- Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Remand
Claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Doo and Amira; claims 12–19 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted tissue properties were not shown in Amira.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. 2024-1794, 2026 WL 587294 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2026) (“Medivis”) (Paper 40),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding our Final Written Decision (Paper 35) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our “determination of no motivation to combine Doo and Amira” and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether claims 1–6 and 11–20 (“the Remanded Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,004,271 B2 (“the ’271 patent,” Ex. 1001) are unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge over Doo and Amira. Medivis, slip op. at 9–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We issue this Final Written Decision on Remand pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in an inter partes review involving Medivis, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Novarad Corp. (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the entirety of the record in light of the Federal Circuit’s directives in Medivis, we hold that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable; however, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 12–19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: 4 Throughout this decision, we eliminate the parties’ italicization of reference names from quotations without noting “emphasis omitted.” 5 Doo, WO 2015/164402 A1, published October 29, 2015 (Ex. 1008). 6 Excerpt of Amira 5 User’s Guide, title through Chapter 2 (Visual Imaging 2009) (Ex. 1005). engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the term “3D slices” has no apparent connection to the phrase “direct volume rendering.” Patent Owner’s argument appears to be that DVR “requires an image of the entire anatomical volume that is neither feature-specific nor segmented, [which] would seemingly require that all inner layers be displayed.” Reply 4; see Sur-reply 6–10 (not disputing Petitioner’s characterization). But, as Petitioner notes, the specification directly undermines this by teaching “display [of] a slice of the 3D data instead of a volume of the 3D data.” See Reply 4 n.2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:34–35). In other words, to the extent DVR would depict an image of the entire anatomical volume, displaying 3D slices “instead of a volume of the 3D data” implies the opposite of DVR. Even if “3D slices” somehow implied DVR, Patent Owner’s position is still untenable. Claim 1 does not recite “3D slices.” Instead, claim 1 recites “3D data” and “inner layers.” Ex. 1001, 18:54–65. Patent Owner fails to clarify the relationship between “slices,” “3D data,” and “layers,” and its expert even admits that slices and layers are two different things. See PO Resp. 13; Ex. 1022, 32:7–16 (agreeing that the words “slice” and “layer” are not “synonyms”), cited in Reply 4. We also agree with Petitioner that dependent claim 3 distinguishes slices and layers by reciting “slices of the projected inner layer.” Reply 4 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:3–10). Thus, even if 3D slices somehow implied DVR, the language of claim 1 does not support limiting the claim this way.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“The determination of whether a document was publicly accessible “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For instance, courts routinely rely on the Wayback Machine to determine when a reference was first made available to the public. Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“District courts have taken judicial notice of the contents of webpages available through the Wayback Machine ‘as facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’”). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Medivis cannot rely on additional prior art”—Exhibits 1023 and 1024—“that was submitted after its Petition to carry its burden without leave from the Board.” Sur-reply 4. As Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude these exhibits, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to disregard them. We also find Petitioner’s Reply argument proper because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner did not prove the public accessibility of Amira. See Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d, 919, 925 on issues previously raised.”). Petitioner’s Reply argument appropriately elaborates on the Petition’s contention that Amira was publicly accessible. Patent Owner also does not dispute the substance of Petitioner’s evidence. For example, Patent Owner does not address the substance of Mr. Frank-White’s declaration. We find that this evidence, including Mr. Frank- White’s declaration testimony, persuasively supports the public availability of Amira as of the date shown in the Wayback Machine URL. See Ex. 1024.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,004,271 - Magic Leap, Inc. v. Percept Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 11, 2026 · IPR2023-00495 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Remand
Claims 1–3 and 12–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Osterhout and, separately, over Mann ’526 and Vaissie.
