• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00984 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable as obvious over Meulen and Chao; claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Meulen does not disclose transforming an image captured by its camera.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science, or equivalent field, and two years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras,” or alternatively “would have four years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras.” Pet. 6. Petitioner further argues that an “advanced graduate degree” may “make up for the work experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 19–20). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’413 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “From the outset we note that the words of the claim recite “non- uniformly shift[ing] the pixels” and do not recite a “non-linear” transformation. This favors Petitioner’s position, which is based directly off the definition of “non-uniform,” over Patent Owner’s position, which substitutes “non-linear” for “non-uniform.” Generally, then, we would determine the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term in the context of the entire Specification. Here, however, the ʼ413 patent does not mention “uniform” or “non-uniform” shifting of pixels anywhere except in the claims. The Specification, therefore, provides limited guidance, by itself, as to the ordinary and customary meaning of the term. Nonetheless, even reviewing the portions of the Specification cited by the parties, we see no clear or unambiguous effort to limit the challenged claims to require only non-linear transformations in which the pixels to which a transformation is applied do not have the same amount of shift. is not non-linear. Pet. Reply 1. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the center circle of Figure 2B maintains the original circular shape after the transformation is applied to the image which contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that no two pixels will have the same amount of shift. Pet. Reply 1–2. We agree. In Figure 2B of the ʼ413 patent, the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest. Ex. 1001, 4:19–21. After the input image goes through linear scaling (step 204) and then non-linear warping (step 206) the circles become more vertically compressed as they approach the top and bottom edges and more horizontally stretched as they approach the left and right edges. Id. at 4:22–30. But “the center circle is fully corrected so that it maintains the original circular shape of the corresponding circle in the input image 212.” Id. at 4:23–25. This means that at least some pixels, such as those of the center circle, undergo the same amount of shift after being transformed.” slip op. at 11

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

    “readable instructions” of claims 1 and 2 must occur in a particular order. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the step of “determine a portion within the input image” must occur after “obtain[ing] an image” and before “apply[ing] a transformation to the input image.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Petitioner argues, on the other hand, that the specification does not require such an order and, in fact, describes an embodiment where such an order is not followed. Pet. 3. We determine that the “determine a portion within the input image” step does not need to occur after the “obtain an image” step and before the “apply a transformation to the input image” step. As Patent Owner itself points out, claims 1 and 2 are apparatus and system claims respectively, and an ordering of the limitations of such claims is not necessary. PO Resp. 17. Even if we were to treat the apparatus and system claims as reciting the steps of a method, “as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). We see nothing in the claims that would cause us to break this general rule. Patent Owner argues that the claims imply a “specific order because the ‘determine a portion’ requirement operates on ‘the [obtained] input image’ and defines the ‘portion’ that is necessary for the 23; Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Although the steps are recited in a specific order in the claim, as they necessarily must be, the claim does not expressly specify that the certain steps must occur before or after other instructions, nor does logic imply such a requirement. For example, if certain characteristics of the image are known before the image is obtained (e.g. the size, dimensions, resolution, aspect ratio, or content etc.) the determination of the portion of the image could be made before the image is obtained. These characteristics may be based on the specific device taking the image or the subject matter of the image, both of which may be known before the image is captured or obtained. It is, therefore, not necessary that the image be obtained in order for a portion of the image to be determined. Similarly, we do not find the written description to expressly or implicitly specify an order the claimed step of “determine a portion of the input image.” For example, the written description of the ʼ413 patent states that in Figure 2B “the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction as the frame boundary is approached.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–22. Patent Owner emphasizes that this disclosure implies that an input image is obtained before the center portion is chosen. PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:63–64, 4:19–22). But the description of this embodiment does not expressly recite an order. For example, the description of Figure 2A explains that “an input image is obtained” in step 202, “the image is then scaled” in step 204, and a “non-linear warping is then applied” in step 206. Ex. 1001, 3:63–4:3. This description does not mention “determin[ing] of a portion of the image” as a separate step or as part of the listed steps, and therefore, does not specify an order in which this step must occur. is configured so that some areas of the image are fully corrected geometrically, while some other areas are distorted. . . . [T]he center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction.” Id. at 4:17–19. This excerpt from the ʼ413 patent, which the Patent Owner specifically relies on (PO Resp. 19), also does not specify an order in which the determination step (choosing of the region of interest) takes place. Moreover, because the ʼ413 patent states that the warp module is configured so that some areas are fully corrected while others are not, the determination step could take place at the time the warp module was configured, presumably before the image was obtained. Finally, the ʼ413 patent states that “in the case, of video, the area may dynamically change between images (e.g. to follow a moving object).” Ex. 1001, 4:34–36. Patent Owner argues that this description “requires first obtaining the image in order to locate the object that is being followed.” PO Resp. 19–20. This embodiment is related to the case of video or a moving object, which the challenged claims do not mention. We, therefore, decline to limit the scope of the claim based on this embodiment. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and cited evidence we determine Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Meulen and Chao. For example, Petitioner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious that when performing image scaling, pixels from the input to output positions are shifted based on a scaling factor.” Pet. 91. Meulen teaches scaling but does not provide the details regarding scaling. E.g., Ex. 1007, 1:55–56, 4:37–49. We agree that in light of Meulen’s disclosure of scaling, a POSITA would have looked to other references, such as Chao, for further details on how to perform scaling. Dr. Katsaggelos provides credible support, testifying that “Meulen mentions ‘compression and/or scaling,’ and provides details on how to perform compression. But Meulen does not disclose the details of how to perform scaling. A POSITA when faced with Meulen and having the knowledge about scaling would have been motivated to turn to a prior art reference that discloses the details of scaling.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 262. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner provides no motivation to combine other than asserting that it involves combining prior art elements. PO Resp. 35 (quoting Pet. 92). As explained above, however, Petitioner does more than just assert that the motivation involves combining prior art elements. Instead, Petitioner explains that Meulen discusses both compression and scaling, and provides details regarding compression but does not provide details on how to scale. Pet. 91–92; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–262. Thus, Meulen teaches that scaling was a known technique. See Hybritech, (“a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art”). Dr. Katsaggelos testifies that, in this situation, a POSITA would have looked to Chao for details regarding scaling. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–263. We determine this establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have had reason to combine Meulen’s teachings with Chao. Patent Owner draws a distinction between Meulen and Chao, arguing that “Meulen is concerned with modifying content from a media source to be displayed on a device’s screen while Chao, by contrast, is directed to changing the aspect ratio of a document intended for printing.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 89–90). Patent Owner’s argument is contradicted, however, by Chao’s disclosure which states that “after all the background and foreground elements in the image have been resized . . . [t]he image may be output by displaying the image on or as part of: a display screen such as a computer monitor, camera screen, printer screen, printed page, projected image, or the like.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 32. Patent Owner argues that Meulen’s system avoids distortion near the middle where the user’s focus is more likely to be, while Chao, on the other hand, is directed to avoiding distortion of stylized borders on differently sized pages. PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:26–29; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1, 25; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 91–92). This argument reads the prior art too narrowly and does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner does not rely on Chao for its teaching of avoiding distortion near the borders of the image, but rather on its teaching of scaling the image while maintaining the design intent of the original image. Ex. 1008 ¶ 22; Ex. 1014 ¶ 67. Thus, Petitioner is applying Chao’s techniques of scaling (regardless of where the area of 92. Finally, Patent Owner argues that Chao’s approach of stretching/shrinking only the background and uniformly scaling entire foreground objects is suitable for graphic design but incompatible with Meulen which is concerned with adapting externally derived media source content for display on a fixed size screen. PO Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 93). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner relies on Chao’s teaching of stretching/shrinking of background elements and applies that stretching/shrinking to Meulen’s images displayed on its screen. Pet. 91–92 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 28, 63; Ex. 1002 ¶ 263). The fact that Chao applies its teaching to graphic design does not prevent a POSITA from applying those teachings to Meulen’s media content displayed on its screen.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,015,413 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,015,413
• Recor Medical, Inc. / Otsuka Medical Devices Co., Ltd. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2025 · IPR2022-00431 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1–3 and 8–12 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit (Paper 33), which vacated the original Final Written Decision and remanded the proceeding to the Board. See ReCor Med., Inc. v. Medtronic Ir. Mfg. Unlimited Co., No. 2023-2251, 2025 WL 944511 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2025) (“the Appeal Decision” or “Appeal Dec.”); see also Paper 41 (copy of the Appeal Decision). The Federal Circuit’s mandate issued on May 5, 2025. See Paper 40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6, and we issue this Final Written Decision on Remand under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons below, on the complete record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unpatentability of claims 1–3 and 8–12 of the challenged patent, and we conclude that Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unpatentability of claim 4.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentable

    “and Petitioner’s rebuttal evidence. Objective evidence of nonobviousness, when present, must be considered as part of an obviousness inquiry. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of nonobviousness, may lead to a conclusion that one or more of the challenged claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 50

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “1. Claims 1–3 and 8–11 Because the obviousness ground based on Levin and Acker is dispositive as to challenged claims 1–3 and 8–11, we need not reach this additional ground as to those claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018) (holding that a petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Boston Sci. Scimed, analysis in the appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Appeal Dec. *1–*2 (summarizing grounds at issue on appeal and not discussing anticipation based on Acker). Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (stating that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding,” such as “alternative arguments with respect to claims [the Board] found unpatentable on other grounds”); SK Hynix Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2017-00692, Paper 25 at 40 (PTAB July 5, 2018) (determining all challenged claims to be unpatentable and not addressing additional grounds). 2. Dependent Claim 4 As to dependent claim 4, in the context of this ground, Petitioner relies on Acker as to the additional limitations in claim 4 in the same manner as relied on in the context of the ground based on Levin and Acker. See Pet. 73 (“The combination teaches this element for the same reasons described in [the obviousness ground based on Levin and Acker], claim 4, with the exception that [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated based on his or her knowledge of prior renal denervation work, as noted above.”). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above (see § II.C.3.c), we determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 would have been obvious based on Acker and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. G. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 12 Based on Acker, the Knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Yock Petitioner asserts that claim 12, which depends from independent claim 1, would have been obvious based on Acker, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and Yock. Pet. 12, 75; Pet. Reply 35–36. Patent Owner provides arguments addressing this ground. PO Resp. 57–60; PO” slip op. at 75

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “1. Independent Claim 1 Petitioner contends that Acker discloses each limitation of claim 1. Pet. 61–63; Pet. Reply 35. In the “Overview of the Ground” section, Petitioner references its proposed construction of the phrase “configured to” and states that “it is proper to consider whether the prior art is ‘capable of’ performing the recited functions, as opposed to requiring that a designer of a prior art device have actually conceived of the recited functional language.” Pet. 61. Petitioner continues: “If the PTAB agrees that this is the proper approach to claim construction, then Acker also anticipates the claims challenged in this ground.” Id. For the reasons below, we determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Acker. As to element 1d, which includes the phrase “configured to,”16 Petitioner states that Acker is capable of being used to target renal neural fibers outside of the blood vessel to thermally induce modulation of target neural fibers while protecting non-target tissue in the blood vessel wall from thermal injury for the reasons discussed under claim 1, limitation [1d] and in the section entitled “Reasonable Expectation of Success”, beginning on page 37 [of the Petition]. Pet. 62–63 (citing Daft Pet. Decl. ¶ 179) (first bracketed text added by Petitioner). Patent Owner argues that, in the context of this asserted ground based” slip op. at 71

