bar graph indicating the amount of charge and uncharged capacity.” Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Pet. 33–34); see also Hrg. Tr. 74:22–25, 75:9–11. For reasons expressed below, we agree that Tesla persuasively demonstrates that the asserted combination teaches the “unitary vehicle charge indicator element” as claimed and construed by Charge Fusion. Accordingly, we need not decide the printed matter issue.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Initially, we note that, as claimed, there is no express restriction on the manner in which the “amount” or “charge” is specified or otherwise expressed. Indeed, the Specification uses both “desired charge percent level” and “desired charge range level” as alternative ways for a user to specify an “amount of charge.” Ex. 1001, 14:63–15:18 (emphases added). In particular, the Specification defines “desired charge range level” as meaning “a desired distance to travel.” Id. at 15:8–18. Elsewhere, the Specification describes that a user may specify the amount of charge as follows: “the user may indicate a desired charging level (and/or a desired charging level may be automatically calculated) based on a desired distance of travel.” Id. at 19:59–67 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“full charge” for the battery, and thus, Tesla fails to explain how the combination of Sutardja with Donnelly’s battery bar graph image “would allow a user to select a specific amount of charge or how this would result in a unitary vehicle charge indicator,” as claimed. PO Resp. 30. According to Charge Fusion, “[l]imiting the single option of ‘full charge’ as described in Sutardja would defeat the purpose of implementing a slider” as taught by Donnelly. Id. (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 72). We disagree. Charge Fusion’s argument rests on the mistaken premise that Sutardja only contemplates selecting a full amount of charge for the battery and not an amount below a full charge, i.e., a partial charge. But that is not what Sutardja says. More accurately, Sutardja teaches that the user specifies the amount of charge—"The user interface module 108 may comprise a key pad, a display, a microphone, and/or a speaker (all not shown). A user of the vehicle 102-1 may use the user interface module 108 to set charging parameters for charging the battery 14.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 243. Elsewhere, Sutardja teaches that the user may set a “predetermined level” of charge— The charge monitoring module 150 may inform the control module 112 when the battery 14 is charged to a predetermined level (e.g., full charge) that may be indicated in the charging parameters. Subsequently, the charge monitoring module 150 may stop charging the battery 14 by deactivating the converter 156 and the charging module 152. The power meter 24 may measure the amount of power received from the utility company 23 during the charging operation. Id. ¶ 270 (emphases added). Although that passage indicates that a “full charge” is an example of a “predetermined level” of charge, nowhere does it exclude the selection of a lesser amount. Indeed, the passage contemplates the ability to “stop charging the battery,” which indicates that selection of the predetermined level may be less than a full charge. Id. Thus, we are not persuaded by Charge Fusion’s argument to the contrary. Rather, in our view, Tesla demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the Sutardja-Donnelly combination teaches a “unitary vehicle charge indicator” that includes at least “first” and “second” portions and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to successfully combine their respective teachings in a manner that allows a user to predetermine, i.e., specify, an amount of charge. slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,990,788 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,990,788 - Nxtgen Toys, LLC v. Zipstring, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 20, 2026 · IPR2024-01213 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 are unpatentable; substitute claim 27 is allowed, while substitute claims 21–26 and 28 are denied as obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “was typically a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, physics, or other science or 6 Patent Owner does not rely on any objective indicia of nonobviousness in this proceeding. engineering based degree that [was] familiar with general principles of mechanics and aerodynamics with at least two years of experience in product design and development in the field of toys or other amusement type devices.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–6, 22–26). Patent Owner states that it submitted the following proposal for a POSITA in the related district court litigation: “[a POSITA] would have had at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years industry experience in one of these fields, and such POSITA would have been familiar with general principles of mechanics, fluid mechanics and aerodynamics.” PO Resp. 4–5. We note that the parties’ proposals overlap considerably, and neither party argues the inadequacy of the other party’s proposal or that any patentability issue in this case turns on the resolution of this issue. We find Petitioner’s definition consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’774 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We would arrive at the same findings and conclusions in this Decision if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that no “term requires construction to resolve the invalidity grounds presented in this Petition since the prior art renders claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation of the claims.