• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 27, 2026 · IPR2022-01093 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 13 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the received card information defines the memory location for the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed our Original Decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. ASSA Abloy AB, No. 2024-1492, 2025 WL 3134960, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), Paper 43. The Federal Circuit also noted that in light of the affirmance of our decision in another proceeding, IPR2022- 00600, challenging the same patent, the “errors the Board made in this appeal only extends to claims 3–18, which were not at issue in the other appeal.” Id. at *3 n 1. Therefore, in this proceeding, only challenged claims 13 and 14 remain. At the request of the parties, we permitted additional briefing addressing the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 44. Petitioner filed an opening brief (Paper 51 (“Pet. Remand Br.”)), and Patent Owner filed an opening brief (Paper 52 (“PO Remand Br.”)). Both parties also filed responsive briefs. Paper 54 (“Pet. Responsive Br.”); Paper 55 (“PO Responsive Br.”). This is a Final Written Decision on Remand addressing the patentability of the remaining challenged claims 13 and 14. To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “offers nothing to suggest that its card information ‘tells you’ where to store the fingerprint data.” ASSA ABLOY AB, 2025 WL 3134960 at *3. Reversing our determinations as to Hsu, the Court found that the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, “merely confirms the associative link between the card information and the biometric data. Still missing is any non-conclusory testimony that Hsu’s card information determines the memory location of the biometric data.” Id. at 8. Therefore, on remand, a central question is whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Tsukamura cures this deficiency. Petitioner has not done so. In the Petition, Petitioner relies on Tsukamura for teaching a specific location for storing fingerprint data. See Pet. 75 (stating that “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory”). Petitioner argues that “[t]hus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., ‘a memory location is specified by the card information.’” Id. at 75–76 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 215). In support, Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, testifies that “[i]f the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. However, considering the Federal Circuit’s decision, we determine such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00159 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner did not establish the proposed remote internet site modification.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner filed an authorized Motion to Terminate, alleging that Petitioner failed to name a real party in interest (namely, Petitioner’s corporate parent, Resmed Inc.). Paper 37. Petitioner filed an opposition. Paper 38. Patent Owner filed a reply. Paper 39. We denied the Motion to Terminate. Paper 44.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.8 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes referred to herein as a POSITA) would have had: at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience working with diagnostic sensor systems and network data systems, such as networked PAP machines. Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 (Kirkness Decl.) ¶¶ 44–46); PO Resp. 7–8. Because the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “We find it unnecessary to construe any claim term to resolve the issues in this case. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “its burden of explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented a remote internet site in Toge’s system in the specific fashion Petitioner asserts (i.e., using the physician-side computer as a web server). As Patent Owner aptly states, the operative question is not merely whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Toge’s system to include a remote internet site, but whether the artisan would have modified Toge’s system to include a remote internet site “on a physician’s client computer” in accordance with the specific implementation argued by Petitioner. Sur-reply 2. On this critical question, Petitioner’s arguments are thin. Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Kirkness states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that one common way to access data transmitted over the internet, like the data from Toge’s wireless PAP device, is via a remote internet site.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 214. This assertion is reasonable. Indeed, prior art of record, such as Kumar, illustrates use of a central server that hosts a browser-based engine that can be accessed through web pages. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 (Kumar) Fig. 1A, ¶¶ 67, 72, 79, Pet. 10. Petitioner, however, elected to argue a specific implementation, namely that the skilled artisan would have modified Toge’s physician-side computer to operate as a web server. See, e.g., Pet. 15; Ex. 1005 (Chatterjee Decl.) ¶ 146; Reply 4. We find that this implementation is unsupported on this record. Petitioner has not pointed us to any disclosure in Toge, Burton, or Kumar (or any other prior art reference of record) that teaches or suggests “that a doctor’s computer should act a web server hosting sensitive patient data.” PO Resp. 9 (emphasis added). And critically, the Petition is silent as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected this implementation in particular. See, e.g., Pet. 49.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,375,921 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,375,921
• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2026 · PGR2025-00013 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 and 18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted prior art did not establish the claimed quick-connect system during reciprocation, and Clark was not analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 1[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick-connect system is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that many different types of connectors, whether they require alignment or not, were known. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick-connect system, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick-connect system configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick-connect system” recited in independent claims 1 and 18.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes: Quick-connect system 600 includes a piston 602 that has a hollow-end bore 608 for receiving the shaft 621 of a massaging head 620. Located within the bore 608 of piston 602 is a cylindrical seat 604. Cylindrical seat 604 retains a magnet 606. Magnet 606 is illustrated with its north pole located flush with the seat and facing toward the opening in bore 608. Massaging head 620 includes a shaft 621 having a cylindrical pocket 622 at the distal end. Located within the cylindrical pocket 622 is a magnet 624. Magnet 624 is positioned so that its south pole is located at the distal end of shaft 621. Accordingly, when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place. Ex. 1001, 6:57–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the bore and the seat located within the bore are “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the bore and the seat within the bore are “substantially cylindrical” when the massaging head and magnet are respectively received therein so that the magnet in the seat and the magnet in the pocket of the massaging head can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the bore and the seat within the bore were “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in claims 13–16 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shapes of the bore and the structure within the bore. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of claims 13–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,938,082 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,938,082
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2026 · IPR2022-01094 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 3–12 and 15–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish that card information defined the memory location for storing the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Consistent with our Original Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access security. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Limitation 3(da) The issues on remand revolve essentially around limitation 3(da): Limitation 3(da) – storing the inputted biometric signature in a memory at a memory location defined by the provided card information; Ex. 1001, 12:61–63. Considering limitation 3(da) in our Original Decision, we explained that during an enrollment process the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory, and no memory location or address has been “defined,” as in “set” or “established,” in the memory for storing the fingerprint, until card information is received. Once the card information and fingerprint are received during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, i.e., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data. Original Decision 16.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a fingerprint database (44) and retrieve reference fingerprint data previously stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is set or established “at a memory location defined by the provided card information” as recited in claim limitation 3(da). Taking a close look at Petitioner’s testimonial evidence as to claim 3, we first note Mr. Lipoff testifies that Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. But, concomitant with the Federal Circuit’s point, such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC card information to define “as in ‘set’ or ‘establish[]’” a memory location, as our claim construction requires. See Section II.C.3.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01494 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 5, 6, and 9–20 not shown unpatentable over either Bowen and Soukup or Nagahama and Soukup under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’909 patent (2004), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” where “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Pet. 18–19. In the Decision on Institution, we agreed with and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Dec. on Inst. 9. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Both experts utilized Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Ex. 1024 ¶ 25; Ex. 2053 ¶¶ 29–30. Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’909 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’909 patent and cited prior art, we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “B. Claim Interpretation We interpret the claims of the challenged patent using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such [claims] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. 15. We did not interpret any terms in the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 9–10. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Response. We conclude, based on the full trial record, that no term requires express interpretation to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” “‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Practice Guide § II.I, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide (last updated Dec. 12, 2025). “While replies . . . can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Id. An indication that a new issue is improperly raised in a reply is where a petitioner submits “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case” of unpatentability, such as a “newly raised rationale to combine the prior art references that was not expressed in the petition.” Id. That is the case here. Petitioner’s rationale in the Petition for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV based on Soukup was that such an artisan would have expected lowering the barrier height to increase TMR. See Pet. 34–36. Faced with Dr. Bokor’s testimony on cross-examination, Petitioner presents a new theory in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what impact lowering the barrier height would have (increase TMR, decrease it, or have no impact at all), but would have expected it to change in some “uncertain” way, which is a “legally sufficient motivation” in Petitioner’s view. See Reply 6–10, 13–16, 23–25. In other words, “[r]ather than explaining how its original” position that lowering barrier height would increase TMR “was correct,” Petitioner articulated “an entirely new theory . . . absent from the [P]etition” after Patent Owner cross-examined Dr. Bokor and “pointed out the flaws of [Petitioner’s] position” in its Response. See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by statute, [Federal Circuit] precedent, and Board guidelines.” Id.