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,629 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,629
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01345 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–20 were shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum; claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum with Shakkarwar.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or explaining its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 1 For example, setting the level of skill to exactly two years of experience would not serve to automatically disqualify an expert having ten years. Kyocera Senco Ind’l Tools v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (requiring that “a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art” and stating that “it would be improper to require an expert witness to possess ordinary skill in the art and nothing more”). In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’588 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The description of “mapping” in the ’588 patent makes clear to us that it is an association of an input value from a set of input values to a corresponding output value from a set of output values. Id. at 2:44–46 (describing “the mapping table that associates non-core domain operating frequencies and corresponding interconnect operating frequencies”) (emphases added). The “association” described here in the ’588 patent is not merely describing the fact that both exist, but that knowing the value of the first causes you to know the value of the second. This is also how it is described in the claims, wherein the “mapping” is “of selectable frequencies of the graphics processing circuitry to selectable frequencies of the interconnect.” Id. at 8:63–65 (emphasis added). Or more generally, the claim recites a mapping of a frequency to a frequency. In sum, although we agree with the parties that “mapping” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification, we note that the parties appear to dispute whether the prior art teaches the claimed “mapping” based on differing understandings of the plain and ordinary meaning. Based on our analysis above, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing the ’588 patent would understand that the “mapping” limitation requires (1) frequencies mapped to frequencies and (2) that a mapping is an association of one value to a corresponding value such that knowing the graphics frequency means that you know the corresponding interconnect frequency. Further, given that the corresponding frequencies are “selectable,” we understand that to mean that there is a set of possible frequencies that are defined from which to select. Ex. 2001, 21:19–22:2. With this understanding, we can turn to the dispute over whether the prior art teaches the limitations set forth in claims 5 and 12, as no other terms require construction at this time. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenMixed

    “that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Shakkarwar teaches the claimed mapping limitation, for the following reasons. The lookup table in Shakkarwar has a list of clock speeds (frequencies) for specific devices. Ex. 1006, 7:7–10. These clock speeds represent the bandwidth needs of each individual device. Id. at 7:10–13. By looking up the bandwidth needs of each individual device in use, the system can determine the total bandwidth need. Id. at 7:5–17. For example, if one device requires 20 Megabits of data and the second device requires 10 Megabits of data, then the data rate (bandwidth) required will be 30 Megabits of data. Id. at 7:13–17. If the required bandwidth is different from the current bandwidth, then the current bandwidth must be modified. Id. at 7:18–26. Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,705,588 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,705,588
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01335 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, and 13 are unpatentable over Conroy and Finkelstein or Conroy; claims 14–18 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or justifying its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’833 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Pet. 10. Patent Owner provides a construction for the term “independent” of claim 1. PO Resp. 12–18. For context, claim 1 requires first and second domains, wherein “each of the first and second domains [] operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” Patent Owner provides its analysis and concludes that claim 1 requires that the voltage and frequency of the first and second domains to be “controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14, 15. We disagree with Patent Owner’s conclusion. In particular, we note that Patent Owner is attempting to add a “control” limitation to the claim. The claim does not require independent control of the first and second domains, it requires them “to operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” That is, by the plain language of the claims, what is independent is the voltage and frequency of the first domain compared to the voltage and frequency of the second domain. Patent Owner identifies many passages in the ’833 patent specification allegedly supporting its position, but we do not find any of these passages persuades us to agree with Patent Owner’s position. See PO Resp. 12–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:13–17, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38– 46, 10:4–8). These passages mostly state that the domains are independent, which we understand to mean “separate” in this context. Ex. 1001, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38–46, 10:4–8; accord PO Resp. 14 (summarizing these citations and concluding that “the term ‘independent’ is used in its ordinary sense to mean ‘separate.’”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 33 (same). One passage is similar to the claim language, and recites that a core can be “of an independent power domain and can be configured to operate at an independent voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. We see nothing in these passages that would require independent control as opposed to “operate at an independent voltage and frequency” as claimed. Instead, in the one passage that is similar to the claim language, it is clear that what is “independent” is the “voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. Patent Owner then cites to another batch of passages from the ’833 patent and concludes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ’833 patent is describing a situation in which voltages and/or frequencies of the different domains are controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 1:63–66, 2:22–25, 2:32–36, 5:9–12, 5:21, 5:27–44, 7:20–24, 8:38–42, Fig. 1; Ex. 2002 ¶ 33). Most of these passages describe the domains being allocated portions of a power budget. See Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 2:22–25, 5:28–40, 7:20–24, 8:38–42. One passage is similar to the prior batch of citations, stating that the domains themselves are independent. Id. at 1:63–66. Other passages describe a power control unit doing the allocation, and refers to this as “control.” Id. at 2:32–36, 5:27–26, 5:21, 5:40–44. Last cited by Patent Owner is Figure 1, which has a box labeled “Control First and Second Domains Frequency and Voltage.” Id., Fig. 1 (item 130). Reviewing the cited passages and the figure, we find that the power control unit allocates or controls power. However, the claim is not directed to the power control unit and it does not use the word “control.” The claim requires the first and second domains to have independent voltages and frequencies, and we fail to see any support in the specification to add an additional requirement for independent control of the first and second domains. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “claim 13, it is the domain that is allocated the power budget (as opposed to the domain’s individual cores). See Ex. 1001, 12:57–59 (“allocate a variable power budget between the . . . domains”), 1:56–66 (explaining domains— “the term ‘domain’ is used to mean a collection of hardware and/or logic that operates at the same voltage and frequency point”). We agree with Patent Owner and credit its expert that Nussbaum is concerned with the power settings of each individual core, GPU, or other computational unit. Ex. 2003 ¶ 63. Even if, in one passage, Nussbaum talks about power reallocation in “computational units, such as the CPU or [GPU],” in context it is clear that the allocations remain on the individual, e.g., core, level. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 19– 20, 21 (Table 1), 23 (Table 2), 24. First, in the sentence just cited, Nussbaum disparages treating units homogenously, i.e., adjusting them in groups or domains (as required by claim 13). Id. ¶ 19. Then, Nussbaum praises distributing power “among the active cores or other computational units,” i.e., on an individual or core level. Id. In this phrase, Nussbaum is not using “computational units” as a word meaning “CPU,” because Nussbaum already directly references the “cores” in the phrase. Id. Nussbaum later discusses figuring out how each core reacts to power changes, in order to determine which cores can better exploit additional power. Id. ¶¶ 25–28. For these reasons, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Nussbaum does not disclose allocating power to a plurality of cores as a single domain (Ex. 2002 ¶ 63), which is consistent with the above-noted disclosures of Nussbaum.” slip op. at 15

