- PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01289 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7, 11–15, 17, 19, and 27–29 were unpatentable over Cantor, Cantor and Armani, or Frisen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’022 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not argue that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 20. Likewise, Patent Owner takes the position that “no claim terms require explicit construction” for purposes of determining whether to institute inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 20. We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. 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))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 20. Because Petitioner’s unopposed definition is consistent with the ’022 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt that definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that “[n]ot only does Cantor not teach contacting a ‘tissue sample’ with beads, but Cantor comes nowhere close to suggesting that its beads could be contacted with a tissue sample to identify spatial location.” Prelim. Resp. 50. Here, we are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Cantor, sole inventor of Cantor (Ex. 2002 ¶ 29), that Cantor’s nucleic acid samples are made in bulk from the extraction of nucleic acids from biological material and mixed together “to create the sample nucleic acid prior to mixing that with the solid phase nucleic acids to capture molecule(s) from the sample nucleic acid.” Id. at ¶ 17. More specifically, “nucleic acids are extracted from the different types of cells within a tissue sample without preserving their spatial distribution.” Id. at ¶ 19. Thus, these types of “bulk-analysis techniques provide no information about spatial location of biological molecules in tissue samples.” Id. at ¶ 17. While we recognize that Cantor discloses “providing the beads according to an (X,Y) array” (Pet. 39, citing to Dr. Puglisi, Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 65– 66), this disclosure makes no mention of using this array to map where the nucleic acids of Cantor came from relative to the original sample, let alone when that original sample is a tissue. See e.g. Ex. 1031, 17. The only mentions of “tissue” made in Cantor are in reference to where the sample may be obtained, for example, “[t]he biological sample can be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue.” Id. at 6. Cantor provides no teaching, however, regarding how to use a tissue sample with the probes and methods described in Cantor to identify where the target nucleic acids of Cantor were spatially located within the tissue sample itself. Incidental to the parties’ dispute is whether Petitioner’s reliance on and characterization of Cantor’s use of the terms “sample” and “nucleic acid sample” as equivalent in meaning to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims is persuasive. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1031, 6). Here, we note that Cantor discloses that “[s]ample nucleic acid may be derived from one or more samples or sources.” Ex. 1031, 5; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 35, 149. Cantor refers to “sample” as the thing that contains the sample nucleic acid. Ex. 1031, 5. For example, Cantor discloses that “[a] sample may be collected from an organism.” Ex. 1031, 6; Ex. 2002 ¶ 42. When a “sample” comes from a living (or formerly living) source, Cantor refers to that sample as a “biological sample,” which can “be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue, cells, a cell pellet, a cell extract, or a biopsy, or a biological fluid . . . .” Id. Those samples, however, are further processed in bulk to obtain the nucleic acid sample. For example, Cantor discloses that the “sample nucleic acid may be a result of nucleic acid purification or isolation and/or amplification of nucleic acid molecules from the sample.” Ex. 1031, 7; see also id. at 54 (The “sample nucleic acid” is derived from a sample or source “by any means commonly known in the art, including but not limited to cell lysis procedures using chemical, physical or electrolytic lysis methods.”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 39. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s attempts to characterize Cantor’s “nucleic acid sample” as synonymous to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims. Rather, we agree with Dr. Cantor that “[a] tissue is simply the source of the sample nucleic acid used in [Cantor’s] methods”—it is not the sample nucleic acid itself. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 36, 150. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence to the contrary.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,480,022 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11, 12, 15–17, and 20 as obvious over Kim; claims 3–5, 13, 14, 18, and 19 over Kim and Ishibashi; and claim 10 over Kim and Goss.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 5; see also id. (“A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.”). Patent Owner very similarly proposes that the skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two to three years [of] experience in designing or developing telecommunication systems.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶42). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’664 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“16). We generally agree, with the one caveat acknowledged by counsel for Patent Owner during the hearing. The caveat is that, although step [a] must be performed before step [b], it is within the scope of claim 1 if step [a] continues to be performed even after step [b] begins. Tr. 25:25–26:3 (Mr. Engel: “Well, I think in practicality, there would always be monitoring because there’s multiple media streams. So, you could have multiple alerts come in and the system could decide which one is more important. So, I don’t think you stop monitoring per se.”). We agree that continued performance of step [a], even after step [b] begins, is within the scope of claim 1. Second, Patent Owner proposes that “endpoint” means “end-user device,” as agreed to in district court. PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2004, 16). We adopt this construction. However, as will become evident below, this construction does little to address the actual dispute between the parties regarding application of “endpoint” to the prior art asserted in Ground 7 (Kim). Third, Patent Owner proposes that “media stream” means “audio or video or both, which may include associated data,” as adjudicated in district court. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004, 42). We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Analogous artUnpatentable
