- Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, 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))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00679 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 20, and 21 were not proven unpatentable; the asserted obviousness grounds failed for insufficient motivation to combine, teaching away, or missing claim limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claims 13–19 on July 25, 2023, rendering Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10 moot. Ex. 2008. Thus, our Final Written Decision does not address Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10. The Board heard oral arguments in an in-person hearing conducted on July 27, 2023. See Paper 23.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) would have had a master’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and either at least 3–5 years of experience (with a master’s degree), or at least 5–6 years of experience (with a bachelor’s degree), in composite materials or additive manufacturing. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . [, but r]egardless [of] the level of skill, . . . the Petition does not show the challenged claims are unpatentable.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art. See id. at 15 (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art later in this proceeding, or in other proceedings.”). On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Although a more specific definition is not necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. Neither party, however, advances information explaining how or why the result in this case would change based on the level of ordinary skill determined by the Board.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner advances no specific construction of any claim term, but rather proposes that “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that the term “anchor” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which, according to Patent Owner, is “contact to which the path of composite material is adhered to enable pulling of the path.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2006, 2, 53). Petitioner responds that “[i]n the parallel litigation, the Court has construed ‘anchor point’ and ‘anchor’ as ‘a contact point to which the path is affixed and that serves as an origin point for the formation of the path.’” Reply 3. On the complete record, we determine that no claim term needs an express construction to resolve the controversy. C. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 20 AND 21 OVER LIPSKER” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combining multiple embodiments from a single prior art reference (Resp. 31), i.e., “there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). On this record, Petitioner fails to provide any such motivation to combine the embodiment in Lipsker’s Figure 2 with those of Figures 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 to arrive at the subject matter of claim 20. Pet. 23–31. Rather, Petitioner merely points to the disparate embodiments of Figures 2, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 and portions of Lipsker’s disclosure pertaining to those embodiments, and asserts that Lipsker “discloses” the individual limitations recited in claim 20. See, e.g., id. at 25 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 2, asserting that “Lipsker discloses the preamble of Claim 20”), 27 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 5, asserting that “Lipsker discloses Element 20[a]”), 28 (quoting Lipsker’s descriptions of wire and adhesive dispensed separately as depicted in Figure 2, and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20 [c]”), 29 (pointing to Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20[d]”). Pointing to disparate embodiments without providing a sufficient motivation to combine them is not enough to establish the obviousness of claim 20 as a whole. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that a claim “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,744,708 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,744,708 - Salem Fabrication Technologies Group, Inc. v. Uniglass Engineering OYInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01517 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding only claim 1 over Plumat alone met the institution threshold and the remaining grounds lacked adequate motivation to combine.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not institute an inter partes review 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.” For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion to deny institution because Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to most of its asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combining the references does not meet the threshold for institution. The Petition does not provide a sufficient non-hindsight biased rationale for why a POSITA would have combined Vehmas with any of Plumat, Vitkala, or Vehmas ’923 (the “base references” in the asserted grounds) in a manner that would have led to the claimed invention. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (stating “be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention”).” slip op. at 14
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“remains discretionary. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018) (“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); Harmonic Inc., 815 F.3d at 1367 (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). In exercising that discretion, we are guided by the statutory requirement, in promulgating regulations for inter partes review, to consider the effect of any regulations on “the efficient administration of the Office [and] the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings,” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), as well as the requirement to construe our rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Office guidance, issued June 5, 2018, also explains that the Board may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).11” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“Because we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we need not address the arguments presented under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,479,540 - Salem Fabrication Technologies Group, Inc. v. Uniglass Engineering OYInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01516 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pursuant to our delegated authority, we may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). After considering the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the reasonable likelihood standard is not met. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that separate structures are required. The strongest evidence for this requirement is the claim language itself, which plainly recites two different elements: “a pressurization unit” for inside air and “a compressor” for outside air. The separate naming of two elements in the claim strongly implies that they are not one and the same structure. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.” (punctuation omitted) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“At most, the similarities between each pair of references establish, as a threshold matter, that they would have been considered by a POSITA. See K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix, Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (to qualify as prior art in an obviousness analysis, references must be analogous art—either in the same field of endeavor, or reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved). But the asserted similarities alone are not sufficient to show that a POSITA would have had a reason to combine the teachings in the manner described in the challenged claims. Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (It is not enough that a skilled artisan, once presented with two references, would have understood that they could be combined; Petitioner needs to establish a motivation to pick out the two references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention.). Next, Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify the glass tempering furnace of each base reference “to temper low-E glass more quickly and efficiently.” Pet. 24, 27, 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82, 90, 98). As discussed below, Petitioner fails to show a sufficient logical connection between the asserted motivation and the proposed modification(s) of the base references. Stated differently, Petitioner fails to show a sufficient reason why a POSITA would have made the modifications necessary to bridge the gap between the prior art and the claimed subject matter. We discuss each pair of references more specifically below.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a two-year technical degree in engineering or science (materials, chemistry, etc.), or at least two years of work experience in the field of materials processing and/or fabrication (such as glass or ceramics), and/or the industrial processes and machinery used for materials processing and/or fabrication.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). For purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 27. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, which is consistent with the scope and content of the ’911 Patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,650,911 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 18, 2023 · IPR2022-01431 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. ANALYSIS We have authority to institute an inter partes review only where “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) (2018). Our findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision are provided for the exclusive purpose of explaining our determination that Petitioner has not met that standard on this record.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The question of whether the prior art references are in the same field of endeavor is merely a threshold issue that must be satisfied before an obviousness determination can be made. See K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix, Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (to qualify as prior art in an obviousness analysis, references must be analogous art—either in the same field of endeavor, or reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved). In other words, once it is determined that the prior art is analogous to the claimed invention, it is then necessary to show that it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to select and combine the teachings of the prior art in the manner claimed. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition needs to set forth specific reasoning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these references even if they are in the same or similar fields. Prelim. Resp. 31. Petitioner fails to do so on this record. The absence of such reasoning is particularly noteworthy here in view of Ma’s numerous teachings which appear to discredit the “passive” method of pulling the composite strand from the extruder as recited in claim 4, which is challenged in each of Grounds 2 and 3. Patent Owner identifies no fewer than eight disclosures within Ma that seemingly disparage the passive “pulling” method and discuss benefits of the active “pushing” method. Prelim. Resp. 16–19 (citing Ex. 1007, 53, 95–96, 98–107, 143–147, 149, 167–168). In the absence of any explanation from Petitioner on this point, we are not persuaded that the skilled artisan would have ignored those teachings and selected Ma’s pulling method.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“explained why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the non-precoating embodiment of Lipsker’s Figure 2 and the precoating embodiment of Lipsker’s Figure 5, much less with a reasonable expectation of successfully arriving at the subject matter of challenged claims 1–3. Prelim. Resp. 22–23. As Patent Owner correctly observes (id.), Petitioner’s general assertion that “Lipsker discloses that combinations of disclosed embodiments and features are possible and proper” (Pet. 20) does not constitute a reasoned explanation regarding why the skilled artisan would have combined Lipsker’s precoating and non-precoating actuator embodiments to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Moreover, Dr. Rosen’s declaration testimony on this point is entitled to little to no weight as it merely parrots the Petition. Compare Pet. 20, with Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. To the extent a more specific definition is required, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. In any event, for the reasons explained below, even under Petitioner’s definition, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial with respect to any challenged claim based on the grounds of unpatentability advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,173,660 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01218 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, including because Ma taught against pulling, combinations lacked adequate motivation, and Wohrl did not disclose the claimed …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and at least 3–5 years of experience in composite materials or additive manufacturing,” or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and at least 5–6 years of experience. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . . Regardless of what level of skill is applied, however, the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood to prevail.” Prelim. Resp. 3. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See id. at 3–4 (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding should it be instituted, or in other proceedings.”). On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that the “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning because, to the extent certain claim terms are subject to multiple interpretations, those questions do not affect the grounds advanced here.” Pet. 13 (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not address claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Ma distinguishes between these two methods, noting that with the “active” method, “the forming quality of a previous layer does not influence the forming of the current layer,” while with the “passive” method, “the quality of a previous layer has a profound effect on the forming quality of the current layer.” Ex. 1007, 53. Ma sets forth other problems with using the “passive” method. See, e.g., id. at 95–96, 98–107, 143, 145–147, 149. For example, Ma teaches that during deposition using the “passive” method, “it is possible to make a big error, especially when the nozzle makes a big-angle turn” (id. at 98), and that “[a] toolpath error could be generated if an anchoring point is not formed properly” when using the “passive” method (id. at 143). Ma also discloses that forming speed is an issue with the “passive” method, (id. at 146), but discloses “[o]ne of the advantages [of the ‘active’ method] is that the forming speed is not limited by the solidification condition of the towpreg during the forming process” (id. at 168). 