RulingsRemand decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“March 15, 2013 filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a B.S. degree and a Masters degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Physics, or an equivalent field, as well as one to two years of academic or industry experience in wearable electronic devices or comparable industry experience. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Although the level of skill in the art was addressed in the Preliminary Response and the Decision on Institution (see Prelim. Resp. 27–30; Dec. on Inst. 6–10), Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’113 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“For all of the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed ordinary and customary meaning for “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens” because it is not supported by the claim language or the ’113 Patent Specification, and is supported only by unsworn attorney argument.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“below, we agree with Petitioner. We find that Osterhout teaches the dynamic eye tracking mechanism is in optical communication with the lens, consistent with its ordinary and customary meaning, because in Osterhout the user’s eye receives optical communication in the form of light transmitted from the translucent lens, and the camera of the dynamic tracking mechanism, in turn, receives optical communication in the form of light from the user’s eye. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 164, 304.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,696,113 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,696,113 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00477 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Komata; the Board did not reach the Tsuji or Rosenberg grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or an equivalent degree), and two years of practical or industry experience in the field of human computer interaction (HCI), including implementation of computer-based systems and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user. . . . Also, a person could have qualified as a [POSITA] with more formal education and less practical or industry experience, or vice versa. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 17). Although these level of skill definitions are not the same, the differences are minor, and Patent Owner does not argue that its level of skill definition is dispositive. To the contrary, Patent Owner asserts that “[i]n any event, the challenged claims of the ’260 Patent are patentable under either . . . definition.” Id. at 18. We apply Petitioner’s level of skill but would have reached the same result had we applied Patent Owner’s.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As we explained in our Institution Decision, we disagreed then, and still disagree, “that the second pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected (or that the third pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected) simply because the second pressure is greater than the first pressure (and the third pressure is greater than the second pressure).” Dec. 27. As we explained there, “[t]he claimed relative magnitudes of the first, second, and third pressures do not define any temporal relationships regarding the detection of the pressures.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that claim 1 recites quantitative relationships for the pressures, not temporal relationships. Reply 4. For example, claim 1 requires “the second pressure greater than the first pressure” but says nothing about when the second pressure must be greater than the first pressure. A key misconception undergirding Patent Owner’s argument is its statement that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” PO Resp. 27 (emphasis added). The claim does not require detecting that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure. Limitation [1c] simply says, “detect a second pressure on the first input device, the second pressure greater than the first pressure.” In other words, all the detection that this limitation requires is detecting a second pressure. The claim then observes that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure but does not require detecting this. Limitation [1e] similarly detects pressure but not the comparison: “detect a third pressure on the first input device, the third pressure greater than the second pressure.” Thus, it does not follow that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” See id. Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner’s analysis of the claim language is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Our decision here does not depend on the meaning of this term. Patent Owner only argues the phrase “tactile sensation” for Petitioner’s challenge over Rosenberg, which we do not reach because Petitioner’s challenge over Komata is dispositive. See PO Resp. 63–66. Accordingly, we do not construe this term.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Instead, Patent Owner disputes that Komata discloses the order of all the steps of claim 1, based on its construction requiring the steps to be performed in order. PO Resp. 50–54; Reply 17 (observing that Patent Owner “does not dispute that Ground 1 demonstrates how Komata anticipates or renders obvious claims 1–7 if [Patent Owner’s] ordered-steps argument is rejected”); Sur-reply 12–14 (not disputing the Reply’s observation). As Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction we have not adopted, Patent Owner fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive showing.7 To the extent, as we note above, that the claims may require a partial ordering (i.e., limitation [1a] preceding limitation [1b] and limitation [1c] preceding limitation [1d], see supra Section I.A.1.a), Petitioner has persuasively shown that Komata discloses such ordering. a. Summary as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata. 3. Dependent Claims 2–7 Petitioner also contends that claims 2–7 would have been obvious over Komata. Pet. 28–35. Patent Owner does not dispute these dependent claims. Petitioner provides detailed explanations indicating where Komata teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 2–7, supported by Mr. Ward’s testimony. Id. We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–7 are anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,336,260 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,336,260 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00478 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable because Petitioner proved that Rosenberg I anticipates them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“feedback that simulates a mechanical detent.” PO Resp. 28; Sur-reply 3. Petitioner “does not explicitly disagree” that a virtual detent is “vibrotactile feedback that simulates a mechanical detent.” Reply 2. Petitioner asserts that “[i]f there is a dispute, it is whether Rosenberg I’s vibrotactile feedback ‘simulates a mechanical detent’ because [Patent Owner] says such simulation requires a sense of mechanical resistance and Rosenberg I allegedly lacks such simulated resistance.” Id. (citing PO Resp. 58–59).