“2. Combination of Kim and Ishibashi Petitioner argues that both references are from the same field of endeavor as the ’664 patent, namely emergency communication systems. Pet. 80 (citing various portions of Exhibits 1001, 1008, and 1009). We are persuaded of this fact, which, in any event, Patent Owner does not dispute. See PO Resp. 57 (arguing against Ground 8 solely on the basis of its Ground 7 arguments). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,831,664 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,831,664 - Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 1–10 unpatentable as obvious over Krassner, Badros, and Harkins; it did not reach the alternative Badros and Harkins ground.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“On August 16, 2024, Petitioner filed a Request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision. Paper 73 (“Req.”). Patent Owner opposed the Request. Paper 77. On December 12, 2024, Director Vidal granted the Request and entered a Director Decision. Paper 78 (“Director Dec.”). The Director Decision states that “Petitioner persuasively shows that Badros discloses the viewability test.” Director Dec. 9. Accordingly, the Director Decision vacated the Previous FWD, and remanded back to us for further proceedings. Id. at 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 and pursuant to the Director’s Decision. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–10 of the ’329 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience in computer programming with at least one year of said experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,’ this determination is frequently couched in terms of whether the art is analogous or not, i.e., whether the art is ‘too remote to be treated as prior art.’” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658–59.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,443,329 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01292 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 17–21 are unpatentable over Ohel; claims 5 and 11–16 were not shown unpatentable over Ohel or Nigawara.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Williams, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the parties’ citations to the specification and find examples that support Petitioner’s view that the term “entity” is broad enough to encompass dispatchers and individual users. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:52–4:5, 7:18–20, Fig. 1). However, we find no disclosure that redefines “entity” or excludes dispatchers and individual users from the category of “entity.” Patent Owner’s best examples (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–21, 3:59–62) are no more than non-limiting examples. On the complete record, we conclude that “entity” is broad enough to include dispatchers and individual users.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot reached
“have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 7,324,802 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,324,802 - Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Regents Of The University Of Michigan And University Of South FloridaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2025 · IPR2023-01346 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 10, 11, and 18 are unpatentable because Hickey anticipates each claim; the Board did not reach the alternative Almarsson grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“For a functionally-defined genus, “the written description requirement [can be met] when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Here, the challenge claims recite two types of functional limitations. First, independent claim 10 requires the coformer to have a second chemical functionality, which is defined as being complementary to the first chemical functionality via non-covalent hydrogen bonding. That is, the co-former’s second chemical functionality must be complementary to either a carboxamide, carbonyl, or amine functionality of an API via non-covalent hydrogen bonding. Second, the non-covalent hydrogen bonding between the first chemical functionality of the API and the second chemical functionality of the co-former must result in the formation of supramolecular synthons.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“We therefore find that the parent ’956 application lacks written description support for the challenged claims, and thus, on the record before us, we determine that the effective filing date of the challenged claims is February 13, 2014, the filing date the ’344 patent. Thus, the references relied upon by Petitioner (Hickey, Almarsson, and Martindale) qualify as prior art to the ’344 patent. Pet. 33, 45.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“III. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law To anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a single prior art reference must expressly or inherently disclose each claim limitation.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, “‘the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.” Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 7–8. “Patent Owners do not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Petition.” PO Resp. 11. Because Petitioner’s unopposed definition is consistent with the ’344 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt that definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 10,633,344 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,633,344 - PTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, 25, and 26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Zwinkels.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“3. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Zwinkels. D. Remaining Claims of Ground 1 and Grounds 2 and 3 The threshold for institution is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to any single claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the [P]etitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). Thus, because we have decided to grant review of claim 1, we do the same for all claims challenged and all grounds raised. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is granted and inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 12, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,434,394 B2 on the grounds presented; and” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“to move forwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame. Pet. 33–38. For example, paragraph 20, as cited by Petitioner, discloses that the rollers “are movably suspended in the frame in vertical direction, wherein the suspension of said roll or rollers is arranged to convert relative horizontal movements of the roll or rollers into vertical movements thereby compensating and/or attenuating said horizontal movements by gravity.” Ex. 1004 ¶20 (cited at Pet. 34). Further, Zwinkels attributes the forward and rearward movement to the use of the bicycle by the person exercising on it. See Ex. 1004 ¶27 (describing the “horizontal movements induced by the accelerations and decelerations of the training cyclist”) (cited at Pet. 35). Petitioner also cites multiple figures that illustrate forward and rearward movement. Pet. 35–37 (reproducing Ex. 1004, Figs. 3, 5, and 6). There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is configured to enable the upper member to move forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member in response to fore-aft forces that are transferred to the upper member from the item of exercise equipment in response to use of the item of exercise equipment,” as recited in claim 1. e) “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is further configured to provide upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface during movement of the upper member forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member.” Petitioner argues that Zwinkels’s pendulum arms 6 enable the rollers to move upward and downward relative to the frame while the rollers