2. Analysis Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “moving the nozzle away from the anchor during discharging to pull the path of the composite material out of the nozzle.” Ex. 1001, 10:61–63. Petitioner contends that Ma teaches this limitation because “Ma discloses that ‘when the object moves relative to the nozzle during the forming process, the towpreg is pulled out by the object instead of being pushed out by nozzle pressure” and “the anchor points are used to pull the towpreg (‘the path of the composite material’) out of the nozzle during discharging.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1007, 38, 72)(emphasis omitted). controlled layer manufacturing: an “active” method that pushes the composite material from an extruder’s orifice, and a self-anchoring or “passive” method, wherein the composite material is pulled out by the object. Ex. 1007, 7–8, 52–54. Here, Petitioner relies on Ma’s disclosures relating to the passive method. Petitioner, however, fails to provide a persuasive explanation as to why a POSITA would have selected Ma’s passive pulling method over Ma’s active pushing method for further development or improvement. Petitioner’s failure to do so is particularly noteworthy here, because Ma includes numerous teachings against the passive method of pulling the composite material through the nozzle. Indeed, Patent Owner identifies no fewer than eight disclosures within Ma that seemingly disparage the passive pulling method and discuss the benefits of the active pushing method. Prelim. Resp. 7–10 (citing Ex. 1007, 53, 95– 96, 98–107, 143–147, 149, 167–168). We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Ma’s active and passive methods, much less with a reasonable expectation of successfully arriving at the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 11–14. In the absence of any explanation from Petitioner, we are not persuaded that a POSITA would have ignored Ma’s teachings against the passive pulling method and selected Ma’s pulling method over Ma’s active pushing method for further development and improvement. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Ma.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,987,798 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00652 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 and 17–41 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and at least 3–5 years of experience in composite materials or additive manufacturing,” or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and at least 5–6 years of experience. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . . But regardless of what level of skill is applied, the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood to prevail.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See id. (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding should it be instituted, or in other proceedings.”). On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim 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) (2019). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“teachings of multiple references, an articulated reason with some rational underpinning to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed must be provided. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools, Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (It is the petitioner’s “burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention[s], and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Lipsker and Wohrl in the manner recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,511,543 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00548 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 and 17–41 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“(“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and at least 3–5 years of experience in composite materials or additive manufacturing,” or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and at least 5–6 years of experience. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . . But regardless of what level of skill is applied, the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood to prevail.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See id. (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding should it be instituted, or in other proceedings.”).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“customary meaning of such claim 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) (2019). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“Thus, as we understand it, Petitioner is arguing that a POSITA would have understood Wohrl’s teaching of laying fiber strands on a core and precuring the fibers so that the fibers dry and stick to the core is “coupling a portion of the at least one path to an anchor point” as recited in claims 1 and 38. Petitioner’s argument appears to be premised on the understanding that any point at which the path contacts a “surface suitable for anchoring the part” is the claimed “anchor point.” The ’543 patent, however, describes an “anchor point” as something more than just any point to which a part of the path is affixed.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,511,543 - Arkema Inc. / Arkema France v. Honeywell International Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 25, 2022 · PGR2016-00011 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Remand
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 102(a) for prior public use; the Board did not reach the other anticipation, obviousness, and enablement grounds.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“On October 1, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that we “abused [our] discretion by assuming the authority that 35 U.S.C. § 255 expressly delegates to the Director: to determine when a Certificate of Correction is appropriate,” and vacated our Final Written Decision. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit instructed us to “authorize Honeywell to file a motion seeking leave to petition the Director for a Certificate of Correction.” Id. at 1351. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s mandate, we gave our authorization, and Patent Owner filed its Motion for Leave to Request a Certificate of Correction. PGR11 Paper 61; PGR12 Paper 41. After additional briefing from the parties was complete, we granted Patent Owner’s Motion. PGR11 Paper 77; PGR12 Paper 57. Patent Owner filed its Request for a Certificate of Correction, as well as a Petition to Accept [Unintentionally] Delayed Claim to Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.78. PGR11 Ex. 2174; PGR12 Ex. 2172.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“develops new refrigerants for use as heat transfer fluids. Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. Such a person would have had a Ph.D. in Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Material Science, or a related field or discipline and at least 3 to 5 years of experience, or alternatively an M.S. degree and 5 to 10 years of experience. Id. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Bivens, provides a similar description of the person of ordinary skill in the art, stating that such a person would have a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering or Chemistry, and five years of work experience, or a Ph.D. or M.S. degree and 2–3 years of experience. Ex. 2001 ¶ 23. Based on these descriptions, we find that the parties’ definitions of ordinary skill in the art are substantially the same, and agree with the parties that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be educated in the Chemical and Chemical Engineering arts or related disciplines. We also agree with the parties that a person having less formal education, such as a B.S. or M.S. degree, would require more years of experience than a person with more formal education, such as a Ph.D., to qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan. We also find that neither party states how any difference in the parties’ articulated levels of skill impacts this proceeding. Thus, our analysis would be the same regardless of any minor differences between the parties’ respective articulations. Finally, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the ’525 application’s statement that the compounds are “adaptable for use” weighs against a finding of adequate written description. First, “adaptable for use” is vague, as Dr. Bivens acknowledges. See Ex. 1177, 151:15 (testifying that “adaptable for use can have a wide range of meaning”). Second, the ’525 application gives no direction on how a skilled artisan would need to adapt any particular composition for use in AAC, or even if any “adaptation” was necessary. We find that such a teaching is important in this case to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention, given our findings above that the art of AAC was unpredictable and that a heat-transfer composition for AAC required specific technical features that were unpredictable and unexpected. For completeness, we again reject Patent Owner’s argument that “[t]o show the inventors possessed claim 1 requires no more” than the statement in the written description that “‘the compositions of the present invention are believed to be adaptable . . . with or without system modification.’” PGR12 Resp. 27–28 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:4–8). Regardless of the exact wording of claim 1, the inventors “still [had to have] describe[d] some way of performing the claimed methods.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1355. And here, with merely a passing reference to AAC, the ’525 application fails to provide any credible “technologic knowledge” to demonstrate to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Patent Owner “was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Id.” slip op. at 43
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › On-sale bar (Pfaff, Helsinn)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“unless . . . the claimed invention was . . . in public use . . . before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). “The proper test for the public use prong . . . is whether the purported use was accessible to the public or was commercially exploited.” Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm’n, 778 F.3d 1243, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted). “Commercial exploitation is a clear indication of public use . . . .” Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 9,157,017 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,157,017 - PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00847 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Turning now to obviousness, Petitioner identified disclosure within Kurgonov-262 and Chakrabarti which teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 11–21. Furthermore, Petitioner identified multiple reasons that would have prompted the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Because Patent Owner focused its arguments solely on the issue of whether Kurganov-262 is prior art, Petitioner’s assertions regarding the substantive teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti remain unrebutted on the complete record. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. Patent Owner likewise failed to substantively address Petitioner’s proffered reasons why the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. We have reviewed the disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti relied on by Petitioner, as well as the explanations provided by Mr. Lipoff, and are persuaded that the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in the prior art. Pet. 11–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1008. Petitioner also persuades us that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Chakrabarti’s techniques for web crawling to Kurganov-262’s system, and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so, thus arriving at the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent. Pet. 21–23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–114. Therefore, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person having ordinary skill in the art as having “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing. More education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–47). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the skilled artisan. See generally, PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. 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.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Thus, on the complete record, we accept Petitioner’s assessment of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. C. Asserted Obviousness based on Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Rather, on the complete record, Patent Owner makes inadequately supported assertions regarding what the skilled artisan “would understand” based on the ʼ084 patent’s disclosure. See PO Resp. 33–34. For example, Patent Owner asserts that “[a] POSITA would understand that” polling or pinging “describes a process where by existing and new devices and/or websites are discovered,” and that “‘polling’ includes asking for information from a website, including a listing of URLs or asking a website of a search engine to provide new website information.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶¶ 154–155). We reject this line of argument because we afford minimal weight to Patent Owner’s reliance on paragraphs 153–155 of Exhibit 2059. PO Resp. 33–34. These declaration paragraphs provide little detail beyond what is argued in the Patent Owner Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 22
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that sufficient written description support does not exist in the ʼ996 application for “limitation 1.i” which requires the computing device to be “configured to periodically search via the one or more networks to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites.” Pet. 6–11. Thus, we determine that Kurganov-262 is available as prior art against the challenged claims. On the complete record, Patent Owner fails to direct us to specific disclosure within the ʼ996 application that evinces written description for limitation 1.i. Rather, Patent Owner’s citations to the ʼ084 patent fail to describe with adequate precision a computing device configured to periodically search the network(s) to identify new web sites and add such new web sites to the plurality of web sites that are accessed. See PO Resp. 31–34.” slip op. at 20
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,451,084
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.