- Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01358 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 21–28 are unpatentable as obvious over the four asserted combinations of Park and Kim, with Hileman, Mault, or Pugliese where specified.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner offers a similar description, asserting that a POSITA “is someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science or the like” and that either experience or training can make up for a lack of the other. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 17–20). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record (Ex. 1003 ¶ 24) and consistent with the disclosure in the ’067 patent and the references cited in the Petition. Patent Owner’s definition is “not materially different” from Petitioner’s definition. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 20 (Patent Owner’s declarant acknowledging such). Thus, our analysis and findings would be the same under either sides’ proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the institution decision, we agreed with and applied the same MDAS construction adopted by the district court in the Delaware litigation. Dec. 12–14. That is, a “mobile delivery agent system” is “a mobile system that includes at least a device to capture video or still images and a device set up to communicate with a remote server.” Ex. 1034, 1. To the extent there was any substantive disagreement with this preliminary construction, we invited the parties to present their alternative positions at trial. See Dec. 14. Neither party has done so. See Resp. 13 (applying same MDAS construction); Reply 1–5 (addressing other claim construction issues, but not raising any issue with the MDAS construction). Accordingly, we apply the same construction of “mobile delivery agent system” here. ii. “real-time” The term “real-time” is not recited in the independent claims, but does appear in some of the challenged dependent claims. See Ex. 1001, 10:8– 14:16 (claims 14 and 18). In the institution decision, we agreed with and applied the same construction adopted by the district court in the Delaware litigation. Dec. 14–15. That is, that “real-time” has its ordinary meaning, which is “data that is passed along as it is gathered.” Ex. 1034, 2. Neither party has proposed an alternative construction. See Resp. 13 (applying same “real-time” construction); Pet. 14 (asserting that “the terms of the Challenged Claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning”). Accordingly, we apply the same construction of “real-time” here.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Specification does not exclusively equate an “acquisition request” with a shopping or purchase request. See Resp. 10–12. Rather, the Specification repeatedly uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire” to indicate that a delivery agent may acquire goods by means other than purchasing or shopping. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:4–6 (“[T]he user specifies the exact location from which the selected delivery agent is to purchase or otherwise acquire the product, such as a retail store location.”); id. at 7:24–26 (“If the product is approved at 120, the delivery agent will purchase or otherwise acquire the product on behalf of the customer at 121 and deliver the product.”); id. at 2:15–18 (“[T]he user provides the service provider with information regarding the type of product desired and the shopping or acquisition location from which the user desires to purchase or otherwise obtain the product.”). Patent Owner’s argument that the Specification uses the “word ‘or’ to refer to things that are synonymous to each other” is not persuasive. See Resp. 10; Sur-reply 4 (citing Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingeniosh, LLC, IPR2022- 00202, Paper 29, 18–19 (PTAB May 19, 2023)). As noted above, the Specification uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire.” Ex. 1001, 5:4–6, 7:24–26 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:15–18 (similar). By including the adverb “otherwise,” the Specification makes clear that purchase and acquire are not used synonymously, but rather that acquiring is broader and encompasses other ways of obtaining a product. See Ex. 1039, 1 (“otherwise” means “in a different way or manner”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner has also articulated a sufficient rationale for combining these elements of Park and Kim. See Pet. 20–23 (citing exhibits). Kim identifies a problem with purchasing a product from a website, i.e., that the product delivered to the customer may not match the images or videos of that product on the website. Ex. 1006, 2. Kim teaches this problem can be overcome by having the delivery service provider operate a MDAS to transmit an image of the actual product in real time to the customer so that after receiving the image the customer can send instructions back to the delivery service provider confirming that is the product they delivered. Id. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that, based on these teachings, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate those same steps into Park’s system and methodology to “enhance the reliability of the delivery,” “increase customer satisfaction,” and “save[] resources” by preventing the delivery of goods that, upon viewing, the customer might reject. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–56. Moreover, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings because Park’s system was already configured to send live video and images to the customer’s computer. Ex. 1003 ¶ 57. Indeed, while Park primarily discusses transmission of video and images of the delivery process to the customer, it expressly teaches that its objective is to “allow customers to interactively view, in real-time, the progress of his order, from reception to compilation to delivery though the route taken by the delivery agent.” Ex. 1005, 4:26–32 (emphasis added). Incorporating Kim’s teachings regarding elements 1.5–1.7 would further this objective, allowing the customer to interactively view images of the actual products compiled for delivery and send instructions back to the delivery agent regarding those products prior to delivery. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 57 (explaining that the combination allows Park’s system to perform the same intended functionality “in a more reliable way”). Accordingly, Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious to” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 10,115,067 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,115,067 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01359 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Park, Kim, and Williams; claims 11–13 are also unpatentable over those references with Hileman.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner offers a similar description, asserting that a POSITA “is someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science or the like” and that either experience or training can make up for a lack of the other. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 17–20). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record (Ex. 1003 ¶ 24) and consistent with the disclosure in the ’191 patent and the references cited in the Petition. Patent Owner’s definition is “not materially different” from Petitioner’s definition. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 20 (Dr. Mitzenmacher acknowledging such). Thus, our analysis and findings would be the same under either sides’ proposal.” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ii. “real-time” In the institution decision, we agreed with and applied the same construction adopted by the district court in the Delaware litigation. Dec. 14–15. That is, that “real-time” has its ordinary meaning, which in this context is “data that is passed along as it is gathered.” Ex. 1034, 2. Notably, this is the same construction Patent Owner advocated for in the Delaware litigation. See Ex. 1035, 4. Nevertheless, Patent Owner now seeks to add to that construction, urging that the district court “accepted” that the term “does not include any ‘intentional delay’ in the transmission.” Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1035, 22, 26); see also Sur-reply 16–17 (essentially same). Although the district court considered “intentional delay” in the course of construing “real time,” it did not include the additional language Patent Owner proposes in its construction. See Ex. 1035, 2. Moreover, the district court stated it “sees no reason that a ‘real-time’ transmission of data could not both involve no inherent delay and permit a system that requires multiple ‘clicks’ to operate.” Id. at 25 (emphasis added). In addition, the district court quoted from a technical dictionary, which provided: The basic definition of real-time data is that it is data that is not kept or stored, but is passed along to the end user as quickly as it is gathered. It is important to note that real-time data does not mean that the data gets to the user instantly. There may be any number of bottlenecks related to the data collection infrastructure, the bandwidth between various parties, or even just the slowness of the end user’s computer. Real-time data does not promise data within a certain number of microseconds. It just means that the data is not designed to be kept back from its eventual use as it is collected. Id. at 26 (citing “Technopedia”). In other words, the district court contemplated that real-time data” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Specification does not exclusively equate an “acquisition request” with a shopping or purchase request. See Resp. 10–12. Rather, the Specification repeatedly uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire” to indicate that a delivery agent may acquire goods by means other than purchasing or shopping. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:4–6 (“[T]he user specifies the exact location from which the selected delivery agent is to purchase or otherwise acquire the product, such as a retail store location.”); id. at 7:24–26 (“If the product is approved at 120, the delivery agent will purchase or otherwise acquire the product on behalf of the customer at 121 and deliver the product.”); id. at 2:15–18 (“[T]he user provides the service provider with information regarding the type of product desired and the shopping or acquisition location from which the user desires to purchase or otherwise obtain the product.”). Patent Owner’s argument that the Specification uses the “word ‘or’ to refer to things that are synonymous to each other” is not persuasive. See Resp. 10; Sur-reply 4 (citing Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingeniosh, LLC, IPR2022- 00202, Paper 29, 18–19 (PTAB May 19, 2023)). As noted above, the Specification uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire.” Ex. 1001, 5:4–6, 7:24–26 (emphasis added); see also id at 2:15–18 (similar). By including the adverb “otherwise,” the Specification makes clear that purchase and acquire are not used synonymously, but rather that acquiring is broader and encompasses other ways of obtaining a product. See Ex. 1039, 1 (“otherwise” means “in a different way or manner”).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner has also articulated a sufficient rationale for combining these elements of Park and Kim. See Pet. 22–25 (citing exhibits). Kim identifies a problem with purchasing a product from a website, i.e., that the product delivered to the customer may not match the images or videos of that product on the website. Ex. 1006, 2. Kim teaches this problem can be overcome by having the delivery service provider operate a MDAS to transmit an image of the actual product in real time to the customer so that after receiving the image the customer can send instructions back to the delivery service provider confirming that is the product they delivered. Id. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that, based on these teachings, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate those same steps into Park’s system and methodology to “enhance the reliability of the delivery,” “increase customer satisfaction,” and “save[] resources” by preventing the delivery of goods that, upon viewing, the customer might reject. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–67. Moreover, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings because Park’s system was already configured to send live video and images to the customer’s computer. Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. Indeed, while Park primarily discusses transmission of video and images of the delivery process to the customer, it expressly teaches that its objective is to “allow customers to interactively view, in real-time, the progress of his order, from reception to compilation to delivery though the route taken by the delivery agent.” Ex. 1005, 4:26–32 (emphasis added). reach Petitioner’s backup argument that this “clause . . . is a non-limiting statement of intended purpose.” See Reply 15–17; Tr. 29:12–30:6 (Petitioner acknowledging this is a “backup position”). Incorporating Kim’s teachings regarding elements 1.3–1.5 would further this objective, allowing the customer to interactively view images of the actual products compiled for delivery and, if acceptable, send approval for the delivery agent to purchase and deliver those goods. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 68 (explaining that the combination allows Park’s system to perform the same intended functionality “in a more reliable way”).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,202,191 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,202,191 - Atea Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 21, 2024 · PGR2023-00046 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Atea did not show claim 1 was more likely than not unpatentable for lack of written description, lack of enablement, or anticipation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The major differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions of a skilled artisan include the number of years of drug discovery experience that is necessary and the breadth of the fields of endeavor with which a POSA should be familiar. We agree with Patent Owner that a POSA includes a team of skilled artisans with skill sets in the various aspects of drug development, but determine that Petitioner has addressed those necessary skill sets in its definition. We also determine on this record that Petitioner has assessed adequately the level of experience needed, and do not agree with Patent Owner that greater years of experience are necessary for a POSA in this instance. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Because Petitioner’s definition of a person of skill in the art appears commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the asserted art in this case as well as the ’361 patent itself, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail on its challenges to claim 1. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“C. Claim Construction We construe claims “using the same 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. § 42.200. Therefore, we construe the challenged claims under the framework set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this framework, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Both parties agree that we need not construe any claim terms here to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Pet. 16; Prelim. Resp. 18–19. We agree with the parties that we need not construe any claim terms in this proceeding to resolve whether to institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In applying the rubric set forth in Ariad to determine whether claim 1 has appropriate written description support, we can look for structural features common to the members of the subgenus of claim 1 so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the subgenus. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. To do this, we look “for blaze marks within the disclosure that guide attention to the claimed species or subgenus.” See Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 61 F.4th at 1356. In this regard, the fourteenth aspect of the third embodiment is the blaze mark that points to the subgenus of claim 1. We do not need to find blaze marks that identify the fourteenth aspect of the third embodiment as the only formula of merit or the only one that should be claimed. Rather, we look to the written description to see if it describes sufficient structural features common to the members of the subgenus of claim 1 such that a POSA can visualize or recognize the members of that subgenus, thereby demonstrating that the inventors possessed the subject matter of the claim at the time they filed their application.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,642,361 - PTAB · Feb 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01254 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 5–18 on all six asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under at least one ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions in view of the preliminary record, we conclude Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’332 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. See Pet.; Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ORDINARY LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends: A POSITA,[11] on or before August 17, 2007, or alternatively on or before April 11, 2008, would have had a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree in Industrial Design, Mechanical Engineering, or related field and approximately 5 years of professional experience in the field of consumer product design and manufacturing. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 44).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner asserts that the claim language “angled capsule retaining elements” is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), where the function is “retaining an oral care capsule in a capsule receiving zone,” and the Specification’s corresponding structure is “angled bristles.” Pet. 8–11 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:59–61, 2:65–67, 3:20–22, 4:64–5:13, 6:23–24, 6:26–30, 6:34–37, 7:19–23, 7:33–42, 9:61–10:1, 10:5–8, Figs. 1, 4, 5, 6; Ex. 1002, 224; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 96–97). Petitioner argues that “angled capsule retaining elements” is non- structural and includes the generic placeholder nonce word “elements,” modified by functional language, and the claim does not further recite sufficiently definite structure for the elements. Id. at 8–9. Thus, it is Petitioner’s position that this limitation, although not using the presumptive word “means,” should be interpreted to be a means-plus-function limitation. Further, Petitioner argues that the only structure disclosed in the ’332 patent’s Specification that performs the claimed function is “angled bristles,” and that the Specification’s express mentioning of the term “retaining element” relates to a non-claimed feature having a different function, i.e., a movable back cover on the toothbrush to contain rear-loaded capsules in the head. Id. at 11 (discussing Ex. 1001, 5:10–19, 6:8–25; Ex. 1002, 228, 353–355). Patent Owner does not directly