• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21

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

    “The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,770,121
• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,865,135
• Orthocision, Inc. v. PTL Opco LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted § 103 ground because Petitioner did not adequately explain how or why the prior art would be combined.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Bovinet, uses a slightly different, but not materially so, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan than Petitioner. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 13. Thus, the parties appear to agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience. We accept and adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’129 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B.” slip op. at 13

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

    “3. Summary on Claim Construction We maintain our earlier constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . .” See DI 16–24. We determine that no other express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. Although we maintain here our constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . ,” we do so only for the sake of completeness. These claim constructions, ultimately, are not determinative of the outcome of this proceeding because, regardless of the meaning of any claim term, including these disputed terms, we find that Petitioner fails to adequately explain why any claim would have been obvious under the asserted grounds. We explain this in detail below. C.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1001, 6:28–38 (emphasis added). However, the language of claim 1 is very clear on the functionality of the “open tip,” expressly reciting that “the open tip cuts bone tissue away from the sacrum or the ilium.” Id. at 13:19– 20. Thus, the claim language itself provides the required functionality of the “open tip,” and we do not agree with Petitioner that additional functionality relating to where bone tissue might go once cut, as discussed in the Specification, should be read into the claims as a limitation. Patent Owner’s newly proposed interpretation is similar to Petitioner’s in that it requests addition of functionality discussed as an example in the Specification, but not recited in the claim’s expressly recited functional language relating to the “open tip.” We disagree with Patent Owner that the concept of dislodged tissue entering a void defined by the open tip is necessary to understanding the claim element. And, once more, Patent Owner reads too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that the recited “open tip” language requires that we further clarify that any interior void defined by the open tip is on the interior of the abrading head, and behind the exterior abrading surfaces, or between interior surfaces of a first pair of opposing sides, as proposed by Patent Owner. “[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).” 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 agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Resp. 9. 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 part of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17. Construing a claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) involves two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function; and then (2) determining what structure, if any, disclosed in the Specification corresponds to the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. In conducting this analysis, we may not incorporate structure from the written description beyond that which is necessary to perform the claimed function. See Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,020,129 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,020,129
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand

  The majority determined claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst; the dissent would have found them obvious.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “We determine Patent Owner’s reading of the claim limitation is the better one. The limitation begins with the verb “locating,” and it therefore makes sense that the clause would recite what is located (i.e., encryption information) and where it is located (i.e., within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video). In other words, it is reasonable that the second and third clauses of the limitation both modify the first clause (for example, as could perhaps be expressed through the use of commas as “locating encryption information, that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video, within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video”).10 On the other hand, Petitioner’s reading of the limitation, 10 In general, we recognize that the use of commas to set off phrases in claim drafting is not consistent. We included commas above to illustrate Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim limitation. allowing only the second clause to modify the first, while not unreasonable, makes less sense. That is, the encrypted information identifies the encrypted portions of frames, which in turn are within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. Reading the claim in its entirety, the encrypted portions of frames would be understood to be located within the requested portions of the stream; it does not seem necessary for the claim to expressly recite that aspect. For example, the very next limitation— limitation [m] of claim 1—refers to “each encrypted portion of the frames of video” but does not expressly recite “within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Ex. 1001, 27:58–60. Thus, when limitation [l] recites “within the requested portions of the selected stream,” it seems more likely that the clause refers to where that encrypted information is located rather than simply to indicate the obvious location of the encrypted portion of the frames of video. We therefore view Patent Owner’s reading of the claim language as the better one.” slip op. at 13

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

    “I am persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17– 19, 69–70). I agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41– 15:60). I determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “I agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, specifically pages 1–7, attempt to address aspects of claim 1 for the first time on remand. I also agree that Patent Owner’s arguments attempt to recharacterize limitations [j] and [k] to raise issues that Patent Owner did not raise previously, in contravention of our Order that issues raised needed support from “where those issues were raised in previous briefings by the parties.” Paper 56, 2. I have addressed whether scalability and FEC are integral to how Chen operates above, as well as whether the Petition relies on those aspects, supra. The questions about how Chen operates and what portions of Chen are asserted in the ground of unpatentability were previously raised, but now are being considered or reconsidered, based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. In Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, pages 1–7, the citations to argument previously raised do not support the arguments now presented by Patent Owner on remand. As such, I determine Patent Owner’s new arguments fall outside the scope of remand, and I dismiss these arguments seeking to distinguish limitations [j] and [k] from the cited prior art combination.24” slip op. at 62