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

    “not address these passages of the Petition. See generally PO Resp. 57–59, Sur-reply 17–18. Instead, Patent Owner challenges a separate, general rationale that Petitioner made at the beginning of its ground. See Pet. 69. Rationales that are broad and general may be persuasive. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]ationale[s] [are] not inherently suspect merely because [they’re] generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal. Quite the opposite.”). We need not evaluate Petitioner’s general rationale here, however, because we find Petitioner’s unrebutted, specific rationale arguments about providing a user interface to edit or revise the power sharing values to be persuasive. See Pet. 77–78 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1029 ¶ 236). In particular, we agree with Petitioner that providing a user interface to allow a user to edit the power tables, as taught in Finkelstein, would have been a routine and obvious modification to Conroy. As Petitioner’s expert points out, even beyond the teachings of Finkelstein, it was known in the art to allow users control over power allocation. Ex. 1029 ¶ 236 (citing Ex. 1026, 11:13–27 (describing a “user preferences database” containing “parameters and procedures for how to apportion power among various devices”); Ex. 1028 ¶ 17 (“The [power allocation] preference might be determined . . . based on a selection by a user of the system (e.g., via a graphical interface).”)). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combination is an example of using a known feature to provide a known benefit. The known feature is a user interface, and the known benefit is allowing the user to indicate their preferences through the interface. See Ex. 1029 ¶ 236; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”). Based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has established a reason with rational underpinnings for combining the user level control interface of Finkelstein with the power management system of Conroy.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,775,833 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,775,833
• Polygroup Limited Mco v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2020 · IPR2016-01610 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’186 patent were held unpatentable; other remanded challenged claims were not shown unpatentable, and substitute claims 29 and 30 were allowed.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated our Original Decision in part and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd, 759 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019). After conferring with the parties, we permitted additional briefing to address the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 196.” slip op. at 2

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

    “and the second wire are detachably connected to the first trunk electrical connector of the first trunk portion.” Petitioner acknowledges that “Miller does not expressly teach that the wiring assembly is ‘modular’ or ‘separably connected.’” Pet. II 65. Petitioner contends that “assemblies for providing a detachable connection between electrical contact sets and wiring harnesses were well-known in the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that “Lessner teaches a ‘quick-disconnect electrical connector for receiving and releasably retaining a male tab connector’ and a [person of skill in the art (POSA)] would recognize that it may be used to create detachable connections between the electrical contacts of a connector or plug, and the wires of a wiring assembly.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 1:10–11; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings based on those from Lessner. Pet. II 65–70. Petitioner reasons, for example, that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to enhance the mechanical and electrical connections between the electrical contacts sets and wiring assemblies of Miller[] with the detachable electrical connectors of Lessner” for “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly.” Id. at 65–66 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner further reasons that “the detachable connectors of Lessner provide a quick-connect engagement allowing the builder to easily and quickly attach the wires to the terminals on the trunk connector during assembly,” which “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts.” Id. at 66. Petitioner’s contentions as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings are unpersuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner cited Miller’s plug and socket connectors as corresponding to the recited trunk connectors. Petitioner’s proposed modification in the Miller alone challenge adds an additional connection point in Miller’s plug and socket connectors, further complicating assembly, rather than providing greater “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly” as alleged. Petitioner’s additional reasoning that the proposed modification “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts” is equally unpersuasive. The only difference resulting from the modification is that the plug and socket connectors could be removed from their respective wiring assemblies. That is, it provides for removal of one connector by providing yet another connector, which fails to provide a benefit because Miller’s plug and socket connectors are loose, rather than fixed within the trunk portions like Patent Owner’s connectors. For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability of claim 7 of the ’186 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedUnpatentable