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“To the extent Patent Owner urges us to require virtual detents to vary on a system or application basis, we do not find this interpretation required by the claims or specification either. Although the claims refer to “a plurality of systems,” they do not recite different detent profiles for each of those systems. Claim 1, for example, recites “receiving a detent profile associated with one of the systems.” The other claims are similar. Patent Owner’s reliance on non-limiting specification language is also unavailing. E.g., Ex. 1001, 8:38–46 (“can” and “may”), 4:30–44 (“embodiment” and “may”).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“supports its proposed construction. See PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that claim 15 recites a “system comprising” “an input device configured to control one of a plurality of systems,” and hence “the recited plurality of systems are subsystems in addition to the containing system.” Id. We question how this point supports Patent Owner’s proposal because this does not address why each system must “provide[] context for virtual detents.” But regardless, we find it unpersuasive because claim 15’s preamble is not limiting (merely reciting “A system comprising”). See Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[P]reamble language that merely states the purpose or intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim.”); see also Tr. 80:4– 8 (Patent Owner conceding that the preamble is non-limiting). Nor is there any explicit language in claim 15 that would exclude any particular system, such as the system recited in the preamble, from the recited “plurality of systems.”” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 9,430,042 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,430,042 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00105 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 16 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a) over the stated Fells-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had . . . a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, microelectronics, or equivalent, and . . . two to three years of industry or research experience,” and “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–44). Patent Owner “does not disagree with Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art,” but “does not believe that resolution of the Petition depends on the precise definition of the level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 12. Petitioner’s proposed articulation is supported by testimonial evidence and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’184 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–2:53. As it is uncontested, we adopt it for this decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that the terms of the contested claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, but neither party argues that we should construe any claim terms explicitly. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62– 63); PO Resp. 12. We agree with the parties that, for this decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). However, the meaning of certain terms are contested, including most notably “magnetic field sensor,” and we discuss those terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached
“Petitioner argues that, to the extent the preamble is limiting, Fells discloses the recited wireless energy transfer system, and that the system includes facilities to detect FOD. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 191, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–71, 96–101). Patent Owner does not specifically contest Petitioner’s arguments. See PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner’s argument that Fells discloses the preamble; thus, we need not decide whether the preamble is limiting. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 191, Fig. 2.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the ordinary and customary meaning of “magnetic field sensor” refers to a device that measures only external magnetic fields. There is nothing in the claim language to suggest such a limitation: the plain language simply refers to a “magnetic field sensor,” without regard to how the sensor works or where it senses magnetic fields from. Ex. 1001, 12:16. In fact, the claim does not explicitly require sensing anything at all using the magnetic field sensor, merely reciting a “foreign object debris detection system” comprising the sensor and that the “foreign object debris detection system is configured to verify” the presence of FOD. The very general nature of how the magnetic field sensor is recited, without any explicit recitation of how its output may be used, undermines Patent Owner’s overly restrictive interpretation. Although the ’184 patent specification includes examples of measuring external magnetic fields to detect FOD, Patent Owner has not pointed to anything in the specification indicating an intent to restrict the term “magnetic field sensor” to only those sensors that measure external magnetic fields. Nor is there intrinsic evidence that an “eddy-current sensor” would not also be a magnetic field sensor, given that it senses magnetic fields. Indeed, as Petitioner persuasively argues, an eddy-current sensor still measures external magnetic fields—albeit magnetic fields generated within FOD through interaction with a powered sensor. Pet. 6–7; Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 14– 16, 25–29.