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “7 Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand recognizes that there are two arguments Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner Response that were not addressed in the Final Written Decision. See PO Remand Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 24–37 (the construction of “locating encrypted information . . . within requested portions”), 38–58 (referring to Patent Owner’s “common keys” argument)). 8 The Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42). See Final Dec. 28–37 (granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part Petitioner’s Motion). Our determinations on that Motion were part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not impact our previous rulings on the Motion, we maintain those rulings here. Additionally, on remand, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions, which we held in abeyance until the parties’ briefing on remand was complete. See Ex. 3003, 1. Petitioner requests sanctions because of the impropriety of Patent Owner’s remand brief, including new claim construction arguments for limitations [1j] and [1k], and prejudice to Petitioner. Id. at 3, 5. Although we reserved further consideration of Petitioner’s request, we expanded both the time and pages allowed for Petitioner’s responsive brief, and also allowed Petitioner to address any related issues in its responsive brief. Id. at 1. Having considered the parties’ briefing on remand, and given that we do not reach the claim construction arguments that Petitioner objected to in its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions, we deny Petitioner’s request.” slip op. at 5

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,588
• BTC Corporation v. TG Biotech Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00998 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to strike Exhibit 1038 was granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that we should disregard Dr. Naumovski’s testimony because she may have taken a leave of absence from work for a couple of years. The record supports that Dr. Naumovski not only meets the requirements of the person of ordinary skill in the art, but also appears to have relevant knowledge with respect to Gynostemma pentaphylum (“GP”) saponins. See Ex. 2015 (Appendix A). related field, and at least two years of experience using techniques for extraction and characterization of plant-based materials.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 74). Because there are more than 400 species of plants that contain saponins, Patent Owner disagrees that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the structure and utility of saponins. Id. The level of skill in the art is a reference point for gauging what would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner, however, does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would meaningfully alter the Petition’s assertions of obviousness. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner, but there would be no difference in the outcome of this Decision if we were to apply the level of skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. C.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “during the full trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that applying the methods of Kim 460 to the G. pentaphyllum starting material of Razmovski necessarily results in the damulin levels as claimed. We agree with Dr. Naumovski’s explanation that the use of an impure damulin B standard containing a double peak renders the results as shown in Exhibit 1013 unreliable. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 141–143, 162–173; see Ex. 2007. Dr. Naumovski further explains that the use of an impure standard would require the application of a correction factor, but this correction factor would need to be reassessed as the purity of the standard decreases over time. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 166. As Dr. Naumovski explains that applying a correction factor to the linear regression would result in a shallower slope. Ex. 2015 ¶ 165 (citing 2006, 71:12–73:5; 99:2–9). “Reducing the calibration curve slope increases the amount of damulin B calculated from the experimental extracts.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 165. However, in the Experimental Report-1 the same correction factor for the damulin B standard was used to” slip op. at 41

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner requests construction of the terms “an effective amount for improving or treating the metabolic syndrome,” which is found in claims 11–13, as meaning “an amount that produces any measurable amount of improvement in the metabolic syndrome” (Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91)) and “[a] pharmaceutical composition for improving and treating a metabolic syndrome, comprising at least one of at least 0.7% damulin A and at least 0.5% damulin B . . . and a pharmacologically acceptable carrier or excipient,” which is found in claim 8, as meaning “a pharmaceutical composition that includes an extract with 0.7% and 0.5% of damulin A and damulin B[, respectively,] along with a carrier or excipient” (id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002, 64–65, 251–52, 280; Ex. 1001, 12:15–67, Table 2)). Patent Owner argues that “constructions are not necessary.” PO Resp. 11–12. We agree with Patent Owner and determine that it is not necessary for purposes of this Decision to construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms” slip op. at 15