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner argues that it “does not believe express claim constructions are necessary during this proceeding because the claims can readily be given their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the patent at the time it was filed.” PO Resp. 5. Based on the parties’ positions and our view of the record, we need not expressly construe any claim limitations to resolve the issues in this Decision. To the extent that any implicit claim construction issues relate to the issues raised by the parties, we address them in the context of the parties’ patentability arguments below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“string, and that adding Scorch’s slot removes this arguably inconvenient process by allowing insertion and removal of a string without removing and reinstalling any aspects of the housing. See Pet 85–86 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–175; Ex. 1007, 3:30–3:53, 6:03; Ex. 1008, 3:46–4:45); Pet. Reply 18–20 (citing in part Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (Dr. Janét’s testimony that Wagner’s removal and reinstallation of a cover “may be viewed as an inconvenient process”)). Making insertion and removal of the string easier and quicker provides a notable advantage over Wagner’s existing device. See id. Scorch itself supports this argument and the related expert testimony because it discusses insertion and removal of strings and stated that the slot allows a user to “swap them out really quick.” Ex. 1007, 3:30–53. Petitioner also persuasively argues that a POSITA would know how to add the slot while maintaining the proper operation of the device, such as allowing insertion and removal of the string and avoiding inadvertent exiting of the string from the device. See Pet. 86–87 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 175–176; Ex. 1007, 4:00–30, Ex. 1008, 2:49–52); Pet. Reply 19, 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). We find Petitioner’s arguments and reasoning in support of adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing straightforward and persuasive. Patent Owner’s arguments against the combination do not directly refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). At best, Patent Owner’s arguments on this issue establish potential drawbacks in Petitioner’s proposed combination, but drawbacks alone do not defeat Petitioner’s obviousness rationale that includes readily apparent benefits. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine “). In addition, even if Patent Owner were correct that Wagner’s existing design works as well as Petitioner’s proposed combination, given all of the tradeoffs involved, that would not fatally undermine Petitioner’s showing. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (obviousness does not require that the proposed combination “is the preferred, or most desirable, combination”). On this record, Petitioner’s (and Scorch’s) stated advantages that are achieved when adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing adequately support Petitioner’s motivation to combine rationale.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 11,674,774 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,674,774 - Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01261 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach the claimed predetermined cycle for controlling distal fluid flow.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(1) a person with a B.S. in engineering or an equivalent field, with two-four years of academic or industry experience in aspiration embolectomy and thrombectomy or comparable industry experience who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including a physician, to develop embolectomy or thrombectomy devices; or (2) an interventional neurosurgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in embolectomy or thrombectomy procedures, and who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including an engineer, to develop such a medical device. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 48). Petitioner also contends that, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner states that for purposes of its PO Response, it “accepts ¶ 44). We adopt Petitioner’s characterization because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’402 patent and the cited prior art. See 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” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“specification explicitly includes sensors similar to those in the prior art in support of their argument that the claimed “predetermined cycle” must not exclude the use of such sensors. Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:55–33:7, 40:66–41:5, 44:9–29). We reviewed the portions of the specification cited by Petitioner. We agree with Patent Owner that one excerpt discussing sensor use appears to be directed to triggering the predetermined cycle rather than causing timing changes during the cycle itself (Ex. 1001, 32:55–66) (describing use of a pressure sensor to “determine when the vacuum channel 3 is clogged by a thrombus and automatically perform the unclogging procedures described herein”), while another excerpt discusses a sensor that Petitioner that the ’402 patent discusses the use of sensors to “tune” the system and that such “tuning” can be done statically (setting the cycle timing in advance) or dynamically (adjusting the timing during the cycle itself). See Ex. 1001, 48:19–49:50. Overall, we find that these disclosures involving sensors demonstrate that sensors may be used in various ways in different embodiments. However, none of these disclosures explicitly discuss the use of sensors in conjunction with a “pre-determined cycle.” Therefore, we find that the ’402 patent specification’s discussion of “sensors” are not particularly informative as to the appropriate construction of a “predetermined cycle” and do not outweigh the other explicit disclosures of “predetermined cycle” in