    “D. Secondary Considerations As explained in the Original Decision, Patent Owner provides evidence related to non-obviousness of the claims. Original Decision 43–60. Considering that evidence, as explained in the Original Decision, relative to the fact that Miller alone teaches each element of these claims in a single embodiment16, we determine that Patent Owner’s evidence does not outweigh Petitioner’s case of obviousness for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has established by the preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable. Petitioner has failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The figure reproduced above is a portion of Miller’s Figure 2, which is a front, partial section view of its artificial tree, along with Petitioner’s annotations noting Miller’s electrical connections (circled in red). Pet. I 29. As seen above, Petitioner cites Miller’s plug and socket connection as the electrical connection recited in the claims. See Pet. I 33 (“Miller also teaches that wires 22 of trunks 3, 5 are electrically connectable via plug and socket connectors of Fig. 2.”), 42, 57–58 (presenting similar contentions for claims 20 and 28). The problem with Petitioner’s contentions that rely on Miller alone is that the electrical connection in Miller is independent of the mechanical connection of tree portions (i.e., the mechanical connection does not result in the electrical connection in the manner claimed). For at least this reason, Petitioner’s challenges to claims 10, 20, and 28 based on Miller alone fail.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,454,186 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,454,186
• Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00259 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Dietzen I and II, Ciaffone, Laster, Pneumatic Conveying, and Toth; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art is unreasonably high, and we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of our Final Written Decision. While Petitioner’s definition requires five years of design experience at the bachelor’s degree level of education, Patent Owner’s definition does not require any design experience at all. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art designs devices, and, thus, actively monitors the relevant technical literature, rather than is merely familiar with devices (e.g., an operator or a manufacturer), as proposed by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1034 ¶ 28; Ex. 1005, 2:62–64 (indicating that those skilled in the art would understand “that the critical cone angle will vary depending upon the material being conveyed”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposal to construe “non-free flowing drill cuttings” as drill cuttings that do not generally flow freely by gravitational force. There is insufficient support in the Specification for that proposal. The Specification does not distinguish between different types of screened drill cuttings, for example, screened drill cuttings that generally flow freely by gravitational force and those that do not. While the Specification describes screened drill cuttings in various ways, it is always referring to the same material. For example, the Specification refers explicitly to “thick, heavy pastes which are normally difficult to move and 12 See Ex 1005, 1:37–39 (calling drilling fluid a special type of oil used as a lubricant.) handle” (Ex. 1005, 1:31–32), “[screened] cuttings . . . transported ashore in the form of a very thick heavy paste” (id. at 1:44–48), “thick heavy paste material (e.g., drill cuttings)” (id. at 1:66–67), “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 2:3), “a non-free flowing paste” (id. at 2:9–10), “[t]he non-free flowing paste may be a thick and/or heavy paste or clay like material, e.g. oil rig drill cuttings” (id. at 2:13–14), and “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 3:10–11). As such, the Specification characterizes screened drill cuttings as a thick heavy paste as well as a non-free flowing paste and, thus, considers a thick heavy paste to be a non-free flowing paste. We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of “non-free flowing drill cuttings” is “screened drill cuttings, i.e., screened material, generated by the drilling of an oil well, including a mixture of earth and drilling fluid or oil.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not respond adequately to Petitioner’s persuasive obviousness rationale that a POSITA would have substituted a positive-pressure conveyance system in place of the negative-pressure conveyance system of Dietzen I and II because negative pressure systems are generally limited to shorter distances and lower material volumes than positive systems. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments do not address sufficiently Ciaffone’s teaching that a positive-pressure vessel with a conical bottom section can be used to convey materials without the need for bins, hoppers, hydraulic rams, screw feeders, conveyor belts, and the like. See Ex. 1006, 1:70–2:6. As explained by Petitioner, Dietzen II uses an auger to augment use of negative pressure for moving settled materials horizontally from the bottom of a vessel. Pet. Reply 15; Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 154:6–155:5. In contrast with Dietzen II’s relatively low-pressure vacuum system, a positive- pressure system such as taught by Ciaffone, with an operating pressure of up to 6.89 bar, blows materials out of the conical bottom section of the vessel. See supra Section II.C.1.b. Patent Owner further argues that a “POSITA would have discounted positive pressure given th[at] non-free flowing drill cuttings cannot be fragmented.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2057 ¶¶ 44, 150). We find this argument unpersuasive because Ciaffone’s blow vessel does not require fragmentation of the material to be conveyed. Rather, Ciaffone teaches compaction of the material in a tightly knit unit that can be acted upon by the full force of the pressurized air, in contrast with dispersion of the waste such that air is diffused among the separated particles resulting in diminution in the applied air pressure conveying the total charge. Ex. 1006, 3:11–19. Further, Pneumatic Conveying teaches that “small capacity blow vessels are designed on the basis of conveying material as a series of discrete plugs rather than as a continuous stream.” Ex. 1009, 282, Fig. 7.32. Pneumatic Conveying further explains: “As such, the capacity of the vessel is selected such that on discharge a plug is formed which is just long enough to prevent blocking [of the conveying line].” Id. Pneumatic Conveying discloses that “[i]f the material to be conveyed is unusually cohesive, a plug forming system will yield good results” and, “[a]s the plugs are relatively impermeable, they remain separated even over long conveying distances.” Id. at 346. Based on these teachings, a POSITA would not have understood that it was necessary to fragment non-free flowing drill cuttings, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument. For the reasons given, Petitioner has provided a sufficient reason with rational underpinning for combining Dietzen I and II, Ciaffone, Laster, and Pneumatic Conveying. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Pneumatic Conveying does not provide information on “anything close to ‘non-free flowing [oil well drill/drill] cuttings’ or a ‘thick, heavy paste,’” and, thus, a POSITA “would not look to designs presented in Pneumatic Conveying.” Ex. 2057 ¶ 185. We give little weight to this testimony because, as discussed above, we credit Dr. Carson’s testimony that Pneumatic Conveying identifies hundreds of materials, including paste and cohesive material. See supra Section II.C.1.e(2). We also credit Dr. Carson’s testimony that Pneumatic Conveying explains that pressure vessels increasingly were being used to convey materials with “bad” flow properties, and that “Pneumatic Conveying would have also shown those of ordinary skill in the art that pneumatic conveying with a positive pressure system would be an effective way to transport non-free flowing drill cuttings, including in the form of a paste or sludge.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 124. Dr. Brown also testifies that the information in Pneumatic Conveying with respect to mass flow concerns granular solids. Ex. 2057 ¶ 185 (citing Ex. 1009, 411). He further testifies that because “the flow behavior of nonfree flowing [oil well drill/drill] cuttings is distinct from that of granular solids . . . a person of ordinary skill in the art would gain no insight in designing a vessel for paste to produce mass flow from a vessel designed to contain granular solids.” Id. We give little weight to this testimony because Dr. Brown does not address all of the information in Pneumatic Conveying that is relevant to mass flow, as discussed further below. In contrast with Dr. Brown, Dr. Carson testifies: “As explained in Pneumatic Conveying, those of ordinary skill in the art knew that the cone angle is an important variable to adjust in order to achieve mass flow.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 144 (citing Ex. 1009, 280–282, 410–420; Ex. 1046, 68–74, 147– 151). Consistent with Dr. Carson’s testimony, the ’018 Patent discloses that “[i]t is well known that the critical cone angle [to achieve mass flow] will vary depending upon the material being conveyed [and] as such would be well understood by those skilled in the art.” Ex. 1005, 2:61–63. We credit the testimony of Dr. Carson over the conflicting testimony of Dr. Brown because Dr. Carson’s testimony addresses the full Pneumatic Conveying disclosure, and is consistent with that disclosure, while Dr. Brown’s testimony does not address the full Pneumatic Conveying disclosure, and is not completely consistent with that disclosure. For example, under the subheading “Factors influencing blow vessel performance,” Pneumatic Conveying teaches that “[t]he increased use of blow vessels for feeding materials with ‘bad’ flow properties necessitates the selection of a suitable cone angle.” Ex. 1009, 279. Pneumatic Conveying further explains that “[v]essels with incorrectly designed cone angles will result in either ‘ratholing’ or ‘bridging’ problems.” Id. at 279, Fig. 7.30. These teachings of Pneumatic Conveying are not limited to granular solids, contrary to Dr. Brown’s testimony.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,544,018 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,544,018
• Seadrill Americas, Inc. / Seadrill Gulf Operations Auriga, LLC et al. v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2017 · IPR2015-01929 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 10–13 and 30 of the ’781 patent, claim 10 of the ’851 patent, and claims 17–19 of the ’069 patent not shown unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “information, Patent Owner’s expert analyzing the data, Mr. Bratic, presumes that “dual activity” in the database means “rigs that incorporate the teachings of [Patent Owner’s] Dual-Activity Patents,” relying on the testimony of Dr. Cooke at paragraphs 42–43. Ex. 2080 ¶ 4. There, Dr. Cooke states that “[i]t is my opinion that the term ‘dual activity’ is a generally accepted term in the industry used to reference Transocean’s claimed invention.” Ex. 2077 ¶ 42. He later states that “dual activity” is not offline stand building (Lund) or having two drilling stations but not transfer means (Horn). Id. ¶ 43. For the reasons expressed above in our nexus analysis, Dr. Cooke’s testimony is overly simplistic, contradicted by evidence, and, therefore, not credible. Mr. Bratic’s analysis is thus similarly contradicted by evidence and not credible. Second, the fact that Patent Owner asked for an additional fee for using additional features of a rig, i.e., to use the “dual activity” feature of the rig, in and of itself, cannot show commercial success. To hold otherwise would be to find commercial success for virtually every additional feature not offered for free. See Cable Elec. Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“this court . . . has unequivocally stated that for commercial success of a product embodying a claimed invention to have true relevance to the issue of non-obviousness, that success must be shown to have in some way been due to the nature of the claimed invention, as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the technical quality of the patented subject matter.”) (overruled on other grounds in Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Further, as Petitioner explains, dayrates are driven by a number of factors, including ship design, reputation, and timing. Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 43–61).25 Even if we were to ignore the deficiencies in Patent Owner’s reliance on the IHS Petrodata information, to attribute, without sufficient analysis, the price difference to one factor (presence of “dual activity”) out of many factors grossly oversimplifies the analysis and ignores the realities of the marketplace. Thus, Patent Owner’s IHS Petrodata analysis is not credible evidence of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 48