address Petitioner’s claim construction position. See generally Prelim. Resp. However, even if not addressing whether the claim language is a means-plus-function limitation, Patent Owner appears to agree with Petitioner that the claims’ scope includes angled bristles as the recited retaining elements, as disclosed in the Specification, although not expressly conceding at this point that the claims are limited to the disclosed angled bristles structure and equivalents under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). See id. at 3–4 (citing paragraph 36 and Figure 1 of the application that issued as the ’332 patent). For the purposes of this institution decision, we find it unnecessary to construe any claim language because there is no dispute that the “angled capsule retaining elements” limitation recited by the claims includes angled bristles, even if it may not be limited to only such a structure (and its equivalents), and we find that angled bristles appear to be taught in the prior art, as discussed below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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)). Thus, whether or not the disputed claim language constitutes a means-plus-function limitation is not determinative at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Motivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“2. Analysis We find that, on the current record, Petitioner has sufficiently mapped the limitations of the claims to the disclosures of Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, identified a reason with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the 15 Although we note that Patent Owner submits no supporting evidence, we do so with the understanding that Patent Owner was not required to do so, as the burden here is upon, and remains with, Petitioner. references, and identified that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,881,332 - Painteq, LLC v. Orthocision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00451 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Vestgaarden-981, Vestgaarden-818, and Lins, with Paltzer additionally applied to claims 6, 7, and 10–23.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is sufficiently supported by the record. Therefore, we apply that understanding in our analysis herein.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that the parties have submitted joint claim construction in the Florida litigation, and asserts that “[t]he grounds set forth in this [P]etition render the challenged claims obvious under either party’s construction.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34; Ex. 1017). Nevertheless, Petitioner urges that “express construction is not necessary.” Id. at 7. We agree that no express construction is required for this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Figures 30, 32A and 32B in the Specification depict a working channel with tangs 180a and 180b. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 30, 32A–B. These figures and all of the related description in the Specification describing a working channel with tangs appear in the Parent (Ex. 1006, Figs. 30, 32A–B, 3:17–21, 6:47–54, 15:25–51), but not in the Grandparent. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining the same). Accordingly, the Grandparent application does not provide sufficient written description for the limitations requiring that the working channel have tangs in the independent claims. See Ex. 1001, 42:7 (limitation 1.b.4 “at least one tang on a distal end”), 43:9–11 (limitation 10.b.2 “two bilateral blunt tangs on a distal end”), 44:31–32 (limitation 18.b.2 “plurality of blunt tangs on a distal end”). For this reason, the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the Grandparent’s filing date.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the asserted references. Vestgaarden- 818 expressly incorporates the teachings of Vestgaarden-981, providing a motivation to use the implant and related tools taught in Vestgaarden-981 in its method for fusing a SI joint. Ex. 1010, 4:10–16. Moreover, we credit Dr. Bovinet’s testimony describing additional reasons for combining Vestgaarden-981’s implant and surgical implants with Vestgaaren-818’s method. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–74. Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Lins’s guidance slots and protrusions is also supported by the evidence of record. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–84. In particular, Dr. Bovinet persuasively testifies that a POSA would have motivated to make this combination because it “enables a surgeon to visually align the guide protrusions on a shaft with the guidance slots of the working channel,” which is “a major improvement” over the flat portion depth stop taught in Vestgaarden-981. Id. ¶ 83; see also id. ¶ 84 (“As someone who has personally performed hundreds of SI joint fusion surgeries, I can attest that the guide protrusions and guidance slots taught in Lins would offer a surgeon a significantly better user experience” as compared to Vestgaarden- 981’s flat portions). Finally, Petitioner has demonstrated that the combination would have produced a “predictable result” and therefore that a (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76, 85).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,083,511 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,083,511 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Carr and Lauka.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least claims 1 and 14 of the ’465 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Lauka. And because Instacart demonstrates that at least one claim of the ’465 patent meets the threshold for institution, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a),(c); SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of the ’465 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” Prelim. Resp. 29. Consumeron’s definition appears to overlap significantly with Instacart’s definition. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we adopt the level of skill in the art as articulated by Instacart.