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,027,184 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,027,184 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 4–6 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed multi-coil alignment lacked prior-art support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had . . . a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, microelectronics, or equivalent and . . . two to three years of industry or research experience in the field of wireless energy transfer,” and that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–44). Patent Owner does not contest this. See PO Resp. Petitioner’s proposed articulation is supported by testimonial evidence and appears to be consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’654 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–28. We adopt it for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Petitioner that the evidence does not suggest (and Patent Owner does not explicitly argue) that the terms “transmitting antenna” and “receiving” antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 1–2. However, for the reasons discussed below, the outcome of our decision would be the same whether we adopted Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Thus, we need not adopt either party’s proposed construction for this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“spaced configuration are not confined to ferrite cores 32 and 3, and that at least a component of the flux lines will escape the cores. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52; Ex. 1038 ¶ 54 Fig. 2. Indeed, the evidence suggests (and Dr. Horenstein acknowledges in his first declaration) that at least a component of flux will escape the core of even a traditional transformer. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 45–47; Ex. 1044, 6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 27. In his second declaration, Dr. Horenstein provides contrary testimony that in Odachi’s open configuration during alignment, cores 32 and 3 “act to confine or guide the magnetic flux lines, rather than radiate them into free space,” and “the flux lines would [not] leave the gap area and enter into the space distal to the magnetic circuit.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. But in view of Dr. Horenstein’s contrary position in his first declaration, and the lack of supporting evidence in his second, we do not find it credible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (2022) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“(4) Analysis We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that during the alignment process in Odachi corresponding to claim 13, there is a “spaced distance between the primary inductive coupler [230] and the secondary inductive receptacle 2” which is “reduced gradually and electromagnetic induction occurs between the coupler to the receptacle when the former coupler comes close to the latter receptacle.” Ex. 1005, 6:1–6. Thus, prior to any contact or precise alignment between the two cores, “an electromotive force is induced in the secondary coil 4 and this induced force is increased with the decrease in the spaced distance.” Id. at 6:6–8. At least in that spaced configuration, the evidence of record suggests that primary coil 31 produces a near-field component of flux into free space (the air space between the coils where there is no intervening core material) that is intercepted by secondary coil 4 to effect resonant inductive coupling, and that secondary coil 4 intercepts and receives the near-field component of flux in free space that is generated by primary coil 31 to effect resonant inductive coupling. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52, 55. Thus, we find that Odachi discloses a “transmitting antenna” (coil 31) and a “receiving antenna” (coil 4) under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. We would reach the same finding under Petitioner’s proposed broader construction because the evidence suggests that Odachi’s coils 31 and 4 would have been considered “antennas” under the parties’ uncontested definition of that term, which is “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See id. ¶¶ 43–47, 53–54; Ex. 1032 ¶ 15 (Dr. Allen agreeing with this definition of “antenna”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 25 (Dr. Horenstein agreeing with this definition of “antenna”)). In addition, Petitioner persuasively shows that the free space between Odachi’s coils in the spaced configuration includes the “near-field region,” which includes the induction field around primary coil 31. See Ex. 2006, 498; Ex. 1045, 5:4–7; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 53–54). Dr. Horenstein’s testimony does not contradict this. Although he points out that there are separate terms for inductive, near, and far fields, he also acknowledges that “[t]he region of space closer to the antenna than the far field is the near-field region.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 37 (citing Ex. 2006, 275).8” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,466,654 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,466,654 - Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2023-01384 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Yoshida and Saxler; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“In light of the record before us, we determine that we do not need to reach a specific finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the 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 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the “side surfaces” limitation and determined that it was not necessary to further construe this term because “[t]he parties do not dispute that the language ‘side surfaces extending horizontally’ encompasses a gate material with sloped side surfaces as depicted in Figure 5 of the ’335 patent.” Inst. Dec. 11–16 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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.”)). We invited the parties to address this limitation further during the course of this trial, but neither party provided additional evidence or argument regarding the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 16; see generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-reply. Accordingly, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision that we do not need to construe the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 15– 16.