are also moving forwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame. Pet. 39–42. For example, paragraph 24, as cited by Petitioner, discloses that the pendulum arms connecting the rollers at fixed pivoting points on the frame “provides an easy and effective solution for absorbing and attenuating horizontal movements by converting these horizontal movements to vertical movements.” Ex. 1004 ¶24 (cited at Pet. 39). Petitioner also reproduces Figures 5 and 6, which illustrate the displacement of rollers in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 5–6). Figure 5 is reproduced below. Figure 5, reproduced above, “shows the embodiment in which there are two rollers 4 for the bicycle back wheel.” Ex. 1004 ¶34. Figure 5 shows two configurations of the embodiment on left and right sides. Ex. 1004 ¶34, Fig. 5. The configuration “at the left of FIG. 5 shows the pendulum arms 6 in a resting position, whereas the [configuration] on the right shows the pendulum arms 6 after they have due to the connecting link 7 concertedly moved to the right due to a force FH, causing that the rollers 4 have moved vertically upwards.” Ex. 1004 ¶34. There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is further configured to provide upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface during movement of the upper member forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member,” as recited in claim 1. f) “wherein the upper member is oriented parallel to the support surface plane during movement of the upper member relative to the lower member in the fore-aft direction and during upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface” Petitioner argues that Zwinkels’s rollers are oriented parallel to the ground or floor at all times. Pet. 42–44. Petitioner argues that this is clearly shown in Figure 5, which we reproduced in the immediate section above. See Pet. 43 (citing and annotating Ex. 1004, Fig. 5). We agree. There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the upper member is oriented parallel to the support surface plane during movement of the upper member relative to the lower member in the fore-aft direction and during upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface,” as recited in claim 1. 3. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Zwinkels.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“1. Zwinkels (Ex. 1004) Zwinkels was filed November 4, 2010, and published June 9, 2011. Ex. 1004, codes (22), (43). Petitioner argues that, based on its filing date, “Zwinkels is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).” Pet. 15. On the record presented, we agree. In addition, the current record supports that, based on its publication date, Zwinkels is prior art also under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose an express construction of any term of claim 1. See Pet. 14 (“Petitioner submits that for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.”). At this stage of the proceeding, we discern no need to provide an express construction of any term of any claim.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,434,394 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01274 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable: claim 3 as obvious over Clark, Manner, and Santoro; claim 4 as obvious over Clark and Manner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“We have considered the parties’ respective arguments concerning the construction of this claim term and, for the following reasons, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “compartment” as “an enclosed space for containing an item.” First, Petitioner does not dispute that it agreed to adopt Patent Owner’s construction in the district court proceeding between the parties. Pet. Reply 5; Tr. 8:14–21. Second, Petitioner cites to several Board Decisions in which the panels construed claim terms even though the parties agreed to constructions in parallel litigation and argues that the agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner in the parallel district court proceeding has no bearing on this proceeding. Id. (citing Cook Grp. Inc. v. Cook Med. LLC, IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7–8 (PTAB May 16, 2017); Arris Int’l PLC v. Sony Corp., IPR2016-00834, Paper 54 at 26–29 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017); Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18–19 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016)). But, those cited decisions are not precedential and two of them were decided under the “broadest reasonable interpretation standard,” not the Phillips standard, thereby rendering a stipulation between the parties in district court less informative to the panels’ determinations. See Apple, IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18; Cook Grp., IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7. More importantly, given Petitioner’s agreement with Patent Owner’s construction in the district court, we see no reason to apply a different construction here simply because Petitioner proposed that construction prior to agreeing to the construction with Patent Owner in district court. Tr. 11:21–25.8” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act as his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, we determine that the portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent relied on by Patent Owner do not “prov[e] the existence of a ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art.” Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1063– 64.14 Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history redefined the term forward “by disclaiming workstations that are mounted on top of or over the height adjustment mechanism.” PO Resp. 29. Claims 3 and 4 recite “a work platform including a work surface and compartments for containing items” not a “workstation.” It is unclear what Patent Owner is referring to as the “workstation,” i.e., the recited “work platform,” the recited “work surface,” or the combination of “work platform,” “work surface,” and the recited “compartments.” Patent Owner injects further ambiguity by rephrasing the disclaimer, as “Applicant explicitly disclaimed carts having work stations mounted entirely to the top of the height adjustment mechanism (e.g., carts like Clark and Reeder).” Id. at 30 (emphasis added). Regardless of these 14 Because of our determination that the requirements for a clear and unmistakable disclaimer are not met by the cited portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent, we need not and do not reach the question of relevance of the statements in the prosecution of the ’650 patent to the claims of the ’668 patent. ambiguities, Patent Owner misinterprets the statements in the prosecution history. The applicant’s primary argument was that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have incorporated moveable work surfaces above the “compartment” of Clark. Ex. 1033, 137–38. The applicant’s arguments, thus, do not support Patent Owner’s argument here that “workstations” should not be mounted “over or on top of the height adjustment mechanism.” See id.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,668 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,668 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01275 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Clark and Manner (claims 1–3, 5, 8) and Clark, Manner, and Hartman (claim 6).