- Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · PGR2025-00023 · APJ Per Curiam · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’629 publication; the claims are not entitled to the 2013 priority date.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSITA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining that “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSITA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSITA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 22; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find a POSITA with respect to the claims of the ’109 patent would have had a two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSITA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes an express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 22–23 (not proposing any constructions); PO Resp. 23 (“Patent Owner agrees that the terms can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.”). However, Patent Owner states that some of Petitioner’s arguments implicitly construe claim 1 in an erroneous manner. PO Resp. 23–28. “For example, Petitioner argues that ‘an adequate written description would have to either disclose representative examples of the possible working cascades of various proteins or some accurate structural feature of the claimed proteins that allow them to function in the claimed assay as a whole.’” Id. at 23 (quoting Pet. 35). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to what Petitioner’s argument allegedly implies, “Claim 1 is directed to a method for producing an endotoxin assay agent” and does not require the use – Owner that claim 1 does not require the use of endotoxin assay agent. However, the claimed endotoxin assay agent must be capable of performing the assay, as counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged. Tr. 83:5–9.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In this case, to show that the claims of the ’109 patent are unpatentable for lack of written description, Petitioner would have needed to show that the specification as filed (i.e., the ’420 application) fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the July 3, 2023, filing date. Petitioner did not. Pet. 23–24. Nor does Petitioner’s declarant offer testimony that could support such a showing. See Ex. 1003 ¶50 (“I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art in this field for purposes of determining what the inventors disclosed as their invention as of December 10, 2013.”), ¶51 (“Whenever I offer an opinion in this declaration about the knowledge of a POSA, the manner in which a POSA would have understood the claims of the ’109 patent or its description, the manner in have been led to do based on the prior art, I am referencing the December 10, 2013 timeframe.”). In our Institution Decision, we stated: Although the ’420 application is essentially identical to the ’767 application, the person of ordinary skill in 2013 is not the same as in 2023. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he [written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the information presented in the Petition, which is limited to the perspective of a 2013 POSITA, does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable for lack of written description. Inst. Dec. 12 (alterations in original). During trial, Petitioner did not present any further arguments in support of Ground 1. See generally Pet. Reply. Petitioner has failed to prove that claims 1–9 are unpatentable for failing to meet the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“Although the evidence before us shows that, in 2013, a POSITA knew how to recombinantly express genes in expression systems such as CHO or HEK-293 cell lines, the evidence shows that this was true only for genes whose genetic sequences were known or readily available. See, e.g., Ex. 1069, 34:11–22 (“Q. Okay. So you would agree that the creation of the recombinant protein requires the underlying sequence of, as you said, the original animal? A. Of course.”) Because it is undisputed that, in 2013, the genetic sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C was unknown, or least not publicly available, Falko-Gunter does not support a finding of adequate written description here. See, e.g., Tr. 48:18–19 (“Patent Owner agrees that there had not been, as of 2013, the full length cDNA sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C published.”).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,959,109 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,959,109 - Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00440 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 21 is unpatentable as obvious over Mizumura with either the ’498 PCT or McClymont; the Revised Contingent Motion to Amend proposing claim 22 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“overlap to a significant degree, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in a discipline related to biological sciences and having had at least two years of work experience. However, the parties’ proposals differ slightly in the specific subjects in which a POSA would have had a doctoral degree, and whether the person’s work experience must have been directly related to horseshoe crab Factor C. As an initial matter, we find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 19; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. with respect to the claims of the ’318 patent would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related discipline, and about two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction The parties agree that “the terms in claim 21 can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning for purposes of this proceeding” without further construction. Pet. 19–20; PO Resp. 11. Because express claim construction is not needed to resolve the issues in this case, we need not, and do not, construe expressly any claim term 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)).” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Carrying Out the Invention section, that “[t]he Factor C of the present invention is a Factor C derived from a horseshoe crab,” and states later in the same section that “[e]xamples of the horseshoe crab include . . . Limulus polyphemus.” Ex. 1006, 40. However, none of the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner relate directly to L. polyphemus; instead, the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner are directed to other species, in particular the Japanese horseshoe crab T. tridentatus. Further, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Schaefer, conceded that the ’767 application does not contain Factor C sequence information for L. polyphemus. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 44:25–45:23. Although “[n]o length requirement exists for a disclosure to adequately describe an invention,” Falko-Gunter, 448 F.3d at 1365–1366, we are persuaded that a POSA would not, based on the totality of the above disclosures, reasonably understand that the inventors were in possession of the claimed HEK-293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, in view of the state of the art as of December 10, 2013. In this regard, we note that adequate written description of a biological molecule, such as a HEK293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, requires “more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it”; instead, what is required is “‘a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,’ not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” The Regents of the” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Neither do we see Petitioner’s arguments regarding the December 10, 2013 priority date to be “mutually opposed” as Dr. Schaefer testified. Ex. 1067, 216:4– 24. Instead, we credit evidence of record, including Dr. Jain’s testimony and the February 22, 2018 Mizumura Declaration, that existence of the full sequence would permit a more complete analysis and that such an analysis would provide a POSA with a reasonable expectation that the claimed L. polyphemus recombinant protein would have a residual activity within the claimed range. See, e.g., Ex. 1029, 2–5; Ex. 1010, 48; Ex. 1065, 117:14– 130:24 (explaining that comparison of partial sequences in the Tokunaga 1991 publication showed “difference around the cleavage site” between T. tridentatus and L. polyphemus but comparison of the full sequence revealed that “the catalytic triad of histidine, serine, aspartate . . . to be more similar between Tachypleus and Limulus”). Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner’s reliance on a statement made by Dr. Mizumura in a declaration submitted during prosecution of the ’767 Application fails to fill the gap in the analysis” regarding reasonable expectation of success, because the declaration “offers no evidence of the percentage of conserved amino acid substitutions that exist to support the conclusion that a POSA would have expected residual activity to be maintained between Tachypleus tridentatus and Limulus polyphemus” PO Resp. 47. However, as noted above, Dr. Mizumura provides an alignment of Factor C proteins from the two different species of horseshoe crab, determines that the similarity between the amino acid sequence is 99.5%, states that the amino acid residues that can undergo N-type sugar chain that L. polyphemus, like T. tridentatus, would also be less susceptible to inhibition by ions. Ex. 1029, 4–5. For the reasons discussed above, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s reasonable expectation of success argument is “nothing more than conclusory assertions with no support.” PO Resp. 46. Rather, we find Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSA would have had reason to combine the teachings of Mizumura and the ’498 PCT, with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the Factor C protein recited in claim 21.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 11,236,318 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,236,318 - PTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00947 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Herrstedt and Bös.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDenied
“II. DISCUSSION A. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner filed a request for discretionary denial of institution. Paper 8. Petitioner opposed. Paper 9. The Acting Director denied the discretionary denial request. Paper 12 (September 19, 2025). Accordingly, we proceed with our analysis of the merits of Petitioner’s patentability” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelOther
“At this stage, we need not resolve the parties’ dispute with regard to the requisite level of skill in the art, as our analysis would be the same under either party’s definition of a POSA. We note, however, that Petitioner’s definition seems to be overly broad insofar as it would only require the POSA to be skilled in one of several broad fields, including “statistics” and “medical policy and decision making,” that do not directly relate to the claimed subject matter. At the same time, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the POSA needs specific clinical experience in the field of oncology. The claimed subject matter relates to the treatment of a side-effect associated with cancer therapy (CINV), and not the cancer itself. We also recognize that the prior art and the ’357 patent itself reflect the level of skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). This standard requires that we construe claims “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim[s] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Petitioner contends no terms need to be construed to find the claims unpatentable in view of the prior art. Pet. 9. Patent Owner also contends that no claim construction is necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. Prelim Resp. 14. At this stage, we do not perceive a need to construe expressly any claim terms of the ’357 patent for purposes of determining whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Herrstedt taught the use of aprepitant as an NK1 receptor antagonist that could be combined with dexamethasone and palonosetron to treat emesis. Nonetheless, based on Bös’s identification of netupitant (compound Ib) as a “potent and selective” NK1 antagonist with “valuable therapeutic properties,” the present record supports Petitioner’s argument that the POSA would have been motivated to replace aprepitant with netupitant in the combination therapy. Ex, 1014, 14:31–34. Bös indicates that the compounds disclosed therein have utility in the treatment of emesis, and that neutpitant in particular “is a potent antagonist of NK1 induced behaviors in Gerbil and blocks emesis in Ferrets and suncus murinus with similar potency.” Id. at 19:26–30. Bös further indicates that netupitant has a high affinity for the NK1 receptor and a prolonged half-life. Id. at 18:44–48, 19:31–38. In view of these properties, we find a POSA would have had good reason to consider netupitant as a potential replacement for aprepitant in the treatment of CINV.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,186,357 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00150 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Skechers did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 were unpatentable, principally because the asserted art did not disclose the construed integral knit tongue.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’562 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’562 patent in February 2012 would have been someone with at least a few years of experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used in making footwear, or a bachelor’s degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent academic or work experience, including in the footwear industry. EX1002, ¶68. Such a person of ordinary skill would have at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles. For individuals with a lower educational level, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s working experience compensates for any such lower educational level, or vice versa. See id. Pet. 22. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“inquiries.