- CMS Cepcor Ltd. / CMS Cepcor Americas LLC v. Sandvik Intellectual Property ABNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable because Polinski and Piepho do not teach the claimed tapered region extending from the shaft’s second end, and Petitioner did not establish adequate motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the ’090 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less/different formal education and more work experience.” Id. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not object to the defined level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 3). appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’090 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“challenge, the crux of the parties’ dispute revolves around the limitation in claim 1 of “an axial region of the shaft body extending from the second end and being tapered relative to a longitudinal axis of the shaft.” We agree with for the tapered axial region and that starting point would be the extremity of the shaft not an undefined point in the “end region.” Because Patent Owner proposes a construction of “end” that would have general application to all claim terms including the first end of the shaft, the second end of the shaft, and the sleeve end, and that construction has no bearing on the issues we address below, we do not reach Patent Owner’s proposed general construction of “end” by itself. We determine that no other claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above in our claim construction analysis, apart from the issue of the general construction of “end,” we determine that this limitation uppermost extremity of the shaft. Because neither Polinski nor Piepho disclose a tapered axial region starting at the uppermost extremity of the shaft, we find that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinksi and Piepho discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“This paragraph discusses “accurate alignment” in connection with joint 21, not tapered end 25. Ex. 1018, 3:23–35. The paragraph subsequently states that both joint 21 and end 25 are tapered but that shaft end 25 may alternatively be cylindrical. Id. We also find nothing in this paragraph supporting Petitioner’s assertion that alignment “is notoriously more difficult with purely cylindrical shafting” (Pet. 16–17). In order to support its position, Petitioner improperly conflates separate statements in this paragraph of Piepho, i.e., joint 21 provides accurate alignment, joint 21 is tapered, and end 25 is tapered. Petitioner makes an unsupported logical leap that the result of these three statements is that tapered end 25 provides accurate alignment. However, Petitioner fails to reconcile this argument with the final sentence in this paragraph that shaft end 25 may also be cylindrical as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 “is an external view of another embodiment of” Piepho’s shaft. Ex. 1018, 2:49–50. In Figure 4, joint 21 has the same tapered configuration as shown in Figure 3 but end 25 is not tapered. Based on our review of Piepho’s Figures 3 and 4, we find that Piepho’s reference to “accurate alignment” refers to joint 21 and not to tapered end 25 as Petitioner alleges. Because Mr. Smith’s testimony (Ex. 1002, 59) essentially parrots the Petition on this point and is inconsistent with our finding, his testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to would teach this claim limitation.8 Because Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinski and Piepho teaches limitation 1b or an adequate motivation to combine, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is obvious over Polinski, Piepho, and Harless.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,014,090 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,014,090 - PTAB · Mar 25, 2026 · IPR2024-01380 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–10 and granted substitute claims 11–19 because Petitioner did not prove claim 11 obvious over Torrence and Piepho.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportGranted
“relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Id. “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. “In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Ind. Co., Ltd. v/ Int’l Trade Com’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.” Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Further, inventions in the mechanical and electrical-based arts usually involve predictable factors and can be more predictable than other fields, such as chemistry and biology. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970);” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“[c]ombin[e] the tapered region of Piepho with the shaft of Torrence, the tapered region would extend from an uppermost extremity of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 9. But, Petitioner concedes that neither reference discloses a tapered region extending from the uppermost extremity. Petitioner argues that Torrence’s shaft is straight (Amended RMTA Sur-reply 9) and that “[t]he tapered region of Piepho does not extend to the extreme end of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 11 (emphasis added). Because neither Torrence nor Piepho discloses a shaft with a tapered region that “extends from an uppermost extremity of the shaft,” we find that the combination of Torrence and Piepho does not teach limitation 11[a]. We now analyze whether Petitioner provides reasoning with a rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Torrence with Piepho to extend Torrence’s taper from the upper extremity of its shaft. slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,827,568 - DBR Finance, Inc. v. Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00291 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–19 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove the proposed Whybrew–Strength combinations disclosed the claimed mesh panels with spaced holes.