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Ultimately, the cross-examination testimony above is inconsistent with Dr. Bokor’s opinions in his declaration that, for example, “[i]t was understood to one of skill that lowering the barrier height to increase tunneling would have increased the TMR,” and “[o]ne of skill would have been motivated to adjust oxygen vacancy defects to improve TMR by lowering the barrier height.” See Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 176, 277 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 172 (“[O]ne of skill in the art would have been motivated to use [Soukup’s 0.33 eV] or similar height in an MgO MTJ to improve tunneling and hence TMR in Bowen.”). Accordingly, we do not find Dr. Bokor’s declaration testimony regarding a motivation to lower Bowen’s barrier height credible. It is Petitioner’s burden to provide a reasoned, evidence-supported explanation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lower Bowen’s 0.9 eV barrier height to 0.33 eV as disclosed in Soukup. See NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383; Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380; TriVascular, 812 F.3d at 1066. Petitioner’s reasoning in the Petition that lowering the barrier height (by introducing oxygen defects) would increase TMR is unsupported by evidence.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,968,909 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,968,909
• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2026 · PGR2024-00053 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 34–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 unpatentable under § 112(a), § 112(b), or any asserted § 103 ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ proffered definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art differ in the details of the experience a POSITA would possess. Petitioner’s definition requires experience with rotating or reciprocating mechanisms, whereas Patent Owner’s definition requires experience with devices for human use and interaction. These differences, however, do not affect our analysis of the issues in this case. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 34[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick release connector is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that a POSITA would be able to recognize a quick release connector for a particular application. According to Dr. Pratt, A person of ordinary skill in the art would consider a number of factors, depending on the context and specific application of the connector, to determine whether a connector provides a “quick release.” Such factors could include whether the connector is designed to manually and easily connect and disconnect two objects, and whether tools are necessary to do so. Other factors to be considered may be based on the specific application or operating environment. Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick release connector, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick release connector configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick release connector . . . configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates a predetermined stroke length at the first speed” recited in claim element 34[e]. 4. Conclusion for Written Description For the reasons set forth above in sections II.C.1–3, Petitioner has not persuaded us that any aspect of claim element 34[e] lacks written description support. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as any of claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes that quick-connect system 600 includes two magnets with opposite poles facing each other: magnet 606 in the distal end of piston 602 and magnet 624 located in cylindrical pocket 622 of massaging head 620. Ex. 1001, 6:57–67, Figs. 6, 6A. The Specification further describes that “when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place.” Id. at 6:67–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the pocket is “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the pocket is “substantially cylindrical” when the pocket receives a magnet therein so that the magnets can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the pocket was “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in independent claim 34 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shape of the pocket. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 34, as well as claims 35–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 depending therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 11,857,482 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,857,482
• CMS Cepcor Ltd. / CMS Cepcor Americas LLC v. Sandvik Intellectual Property ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable because Polinski and Piepho do not teach the claimed tapered region extending from the shaft’s second end, and Petitioner did not establish adequate motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the ’090 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less/different formal education and more work experience.” Id. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not object to the defined level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 3). appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’090 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “challenge, the crux of the parties’ dispute revolves around the limitation in claim 1 of “an axial region of the shaft body extending from the second end and being tapered relative to a longitudinal axis of the shaft.” We agree with for the tapered axial region and that starting point would be the extremity of the shaft not an undefined point in the “end region.” Because Patent Owner proposes a construction of “end” that would have general application to all claim terms including the first end of the shaft, the second end of the shaft, and the sleeve end, and that construction has no bearing on the issues we address below, we do not reach Patent Owner’s proposed general construction of “end” by itself. We determine that no other claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As discussed above in our claim construction analysis, apart from the issue of the general construction of “end,” we determine that this limitation uppermost extremity of the shaft. Because neither Polinski nor Piepho disclose a tapered axial region starting at the uppermost extremity of the shaft, we find that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinksi and Piepho discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “This paragraph discusses “accurate alignment” in connection with joint 21, not tapered end 25. Ex. 1018, 3:23–35. The paragraph subsequently states that both joint 21 and end 25 are tapered but that shaft end 25 may alternatively be cylindrical. Id. We also find nothing in this paragraph supporting Petitioner’s assertion that alignment “is notoriously more difficult with purely cylindrical shafting” (Pet. 16–17). In order to support its position, Petitioner improperly conflates separate statements in this paragraph of Piepho, i.e., joint 21 provides accurate alignment, joint 21 is tapered, and end 25 is tapered. Petitioner makes an unsupported logical leap that the result of these three statements is that tapered end 25 provides accurate alignment. However, Petitioner fails to reconcile this argument with the final sentence in this paragraph that shaft end 25 may also be cylindrical as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 “is an external view of another embodiment of” Piepho’s shaft. Ex. 1018, 2:49–50. In Figure 4, joint 21 has the same tapered configuration as shown in Figure 3 but end 25 is not tapered. Based on our review of Piepho’s Figures 3 and 4, we find that Piepho’s reference to “accurate alignment” refers to joint 21 and not to tapered end 25 as Petitioner alleges. Because Mr. Smith’s testimony (Ex. 1002, 59) essentially parrots the Petition on this point and is inconsistent with our finding, his testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to would teach this claim limitation.8 Because Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinski and Piepho teaches limitation 1b or an adequate motivation to combine, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is obvious over Polinski, Piepho, and Harless.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,014,090 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,014,090
• Illumina, Inc. v. Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 15, 2026 · IPR2024-01419 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references failed to disclose the claimed correcting step, and Chee was not prior art to claims 1–3 and 9.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered both parties’ arguments and evidence and determine that Patent Owner has presented sufficient evidence of reasonable the invention to practice every day during the critical period in order to demonstrate reasonable diligence. See Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[D]iligence need not be perfectly continuous—only reasonably continuous.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1331 (2019). The key question is whether, “in light of the evidence as a whole, the invention was not abandoned or unreasonably delayed.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Applying this standard, we determine that Patent Owner sufficiently demonstrates reasonably continuous diligence throughout the critical period.” slip op. at 32

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “introduced during said workflow by collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations observed more than once into a single count.” Ex. 1001, 131:46–48 (emphasis added). The “determining step” of claim 2 recites “determining a consensus base call for the target nucleic acid molecule sequences,” but performs “collapsing all sequence reads comprising a same differentiator tag into a single read,” before the “determining step.” Id. at 131:49–53. Patent Owner proposes an interpretation of these “collapsing” and “determining” steps recited in claims 1 and 2 and asserts that they should be construed as distinct steps performed in a particular order in which the “collapsing step” is performed before the “determining step.” PO Resp. 42–45. We agree. First, Patent Owner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “collapsing step” of claim 1 is distinct from, and must occur before, the “determining step” of claim 2 based on the plain language of claims 1 and 2. PO Resp. 42–43. Patent Owner argues that the “collapsing step” and the “determining step” are distinct steps because claims 1 and 2 use different terms to describe these distinct steps that are performed sequentially according to the claim language. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 131:47–54; Ex. 2023 ¶ 133; Ex. 2024, 57:11–58:22). More specifically, Patent Owner explains that claim 1 recites a “collapsing step,” followed by claim 2, which depends from claim 1 and refers to “collapsing” before “determining a consensus base call” such that “claim 2 describes determining a consensus base call from collapsed reads, not performing ‘collapsing’ by determining a consensus base call.” Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 131:47–54). collapsing corrects for skewing, an issue related to over- or under-amplification, which is a separate and distinct problem from the sequence errors that a consensus base call is designed to address.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:47–50, 32:29–34). Patent Owner contends further that “‘[c]ollapsing’ is a different step, performed separately from determining any consensus base call, to provide even greater accuracy when subsequently determining a consensus base call” such that “if one were to collapse by determining the consensus base call, errors from amplification bias could still be represented in the consensus base call generated.” Id. at 43–44 (emphasis omitted, citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 134–37). Second, Patent Owner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “collapsing step” of claim 1 is distinct from the “determining step” based on the specification of the ’730 patent. PO Resp. 43–45. For example, Patent Owner explains that the specification states that “[f]or any target:differentiator tag combination observed more than once, all such reads are ‘collapsed’ into a single read before consensus basecalls are determined. This will cancel the effect of bias on consensus basecall accuracy.” Id. at 43 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 72:63– 73:5) (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 133, 138–142).” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We have considered both parties’ arguments and evidence and agree with Patent Owner’s position. As discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1 and the “determining step” recited in claim 2 are two different steps required by the challenged claims such that “collapsing” does not mean determining a consensus base call or sequence, and must occur before any determining step. As a result, we determine Chee’s step of determining a consensus sequence does not disclose the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1 that requires collapsing “target:differentiator tag combinations.” We are also unpersuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Chee’s process of correcting for amplification bias as disclosing the claimed collapsing step. As recognized by Patent Owner, the claim language of the “collapsing step” requires “collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations,” rather than collapsing only differentiator tags. In view of this requirement, Chee does not disclose the “collapsing step” because Chee teaches quantifying the starting nucleic acid molecules using their unique identifiers, rather than target:differentiator tag combinations. As Petitioner admits, “Chee’s technique for correcting amplification bias corrects quantitative errors without correcting sequencing errors” (Reply 15), whereas claim 1’s “collapsing step” corrects both quantitative errors and sequencing errors by using target:differentiator tag combinations. See Ex. 1001, 131:47–49 target:differentiator tag combinations).” slip op. at 41

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Given this claim interpretation requiring collapsing target:differentiator tag combinations, it is undisputed that McCloskey, who uses unique barcodes alone, does not teach this limitation. Petitioner does not rely on Bignell as teaching this collapsing step. Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Bignell and McCloskey teaches the “collapsing step” recited in claim 1. Because claims 4 through 6 depend from claim 1, they also require the “collapsing step” of claim 1 that is not taught by the combination of Bignell and McCloskey.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 11,840,730 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,840,730
• Integrated Dna Technologies, Inc. v. Tecan Genomics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00016 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–3, 5–12, and 14–19 not shown unpatentable because Meyer did not disclose the claimed enrichment, which the obviousness grounds did not supply.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “for purposes of this Decision, we find a POSA would have had a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, molecular biology, or biochemistry. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. Additionally, the POSA would have had knowledge of how those methods functioned. Id. at 12.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “As an initial matter, we acknowledge that the definition “to process so as to add or increase the proportion of a desirable ingredient” has two possible interpretations. In the first interpretation, “add or increase” shares the same object “the proportion of a desirable ingredient.” When the proportion of one ingredient goes higher, the proportion of at least another ingredient would necessarily go lower. Thus, the enrichment process under this interpretation results in a higher proportion of the desirable ingredient relative to other ingredients. Patent Owner adopts this interpretation. See PO Resp. 17 (“In the context of preparing a sequencing library, [Patent Owner] Tecan proposes that a nucleic acid sequence of interest is ‘enriched’ when the proportion of nucleic acid fragments containing the sequence of interest is increased relative to other nucleic acid fragments in the sample.”). According to Patent Owner, “amplifying the one or more oligonucleotide extension products . . . thereby enriching the nucleic acid sequence of interest, by generating amplified products comprising the enriched nucleic acid sequence of interest” in step (c) means “increas[ing] the proportion of the nucleic acid sequence of interest relative to the nucleic acid fragments in the solution not containing the sequence of interest by amplifying the oligonucleotide extension product and its complement.” Id. at 19–20. Under the second interpretation, the object for “add” is “a desirable ingredient,” whereas the object for “increase” is “the proportion of a desirable ingredient.” This interpretation is broader than the first one in that the result of the enrichment process not only encompasses a higher proportion of the desirable ingredient relative to other ingredients, but also more desirable ingredient in raw number.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Dr. Sims. As explained above, the amplification step must result in at least some enrichment of the sequence of interest, even though it does not have to be the only cause. See supra Section II.C.2.b. Indeed, Petitioner acknowledges that “at least some of the enrichment must result from the recited steps.” Reply 12. Because Meyer’s enrichment for mRNA using the SMART protocol occurred before any recited steps of claim 1, we find it does not meet the claimed “enrichment” under our construction.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “shown that Meyer discloses step (c) of claim 1, and Petitioner does not address that limitation in this ground, we find Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claims 8, 17, and 18 would have been obvious over Meyer. F. Alleged Obviousness over Meyer and Siebert Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites “the nucleic acid fragment comprises genomic DNA.” Petitioner asserts that claim 2 would have been obvious over the combination of Meyer and Siebert. Pet. 62–65. Petitioner relies on Siebert for teaching the additional limitation recited in claim 2 only. Id. Because Petitioner has not shown that Meyer discloses step (c) of claim 1, and Petitioner does not rely on Siebert for teaching that limitation, we find Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 2 would have been obvious over the combination of Meyer and Siebert.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,876,108 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,876,108