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the claims . . . [and t]he second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the properly construed claim to the prior art.” Id. Although an explicit claim construction analysis by a petitioner is not required in every case, a petition nonetheless must identify how the challenged claims are to be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable under the statutory grounds asserted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). And, being part of a prima facia case, such an analysis is part of Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its patentability challenges. Petitioner has failed to satisfy the threshold burden for every ground based on this construction.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find Petitioner’s contentions regarding the two annotated figures to be persuasive. First, those contentions, and the cited opinions of Dr. Adanur, are based on a claim construction that, as discussed above, we reject and for which neither party advocates. Second, Petitioner does not explain adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would discern, even with Petitioner’s added red ovals, a tongue distinct from the upper and tongue extending through the throat area. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s contentions regarding differing textures. See Pet. 32–33. Even if differing textures could rise to the level of distinguishing an integral knit tongue from the upper, the purported tongue texture 48" is not confined to the area identified by Petitioner as the tongue. See Pet. 31 (annotated Figure 11, reproduced above). For example, texture 48" outside of Petitioner’s oval appears to wrap approximately halfway around the ankle opening, which is not argued to be consistent with an ordinary artisan’s understanding of a tongue. Or, put another way, there is no indication that the portion of the 48" texture within Petitioner’s red oval, which purportedly represents the tongue, is distinguishable from the remaining portion of the 48" texture outside of the red oval. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the relatively large area depicted as having texture 48" to be an “integral knit tongue.” In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–4 as anticipated by Dua-592.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,060,562 - New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00778 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim: Clark and Mills each failed to disclose required limitations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies New Balance’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’749 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our patentability evaluations below.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00275 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22–24, 44, and 46 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Determining whether to institute has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Accordingly, we grant the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“argues that we “should exercise . . . discretion to deny institution of Ground 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Prelim. Resp. 8 (emphasis added). However, we do not institute on a ground-by-ground basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”); see also SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that the Director’s prior “partial institution practice” was contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). Even assuming Patent Owner requests that we exercise discretion to deny the entire Petition, its discretionary denial arguments could not support such a request because those arguments are limited to Ground 1. Patent Owner does not argue or present any basis for exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as to any of the additional grounds. And, as discussed below, there is a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in at least one of those additional grounds. For this reason alone, discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not warranted.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“step [b], i.e., “contacting a treatment element of the treatment device with mucosal tissue in the patient’s nasal airway,” as recited in claim 9. Prelim. Resp. 17; see Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). As will become apparent from Patent Owner’s arguments, central to the dispute between the parties is Petitioner’s mapping of Gertner to limitation [b] and, in particular, to the recited “treatment element.” In Petitioner’s view, Gertner’s distal end 216 and expandable component 218 together form the recited “treatment element.” As Petitioner explains it, Gertner discloses that “the distal end 216 emits light from ‘within’ the expandable component 218, such that the light emitter and expandable component 218 (which together constitute distal end 216) act as a treatment element.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶103, 106, 107; Ex. 1002 ¶64). Petitioner further points out, with supporting evidence, that the expandable component contacts mucosal tissue. Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶37, 103).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Edwards-535. Pet. 61–64. Claim 16 recites: “A method as in claim 9, wherein adjusting the shape comprises forming at least one bend in a shaft of the treatment device.” For this additional subject matter, Petitioner points us to the bend in the structure that is designated with reference numeral 124 in Edwards-535, as illustrated in Figure 3B. Pet. 61–62. Petitioner also argues, with supporting evidence, that, even absent this disclosure, it would have been obvious to form a bend, as it is well known in the art to provide bendable catheters to facilitate insertion of a medical device. Id. at 62–64 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶130–132). Patent Owner’s sole argument is Edwards-535 fails to disclose limitation [b] of claim 9, from which claim 16 depends. Prelim. Resp 31– 32. That argument is not persuasive for reasons already discussed. Although we have already held that the single-claim threshold of § 314(a) has been met with respect to independent claim 9, we nonetheless further determine that there is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in showing that dependent claim 16 would have been obvious over Edwards-535.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,072,597 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1, 11, and 16 under the Downs/EDACS and Kim grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“A. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and deny the Petition in view of the related lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)). However, Petitioner has since filed a Sotera stipulation, so named based on Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). See Ex. 1035. Thus, pursuant to the Interim Procedure, we will not discretionarily deny the Petition based on the related lawsuit. See Interim Procedure at 3 (“Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.”).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In assessing whether to exercise the Board’s authority to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board considers a two-part analysis. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, No. IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). First, in Part One, the Board considers whether “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. Id. at 8. If so, in Part Two, the Board then considers whether the petition demonstrates that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. In applying the two-part framework, the Board considers several nonexclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, No. IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,831,664 - PTAB · Mar 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01295 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 on both § 103 grounds: Shaffer with Saylor, and Gogic with Opitz.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the prosecution history. After the Examiner issued a final rejection of then-pending claim 1 (Ex. 1003, 125–138), Applicant amended claim 1 by adding the following limitations:” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“informing the Board of the stipulation Petitioner made to Patent Owner on December 27, 2023. Paper 8, 5 (citing Ex. 1034). The Stipulation reads: Motorola Solutions, Inc. stipulates that, if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes an IPR proceeding for U.S. Patent No. 8,994,830 on the grounds presented in the petition in IPR2023- 01295, Motorola Solutions, Inc. will not pursue an invalidity defense in the district court action (STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. Id. Petitioner has filed a stipulation that it “will not pursue an invalidity defense in the district court action (STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR.” Ex. 1034. Petitioner contends that its “Sotera stipulation moots Patent Owner’s (‘PO’) Fintiv arguments.” Prelim. Repl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034; Ex. 1032, 3). Patent Owner does not respond, in the Preliminary Sur-reply, to Petitioner’s Reply argument regarding discretionary denial or argue that we nevertheless should deny the Petition in light of Petitioner’s stipulation. See, generally, Prelim. Sur-Reply. Upon consideration of these factors and the parties’ arguments, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition in light of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation. See Guidance Memo 7.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Conclusion as to Independent Claim 1 We have considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties with respect to independent claim 1. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of institution that the combined teachings of Shaffer and Saylor meet all the limitations of independent claim 1 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had reason to combine their teachings in the manner described, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 53
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person having “at least (a) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (b) approximately 2 years industry experience in networking or communication systems, including interoperating different types of networks that include video feeds.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 45–47). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears to be consistent with the subject matter of the ’830 patent. This is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Polish. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. D. Claim Construction” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,994,830 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01293 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 on both § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review requires “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Determining whether a reasonable likelihood has been met has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, and Preliminary Sur-reply, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Accordingly, we grant the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and deny the Petition in view of the related lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)). However, Petitioner has since filed a Sotera stipulation, so named based on Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). See Ex. 1039. Thus, pursuant to the Interim Procedure, we will not discretionarily deny the Petition based on the related lawsuit. See Interim Procedure at 3 (“Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.”).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately three years industry experience in networking or communication systems, in particular addressing interoperability between different types of networks and satellite communications. Ex[1002], ¶52. Additional education in the fields of electrical engineering or computer science may serve as a substitute for experience in the field. Id. A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard. Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. Indeed, Patent Owner witness Michael Crane explicitly “accept[s]” it. Ex. 2001 ¶28. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the ’134 patent and the asserted prior art, and because there is no argument to the contrary at this stage of the proceeding, we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner construes two terms that are not actually recited in the claim. First, Petitioner states that “[m]ulticast” means “the delivery of information to a group of destinations simultaneously using the most efficient strategy.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001: 1:14–16). None of the challenged claims recite “multicast,” but each of the independent claims recite “multicasting.” This decision does not turn on the meaning of “multicasting,” as Patent Owner does not contest that the cited art teaches such a feature. Accordingly, we need not and do not construe explicitly “multicasting.”” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,489,134 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01098 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12, finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis based on the schedule in the district court’s docket control order. Ex. 2007. The fact that the time-to-trial statistics cited by Petitioner predict that a trial in May 2024 (Pet. 89), a date even earlier than the trial date set in the court’s docket control order, confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that diligence in filing the Petition “in advance of the one-year bar date and within four months of PO’s infringement contentions in the Texas Litigation” should weigh in favor of institution. Pet. 89. As the Texas Litigation is scheduled to go to trial in August 2024, approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinarily skilled artisan”) as one having “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker (“Baker Decl.”) ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further states that slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,462,942
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.