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 17–18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“i. “actuator” Petitioner contends in district court that the term “an actuator for controlling the driver” is indefinite for invoking means-plus-function claim language without providing corresponding structure. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1023, 36–40; Ex. 1024, 28–32). For the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts the construction Patent Owner presented in the district court, i.e., “a mechanism to activate or control equipment, e.g., by use of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electronic signals.” Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 3–4). Patent Owner does not address this term in this proceeding. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Because it is uncontested in this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s construction from the district court proceeding as presented here by Petitioner.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Although not dispositive to our Decision, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this term, which does not require the work surface to be curved.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act of his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. We start our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “wherein the work platform includes a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism, in a forward direction . . . the compartment is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction.” Ex. 1001, 14:39–43. By reciting “a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism,” the claim language implies that the entire work platform is not required to project in the forward direction. We also note that nothing in claim 1 requires any particular size of the compartment. The only recitation in the claim regarding location of the compartment is that it “is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction,” but that language on its face does not require or suggest that the compartments are “entirely in” or only “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. In other words, nothing in the claims expressly restricts the compartments from being disposed in the “portion” recited as well as another portion of the work platform that does not project in the forward direction. Turning to the Specification, Patent Owner does not direct us to any” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,215,650 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,215,650 - Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Szrek did not disclose a pre-printed lottery ticket without lottery numbers associated at customer purchase.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“real party in interest. Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 32–34. In the Institution Decision, we stated: To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial. Inst. Dec. 11. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner did not raise the issue of challenging Petitioner’s identified real party in interest. See generally PO Resp. Thus, we need not address this issue further because we find that Patent Owner has waived any challenge to Petitioner’s identification of the real parties in interest in this proceeding. See Paper 12 (Scheduling Order), 9 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).5 Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purpose of this proceeding, Patent Owner adopts the Petition’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19. 5 Petitioner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art that the Board adopted in PGR2020-00084. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1008, 11). We find that the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 14; see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“Following the block quote from Yacenda, the applicant then stated, “[b]ased on the foregoing, Yacenda’s system is directly opposite of the instant claims, as the instant claims require a ‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.’” Ex. 1002, 76. This statement is clear and unmistakable. It (1) specifically states that “the instant claims require” and (2) then states what the claims require—a “‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” We fail to see how the applicant could have been more clear in stating a requirement of the Challenged Claims. And, by doing so, the applicant narrowed the scope of what would otherwise be encompassed in the meaning of “pre-printed lottery ticket” and therefore what would otherwise be encompassed in the scope of the Challenged Claims—a lottery ticket which has lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” slip op. at 27
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We do not find Mr. Hutton’s testimony particularly helpful. First, we have addressed the points raised by his testimony in our discussion above because they are largely the same as the arguments raised in Petitioner’s Reply. Second, we find his testimony entitled to very little weight because he applies an incorrect understanding of the caselaw, which mirrors Petitioner’s incorrect and arguably misleading quotations of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Quest. In particular, in paragraph 5, Mr. Hutton states the following as his understanding of the law as it applies to prosecution disclaimer: “I also understand that in order to disclaim embodiments within the specification, the statements should have some indication that the applicant intended to surrender embodiments from the specification.” Ex. 1038 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). This then leads Mr. Hutton to state: “[t]hus, in my opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not view applicant’s statements as a disclaimer, because the applicant never stated that they intended to surrender multiple embodiments described in the specification.” Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). As we explained above in responding to a similar argument by Petitioner, the caselaw does not require an applicant to expressly state whether a disclaimer excludes particular embodiments of the subject specification when disclaiming claim scope during prosecution. See Quest, 924 F.3d at 1229. And, as noted above, counsel for Petitioner agreed that such a statement explicitly disclaiming particular embodiments is not required. Tr. 12:18–13:17. Third, although we have considered Mr. Hutton’s testimony, we find it “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of” “pre-printed lottery ticket.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. In particular, we are cognizant of the Federal Circuit’s guidance that we “should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by . . . the prosecution history.” Id. at 1318 (internal quotation omitted). In this instance, for the reasons explained above, we find that Mr. Hutton’s testimony is clearly at odds with the applicant’s arguments during prosecution and that his testimony is based on a misunderstanding of what is required by the governing caselaw for prosecution history disclaimer.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 9,865,135 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,865,135
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.