• Nanofiber Solutions, LLC v. Acera Surgical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01016 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 as anticipated by Johnson, and claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Johnson and Johnson–Liu, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of filing the ‘228 Patent would have been a person having a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, for example in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering, with undergraduate research experience, coupled with at least three years of industry experience, that linked the fabrication of fibrous polymeric materials to performance requirements for scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–116). In response, Patent Owner notes that all challenged claims recite electrospun fibers but that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill “requires (1) no coursework, training or experience with electrospinning and (2) improperly focuses on scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38–39). But Patent Owner then concedes that this “difference is immaterial to deciding the issues raised by the Petition.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 9

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

    “construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). The parties agree that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their “plain and ordinary meaning” and that no express claim construction is necessary to address Petitioner’s challenges. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Upon review, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has improperly mixed and matched disclosures from Johnson to arrive at an anticipatory reference. Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner primarily relies on Example 1 as evidence for the method by which its scaffold is made. But the disclosure found in paragraph 98 is not a “distinct” teaching of the type described in Net MoneyIN; rather, it is a general description of the structures that may be created by Johnson’s method: “A scaffold may comprise any number of layers, including about 1 layer, about 2 layers, about 3 layers, about 4 layers, about 5 layers, and so on.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 98. Patent Owner has not directed us to anything in the disclosure of Johnson that indicates that this is a “distinct” teaching or embodiment, instead of a general description of the types of scaffolds that Johnson encompasses. We see no reason why the general disclosures regarding Johnson’s scaffolds should be limited to specific embodiments, or precluded from applying to the method of Example 1.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are unconvinced by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. While we recognize that the range of claim 3 is very broad, and it is possible that scaffolds having fiber diameters as set forth in Johnson could have a mean pore size falling within the range, inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. Twi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the process of Example 1 to necessarily result in the claimed mean pore size. We are also persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Boland 2005’s disclosure of a fiber diameter similar to Johnson’s that nevertheless falls outside the claimed mean pore size range. We note that Petitioner never addresses Boland 2005 in its Reply. 4. Conclusion as to Anticipation For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 are anticipated by Johnson, but has failed to meet its burden as to claim 3.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,632,228 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,632,228
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01212 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Kaun; the contingent motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 14–25.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “that “Kaun discloses that the cell is sealed ‘by a ‘U’ shaped insulator/gasket 32 . . . to seal the cell without pressure-loading,’” and therefore, venting via a pressure release seal is not required. Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 120). In an alternate embodiment, Kaun provides a means to relieve gas pressure “via the peripheral gasket which can reseal after an event.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 91. As Petitioner explains, “Kaun discloses that it is sealed, but upon the application of certain conditions, the internal pressure of gases within the cell can cause gases to vent. During such events, Kaun discloses ‘[t]he specified limit for internal pressure is handled by release via the peripheral gasket which can reseal after an event.’” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 37–39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 91, 101). Thus, while Kaun discloses venting to prevent pressure build up, Kaun “is otherwise sealed at all times during functioning.” Id. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 38–39; Ex. 1005 ¶ 101). Neither the ’835 patent nor Patent Owner’s own proposed construction of “closed without being beaded over” requires closure at all times. Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “[i]f a battery which, upon application of significant internal pressure, would be considered not ‘closed’ at other times, th[e]n almost no battery could be considered closed. [Because] [a]ny battery, when subjected to certain pressures, would leak or burst.” Ex. 1041 ¶ 39. We credit Mr. Gardner’s undisputed testimony in this regard. Mr. Gardner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kaun is closed.” Id. Dr. Peckerar similarly testifies that Kaun shows a housing that is closed without being beaded over. Ex. 1034, 131:4–11; 237:19–238:22 (describing Kaun as “closed during normal operation”). Accordingly, the record evidence supports Petitioner’s assertion that the combination of Kobayashi and Kaun suggests a button cell that is closed without being beaded over.