• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2026 · PGR2025-00030 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6–30 are unpatentable under §112(a) for lack of written description and lack of enablement; the §103 ground was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner filed a Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 42), Petitioner opposed the motion (Paper 44), and the Board denied the motion (Paper 47).” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “of the ’758 patent supports an understanding that some activity is required for a polypeptide to be a “modified PH20 polypeptide,” and it is the enzymatic activity of hyaluronidase specifically that is the most frequently identified activity recited in the Definitions section of the ’758 patent. Indeed, both the definitions of “PH20” and “modified PH20 polypeptide” require hyaluronidase activity. See Ex. 1001, 45:54–55, 50:39–41 (“PH20 refers to a type of hyaluronidase that . . . is neutral-active” and “neutral active refers to the ability . . . to enzymatically catalyze the cleavage of hyaluronic acid at neutral pH”); 48:43–46 (“A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.”). Similar language is used later in the definition of a “conjugate” to explain that even when the modified PH20 polypeptide is linked to another polypeptide or chemical moiety it “retains hyaluronidase activity.” Id. at 63:39–46. In contrast, the discussion regarding the potential use of “modified PH20 polypeptides that are inactive” as antigens in contraception vaccines appears only in non-definitional sections of the ’758 patent. Id. at 72:63–65, 75:60–62. Accordingly, we find that this disclosure does not modify the definition’s explicit requirement that the claimed “modified PH20 polypeptide” exhibit hyaluronidase activity. Id. at 48:38–46.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “this testimony to at most describe a research plan (i.e., a “tool to engage in further modification”16) for finding the recited polypeptides rather than demonstrating the inventors were in possession of the full scope claimed. This is particularly so given the limits of the then-available analytical tools noted above and the fact that the structural connections and three dimensional modeling Patent Owner’s experts attempt to make (see, e.g., Ex. 2070 ¶¶ 129–213; Ex. 2068 ¶¶ 123–125) do not appear in the written description itself. To the extent the experts disagree on this point, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts over that of Patent Owner’s. See Ex. 1133 ¶¶ 111–251 (identifying problems with the approaches proposed by Patent Owner’s experts). For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence of record better supports a finding that in the 2011–2012 timeframe, it would have been unpredictable to identify which multiple mutants retained hyaluronidase activity, even with the single substitution data provided by the ’758 patent.” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 12,054,758 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,054,758
• Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00826 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 are unpatentable under § 103, including over Glines alone and the additional asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the critical time “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of work or research experience in the field of content delivery management or networks,” and that “additional education could substitute for work experience.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 51–53). Patent Owner provides substantially the same assessment. PO Resp. 16. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’112 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “claim construction standard that 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). Under this standard, the words of a claim generally are given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party proposes any express claim construction. Pet. 3; PO Resp. 16. We address the parties’ interpretation of the scope of “causing said hostname to be resolved” in our discussion of Petitioner’s assertions for limitation [1.d]. Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree. The Petition states that Glines discloses that the anycast is resolved by an ISP DNS server. Pet. 20. The Petition identifies Glines’s local ISP DNS resolver 18 as the claimed ISP DNS server. Id. The Petitioner further asserts that Glines’s ISP DNS resolver 18 sends the request to the DNS server 38, but states that “Glines’s local DNS resolver, an ISP DNS server, thus causes the hostname . . . to be resolved.” Id. at 21–22. The Petition also drew an analogy with the ’112 patent and the role of local DNS server 70a in the Petition. See Pet. 20–21. Because the Petition and the Reply both identify Glines’s local ISP DNS resolver 18 as causing the hostname to be resolved, Petitioner has not advanced a new theory of unpatentability in its Reply. 6 At oral argument, Patent Owner suggested a narrower claim reading, but admitted that this had not been briefed. Tr. 36:15–38:9, 44:9–16. We do not address this reading because it was not set forth in the briefing. In the briefing, Patent Owner took the broader reading discussed here. See Tr. 41:12–23; PO Sur-reply 7.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 9,021,112 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,021,112
• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · PGR2025-00052 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable for lack of written description, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness; the Board did not find them unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 7