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We question, therefore, whether someone having an education in textile engineering or physics, but no experience in the field of hunting blinds, would be consistent with the level of skill portrayed by the ’535 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that Petitioner’s expert’s experience, education, and qualifications are rooted in textiles, fibers and physics, and sophisticated subjects related thereto. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–20. But his deposition revealed that he has little or no experience in the field of hunting blinds. See Ex. 2038, 8–14.5 5 The same might be said of Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2031, ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1023, 16. However, our obviousness analysis leaned lightly, if at all, on her declarations and testimony.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. Mesh Material In the Petition, Petitioner asks that “the term ‘mesh material’” be interpreted in accordance with “a plain and ordinary usage.” Pet. 25. Per Petitioner, the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the term “mesh material” is “a woven material of open texture with spaced holes therein.” Id. Per Petitioner, “[o]ther typical terms used to describe a mesh-like material” are “a screen material, or a netting material, which are believed to be synonyms.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that a mesh material would have an open texture with spaced holes therein. See PO Resp. 18. We find that Petitioner’s proposed construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification. See Ex. 1001. The drawings in the ’535 Patent depict the mesh material 26 as having an array of uniformly spaced circular holes forming a net-like structure (see id., Fig. 1A, 1B, 4, 9) or an array of uniformly spaced rectangular openings (see id. Fig. 8) forming a screen-like structure. The embodiments of the mesh material 26 listed in the ’535 Patent (e.g., a mesh banner material, scrims, a network of fibers, etc.) are materials having net-like or screen-like structures. See id. at 6:47–7:28.6” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Our construction aligns with the claim language; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001, 10:4–19. The independent challenged claims set forth “one or more panels of mesh material” and then set forth “said one or more panels comprising: a first side with a camouflage pattern; and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 10:4–11. The recited “said one or more panels” corresponds to the previously recited “one or more panels of mesh material,” not panels comprising a material that was only a “mesh” prior to printing/coating. See id. Also, the independent challenged claims set forth that “the one or more panels of the mesh material define an outer surface of the camouflage structure.” See id. at 10:18–19, 1:23–24 (emphasis added). And the panel(s) defining a hunting blind’s outer surface would include the dark color coating. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001. The ’535 Patent repeatedly describes the relevant panel material in the hunting blind (i.e., post printing/coating) as a mesh material. See id., Abst., 1:19–5:34, 6:47–7:28, 9:16–54, Figs. 1A, 1B, 9. The ’535 Patent expressly describes and depicts the mesh material 26 as including the camouflage pattern and the dark-color coating. See id. at 1:52–56, 3:24–25, 3:31–33, Figs. 1A, 1B. The ’535 Patent says that “panels” of this coated mesh material 26 “are used to form” a hunting blind. Id. at 3:22–26. The ’535 Patent says that “[m]esh material is presented for a hunting blind with a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a color coating.” Id. at Abst. The ’535 Patent says that “mesh material of interwoven fabric is provided for a hunting blind including a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 1:19–22; see also id. at 1:44–49. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s prosecution history; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1006. As mentioned above, throughout prosecution of the ’535 Patent, the same prior art material was mapped to the claimed panel(s) of mesh material. See Ex. 1006, 64–72, 122–106. The mapped-to prior art mesh material was described during prosecution as an “interwoven fabric” with “a pattern” printed on a first side and “a dark color coating” on a second side. Ex. 1006, 64; see also id. at 122. And the mapped-to prior art mesh material (i.e., which included not only the interwoven fabric but also the printed pattern and the dark color coating) had a “net-like structure” with an array of uniformly spaced “net holes” that are “not closed.” Ex. 2021, 4:1–5, see also id. at 2:58–3:6, 4:34–45, Figs. 1, 2a. Thus, we understand that claimed panel(s) of mesh material must have” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, Patent Owner does not bear the burden of proving Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. Rather, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. And Petitioner’s arguments that undermine Patent Owner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes, concurrently undermine Petitioner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. Per Petitioner, “Strength is silent on whether visible holes exist in the fabric” (Pet. Reply 8) and “the Strength reference doesn’t discuss anything about holes” (Tr. 14). Petitioner’s expert testified that it was his “understanding that Strength is silent” on “whether or not there are holes.” Ex. 2038, 44. Petitioner contends that Strength’s silence about the presence/ absence of holes hinders Patent Owner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. See Pet. Reply 8. We agree. But this same silence likewise hinders Petitioner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 11,399,535 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,399,535 - Bote, LLC v. Steamboat Paddlesports, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00889 