the patent. We next turn to the other intrinsic evidence discussed by the parties — the prosecution history. As discussed by Patent Owner, in the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner found that Garrison did not teach or suggest a “predetermined cycle” because Garrison’s controller “changed the cycle of opening and closing the valves based on feedback from sensors.” Ex. 1004, 86. We acknowledge that the patent applicant filed subsequent comments during prosecution in which they stated that they “do[] not concede that the Examiner’s characterizations of the terms of the claims and the prior art are correct.” Id. at 29. However, we agree with Patent Owner that the importance of the Examiner’s statement in the Notice of Allowance does not rely on it being an express disclaimer (a standard which it does not meet). PO Sur-reply 8. We also considered Petitioner’s contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of Garrison may have been in error (PO Resp. 16); however, even if this were true, the Examiner’s statement still provides helpful insight into how the Examiner was interpreting the term sensors to change the opening and closing of valves during a cycle was not a “predetermined cycle.” Id. at 86. In sum, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the usage of the term “predetermined cycle” in the ’402 patent specification and prosecution history. Thus, after considering all of the cited evidence, we construe “predetermined cycle” to mean that “the timing of the sequence of valve operations in the cycle is determined beforehand, i.e., fixed, rather than varying based on feedback after operation begins.”” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. Other Terms The parties also provided proposed constructions for the limitations of “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” and “control[ling] fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” See Pet. 15–16; Pet. Reply 1–8; PO Resp. 22–24; PO Sur-Reply 2–6. However, having evaluated the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor Mr. Brown propose any combination of Yang and Mullins that does not include Mullins’s pressure sensor in order “to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Indeed, in addressing the “predetermined cycle” limitation, Mr. Brown contends that Mullins discloses a “cycling controller that ‘varies aspiration pressure according to sensed pressure within the catheter lumen.’” Ex.1005 ¶¶ 131–32 (citing, e.g., Ex.1008, 27:40–28:20 (“[a] novel aspect of this pump system is the incorporation of feedback into the pump algorithm in order to produce more effective pressure cycling”)). This use of a sensor to change pressure during a cycle, is not a “predetermined cycle” under our construction. combinations is its discussion of distal end flow control, not for its sensors.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 83). However, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds rely on the combination of Yang and Mullins, especially with regard to Mullins’s disclosure of “a controller” in order “to control fluid flow in and out.” As discussed above, Mullins relies on the sensor-feedback approach in order to control flow and we find that Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence of how the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins would control flow without using Mullins’s sensor feedback approach. See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (error to “consider[] … references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in [them] … that diverge from and teach away from the invention”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of Yang and Mullins discloses or renders obvious “a controller configured to open and close the vacuum valve and the vent valve in a predetermined cycle to change a level of vacuum at the distal end of the catheter and to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective evidence and arguments, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’402 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Yang and Mullins.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,406,402 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,406,402 - Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01132 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 5 are anticipated by Anzai, claim 4 is obvious over Anzai and Yamazaki, and claims 1–7 are obvious over Yamazaki and Anzai.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “ordinarily skilled artisan”) at the time of the invention as having “a Bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with electronic and optoelectronic device design” and notes that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 23). Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Bretschneider testifies that In my opinion, the field of “electronic and optoelectronic device design” is too broad. A POSITA of the ’121, had at least a Bachelors’ degree in a field of engineering or physics and at least two to three years of professional experience related to the design and manufacture of the relevant aspects of flat panel displays. Additional relevant graduate education related [sic] could reduce but not eliminate the time requirement for professional experience. While Dr. Neikirk proposes a different definition of a POSITA, the differences do not have material effect on my opinions rendered below. Regardless of which definition of a POSITA were used, my conclusions would remain the same Ex. 2005, Bretschneider Decl., ¶ 39. We agree with and will apply Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This level of ordinary skill is reflective of the education and experience that would have been required to understand the problems and solutions identified in the ’121 patent and the prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that