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

    “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Droge, 695 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed.Cir.1988)); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the expectation of success issue involves a showing of “a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed”) (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner relies on Kim 460 to show that heating ginseng, which contains the ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, results in a teaches that ginseng with the higher Rg3 and Rg5 content is 50-fold more potent in their vasodilation studies than the non-treated samples. Razmovski teaches that G. pentaphyllum contains over 100 saponins and eight of those saponins are the same as protoparaxadiol-type ginsenosides Rb1, Rc, Rb3, Rd, F2, Rg3, malonyl-Rb1, and malonyl-Rd that are found in P. ginseng. Ex. 1007, 4. Knowing that G. pentaphyllum also contains ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, we find Petitioner’s conclusion that heating a G. pentaphyllum extract that contains these ginsenosides would similarly increase the ginsenoside levels of Rg3 and Rg5 is a reasonable inference from the cited references. Based on the teachings in Kim 460, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been reasonable to expect that the same source material, although derived from a different plant, would behave similarly to heat treatment. See Pet. 24. Because G. pentaphyllum is a less expensive starting material, we also agree with Petitioner that there is sufficient motivation to substitute G. pentaphyllum for ginseng in the methods of Kim 460. slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,357,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,357,786
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00556 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach or suggest the limitation requiring no outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. Consequently, and according to the plain and ordinary meaning, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, 29 such as a cloth, fabric or other material, that covers all, or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, and specifically “between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame,” we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the spaces between those struts and members. Consequently, the ordinary and customary meaning of the limitation “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” is that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As an initial matter, there is little disagreement between the parties and their experts that PET can be a graft covering. However, the disputed limitation requires something more. Specifically, it requires that “the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.” We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence of record, that Levi, Spenser II, or Walther, upon which Petitioner relies, teaches or suggests the incorporated limitation of claim 1 reciting “wherein the valve assembly is free of an outer graft covering between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame.” In our analysis, we must first determine what is meant by the claim term “outer graft covering.”” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Furthermore, our understanding of an outer graft covering as a material or structure that covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering, reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by challenged claim 1. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met 35 its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 10,987,236 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,987,236
• Transgene / Bioinvent International AB v. Replimune LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2023 · PGR2022-00014 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claim 13 not unpatentable over Silvestre or Du, Choi, and Zitvogel, finding insufficient motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “or “POSITA”) “would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, or a related field, with expertise in virology (including expertise growing, isolating, and rescuing viruses), immunology, and cancer biology with at least four years of post-Ph.D. experience in those areas.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35, 96). Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. See PO Resp. 5. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition as that definition is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not” slip op. at 11