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

    “Specification of the ’345 patent supports an understanding that some activity is required for a polypeptide to be a “modified PH20 polypeptide,” and it is the enzymatic activity of hyaluronidase specifically that is the most frequently identified activity recited in the Definitions section of the ’345 patent. Indeed, the definitions of “PH20” and “modified PH20 polypeptide” both require hyaluronidase activity. See Ex. 1001, 44:20–21, 49:4–7 (“PH20 refers to a type of hyaluronidase that . . . is neutral-active” and “neutral active refers to the ability . . . to enzymatically catalyze the cleavage of hyaluronic acid at neutral pH”); 47:8–11 (“A modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.”). Similar language is used later in the definition of a “conjugate” to explain that even when the modified PH20 polypeptide is linked to another polypeptide or chemical moiety it “retains hyaluronidase activity.” Id. at 61:60–67. In contrast, the discussion regarding the potential use of “modified PH20 polypeptides that are inactive” as antigens in contraception vaccines appears only in non-definitional sections of the ’345 patent. Id. at 71:16-18, 74:11–13. Accordingly, we find that this disclosure does not modify the definition’s explicit requirement that the claimed “modified PH20 polypeptide” exhibit hyaluronidase activity. Id. at 47:3–11.” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “description (see Capon, 418 F.3d at 1357–58), Patent Owner is trying to extend that to include that which is at most obvious from the prior art, as opposed to what is actually described. That is, it may have been obvious to a POSA to align PH20 sequences with other known hyaluronidase enzymes and to use the crystal structure of a different hyaluronidase (Hyal-1) in SWISS-MODEL to generate a three-dimensional structure, but none of that is described in the common disclosure itself. “[A] description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352. While a POSA might be able to embark on their own research program to try to find suitable multiply-modified PH20 polypeptides, the four corners of the written description do not demonstrate possession of such. See id. at 1356‒57 (recognizing that “[p]erhaps one of ordinary skill could discover this information, but this does not alter our conclusion that the description . . . just represent[s] a wish or arguably a plan for future research”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 66

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable

    “instances of epistasis are “rare” and an inactive PH20 polypeptide “will stay inactive . . . absent intentional ‘rescue’ mutations.” See Sur-reply 12–14. But the claims encompass far more than combinations of just two substitutions, and even Dr. Petsko concedes there are “billions” of sequences within the recited sequence space that will not properly fold. See Ex. 2070 ¶ 347; see also Ex. 1133 ¶ 237 (“While some [residues critical to protein structure] can be predicted (e.g., highly conserved positions), many others cannot without experimentation.”). Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s position more persuasive than Patent Owner’s competing position and evidence.” slip op. at 108

  Patent outcomesUS 12,264,345 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 12,264,345
• Merck Sharp And Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2026 · PGR2025-00039 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 7–11 are unpatentable because the challenged claims lack written-description support and are not enabled.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “1 Although the Petition was directed to claims 1–11 of the ’185 patent, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 5 and 6 prior to institution, leaving just claims 1–4 and 7–11 at issue. See Ex. 2003.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “B. Claim Construction In a post-grant review, we interpret a claim “using the same claim” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 12,104,185 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,104,185
• Merck Sharp And Dohme LLC v. Halozyme, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2026 · PGR2025-00033 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6–29 are unpatentable for lack of written description and enablement; the Board did not find them obvious over the ’429 patent and Chao.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “structural connections and three-dimensional modeling Patent Owner’s experts attempt to make (see, e.g., Ex. 2070 ¶¶ 126–212, 297–342; Ex. 2068 ¶¶ 123–125, 245, 294–313, 318) do not appear in the written description itself. To the extent the experts disagree on this point, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts over that of Patent Owner’s. See Ex. 1133 ¶¶ 111–230 (identifying problems with the approaches proposed by Patent Owner’s experts). For these reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence of record better supports a finding that in the 2011–2012 timeframe, it would have been unpredictable to identify which multiple mutants retained hyaluronidase activity, even with the single substitution data provided by the ’652 patent.” slip op. at 58

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Decided for petitioner

    “exclude the use of modified PH20 polypeptides as contraceptives—the only other possible utility described in the ’652 patent—is unavailing. Resp. 39. First, “[t]he fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327 (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Second, unlike the definitions of “PH20” and “modified PH20 polypeptide” in the “Definitions” section of the Specification, the passages describing possible contraceptive use do not contain any characteristics suggesting they are definitional in nature. See Alnylam, 138 F.4th at 133 (enumerating “characteristics” such as the fact that the text appears in the “Definitions” section, sets the term off in quotation marks, and uses phrases like “refer to” that indicate that specification language is definitional in nature). Accordingly, the statement that “[a]lso provided are modified PH20 polypeptides that are inactive, and that can be used, for example, as antigens in contraception vaccines” (Ex. 1001, 75:56–58), does not redefine the term, nor otherwise void the definitional language in the Specification stating that a “modified PH20 polypeptide can have up to 150 amino acid replacements, so long as the resulting modified PH20 polypeptide exhibits hyaluronidase activity.” Id. at 48:47–49 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “1352. While a POSA might be able to embark on their own research program to try to find the genus of multiply-modified PH20 polypeptides recited in the challenged claims, the four corners of the written description here do not demonstrate the inventors were in possession of such. See id. at 1356–57 (recognizing that “[p]erhaps one of ordinary skill could discover this information, but this does not alter our conclusion that the description . . . just represent a wish or arguably a plan for future research”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 68