our conclusions would be the same even if we applied Patent Owner’s slightly narrower definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We find these definitions to be of some help in construing this term. We find that the common thread is that a “passivation layer” is an insulating layer that provides protection from the environment to the layers below it. See Ex. 1012, 140; Ex. 1013, 542, Ex. 1014, 798; Ex. 2010, 3; Ex. 2013, 1. We find this construction to be most consistent with the broad claim language and the disclosure in the Specification. Although “tying up dangling bonds,” may be a mechanism by which some materials provide such protection, nothing in the Specification or the extrinsic evidence provided appears to require that. Also, while chemical protection may be one kind of protection none of the evidence suggests that is the only protection that is provided. Moreover, nothing in the Specification supports reading a chemical protection requirement into the construction. Thus, we decline to adopt that portion of Patent Owner’s construction. Instead, we construe passivation layer as “an insulating layer that provides protection from the environment to the layers below it.” We need not construe the term any further to resolve the parties’ dispute over this claim language. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“constructions for “passivation layer” and “capping layer.” We find that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to show that Anzai discloses both a “passivation layer” and a “capping layer.” As we explained above, we have construed “passivation layer” to mean “an insulating layer that provides protection from the environment to the layers below it.” Petitioner has shown that “first planarization film 17” is an insulating layer. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–65. We further find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that “first planarization film 17” is “formed over the entire surface for flattening, which will protect the semiconductor surface from the surrounding environment.” Id. ¶ 63. We have rejected Patent Owner’s contentions that the film must tie up “dangling bonds,” and instead determined that protecting the surface from the environment is sufficient. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Anzai discloses the “passivation layer” of claim 3. As we explained above, we have construed “capping layer” to be “an insulation layer covering (i.e., capping) an underlying layer or structure.” Here, Petitioner has shown that Anzai’s planarization film 19 meets the claimed “capping layer.” See Pet. 20. We find that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that “planarization film 19” is made of insulating material. As Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies, Anzai discloses that planarization layer 17 may be made of an organic resin for flattening the surface. EX1003, 4:20-24. While Anzai does not disclose the material for planarization layer 19, it must be made of an insulation material because in the embodiment of Fig. 3A, it is the sole layer between electrode layer 71 and cathode layer 65 forming the second capacitor. Id., 6:3–8; Fig. 3A. Moreover, Anzai discloses that the first planarization film 17 and the second planarization film 19 for the first embodiment “function as the capacitance insulating film for this configuration.” Id., 5:62–67. Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 62. We find this testimony well-reasoned and entitled to substantial weight. We further agree with Dr. Neikirk that a “POSITA would further understand that the second planarization film 19 is then further disposed on the first planarization film 17 (capping the passivation layer).” Id. ¶ 63 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:3–13; Figs. 2A–B, 3A–B). Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Anzai discloses the claimed “capping layer.” Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“motivation to combine Anzai and Yamazaki. See Pet. 25–27; Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶¶ 78–79. First, Patent Owner argues that essentially silicon nitride is an inferior material to use for Anzai’s planarization layer 17 compared with organic resin. PO Resp. 13–15. However, “[i]t’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 797, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (emphasis in original). Patent Owner does not argue that silicon nitride would not work, but rather that it would be more difficult and more expensive to use. See PO Resp. 14. But “the fact that the two disclosed apparatus[es] would not be combined by businessmen for economic reasons is not the same as saying that it could not be done because skilled persons in the art felt that there was some technological incompatibility that prevented their combination. Only the latter is telling on the issue of nonobviousness.” Grit Energy Solutions LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, 957 F.3d 1309, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Likewise, a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, Petitioner explains that “a POSITA would have known that organic materials usually have lower dielectric constants than inorganic materials, such as SiN, and a higher dielectric constant is desirable for the insulator in a capacitor since that leads to higher capacitance per unit area.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 78). Petitioner further explains that this “then allows a reduced area storage capacitance element, one of the objectives of Anzai.