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

    “claim terms of the ’513 patent for purposes of determining whether to institute trial. For purposes of our analysis in this Final Written Decision, however, we find that it would be useful to clarify the scope of “oncolytic virus.” We agree with Petitioner that the Specification defines an “oncolytic virus” as “a virus that infects and replicates in tumor cells, such that tumor cells are killed.” Ex. 1001, 9:10–12. The Specification further clarifies that “the virus is replication competent,” and is preferably selectively replication competent in tumor tissue. Id. at 9:12–13. “A patentee is free to be his own lexicographer.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, consistent with its express definition in the Specification, to be a virus that infects and replicates in tumor cells, such that tumor cells are killed, wherein such a virus is replication competent.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “but contends that “oncolytic virus” should not be construed to encompass “viral vectors” such as those disclosed in Zitvogel. PO Resp. 5. Although Petitioner does not expressly contend otherwise, we agree with Patent Owner that “oncolytic virus” would not encompass Zitvogel’s “viral vectors,” which are defined in that reference to be “replication-defective” or “replication-impaired.” Ex. 1004, 19:26–29. We do not construe any other claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner acknowledges that “while the bulk of Silvestre’s disclosure, including the working examples, is directed towards creating an oncolytic poxvirus, Silvestre discloses preparing modified oncolytic virus using other virus types, including HSV.” Pet. 44. It is undisputed, however, that Silvestre does not disclose a single embodiment of an oncolytic HSV that includes both a heterologous GM-CSF encoding gene and a heterologous CTLA-4 inhibitor encoding gene. Rather, Petitioner points to where each element could be found among broader lists of possible oncolytic virus classes, immune checkpoint targets, and therapeutic genes. Ex. 1002, 7:10– 15:49. As noted by Dr. Chiocca, if one were to randomly select any of the 11 We need not decide whether Silvestre anticipates independent claim 1, as the sole challenged claim 13 depends directly from claim 11. Thus, our determination that Petitioner has not shown that claim 11 is anticipated is sufficient to establish that Petitioner has not met its prerequisite burden for claim 13. Ex. 2009 ¶ 29. This type of picking and choosing is not anticipation. See Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,947,513 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,947,513
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00034 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to show claim 6 unpatentable because none of the seven asserted grounds established the required absence of an outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “November 2012 would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that, as the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must circumferentially cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. See Merriam-Webster, Cover, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover (last visited March 2, 2023) (defining “cover,” relevantly, as “something that is placed over or about another thing”). See Ex. 3004. Consequently, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, such as a cloth or fabric or other material, that circumferentially covers all or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the intervals between those struts and members. Consequently, we construe the limitation reciting “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” to mean that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 40

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, or otherwise provide any additional argument or evidence to demonstrate that the outer skirt of Levi does not constitute the outer graft covering prohibited by claim 6. Consequently, our initial determinations stand. Furthermore, our definition of outer graft covering herein as “a material or structure that circumferentially covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the 45 interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering” reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by claim 6. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 45

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Both the descriptions and Figure 22 of Spenser II show a cloth covering the proximal outer surface of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve, including the spaces between the struts and members of the frame. Furthermore, the reference discloses that any fibers extending outwardly from the cloth arise from the surface of the cloth, and are not attached directly to the frame, as depicted in Figure 11 of the ’846 Specification. Thus, even were such fibers made of the same material as the cloth, which is not clear from the reference’s disclosure, the cloth would be between the surface-residing fibers and the metallic outer frame. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sleeve-like cloth or fabric of Spenser II corresponds to an outer graft covering between its fibers and its outer frame, and such a covering would be between Spencer II’s surface fibers and its metallic outer frame. Such an outer graft cover is expressly prohibited by the language of claim 6, even if it and associated extending fibers are of the same material.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 10,966,846 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,966,846
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00862 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish the proposed prior-art combinations and the required motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The parties present compelling argument and evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 25; PO Resp. 9–10. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are M.D.s); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., five years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 6 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction because it is not essential to our conclusions on patentability. See Nidec Motor., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). 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 13

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

    “summarized above, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to a computer-controlled, OCT-guided laser system. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Swinger and Baikoff to achieve a laser surgical system incorporating an OCT imaging system, that combination still would not have achieved the required “computer system” of the claims and all of its programmed surgical functionality, particularly, using a computer system to construct an anterior capsulotomy cutting region based on the image data. Petitioner relies on the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Swinger’s computer control unit with the missing functionality, thus necessitating an electronic conversion of the steps performed using Swinger’s direct visualization method using a HeNe aiming beam to manually identify a surgical treatment region for laser surgery. Ex. 1039, 34:52–57; Ex. 2088 ¶¶ 55–59, 66. That conversion, however, involves the incorporation of OCT imaging technology as the basis for a computer-controlled system to plan and then implement the planned cataract surgery, two technological leaps that the record fails to show were known or suggested. In particular, the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that OCT was a well-known system used routinely, if at all, in the identification of treatment regions in the lens or lens capsule for cataract surgery, and further does not support a conclusion that a computer-controlled system to plan and to implement a planned cataract surgery in the lens was commonplace or even considered before the invention.” slip op. at 25