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art typically had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical, chemical, or related engineering plus 5 years of experience in the oil production industry. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 15). Patent Owner does not explicitly offer a level of ordinary skill in the art, but states in some of its briefing that the parties do not generally disagree on the level of ordinary skill. Paper 84 (Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude the testimony of Dr. Cooke), 3 (“[t]he parties also agree generally as to the level of ordinary skill”). Based on the testimony of Mr. Schaff (Ex. 1007 ¶ 15) and the disclosures of the prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18

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

    “The words “to the seabed” in claim 30 require that the second means for advancing tubular members must have a structure in practice that, without modification, allows it to perform that function. See Typhoon Touch Tech’s, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (listing cases that reject the notion that a prior art structure that could be modified to infringe would infringe).18 Petitioner asserts that, to anticipate, Lund merely of the deck. Thus, of the 30 m long stand, a little more than 10 m of tube would be above the deck and a little less than 20 m would be below the deck, depending on how and where exactly the torqueing device held onto the second and third tubes to fasten them. 18 We recognize that Typhoon was concerned with a question of infringement, but the principles discussed therein are also relevant to a patentability analysis because “[t]hat which infringes, if later, would needs to perform this function at some depth, not every depth. Pet. Reply 5– 6. We agree with Petitioner on this point, at least in general.19 See, e.g., Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–23 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“an accused product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless infringes”). We are not persuaded, however, that Petitioner has shown that Lund is capable of lowering a tubular string to the seabed at some depth. First, Petitioner has not offered evidence that Lund actually describes lowering tubulars to the seabed. The disclosure in Lund cautioning to be careful not to strike structures (Ex. 1002, 9:58–65) does not actually describe whether the structures are undersea, let alone at the seabed. Instead, Lund simply describes a “possible occurrence of well heads and other structures in the area around the well centre.” Id. Patent Owner has provided evidence that Lund could be referring to structures above the surface of the water or on the drilling rig itself, which Patent Owner shows are not uncommon in shallow-water operations. PO Resp. 7–9 (citing, e.g., Ex. 2075 ¶¶ 68–74; Ex. 2088, 47:15–52:19). This evidence rebuts the testimony of Mr. Schaaf upon which we relied in determining that Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of success. See Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 94); Ex. 1007 ¶ 94 (citing to Ex. 1002, 9:58–64 as allegedly disclosing that the hoist in Lund could reach the seabed); Dec. on Inst. 19 (relying on the testimony at Ex. anticipate, if earlier.” Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889). 19 The depth would have to be a depth at which a drilling rig would be used, for example. If drilling rigs were not used at a certain depth, for example, then it would make no sense to construe the limitation in a way to require such a depth. 1007 ¶ 94). Based on the record now before us, we find that it is not necessarily the case that Lund was describing interference with structures in the sea or at the seabed, as it is possible Lund was describing interference with structures above the waterline or on the rig itself.” slip op. at 25