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, code (57)). Patent Owner’s focus mainly on planarization (PO Sur-reply 16–17) ignores that the Anzai’s planarization layers 17 and 19 also “function as the capacitance insulating film.” Ex. 1003, 5:65–67. Thus, although there are tradeoffs, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki regarding potential materials for planarization layers 17 and 19. Second, Patent Owner argues that a Petitioner has failed to provide an adequate reason to select silicon nitride from Yamazaki’s list of potential materials. We disagree. Petitioner has explained the benefits of selecting a high dielectric inorganic material. Pet. 26. Yamazaki provides only three potential options—silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and silicon oxynitride. See Ex. 1004, 11:45–50. Moreover, Dr. Neikirk testified, supported by multiple references, that using silicon nitride was well known in the prior art at the time of the invention. See Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 75 (citing Ex. 1007; Ex. 1008; Ex. 1009). “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Indeed, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. This is the case here. Petitioner has shown that a person of ordinary skill seeking to improve the capacitance of Anzai’s planarization layers 17 and 19, without increasing the size of the capacitor, would have looked at the inorganic materials identified in Yamazaki as suitable for the purpose, and it would have been would obvious to choose silicon nitride, a well-known, and predictable material for the application. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show a sufficient reason for selecting silicon nitride from Yamazaki’s list of suitable materials. Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s contentions only support” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 7,586,121 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,586,121 - Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alipinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–22 under the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner misstates the Decision’s reasoning. As is clear from the previous discussion, we determined that Petitioner’s articulated reasons for combining EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning, not because “EP’536 does not relate to ‘air bags,’” but because the means by which EP’536’s device inflates differs fundamentally from that of CN’180’s device. Dec. 17–18. Petitioner did not acknowledge this critical difference in the Petition, and continues not to do so in its Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning because EP’536’s inflation mechanism differs fundamentally from CN’180’s inflation mechanism. Dec. 17–18. As we stated, whereas CN’180’s fall-protection belt uses an airbag that requires an external source of pressurized air to inflate, EP’536’s garment does not need an external inflation device because “the gas generating agent 18 in each envelope automatically generates gas and inflates the envelopes in response to rising temperatures.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 15; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 5, 19). This difference reflects the fundamentally different purposes of the two devices: CN’180’s device is designed to provide “fall protection” to, e.g., “elderly people,” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 1, 3), whereas EP’536’s device provides “adaptive thermal insulation” for, e.g., garments worn by fire fighters. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–3, 250. Because of the different means by which EP’536’s and CN’180’s devices inflate and the different purposes for doing so, we were not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references as Petitioner proposed. Dec. 18. We further noted that the modification would not have improved the reusability of EP’536’s device “by having only one mechanism to recharge,” because EP’536’s “gas generating agent does not need any ‘mechanism to recharge.’” Dec. 18. Instead, we noted EP’536’s teaching that its gas generating agent “automatically recombines or condenses in response to a temperature decrease to return the envelopes, and therefore the garment, to its original thickness, at which point the gas generating agent is ready for subsequent reactivation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139–141). Finally, we determined that replacing EP’536’s envelopes with CN’180’s airbag “would have made EP’536’s invention unsuitable for its intended purpose: providing a protective garment with ‘adaptive thermal insulation.’” Dec. 19. We stated that “Petitioner does not suggest, and we have found nothing in the record to establish, that CN’180’s airbag would provide this feature.” Id. at 20.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“rationales for combining EP’536 and CN’180. Reh’g Req. 6–7. First, Petitioner asserts that we “improperly rejected Petitioner’s ‘simple substitution’ evidence in view of [the Board’s] incorrect conclusion that EP’536 does not disclose an ‘external source of inflation [EP’536’s dosing aids].’” Id. at 6 (citing Dec. 18–19). This argument is unpersuasive at least because, as we discussed above, EP’536’s dosing aids do not constitute an external source of inflation. Petitioner further argues that we incorrectly evaluated its “obvious to try” rationale because, contrary to our analysis, Petitioner did in fact identify a problem to be solved by its “finite number of solutions”: “simplify[ing] the design and reduc[ing] the number of required inflation mechanisms.” Id. at 6–7. The Petition’s entire “obvious to try” discussion is as follows: [A] POSITA would have found it obvious to try a one-piece airbag 10 with strip-shaped inflation units 12 in the EP’536- CN’180 airbag system because it would have been a selection from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (i.e., using one chamber with connected individual inflation units 12 versus multiple individual envelopes 20). 