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“product ordered by the customer is available and does not contemplate a scenario where the product is unavailable or otherwise describe the action to be taken if the product is unavailable. See Pet. 17–22. We agree, at least based on the preliminary record. In particular, with reference to Figures 2 and 3, the ’848 parent application describes a method where (1) a customer chooses “a store where a desired product is being sold” (step 105), (2) the customer selects a delivery agent and sends an “acquisition request” to the delivery agent (steps 108, 109, 110), and (3) “the selected delivery agent travels to the store location . . . and finds the desired product to be acquired” (step 113). Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 17, 20, 23 (emphasis added). “The delivery agent then communicates to the customer that the product has been identified, and the customer has the option of inspecting the product in real-time” (step 117). Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). “Next, the customer either approves or rejects acquisition of the inspected product” (steps 119, 120, 122). Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis added). That description in the ’848 parent application clearly presumes that the product ordered by the customer has been located and is available for inspection, which is at odds with the additional requirements of claims 1 and 14 of “failing to locate an identified product” and “determining that the identified product is not available.” Ex. 1001, 11:20 (claim 1), 12:30 (claim 14) (emphases added). To the extent Consumeron argues otherwise, we are not persuaded at this preliminary stage. According to Consumeron, the customer’s rejection of the product means that “the agent fails to locate a product that is satisfactory.” See Prelim Resp. 11. But nowhere do we discern that the ’848 parent application hinges the identity and availability of a product on whether it is satisfactory to the customer. That a product might not meet a customer’s satisfaction does not negate the description in the ’848 parent application that the agent locates and identifies the product in the first instance before giving the customer the option to inspect and reject the product. Indeed, because the customer placed the online order with a store advertising the product, the presumption is that the advertised product is available and satisfactory to the customer.8 And, while conceivably the purchase of a product cannot be fulfilled in the event the product is unavailable, it would seem to be improper hindsight to derive written description support by “[w]orking backward from a knowledge of the claims.” Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, based on the preliminary record, the ’848 parent application does not provide sufficient written description for the terms noted above. As such, we find that Instacart demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“and Lauka. See Pet. 30–44, 47–49. We begin with Instacart’s challenge of method claim 1. Instacart provides a detailed mapping of how Carr satisfies all the recited limitations of claim 1, except limitation [1.0.3], for which Instacart points to Lauka. See id. at 35–44. In particular, Instacart cites the following evidence in support of its contentions that Carr and Lauka, when combined, teach or suggest each of the recited limitations of claim 1: Limitation 1.0.1—“A method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods through one or more agents of a service provider” (Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 39, 43, 45, 92, Figs. 1, 3, 6;; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 97–100)); Limitation 1.0.2—“each agent having a mobile agent system in communication with at least one remote server,” (Pet. 35–37 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 40–43, 53, Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–104)); Limitation 1.0.3—“with each mobile agent system including: a digital image capture device and a communication device, said method comprising:” (Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 74, 88, 94, 122; Ex. 1006, 3:19–28, 3:49–57, 4:10–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105– 109)); Limitation 1.1—“receiving, through the at least one remote server, a first acquisition request from a customer for a first set of one or more goods;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 60, 73, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–112)); Limitation 1.2—“contacting, through the communications device, the one or more agents;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57, 74; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–115)); Limitation 1.3—“upon failing to locate an identified product of the set of one or more goods, electronically transmitting information on a replacement product for the identified product of the set of one or more goods to the customer using the digital image capture device of the agent, including:” (Pet. 38–40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 95, 96, 105, 107, ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116– 119)); Limitation 1.4—“obtaining a bar or QR code of the replacement product;” (Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95, 107; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120– 122)); Limitation 1.5—“determining the information from the bar or QR code, wherein the information includes at least one image of the replacement product; and” (Pet. 40–42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95–96, 116; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 123–127)); Limitation 1.6—“sending the information for the customer to approve the purchase of the replacement product based on the information determined from the bar or QR code; and” (Pet. 42– 43 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51, 96–99, Fig. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128– 130)); and Limitation 1.7—“upon receiving approval of the purchase from the customer, acquiring the replacement product, via the agent.” (Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131–132)); Instacart also provides a reason why one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Carr and Lauka with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–96); see also id. at 37 (“In view of the teachings of Lauka, a POSITA would have recognized that it was obvious to implement the UPC scanner functionality of Carr’s handheld device using an ‘imaging device’ such as that taught by Lauka, which specifies that the ‘imaging device 206 can comprise a video or still camera’ and ‘can be used to capture images.’ Ex.1006, 3:49-57; Ex.1003, ¶¶105- 107.”).