  Patent outcomesUS 12,049,652 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,049,652
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00147 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–6 and 8–20 not shown unpatentable under three obviousness grounds, principally because the proposed combinations did not establish a feasible curved battery or transparent potting encapsulating the components.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, e.g., sensor system design, including inertial and other motion sensor system design, and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 25. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’124 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We need not reach the issue of whether the preamble is limiting for purposes of determining patentability of the challenged claims. Even were we to agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting and the claims are limited to a finger-worn ring wearable computer device, Petitioner has relied on Schröder in each ground to disclose a “wearable computing device configured to be worn around a finger of a wearer.” Pet. 22 (Ground 1), 45 (Ground 2, relying on Yuen for adding the functionality of light sources with a photodetector, temperature sensors, and varying the sampling frequency of sensor data acquisition), 56 (Ground 3). We agree with Petitioner that Schröder discloses such a device. Thus, no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and find that Patent Owner has the better position for several reasons. First, the record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “would have to be reduced in size on the 6 There is no Exhibit 2022 in the record of this case. magnitude of 5-10x from its current size to fit in a ring of Schröder.” Resp. 38 (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Second, Petitioner relies on evidence in the Reply that Petitioner failed to specifically identify in the Petition. Compare Reply 3–5 (citing Ex. 1369 ¶¶ 7–14; Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 47, 71; Ex. 2022, 138:7–143:1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96, 337; Ex. 2021, 12–13, 307:7–17; Ex. 2020, 212:6–214:13; Ex. 1081, 130:18–131:14; Ex. 1010 ¶ 168), 9 (referring back to Section § II.B.2) with Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 157, 163, 168, 201, Fig. 6). More specifically, while the portion of Dr. Anthony’s Declaration cited in the Petition (see Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 193–99)) mentions the Technology Background Section V of his Declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–147), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Anthony sufficiently explains what evidence supports his opinion that it was feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices into finger-rings, or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have miniaturized a curved battery for incorporation into Schröder’s ring. Ex. 1002 ¶ 196 (describing that rechargeable batteries powering wearable electronic devices were “well-known by 2013” and “had also undergone significant advances in terms of miniaturization and energy density [that] made it feasible to incorporate batteries or battery-like devices such as supercapacitors into smaller form factors, such as finger rings, without sacrificing functionality” such as “lithium-polymer (Li-Po) batteries and solid-state batteries.”). Moreover, some of Petitioner’s citations in the Reply appear to be incorrect as there is no Exhibit 2022 of record in this case, as noted above. These issues undermine the strength of Petitioner’s showing by making it difficult to follow its reasoning, much less identify where in the record that reasoning finds support. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Third, even considering Petitioner’s new Reply arguments and” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony over Dr. Anthony’s and agree that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to account for the constraints of a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 140. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’124 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’124 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 140). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 141. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura patent), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 74–84. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 85. We also agree with Dr. Mercier that Dr. Anthony’s testimony lacks evidence or a technical analysis of the power requirements for the various sensors he suggests including in a wearable device and the capacity of the proposed GMBPow battery. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 210, 214–17; Ex. 2018 ¶ 97. Moreover, Dr. Anthony does not address the issues with the batteries that are identified in the references he discusses. For example, Dr. Anthony does not address Lee’s disclosure that “direct coating of electrode slurry onto plain paper led to the occasional internal-shorting of the device due to the leakage of the electrode material through a large-sized hole in the paper.” Ex. 1019, 2415. In contrast, Dr. Mercier discusses the pitfalls the skilled artisan faced in developing finger-ring devices. See, e.g., Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 77–79 (discussing the issues Rhee’s and Asada’s large rings), 83 (identifying power requirements as a design constraint). For example, Dr. Mercier explains that “flexible or curved batteries include flexible packaging materials such as aluminum laminated films that house the electrodes and electrolyte” such that “once the battery packaging is added to a battery such as GMBPow and then placed within a housing (e.g., external housing shell and internal potting), the resulting device would have dimensions that are not suitable for a finger-worn ring.” Id. ¶ 96 (citing Ex. 2026).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,188,124 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,188,124
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2026 · IPR2024-01493 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, 14, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the references did not establish entirely crystallized CoFeB layers.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’167 patent. Dec. on Inst. 6. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent.” Id. (citing Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25)). We also found that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’167 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Here, neither party sets forth any term for claim construction. Pet. 17; see generally PO Resp. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, we agree with Petitioner and find that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to replace either or both of Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR and lower Hf [(coupling field)] and Hc [(coercivity)].” Pet. 24, 27; Ex. 1055,30 2270 (“[I]t is natural to replace both the free and pinned layers to CoFeB to further increase the TMR value.”); Ex. 105631 ¶¶ 67–68 (“[B]oth the ferromagnetic layers 5, 7 are made of an FeCoB”32 for “improvement of the TMR ratio.”); Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 129, 132. We credit Dr. Bokor’s cited testimony as it is consistent with the cited evidence. Moreover, as Petitioner explains, “[r]esearchers were . . . interested in optimizing MTJs to improve MRAM performance,” and “[h]igher TMRs long promised improved performance for MRAM.” Pet. 6 30 Dexin Wang et al., 70% TMR at room temperature for SDT sandwich junctions with CoFeB as free and reference layers, 40 IEEE Trans. Magn. 2269–71 (July 2004). 31 US 2004/0136232 A1, published July 15, 2004, to Hosomi. 32 We find persuasive Dr. Bokor’s testimony that “a skilled artisan [would have] understood that CoFeB and FeCoB refer to the same alloy.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 121. 36–44) (emphasis omitted). In addition, we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to use Parkin’s CoFeB layer in place of Bowen’s electrodes to increase TMR” in light of Parkin’s explicit teachings. Pet. 27; Ex. 1024 ¶ 133. In particular, Parkin explicitly teaches that “very high TMR values are unexpectedly found for MTJs with highly textured (100) MgO tunnel barriers but with nominally amorphous storage layers.” Ex. 1062, 18:49–51. Notably, Parkin provides that “[t]he TMR of the device of F[igure] 3A is nearly two times higher than the highest TMR ever reported in prior art devices using conventional alumina tunnel barriers.” Id. at 18:63–65; Pet. 27. And as we discuss above, Parkin teaches that Figure 3A’s MTJ may be inverted, such that the storage layer is formed beneath the tunnel barrier. Ex. 1062, 17:7–10. In addition, we agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Bowen in the manner Petitioner proposes, as forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys was known. Pet. 28. As Petitioner argues, “forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys in MTJs was known and had been successfully done,” and thus we are persuaded that “one of skill would have found it to be a straightforward, predictable, and desirable improvement to TMR, Hf, and Hc in Bowen’s” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that Bowen teaches a “radically different manufacturing process[] from the claimed invention,” and that Bowen “went to heroic lengths to provide a crystalline (001) bottom electrode that provides a template for epitaxially growing a crystalline MgO(001) layer.” PO Resp. 2 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner describes in detail Bowen’s specific manufacturing process, including the specific structure of the MTJ manufactured, and argues the claimed invention differs. PO Resp. 30–33. These arguments are inapposite. Petitioner cites the specific teachings Petitioner relies on from Bowen, rather than adopting the entirety of Bowen’s process or MTJ. See, e.g., Pet. 21–36 (citing the portions of Bowen—that in combination with Parkin—teach claim 1). Petitioner is not “compelled to adopt every single aspect of [Bowen’s] teaching without the exercise of independent judgment.” Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that Bowen and Parkin each teach away from Petitioner’s combination because Parkin used boron to avoid crystalline electrodes whereas Bowen tried to achieve perfect crystalline electrodes. PO Resp. 4. As we discuss above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR. And Patent Owner does not identify in either reference a specific teaching that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise 35 M. Jimbo et al., Thermal stability of spin valves using amorphous CoFeB, 165 J. Magnetism & Magnetic Materials 308–11 (1997) (“Jimbo”). combination. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,680,167 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,680,167
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01494 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