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

    “into a drilling hoist. Pet. 23–24. A reason for doing this is for the ability to have two drilling stations, such as shown in Horn. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 72); see also id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 41; Ex 1014, I-191, I-193; Ex. 1015, each of which show examples of drilling rigs having two drilling stations). Given the examples of drilling rigs having two drilling stations under one derrick (e.g., Horn, Chevron S-55), we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success in converting Lund’s preparation hoist into a drilling station. Patent Owner’s arguments focus on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a modification in the first place. PO Resp. 15–16, 22–24. Patent Owner first argues that Horn does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Lund’s rig to have a second drilling hoist. Id. at 15–16. Petitioner’s Petition addresses that argument, when it states that the proposed modification “would have had the added advantage of being able to have each hoist run its own drill string to the seabed,” exactly as taught in Horn. Pet. 24. In other words, making the second hoist drill-worthy would be following Horn, such as to enable the Lund rig to drill two wells at the same time. Patent Owner misunderstands KSR when it argues that Petitioner cannot use drill two wells as a rationale. See PO Resp. 15 (citing KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)); KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason . . . to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). When it states that there must be a reason to combine the elements “in the way the claimed new invention does,” the Supreme Court means that there must be a reason to combine to arrive at the claimed invention (i.e., to meet each limitation, as arranged in the claim). This understanding of KSR is apparent by reading the next page, where the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the theory that a reason for combination must be the same as the inventor’s: “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Accordingly, we do not see any deficiency in Petitioner’s reasoning with respect to Petitioner’s reliance on a desire to have two drill stations for two wells, as taught in Horn and for the benefits described therein. As such, we find that Petitioner has articulated a reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Lund’s rig to have two drill stations, as taught in Horn.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,047,781 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,047,781
• Seadrill Americas, Inc. / Seadrill Gulf Operations Auriga, LLC et al. v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2017 · IPR2015-01989 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found no challenged claims of the ’781, ’851, or ’069 patents unpatentable; Lund did not anticipate claim 30, and objective evidence defeated the obviousness grounds.

  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

    “Specifically, we construe “second means . . . for advancing tubular members” as a means-plus-function limitation with the function of advancing tubular members simultaneously with said first means into the body of water to the seabed and with a corresponding structure as a drawworks and equivalent structures. IPR2015-01989, Paper 8, 7–9. We construe “means . . . for transferring tubular assemblies” as a means-plus-function limitation with the function of transferring tubular assemblies and with a corresponding structure of a rail supported pipe handling system, a rugged overhead crane structure within the derrick, or structural equivalents. Id. at 9–10.” slip op. at 17

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

    “The words “to the seabed” in claim 30 require that the second means for advancing tubular members must have a structure in practice that, without modification, allows it to perform that function. See Typhoon Touch Tech’s, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (listing cases that reject the notion that a prior art structure that could be modified to infringe would infringe).18 Petitioner asserts that, to anticipate, Lund merely of the deck. Thus, of the 30 m long stand, a little more than 10 m of tube would be above the deck and a little less than 20 m would be below the deck, depending on how and where exactly the torqueing device held onto the second and third tubes to fasten them. 18 We recognize that Typhoon was concerned with a question of infringement, but the principles discussed therein are also relevant to a patentability analysis because “[t]hat which infringes, if later, would needs to perform this function at some depth, not every depth. Pet. Reply 5– 6. We agree with Petitioner on this point, at least in general.19 See, e.g., Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–23 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“an accused product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless infringes”). We are not persuaded, however, that Petitioner has shown that Lund is capable of lowering a tubular string to the seabed at some depth.” slip op. at 25

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

    “into a drilling hoist. Pet. 23–24. A reason for doing this is for the ability to have two drilling stations, such as shown in Horn. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 72); see also id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 41; Ex 1014, I-191, I-193; Ex. 1015, each of which show examples of drilling rigs having two drilling stations). Given the examples of drilling rigs having two drilling stations under one derrick (e.g., Horn, Chevron S-55), we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success in converting Lund’s preparation hoist into a drilling station. Patent Owner’s arguments focus on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a modification in the first place. PO Resp. 15–16, 22–24. Patent Owner first argues that Horn does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Lund’s rig to have a second drilling hoist. Id. at 15–16. Petitioner’s Petition addresses that argument, when it states that the proposed modification “would have had the added advantage of being able to have each hoist run its own drill string to the seabed,” exactly as taught in Horn. Pet. 24. In other words, making the second hoist drill-worthy would be following Horn, such as to enable the Lund rig to drill two wells at the same time. Patent Owner misunderstands KSR when it argues that Petitioner cannot use drill two wells as a rationale. See PO Resp. 15 (citing KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)); KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason . . . to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). When it states that there must be a reason to combine the elements “in the way the claimed new invention does,” the Supreme Court means that there must be a reason to combine to arrive at the claimed invention (i.e., to meet each limitation, as arranged in the claim). This understanding of KSR is apparent by reading the next page, where the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the theory that a reason for combination must be the same as the inventor’s: “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Accordingly, we do not see any deficiency in Petitioner’s reasoning with respect to Petitioner’s reliance on a desire to have two drill stations for two wells, as taught in Horn and for the benefits described therein. As such, we find that Petitioner has articulated a reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Lund’s rig to have two drill stations, as taught in Horn.” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusMixed