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner, holding claims 1–15 unpatentable after Patent Owner abandoned the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“As noted in the Scheduling Order, “[i]f Patent Owner elects not to file a response to the Petition, Patent Owner must arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board.” [Paper 14, 9.] Thus, Patent Owner has three options: 1) file a response by February 18, 2025, 2) arrange a conference call in accordance with the Scheduling Order, or 3) stipulate a revised due date with Petitioner and file a response by the stipulated due date. Patent Owner must appoint counsel to proceed with any of these options, which Patent Owner should do without delay. Patent Owner’s failure to proceed with one of these options could be viewed as an abandonment of this proceeding. And such abandonment would be construed as Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment against itself (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4)), resulting in cancellation of all of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,479,458 - Bote, LLC v. Steamboat Paddlesports, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00892 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–20 after finding abandonment, resulting in cancellation of all challenged claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“As noted in the Scheduling Order, “[i]f Patent Owner elects not to file a response to the Petition, Patent Owner must arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board.” [Paper 15, 9.] Thus, Patent Owner has three options: 1) file a response by February 18, 2025, 2) arrange a conference call in accordance with the Scheduling Order, or 3) stipulate a revised due date with Petitioner and file a response by the stipulated due date. Patent Owner must appoint counsel to proceed with any of these options, which Patent Owner should do without delay. Patent Owner’s failure to proceed with one of these options could be viewed as an abandonment of this proceeding. And such abandonment would be construed as Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment against itself (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4)), resulting in cancellation of all of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Not reached
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that adverse judgment shall be entered against Patent Owner as to claims 1–20 of the ’466 patent under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).4 FURTHER ORDERED that this paper constitutes a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) holding that claims 1–20 of the ’466 patent are unpatentable based on the adverse judgment; and “not made any attempt whatsoever to contact Petitioner regarding this IPR.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 7. 3 Patent Owner is reminded of the applicable estoppel provisions in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3). 4 Petitioner filed a motion asking for a finding that Patent Owner had abandoned the proceedings and constructively requested adverse judgment against itself. See Paper 19; Ex. 3002. Petitioner’s motion is dismissed as moot in view of our entry of adverse judgment for the reasons expressed herein. The same applies to Petitioner’s request to submit supplemental evidence. See Ex. 3003.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,862,466 - Toast, Inc v. Gratuity, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2023-01408 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Marshall, Marshall and Webb, Phillips and Marshall, or Phillips, Marshall, and Webb.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSITA, to the extent that it aligns with the level of skill portrayed by the ’050 Patent. As discussed above, the ’050 Patent does not does not provide one with any technical direction for making and using a multi-restaurant embodiment that avoids or solves calculation/extraction problems due to disparate client (e.g., restaurant) systems. The ’050 Patent also does not provide one with any technical direction for scaling up and/or transitioning to a cloud-based system. We infer from this that a POSITA would have the education and the experience enabling him/her to effectively and economically handle these tasks without technical direction, despite the problems associated therewith. Put another way, the actual application of these technical endeavors would not be beyond his/her skill. Although Petitioner provides a slightly different expression for the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 9–10), it substantively agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill and adopting Petitioner’s precise level of ordinary skill would not change our decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner presents several pages of argument about claim construction, but offers no proposed construction for any of the claim terms. See PO Resp. 11–18. “Petitioner maintains that no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. Resp. 4. We determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“with a restaurant’s timeclock programs, time and attendance systems, and/or payroll processing systems. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69, 108. Webb discloses that, in a restaurant setting, a POS system can be communicatively coupled to a time and attendance server. See Ex. 1006, Abstract, 24:51–60, Figs. 1A, 1B. Thus, Marshall and Webb describe similar and compatible systems in the same field of art—systems for tracking employee and sales information in the hospitality business. And Petitioner provides evidence that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine these teachings in the claimed manner. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 207–212. Patent Owner argues that Webb “does not cure the deficiencies” of Marshall. PO Resp. 41. However, as discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner regarding Marshall’s deficiencies. Thus, Webb need not cure these alleged deficiencies in Marshall.10 Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 4–7, 9, and 11–13 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall and Webb. 10 Patent Owner also mentions that there is “simply no motivation to combine Marshall and Webb.” PO Sur-Reply 7; see also PO Resp. 42. But Patent Owner does not address the arguments and evidence set forth by Petitioner.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s client-side-only arguments are overly focussed on the setup disclosed in Marshall’s Figure 3, and, in any event, do not coincide with Petitioner’s citations to Marshall. Petitioner points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s multi-employer 8 The ’050 Patent lists a provisional application filed on September 4, 2012 as a related application. Ex. 1004, code (60). 9 Marshall discloses that “data transfer” can be “data transfer is performed via uploading and downloading via HyperText Transfer Protocol (‘HTTP’), Extensible Markup Language (‘XML’), and/or HTML as is known in the art.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 110. embodiment. See Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner also points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s disclosure that the server executing the GrataSoft software can be separate (i.e., not co-located) with the POS server executing the Aloha software. Id. at 10. In Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, these topics remained undiscussed. See PO Sur-Reply 1–6. Both aspects of Petitioner’s contentions support that Marshall’s system does disclose a gratuity management system that is separate and distinct from the client POS servers. Patent Owner argues that there would be problems “associated with calculations of gratuities based on client-specific information extracted from disparate, ad hoc client business systems.” PO Resp. 27–28; Ex. 2006 69–73. Patent Owner also argues that there would be “problems associated with scale-up and transitioning to a cloud-based system, and associated cost and security issue. PO Resp. 27; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 87–91. However, as discussed above, the ’050 Patent portrays that a POSITA would have the education and experience enabling him/her to effectively handle the conversion of a singlerestaurant system to a multi-restaurant system; and to transition to a safe and secure cloud system in a cost/time effective manner. Thus, these problems would not detract from the obviousness of a multi-restaurant and/or cloud-based version of Marshall’s invention. Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 1–3, 8, and 10 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,741,050 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,741,050 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01380 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–10 based on a reasonable likelihood that the Polinski and Piepho combination renders claims 1–8 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art relating to the ’568 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30). Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less or different formal education and more work experience.” Id. We view Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’568 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner argues that “[n]o terms need construction because the claims read on the prior art identified below under any construction consistent with Phillips.” Pet. 14–15. Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piepho and Polinski in the manner Petitioner proposes and further demonstrates that the combination discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. 3. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that the combination of Piepho and Polinski renders claim 1 obvious. We have also reviewed Petitioner’s arguments addressing claims 2–8. See Pet. 31–40. Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner also establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that claims 2–8 would have been obvious over Piepho and Polinski.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“and Piepho renders claim 1 obvious. For each limitation in claim 1, Petitioner points to specific portions of the references that support its position that the combination discloses the limitations in question. See Pet. 16–31. Petitioner also cites to declarant testimony addressing the limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1002). In support of its combination of Polinski and Piepho, Petitioner argues that both references disclose “gyratory rock crusher[s],” “Piepho further teaches the interchangeability between a cylindrical joint and a tapered joint,” and one of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) would have been motivated to combine Piepho’s tapered joint with Polinski. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81; Ex. 1015, 1010; Ex. 1016, 3:24–35). According to Petitioner, “Piepho teaches the interchangeability between a cylindrical joint and a tapered joint” and “a POSITA would understand the advantages afforded by the use of a tapered joint as compared with a cylindrical joint,” including the fact that “tapered interference joints, while more expensive to manufacture, provide[] advantages in assembly, alignment, and fit-up.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,827,568 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 based on a reasonable likelihood that the Polinski, Piepho, and Harless combination renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Under § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the challenged claims in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the ’090 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less/different formal education and more work experience.” Id. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of its Preliminary Response, it “does not object to Petitioner’s position on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). At this stage, and based on Petitioner’s undisputed contentions, we view Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’090 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner argues that “[n]o terms need construction because the claims read on the prior art identified below under any construction consistent with Phillips.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner “submits that the Board need not construe any claim terms as the claims are patentable under any reasonable construction.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s combination of Polinski and Piepho, but instead argues that no motivation to combine exists because Harless “would render both Polinski and Piepho inoperable for their intended purpose of preventing shaft failure.” Prelim. Resp. 22–31 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). When addressing intended purpose, Patent Owner argues that “Polinski mitigates shaft fatigue failure . . . specifically by omitting threads that are typically cut into gyratory shafts to attach a crusher mantle.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:61–67). Patent Owner asserts that Polinski instead teaches that shaft stress can be reduced “by cutting threads into a bearing sleeve.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:1–67). Piepho, according to Patent Owner, seeks a similar goal: “to prevent fretting wear and corresponding fatigue,” by “coating a portion of the shaft fit into a yoke bushing (which Petitioner alleges is a sleeve) with a ceramic coating.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:15–25; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–43). Patent Owner argues that introducing Harless’s groove onto the main shaft would undermine the purposes of Piepho and Polinski because these would “introduce stress concentrations,” “lead to increased fretting wear,” and “increase the likelihood of fatigue failure.” Id. at 24–29. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s approach relies on impermissible hindsight because one of ordinary skill would not seek to rely on Harless’s grooved shaft for use in “mounting of gears and similar components” rather than “for crushing applications, much less in a gyratory crusher, as claimed.” Id. at 30. According to Patent Owner, Harless fails to disclose “that its shaft is subjected to the same substantial stresses generated by the cyclic loading as the shafts disclosed by Polinski and Piepho.” Id. As to Petitioner’s argument that a POSITA would be motivated to make the combination to simplify the equipment and process for interference fits, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner impermissibly picks and chooses aspects of the three references” and ignores what they teach to a POSITA, namely that “Polinski and Piepho are both directed to mitigating shaft fatigue” and adding Harless’s oil groove introduces several problems, as noted above. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piepho, Polinski, and Harless in the manner Petitioner proposes. Notably, Patent Owner does not directly contest Petitioner’s stated reasons why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed combination, i.e., that the combination would save money and simplify the equipment and process for making and breaking interference fits. See Pet. 19–21; Prelim. Resp. 22–31. Patent Owner instead suggests that Petitioner improperly ignores disadvantages when adding Harless’s groove to Polinski and Piepho, which at best suggests a weighing between the advantages Petitioner contends the addition of Harless’s groove provides and the alleged disadvantages. See Prelim. Resp. 22–31. While Patent Owner’s arguments may ultimately prevail, given the highly factual nature of the competing expert testimony and the weighing necessary to resolve this issue, we view the issues as best resolved after further development during trial and after Petitioner has the opportunity to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence. On this record and at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s arguments and supportive declarant testimony adequately establishes a motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,014,090 - A&A Global Imports, Inc. v. Lerman Container CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01138 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the single claim would have been obvious over any of the four asserted reference combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of the ’151 patent’s claim. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner submits that a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Industrial Design, Mechanical Engineering, or related field and approximately 5 years of professional experience in the field designing consumer products.” Pet. 42 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 48). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. Prelim. Resp. 19. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposal regarding a designer of ordinary skill in the art. See Fletcher Decl. ¶ 48; Rake Decl. ¶ 29.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and Petitioner’s failure to persuasively explain why the particular proportion depicted in the ’151 patent is preferable to any other, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that this proportion is primarily functional and should not be considered as part of the ornamental design. See, e.g., LA Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.”). Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that the differences in proportion between Neutrogena and the claimed design contribute significantly to the overall visual impression of the design. See Prelim. Resp. 28 (“[T]he two designs considered as a whole present dramatically different visual appearances.”), 33–36 (“To get from the Neutrogena jar design . . . to the design of the D ‘151 patent would require entirely changing the proportions of the jar—from a short neck with a tall base to a tall neck with a short base . . . .”). For example, Patent Owner creates an image showing that simply changing the height of the Neutrogena jar neck to have the same neck-height to base-height ratio as the ’151 patent without changing the other dimensions of the jar would yield a “ridiculous result.” Id. at 37. We agree that the two images, reproduced below, do not convey the same overall visual impression. This figure contains two images side by side. On the left is a side view drawing of the claimed jar. On the right is a front side image of the Neutrogena jar with the image manipulated to show a neck to base proportion equivalent to that of the claimed jar drawing. Prelim. Resp. 38. The images above show a figure from the ’151 patent, above left, and Patent Owner’s created image of Neutrogena, above right, with only the neck height modified to match the proportion of neck to base height shown in the ’151 patent. Although we do not necessarily agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the created Neutrogena image represents the proposed combination asserted in the Petition, or that the modified image created by Patent Owner is accurate, we do agree with Patent Owner that the image of the modified Neutrogena jar illustrates that the proportion of neck height to base height contributes to ornamental aspects of the claimed jar and significantly affects the overall visual impression.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We find these aspects of the design significantly affect the overall visual impression of an otherwise simple design, particularly in an otherwise crowded art. Petitioner addresses these differences by stating that a designer of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that different degrees of radius for the concave bottom surface would be a design choice for volume and accessibility to the contents, especially together with the radiused transition between the sidewall and bottom surface.” Pet. 56 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 98). However, the present record does not support a finding that, even though other interior compartment shapes and depths are available, functionality dictates a certain shape and depth. Petitioner cites no other prior art that shows an interior compartment with a shape and depth equivalent to that shown in the ’151 patent. See Pet. 28–29 (showing annotated versions of Huang’s drawings, which do not clearly show the shape or depth of the interior compartment), 63 (proposing to modify Huang’s two chamber interior compartment with that of Canamasas Puigbo), 85–88 (showing the McKernan Jar drawings, which do not indicate the shape or depth of the interior compartment); Ex. 2002, 13 (explaining that the interior of Zamberlan is different in shape and depth than the claimed design). We are not persuaded to the contrary by Petitioner’s expert testimony. Mr. Fletcher testifies that Canamasas Puigbo “explicitly discloses a concave bottom surface in an article having more visually similar design, which would provide ample motivation to incorporate the feature.” Fletcher Decl. ¶ 98 (emphasis added). Thus, Mr. Fletcher appears to agree that the shape of the Canamasas Puigbo’s internal compartment is noticeably different than that of the ’151 patent. Mr. Fletcher does not address why a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have overlooked these differences or found them so minimal as to not affect the overall impression of the resulting modified jar. For example, Mr. Fletcher does not support this conclusion with any objective evidence, such as pointing to other prior art with an interior compartment the same shape and depth as that of the ’151 patent. Nor does Mr. Fletcher otherwise explain why a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to use the particular shape and depth claimed by the ’151 patent as opposed to all other possible configurations. See, id. ¶¶ 83–101. Moreover, as noted above, “expert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications.” 2019 Trial Practice Guide at 36. Accordingly, even after combining the visual features of Neutrogena and Canamasas Puigbo as proposed by Petitioner, the record evidence does not support Petitioner’s assertion that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Neutrogena such that its internal compartment is the same shape and depth as claimed by the ’151 patent.” slip op. at 32
§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - Bote, LLC v. Twitch LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00892 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all five asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 20 would be unpatentable over Hoffmann, Swan, and Hoge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). As discussed above, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims (i.e., independent claim 20 on Ground One). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–20), based on Grounds One–Five asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner asserts that it would have been “obvious to add Hoge’s tent covering (i.e., fabric floor 28)” to Hoffmann’s inflatable floor 6 and inflatable sides 4, 7 “to protect against punctures in such inflatable chambers.” Pet. 42. And Petitioner provides evidence that “modifying Hoffmann in such a way would be a routine implementation for a POSITA requiring merely adding an additional protective fabric floor (as informed by Hoge), rending predictable results.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 140. Patent Owner has not directed us to any contrary evidence. Thus, based on the evidence and arguments before us, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that it would have been obvious to provide Hoffmann’s inflatable boat with a tent” slip op. at 10
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,862,466
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.