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

    “The evidence of record demonstrates, however, that modifying an existing corneal surgery system to image and perform surgery on the lens was not the simple task asserted by Petitioner. For example, in a patent application filed in November 2009, Petitioner asserted that due to the different depth ranges for the laser’s focus, “laser systems designed for corneal procedures do not offer solution[s] for the considerable challenges of performing surgery on the lens of the eye.” Ex. 2007, 4:65–67, 5:30–36, code (22). Similarly, in a different patent filed in December 2008, Petitioner outlined the various challenges in developing laser surgery systems for creating incisions in the lens, including the difficulty in focusing a laser beam that propagates through regions of the eye with different optical properties and different curvatures. Ex. 2014, 15:51–16:18, code (22). This patent then states: Because of all the described hard challenges, corneal surgical laser systems are qualitatively simpler than lens surgical lasers. This is well supported by the fact that even though corneal surgical systems were suggested about 40 years ago, none have been adapted successfully for lens surgery to date. Id. at 16:13–18. During prosecution of another patent filed in 2008, and in responses to office actions filed in 2012 and 2013, Petitioner argued that a corneal OCT system “simply will not work” on the lens and that it would not have been obvious to modify such an OCT system to image the lens. Ex. 2015, 898, 1591, 1788. This was because OCT systems designed to image the lens would be required to deliver and scan an imaging beam “to a depth ten times bigger and a depth range ten times bigger” than an OCT system designed to image the cornea. Id. at 1591. According to Petitioner, “it is not obvious” to modify an OCT imaging system to achieve a depth and scanning range that is ten times larger than that disclosed in the art. Id. at 898 (“Increasing a system’s performance by an order of magnitude cannot be regarded as obvious.”), 1590–1591. Petitioner’s arguments presented in its own patents and during their” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,709,001 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,709,001
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00858 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that the asserted prior-art combinations would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties present compelling argument and evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 26; PO Resp. 8–9. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are M.D.s); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., five years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction because it is not essential to our conclusions on patentability. See Nidec Motor., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). 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 13

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

    “Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to a computer-controlled, OCTguided laser system. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Swinger and Baikoff to achieve a laser surgical system incorporating an OCT imaging system, that combination still would not have achieved the required “control system” of the claims and all of its programmed surgical functionality. Petitioner relies on the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Swinger’s computer control unit with the missing functionality, thus necessitating an electronic conversion of the steps performed by a surgeon using Swinger’s direct visualization method using a HeNe aiming beam to manually identify a surgical treatment region for laser surgery. Ex. 1039, 34:52–57; Ex. 2088 ¶¶ 55–59, 66. That conversion, however, involves the incorporation of OCT imaging technology as the basis for a computer-controlled system to plan and then implement the planned cataract surgery, two technological leaps that the record fails to show were known or suggested. In particular, the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that OCT was a well-known system used routinely, if at all, in the identification of treatment regions in the lens or lens capsule for cataract surgery, and further does not support a conclusion that a computer-controlled system to plan and to implement a planned cataract surgery in the lens was commonplace or even considered before the invention. We recognize that Petitioner directs us to the testimony of Dr. Izatt who opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to, for example, use a controller to determine the claimed scanning pattern. Ex. 1001 ¶ 159; Pet. 32–33; Reply 3–5; see also Ex. 1123 ¶ 31 (“Once the anterior capsule is identified, it is a relatively simple process to determine the location to place the capsulotomy.”). Here, however, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition and supporting testimony fails to provide the requisite reasoned analysis with sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s position on obviousness. In particular, absent some evidentiary support beyond Dr. Izatt’s and Dr. Tipperman’s bare opinions that it would have been obvious to program a controller to bridge the gap between the functionality disclosed in Swinger and the required functionality of the challenged claims, we are unwilling to accept this line of reasoning. PO Resp. 27; Sur-Reply 4–7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 159; see also DSS, 885 F.3d at 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (A skilled artisan’s “common sense” or “common knowledge” can potentially “fill in a missing limitation only when ‘the limitation in question was unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward.’” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 25

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be incorporated-by-reference in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential)).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,425,497 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,425,497

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.