• Integrated Dna Technologies, Inc. v. Tecan Genomics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00015 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–22 were not shown unpatentable because Meyer does not disclose the claimed enrichment, and the other grounds rely on Meyer for that limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “for purposes of this Decision, we find a POSA would have had a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, molecular biology, or biochemistry. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. Additionally, the POSA would have had experience with NGS sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned. Id. at 14. After institution, Patent Owner states that, for purposes of this proceeding, it adopts the Board’s definition of a POSA. PO Resp. 18. After reviewing the record developed during trial, we see no reason to change our finding on this issue. As we stated in the DI, our “definition of a POSA is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’012 patent and prior art.” DI 14.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “to “enrich” means to “increase[] relative to the rest of the fragments.” Tr. 12:25–26. The panel asked: “In the starting material, there are three components, A, B, C, that say it’s 30 percent, 50 percent and 20 percent. You do PCR and it -- they all get amplified and the end result is still 30 percent, 50 percent, and 20 percent. Anything got enriched?” Id. at 12:18–21. Petitioner responded that “petitioner’s position is that in that situation, there is no enrichment.” Id. at 12:22–23. In other words, Petitioner does not disagree with Patent Owner that mere increase in the raw number is not enrichment. See also id. at 13:7–9 (“[W]e would agree that if it is truly unbiased amplification, that does not result in an increase in the proportion, and so that does not meet the plain meaning of enrich.”). We find the record, including the testimony from all three declarants, supports Patent Owner’s argument. See Sur-reply 1–5 (citing Ex. 1125, 283:1–6, 286:22–287:14; Ex. 1126, 170:18–171:1; Ex. 2037, 150:18–22, 173:15–17; Ex. 2038 ¶ 95), 8 (citing Ex. 1125, 271:10–15; Ex. 2037, 188:22–189:1). Thus, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal that “a nucleic acid sequence of interest is ‘enriched’ when the proportion of nucleic acid fragments containing the sequence of interest is increased relative to other nucleic acid fragments in the sample.”9 See PO Resp. 19.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Dr. Sims. As explained above, the amplification step must result in at least some enrichment of the sequence of interest, even though it does not have to be the only cause. See supra Section II.C.2.b. Indeed, Petitioner acknowledges that “at least some of the enrichment must result from the recited steps.” Reply 12. Because Meyer’s enrichment for mRNA using the SMART protocol occurred before any recited steps of claim 1, we find it does not meet the claimed “enrichment” under our construction.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “F. Alleged Obviousness over Meyer and Siebert Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites “the nucleic acid fragment comprises genomic DNA.” Petitioner asserts that claim 2 would have been obvious over the combination of Meyer and Siebert. Pet. 69–72. Petitioner relies on Siebert for teaching the additional limitation recited in claim 2 only. Id. Because Petitioner has not shown that Meyer discloses step (d) of claim 1, and Petitioner does not rely on Siebert for teaching that limitation, we find Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 2 would have been obvious over the combination of Meyer and Siebert. G. Alleged Obviousness over Meyer and Kelley Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and further recites “the barcode sequence is 12 nucleotides in length.” Petitioner asserts that claim 9 would have been obvious over the combination of Meyer and Kelley. Pet. 72–74. Petitioner relies on Kelley for teaching the additional limitation recited in claim 9 only. Id. Because Petitioner has not shown that Meyer discloses step (d) of claim 1, and Petitioner does not rely on Kelley for teaching that limitation, we find Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 9 would have been obvious over the combination of Meyer and Kelley. H. Alleged Obviousness over Meyer, Caruccio, and Bronner Each of claims 15 and 17–19 depends from claim 1. Claim 15 further recites “the second strand of the partial duplex adaptor is ligated to a 3′ end of the nucleic acid fragment.” Claim 17 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising performing bridge amplification of the annealed strand after step e).” Claim 18 further recites “the sequencing comprises use of four labeled reversible terminators.” And claim 19 further recites “the sequencing comprises semiconductor sequencing.” Petitioner asserts that claims 15 and 17–19 would have been obvious over the combination of Meyer, Caruccio, and Bronner. Pet. 75–80. Petitioner relies on Caruccio and Bronner for teaching the additional limitation recited in claims 15 and 17–19 only. Id. Because Petitioner has not shown that Meyer discloses step (d) of claim 1, and Petitioner does not rely on Caruccio and Bronner for teaching that limitation, we find Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claims 15 and 17–19 would have been obvious over the combination of Meyer, Caruccio, and Bronner.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 10,036,012 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,036,012

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.