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,238,465 - Orthocision, Inc. v. Pain Teq, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 over all five asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, we conclude Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’129 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. Therefore, we grant institution of inter partes review. Our reasoning is discussed below. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties appear to largely agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience; the disagreement being on the precise type and focus of that experience. Each party cites only its witness’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan as support for its proposed definition. Neither party nor their witnesses cite any further supporting evidence for their proposed definitions.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Considering the parties’ proposed interpretations, we find Petitioner’s unsupported on the current record. The portion of the ’129 patent’s written description and Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “open tip” share little in common, for example, the Specification does not mention “an exposed tapered edge,” much less, suggest that the term “open tip” requires such. See Pet. 19. On the other hand, Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is more supported in view of the ’129 patent’s Specification and the plain language of the claim as some sort of “opening” seems necessary for an “open tip.” Prelim. Resp. 10. However, Patent Owner appears to read too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that an “open tip” requires all the structural features proposed by Patent Owner, i.e., the distal end of the abrading head has a leading edge that encloses the opening. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification . . . , it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. . . . [T]he claims define the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581–82 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The claim terms “open” and “tip” and their combination, “open tip,” are common words, used in their ordinary way, and are understandable on their face. And, what the ’129 patent’s written description makes clear is that the abrading head of the invention has a void (some empty space) and that the tip of the abrading head is open to that void. See Ex. 1001, 6:14–50. This would include, but is not limited to Patent Owner’s proposed tip where the leading edge entirely encloses the void. Thus, we interpret the claim term “open tip,” consistently with the” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112(6)) if, as here, it explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional language; this presumption is overcome if the limitation further includes the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Here, the word “means” is recited, followed by functional language, and the claim recites no structure associated with the means or function. Moreover, the parties appear to agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Prelim. Resp. 10–19. We find “releasing means” is a means plus function limitation and, based on the plain language of the claim, the recited “releasing means” is a component element of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,020,129 - PTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00589 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3 and 5 on all four §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The weight of the evidence at this stage, therefore, favors Petitioner’s position that modifying the weight ratio of hydrogenated jojoba oil in the feedstock to an amount within the scope of the claims would have been obvious as a matter of routine experimentation. Based on the preliminary record, we find that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests limitation [1a].” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had “at least a B.S. in Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, or a related field, and three years[’] work experience working in the specialty chemicals industry . . . although more education or skill might make up for less experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30– 32). Patent Owner proposes essentially the same description of the POSA’s qualifications, and adds that the “specialty chemicals industry” includes “the beauty, personal care, home care, food, or environmental chemical industries.” Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s POSA definition with Patent Owner’s further elaboration to that definition. On this record, this POSA definition appears consistent with the skill level reflected in the prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“understood by the POSA. Pet. 9–10. Petitioner does not identify any claim terms for which it is seeking a further express claim construction. Id. Patent Owner cites the district court’s claim construction order (Ex. 2006, 1) but, like Petitioner, does not identify any terms for which it is seeking an express claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 8 (“Given the arguments before the Board at this time, it is not currently necessary to resolve the issues related to claim construction.”). We have considered the court’s claim construction order. Ex. 2006, 1. However, it is not apparent at this time and on the current record that additional interpretation of the claims will be needed to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375. Thus, for purposes of this decision, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims as written.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“rationale for why a POSA “would have been motivated to use Sessa’s calibration set of jojoba wax ester blends in preparing a feedstock for the preparation of the jojoba esters described in Cummings.” Prelim. Resp. 33– 34. On the current record, we disagree. Patent Owner queries why the POSA would have considered Sessa’s calibration sets, but never grapples persuasively with Petitioner’s assertion that Sessa evidences that the selection of various ratios—including ratios squarely within the scope of 13 Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s estimates rely on an assumption that all ester products are fully saturated or fully unsaturated and that the ratios remain unchanged (Prelim. Resp. 31–32), we do not entirely follow Patent Owner’s argument. We understand that, in general, Petitioner is using IV as a measure of the double bonds in the final product and, conversely, in the feedstock. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–102 (Rockstraw testimony that the amount of iodine directly correlates to the average number of double bonds and that the number of double bonds remains “constant,” not changing due to transesterification). It would seem that double bonds in the final product would contribute to IV, whether the double bonds appear in monounsaturated or fully unsaturated jojoba esters. If the feedstock comprises unsaturated jojoba oil and fully saturated jojoba oil, it would, thus, seem that the source of the double bonds in the products was the unsaturated oil portion of the feedstock. As appropriate, the parties may consider developing further argument and evidence on this point at trial. experimentation (see Pet. 32–33). Id. Cummings discloses that interesterification involves the reaction of “different ratios” of jojoba oil and fully saturated jojoba oil but does not specify specific ratios to choose. Ex. 1004, 2 (suggesting that the ratios used for starting materials allows for the ratios of saturated, unsaturated, and monounsaturated esters in the jojoba ester products to be engineered for the characteristics desired). Sessa describes a series of blends (including 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%) that were examined and compared to the thermal characteristics of cocoa butter. Ex. 1009, 295–296. Sessa, thus, evidences that proportional blends of jojoba wax ester (oil) and hydrogenated jojoba wax ester (oil) within the scope of claim 1 were known and subject to routine experimental inquiry and testing. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 946 F.3d 1333, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (same, citing In re Aller). And Sessa’s and Cummings’s teachings do not stand alone. Petitioner cites other evidence probative of “POSA’s background knowledge,” such as Otero14 and Haumann15 that recognized that properties of transesterified products are based on the amounts of the starting reagents chosen. Pet. 34– 35; Ex. 1013, 878 (disclosing that “[t]he properties of the [transesterified] 14 Otero et al., Continuous Enzymatic Transesterification of Sesame Oil and a Fully Hydrogenated Fat: Effects of Reaction Conditions on Product Characteristics, 94 Biotech & Bioeng’g 877 (2006) (Ex. 1013). 15 Barbara Fitch Haumann, Tools: hydrogenation, interesterification, 5 Inform 668 (June 1994) (Ex. 1012). precursor reagents [and] their respective proportions in the starting mixture”); Ex. 1012, 675 (teaching that “melting and solidification properties [of the product] ultimately depends on the type and mixture of the starting materials”); see also Ex. 1007, 4:49–51 (teaching that “the properties of the [transesterified] emollient depend upon the relative amounts of IIn [(unsaturated jojoba wax esters)] and III[n] [(fully saturated jojoba wax esters)]”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 111–112 (testifying that “manipulating the ratio of the reacting fats and oils in a feedstock would have been within the background knowledge possessed by a [POSA] as such concepts are fundamental to the topic of chemical reaction engineering”); see also id. ¶¶ 42–44 (testifying no “criticality” for 20–50% range noted in the patent). The weight of the evidence at this stage, therefore, favors Petitioner’s” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,248,245 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / MSN Laboratories Private Ltd et al. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00016 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable: the unexpected results supporting claim 1 outweighed the evidence of obviousness, and the other grounds depended on that unestablished premise.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Peterson, Petitioner” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner asserts that “[t]he claim terms do not require construction to apply the grounds.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not respond to this contention, or otherwise address claim construction in its Response. Accordingly, neither party has identified any claim term for construction.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“in which the pKa of aspartic acid’s R group was the same or even higher than that of glutamic acid when incorporated into a peptide, which directly undermines Petitioner’s position that the relative difference would be the same. Ex. 2045, 37 (Table 1). Petitioner dismisses this evidence, urging that it relates to “residues buried inside a peptide” that “are not analogous to the Asp3 or Glu3 pKas in plecanatide.” Reply 20. But that misses the point. The record shows there are interactions beyond just whether the residue is buried that can affect the pKa. See, e.g., Ex. 1012, 127 (“interactions with other peptide R groups, and other environmental factors can affect the pKa”); Ex. 2069, 96:19–97:2, 97:19–98:1 (Dr. Peterson acknowledging that intrachain hydrogen bonds can affect pKa). Neither Petitioner, nor Dr. Peterson, sufficiently address these other interactions, much less do they do so within the context of the particular amino acid sequences at issue here. Accordingly, we credit Dr. Davies’s testimony that a POSA “would have understood that the pKa values of amino side chain groups could not be predicted when the amino acid was incorporated into a peptide” and therefore would not have expected the Glu3 substitution to result in a peptide that would “remain protonated at a higher pH as compared to Asp or result in better activity in less acidic environments.” Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 178–186.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusMixed
“For these reasons, Patent Owner has established a sufficient nexus” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,041,786 - Osteomed LLC v. Stryker European Operations Holdings LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 8, 2023 · IPR2022-00488 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Arnould and Zahiri, with claim 6 also relying on Myerson; the Board did not reach Grounds 1–3.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“While both parties’ descriptions are similar, we find that Patent Owner’s description is better supported by the record. As Patent Owner points out, the main distinction between the parties’ proposals is that Patent Owner’s description is broader because it includes orthopedic surgeons. The record supports the inclusion of such individuals in the description of a POSITA. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 37, 41; Ex. 2009, 38:21–39:7 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that he would “include an orthopedic surgeon that has some experience developing implants as a person of ordinary skill in the art”). Thus, we apply Patent Owner’s description of a POSITA for our analysis.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“That said, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the Specification defines “bone plate” as it contends. In the background of the invention, the Specification states that “[t]he invention relates to the technical field of orthopedic implants. More particularly, the invention relates to a plate for arthrodesis or osteosynthesis adapted to be fixed between two bone parts.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–31. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, this passage does not “define” the term “bone plate” nor otherwise suggest that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer. See Resp. 9. Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that the ordinary meaning of “bone plate” requires the plate to be fixed between two bone parts. The medical dictionaries Patent Owner cites do not include such a requirement in their definitions. See Ex. 2012, 1478 (defining “bone plate” as “a metal bar with perforations for the insertion of screws, used to immobilize fractured segments”); Ex. 2013, 241 (defining “bone plate” as “a metal plate used to reconstruct a bone that has been fractured” and “designed to hold the bone fragments in apposition”). Both of these definitions are consistent with Mr. Sherman’s testimony that a bone plate is “not always” placed across the fracture. See Ex. 2009, 52:9–53:1 (identifying particular instances in which a plate is not placed across the fracture). We credit that testimony over the competing testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Leinsing. Ex. 2005 ¶ 34 (referring to the statements from the Specification and dictionary definitions discussed above). For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that the term “bone plate” as recited in the challenged claims has its ordinary meaning and that meaning does not exclude plates located on only one side of a joint or fracture.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree that the ordinary meaning of “between” is as restrictive as Patent Owner contends. First, Patent Owner’s definition of “between” does not require an object that is “between” two others to lie along the same axis defined by the two other objects. A “space separating two objects” is not so restrictive. Instead, a more expansive ordinary meaning of “between” is evidenced by the intrinsic evidence of the ’751 patent as Petitioner explained with reference to Figure 2 of the ’751 patent, which shows a third hole 1a1 between the other holes even though it is “offset” and in a different plane from the longitudinal axis of the bone plate. Patent Owner attempts to draw a distinction between Arnould’s Figure 2 and Figure 2 of the ’751 patent, by asserting “like Arnould, a hand is in a different plane and offset and its axis is not in relation to the body. In contrast, the angled tab shown in Figure 2 of the ’751 patent is not in a different plane and offset from the plate, and the hole axis forms an angle with the plate.” Sur-reply 8. Patent Owner’s distinction here appears to be whether the third hole lies at an angle below or above the bone plate as shown in Figure 2 of the ’751 patent (which would be “between” according to Patent Owner) versus also being positioned to either side of the bone plate as shown in Figure 2 of Arnould (which in Patent Owner’s view would mean that hole is no longer “between” the others). We see no basis for drawing such a fine distinction regarding the meaning of “between,” especially when the narrower definition Patent Owner seeks is not made explicit in the Specification of the ’751 patent. To the extent any further claim construction is necessary to resolve” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“contends. A reference is considered to be analogous art if it is in the “same field of endeavor” as the patent at issue. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the Specification states that “[t]he invention relates to the technical field of orthopedic implants.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–28. Zahiri falls squarely within this field, describing “fixation devices for compressing bone fractures of a human being.” Ex. 1007, 1:9–11; see also, e.g., id. at Fig. 1 (depicting the use of Zahiri’s plate as an orthopedic implant to fix two bone parts). The differences Patent Owner identifies in Zahiri’s device do not show otherwise. In this regard, we find the testimony of Mr. Sherman (Ex. 1002 ¶ 245) on this point to be more credible than the competing testimony offered by Mr. Leinsing (see Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 121–29, 238). Mr. Sherman persuasively testifies that “Arnould and Zahiri disclose bone plates with diagonal fixation members configured to compress the intersection of a first and second bone,” demonstrating Arnould and Zahiri “are therefore in analogous fields of invention” to the ’751 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶ 245. Mr. Leinsing, on the other hand, continues to assert that Zahiri discloses only “a guide that directs a lag screw at a precise angle into a humeral head, not a bone plate” because it is located on only one side of the joint or fracture. Ex. 2005 ¶ 238. Therefore, Mr. Leinsing concludes that the “Zahiri device is directed to a completely different function than Arnould,” and is non-analogous art. Id. Because we find Zahiri discloses a “bone plate” according to the ordinary meaning of that term, Mr. Leinsing’s testimony is unconvincing. See supra § III.C.i (explaining that the ordinary meaning of “bone plate” does not exclude plates located on only one side of a joint or fracture). But even if we agreed with Patent Owner’s and Mr. Leinsing’s interpretation of bone plate, Zahiri’s plate is still an orthopedic implant and therefore analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor as the ’751 patent.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 10,993,751 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,993,751
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.