5 Petitioner also argues that dosing aids are “needed in order to make the disclosed device reusable.” Reh’g Req. 5–6. This is incorrect, as EP’536 conveys that the reusability of the device is a result of the gas generating agent condensing or recombining when temperatures fall. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139– 141. Even if it were true, however, it is unclear how it would support Petitioner’s argument. Pet. 16. As is evident, Petitioner did not identify a design need, market pressure, or other problem that would have been addressed by its identified “solutions,” and therefore we were not persuaded by this rationale. Dec. 19. Petitioner’s attempt to cure this deficiency in its Rehearing Request is tardy. We cannot misapprehend or overlook an assertion that Petitioner fails to make in the Petition. It is also insufficient. Petitioner does not provide any evidence of a known design need or market pressure to “simplify [EP’536’s] design” or reduce the number of “required inflation mechanism” it uses.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC / Solaris Oilfield Site Services Personnel, LLC v. Masaba, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01179 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 are unpatentable under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Waldner, Dynatek, and additional references; the Board cancelled all challenged claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Also, to the extent Masaba relies on extrinsic expert testimony, we note that Masaba’s expert cites absolutely no support for his understanding of the claims, much less explains why we should adopt his understanding over the plain and ordinary meaning of “conveying aggregate” and “moving aggregate.” See Ex. 2004 ¶ 34. Absent supporting citations, such extrinsic testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. As such, we reject the notion that Waldner’s discharge chute member 242 is not a conveyor “for conveying aggregate” or “for moving aggregate,” as required by claim elements 1[h] and 1[i].” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that Dr. Durham does not possess the necessary level of skill in the art to qualify as an expert in this case. Looking at the specification of the ’689 patent and the prior art of record, we think Masaba sets the bar too high. We acknowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art should have some education and/or experience in the mechanical art of conveying aggregate materials, but we do not think opining on the ’689 patent and asserted prior art necessarily requires that person to have the amount of education and experience that Masaba advocates. The ’689 patent relates generally to an “aggregate transferring system for receiving aggregate from a vehicle and elevating the aggregate to a higher vertical level for deposit into, for example, a silo.” Ex. 1001, 1:15– 18. And, as described in the ’689 patent and discussed later, the transferring system is an assembly of known types of conveyors, such as a belly-dump truck conveyor, a bucket elevator, and an articulated belt conveyor, for transferring the aggregate horizontally and vertically from a belly-dump truck to the discharge point, such as a silo. Without doubt, Dr. Durham has enough education and experience to reliably opine on the combination of known parts.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction needed
“We reject this argument for several reasons. First, nowhere does the plain language of the claims specify how the aggregate is conveyed or moved from the conveyor extension assembly’s inlet to its outlet, be it passively by means of gravity or actively by means of a conveyor belt. Instead, the claims simply use those verbs according to their plain and ordinary meaning, which is “to transfer or deliver” or “to cause to go or pass” from one place to another. See Ex. 3001, 253 (defining “convey”), 760 (defining “move”).10 Second, the specification of the ’689 patent similarly uses these terms in a plain and ordinary sense, without ever attributing to them some sort of special meaning. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:9–12 (“The apparatus 10 is suitable for performing the transfer of aggregate from 10 We reference the original pagination of the dictionary in which these definitions appear. one location to another, such as, for example, from a vehicle carrying the aggregate to a silo 1 for storing the aggregate.”). The ’689 patent specification also makes clear that active conveyance of the aggregate is an option and not a requirement of the claimed invention, stating that the conveyor extension assembly “may further include a conveyor belt 150.” Ex. 1001, 10:60–66 (emphasis added). Limiting claim elements 1[h] and 1[i] to a device “for actively conveying” or “for actively moving aggregate” would improperly import limitations from the specification into the claims. Thus, based on the intrinsic evidence, we determine that claim elements 1h and 1k are properly construed to encompass passive and/or active movement of the aggregate via the conveyor extension assembly.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“Owner asserts” that two claim terms—“unloader structure” and “trailer structure”—should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Solaris submits an express construction detailing the corresponding structure in the specification for performing the recited function of the claimed unloader and trailer structures. See id. at 24–25. Only in disputing Solaris’s Ground 3 does Masaba advocate that the claim term “trailer structure” should be construed under § 112(f), and then only in conjunction with dependent claims 3 and 21. See PO Resp. 58. As such, we address Masaba’s proposed construction in our analysis of Ground 3. We now turn to Solaris’s grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 11,780,689 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,780,689
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.