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

  Patent outcomesUS 11,968,909 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,968,909
• Lifescan, Inc. / Senseonics Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 15, 2026 · IPR2025-00102 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–10 on both obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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 explained below, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–10 of the ’121 patent on all challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioners contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”) would have had: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and two years of experience in the field consumer electronics, with exposure to digital camera technology and wireless communications. Superior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 6 (citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1030 (Lett Decl.) ¶¶ 94–95). Because Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioners assert that no express constructions are required to institute review and find the challenged claims unpatentable. See Pet. 7. We find it unnecessary to construe any claim term to decide whether Petitioners satisfy the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Any final written decision entered in this case may include express claim constructions, or may include discussion of claim scope that differs from that provided in our analysis in this Decision. Any final claim constructions will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted

    “E. Ground 1 – Alleged Obviousness Over Hiroishi, Kahn, Endsley, and Bluetooth Petitioners assert that claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Hiroishi, Kahn, Endsley, and Bluetooth. Pet. 16–65. After considering Petitioners’ arguments and cited evidence, we find that for purposes of institution, Petitioners have shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing that claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Hiroishi, Kahn, Endsley, and Bluetooth.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,234,121
• Lifescan, Inc. / Senseonics Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Cellspinsoft, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 15, 2026 · IPR2025-00104 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–18 based on all presented grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds 1A and 1B.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The petitioner ultimately bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability of each challenged claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(“POSITA”) would have “had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and two years of experience in the field [of] consumer electronics, with exposure to digital camera technology and wireless communications.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 94–95).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find it unnecessary to construe any claim term to decide whether Petitioners satisfy the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness.10 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness determination requires finding a reason to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the challenged patent. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,904,030

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.