    “invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.” Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Moreover, “[w]hen the thing that is commercially successful is not coextensive with the patented invention—for example, if the patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or process—the patentee must show prima facie a legally sufficient relationship between that which is patented and that which is sold.” Id. Here, the product sold by Patent Owner is a lease of a drillship, of which the claimed invention is a subcomponent. We credit the testimony of Mr. Childers on this point, who provides an analysis of the testimony of various individuals associated with Patent Owner, and who discuss the many other major features of a drillship. Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 40–43. We recognize that the derrick configuration is one of the principal components of the drillship, however, as evidenced by the fact that the drillships are often referenced by the capabilities of the derrick, e.g., “single activity” or “dual activity.” Nevertheless, because of the myriad components and marketable features of a drillship, we cannot afford Patent Owner the presumption that its drillship “is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.” J.T. Eaton, 106 F.3d at 1571. Patent Owner’s nexus arguments are an attempt to show that the phrase “dual activity” “is industry parlance for [Patent Owner’s] invention.” PO Resp. 27. In other words, Patent Owner argues that each time we see the phrase “dual activity,” we should think of the claimed subject matter. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence (id. at 26–40), and Petitioner’s rebuttal (Pet. Reply 13–16), and for the reasons expressed below, we find that “dual activity” is a generic term in the industry and is not the claimed invention. Because of this, we find that we cannot consider “dual activity” industry parlance for Patent Owner’s invention. However, we find that “dual activity” is sometimes used to refer to the claimed invention, and that what structures give rise to “dual activity” in the evidence are generally a subset of the features of the claimed invention. Accordingly, each piece of evidence must be evaluated on its own merits in terms of nexus. WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1331 (“Questions of nexus are highly fact-dependent . . . . ‘It is within the province of the fact-finder to resolve these factual disputes regarding whether a nexus exists between commercial success of the product and its patented features, and to determine the probative value of evidence of secondary considerations.’”) (citing Pro- Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). For example, to the extent a reference is ambiguous as to the form of “dual activity” being discussed, the nexus between that reference and the claims, and hence its probative value of non-obviousness, is diminished. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 306 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that the weight attributed to the secondary evidence is proportional to its nexus to the merits of the invention, implying that a weak nexus requires some discount factor to the evidence, but a strong nexus does not).” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 6,085,851 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,085,851
• Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2017 · IPR2015-01889 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–74 are unpatentable as obvious over Liebermann, Engelke ’405, Mukherji, and Engelke ’482; substitute claims 75–81 are denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “specificity and the explanation of the facts on which based his conclusion, credible. Furthermore, we have reviewed the challenged patent and prior art of record in this proceeding (Exs. 1001, 1004–1008) and find that evidence consistent with Mr. Occhiogrosso’s opinion. Accordingly, we adopt Mr. Occhiogrosso’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the following analysis.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “specificity and the explanation of the facts on which based his conclusion, credible. Furthermore, we have reviewed the challenged patent and prior art of record in this proceeding (Exs. 1001, 1004–1008) and find that evidence consistent with Mr. Occhiogrosso’s opinion. Accordingly, we adopt Mr. Occhiogrosso’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the following analysis.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “(iv) Conclusion: Nexus For these reasons, we conclude that Patent Owner has proffered” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 9,131,045 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,131,045
• Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Robert Bosch LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 30, 2017 · IPR2016-00039 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 12, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Prohaska combined with either Kotlarski or Merkel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s argument is improper because it goes to an artisan’s expectation of success in making the claimed combination, and should have been in the Petition. Paper 57, 2 (referring to Pet. Reply 6:16–20). Petitioner’s argument properly responds to Patent Owner’s argument as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Further, we agree with Petitioner that Petitioner could not have reasonably anticipated that Patent Owner would make such argument when it is contradicted by the disclosure of the ’588 patent itself. Paper 59, 2. For that reason, Petitioner’s counter argument in the Reply was not required to be in the Petition.” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “In light of this, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that Pylon had opportunity and motive to develop Mr. Merkel’s testimony through cross-examination as Petitioner would have here. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 856 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); United States v. Omar, 104 F.3d 519, 522 (1st Cir. 1997) (“And, the evidence in question being hearsay, it was the defendants’ burden to prove each element of the [804(b)(1)] exception they invoked.”). Accordingly, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the exception of Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) applies. The analysis in IPR2016-00038 of whether Mr. Merkel’s testimony qualifies for the residual hearsay exception is applicable here. Petitioner has demonstrated that Mr. Merkel’s testimony from the Pylon litigation (Ex. 2005, 210–264) is inadmissible hearsay, and with respect to this evidence, Petitioner’s Motion is granted. b) Mr. Kashnowski’s testimony Our analysis in IPR2016-00038 is applicable here, and consequently, with respect to this evidence (Ex. 2007 ¶ 6, second, third, and fourth sentences) Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is denied. c) Related Portions of Patent Owner’s Response We do not exclude any portion of Patent Owner’s Response, but will not consider any citations to the excluded portion of Exhibit 2005.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “CREDIBILITY OF DR. DAVIS There is no meaningful distinction between the argument on this issue here and that in IPR2016-00038. See PO Resp. 18–22; Pet. Reply. 20–21. Here, as in IPR2016-00038, the factors discussed detract slightly from Dr. Davis’s testimony, but not so much to warrant that we give his testimony overall little or no weight. Our analysis below reflects this determination.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelOther

    “LEVEL OF SKILL We do not discern a meaningful difference between the argument on this issue here and that in IPR2016-00038. See PO Resp. 1–2; Pet. Reply 1– 4. Here, as in IPR2016-00038, the prior art of record is reflective of the level of skill in the art. We address what was known in the art in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,228,588 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,228,588

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.