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“This evidence, particularly the language in the ’335 patent itself, undermines Patent Owner’s argument that “[t]he process for forming gate ledges using separate masks instead of the self-aligned process disclosed in the ’335 patent cannot produce ledges that are ‘substantially symmetric.’” PO Resp. 39 (emphasis added); see also PO Resp. 42–43 (arguing that a gate structure with ledges having substantially equal widths is “not achievable” without using a single photo-mask process). We have considered the evidence presented by Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert in support of Patent Owner’s arguments. PO Resp. 38–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 49–51. We, however, are unable to discern sufficient evidence supporting a conclusion that using separate masks cannot produce ledges that are substantially symmetric, particularly when the ’335 patent suggests otherwise. See Ex. 1001, 4:60– 63 (referring only to the “possibility of misalignment”). Even if, as Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert contend, misalignment “naturally” occurs when using a two-mask process, that does not foreclose the possibility that the” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“It is well settled that “[a] reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Furthermore, “teaching that a composition may be optimal or standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 10,312,335 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,312,335 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2023-01208 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Cook and Bennett because the combination teaches the claimed wireless power system and provides reasons to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) and at least two years of industry or equivalent research experience in the field of 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Based on the effective filing date of the ’687 patent, we apply the pre-AIA version of § 103. wireless energy transfer,” but “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37– 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Mark Allen. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–41. Patent Owner “does not disagree with Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 9–10. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“1. Confirm compatibility of the resonators and provide authorization for initiation of transfer of power Patent Owner proposes construing the phrase “confirm compatibility of the resonators and provide authorization for initiation of transfer of power” in independent claims 1, 7, and 13 to mean “verify that parameters of the resonators will permit power transfer and provide authorization prior to initiating the transfer of power.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner argues that the claim language “recit[es] two functions—confirming resonator compatibility and providing authorization,” which “indicates that confirming compatibility of the resonators must be different than providing authorization.” Id. at 7–8. Patent Owner also argues that the specification distinguishes “the confirmation of resonator compatibility” from “merely verifying that the vehicle to be charged is authorized to receive charging” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“a. Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning The evidence of record indicates that it would have been obvious to implement Cook’s wireless charging system using Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning. Ex. 1003 ¶ 114; Pet. 21–22. Specifically, Cook teaches that its wireless charging system requires “the right frequency” to charge a vehicle’s battery. Ex. 1007 ¶ 12; Pet. 24. But Cook does not teach how to adjust the resonant frequency of its wireless charging system to work with different vehicles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 114; Pet. 24. As discussed above, Bennett teaches tuning the power transmitting unit’s resonant frequency to the target electronic device’s requested resonant frequency. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37–38, 57– 58, Fig. 3. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning would improve Cook’s wireless charger by making it compatible with different vehicles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 114; Pet. 24– 25. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the combination to work because Bennett explains that its techniques apply generally to battery-powered devices. Ex. 1003 ¶ 121; Ex. 1005 ¶ 3; Pet. 28–29.” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“in the Reply is an improper new argument. PO Sur-reply 15. We disagree. The Petition expressly relies on Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning as teaching the compatibility limitation. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37–38, 41). Patent Owner responds by arguing that Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning is an optional step that occurs after initiating power transfer. PO Resp. 23–24. In the Reply, Petitioner responds by pointing to Bennett’s Figure 3 as evidence that the resonant frequency tuning occurs before initiating power transfer. Pet. Reply 18–21 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 57, Fig. 3; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 28–29). Petitioner’s argument in the Reply properly relies on the same feature (i.e., Bennett’s resonant frequency tuning) and the same embodiment (i.e., the system shown in Figures 1 and 3) as the Petition. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 29, 37–38, 57 (“FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating resonant power transfer operations performed using the power system of FIG. 1 . . . .”). Thus, Petitioner’s reliance on Bennett’s Figure 3 is a proper response to arguments in Patent Owner’s Response, not an improper new theory of unpatentability. See Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ([T]he arguments and evidence in the reply must not be part of a new theory of unpatentability” and “must be responsive to the patent owner’s contentions or the Board’s institution decision.”).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,912,687 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,912,687
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.