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions.8 In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in 8 The parties disagree as to what the newly added phrase “the cup casing include[ing] a first part proximal to the flat bottom area and a second part disposed in the overlapping area, the first part of the casing being disposed radially inward with respect to the second part” means. See generally MTA Opp.; MTA Reply; MTA Sur-reply. Neither party proposes an express construction for this phrase. Id. We address the interpretation of this phrase below and only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute raised by the parties’ substantive arguments. claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:20–24 (explaining that limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Thus, Patent Owner identifies three claimed features—i.e., the jelly- roll configuration, the insulating layer, and a housing closed without being beaded over—as responsible for the improved performance of the VARTA CoinPower® button cell batteries. Id. However, Patent Owner’s declarants testify further and explain that it is the combination of the three identified features, in addition to a flat foil conductor resting flat between the electrode top and housing and welding the foil conductor from outside the housing, that are responsible for improved performance. In particular, Mr. Miehlich, employed in VARTA’s marketing and sales department, testifies that the new cell design, which “provided unprecedented increases in performance, including in energy density, charge capacity, and cycling stability,” consisted of a “jelly roll electrode coil packed tightly into an uncrimped, button-like housing. The electrode coil was protected against short-circuiting by [an] insulating means, and was connected to the cell terminals by a flexible flat foil conductors resting flat between the electrode top and housing, and welded to the housing components from the outside. These features are all found in the claims of the VARTA patents here under review. Ex. 2045 ¶¶ 15–16. And, Dr. Lindner, one of the named inventors of the ’835 patent, testifies that the complex issues we faced were how to safely pack the required amount of electrode material into the very small “button”-sized housing and protect it against short circuits; how to connect the “jelly roll” electrode to the terminals in such a confined space without itself consuming much volume, and how to seal the top and bottom of the cell housing, all while accommodating the expansion and contraction of the electrode winding and the resulting mechanical forces. Ex. 2046 ¶ 33. According to Dr. Linder, the jelly-roll configuration with an insulator, flexible foil output conductors, sealing the cell without crimping, and welding the foil conductors from outside the housing each contributed to the improved battery performance. Id. ¶¶ 34–43. Thus, it is the combination of five elements—not the three claimed in the ’835 patent—that are purportedly responsible for the “vastly increased performance characteristics” of the CoinPower® products. Id. ¶ 43; see also id. ¶ 45 (noting that “various aspects of our invention are covered by 10 issued patents, including the four United States patents here under review” (emphasis added)); Tr. 84:24–85:10 (explaining that welding, for example, is “also part of the success”). Like the patent owner in Fox Factory, “[i]n light of the patentee’s own assertions about the significance of the unclaimed features, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that these features are insignificant.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d 1375. As a result, the patent claims are not coextensive with the CoinPower® products because those products include “‘critical’ unclaimed feature[s] that [are] claimed by a different patent and materially impacts the product’s functionality.” Id.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,153,835 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,153,835
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01213 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Kwon; substitute claims 10–14, 16, and 17 are allowed, while the motion to amend is denied as to claim 15.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “On this issue, we agree with Petitioner. Mr. Gardner explains that the skilled artisan “would further recognize that the output conductor can be comprised of various materials . . . . which could be metal or any various materials [and] the shape of the output conductor is not particularly limited.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 322. Mr. Gardner further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize, not only that metal foil conductors could be inserted into these grooves without difficulty, but also that the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors.” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53, 70. We recognize Patent Owner’s argument that numerous factors must be considered and that conventional battery design does not necessarily translate to button cell designs (PO Resp. 20– 21), but as Mr. Gardner testifies, “this may be true in some cases, [but] the lessons and advantages of using techniques from conventional battery design and applying it to button cell would be obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶ 103. He continues to explain that “[n]aturally, such transposition of techniques would require some modification and adjustments. . . . [and that] each of these adjustments, . . . would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. ¶ 104 (describing, for example, “reducing the thickness of the conductor plates of Kobayashi”). We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. Moreover, Patent Owner does not allege that any proposed modification would be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art or explain how any of the “difficulties in manufacturing a button cell” (PO Resp. 52) are relevant to the proposed substitution of a metal foil for a metal terminal electrode plate. See generally id.; Sur-reply. Thus, based on the evidence and argument of record, we determine that the combination of Kobayashi and Kwon, and the general knowledge of those skilled in the art, would suggest the use of foil in place of Kobayashi’s terminal electrode plates, and that the foil would bear flat on one of the lateral ends of the electrode separator assembly.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’858 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 7 (person of ordinary skill “would possess a Bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or chemical engineering or equivalent [and] would also have two to three” slip op. at 12

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

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions. In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:20–22 (explaining that limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We are not persuaded that the identified portions of Mr. Gardner’s Supplemental Declaration are improper. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute known metal foils for the metal conductor plates of Kobayashi in order to reduce the size of inactive materials and improve performance. Pet. 69–70 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 323). In its Response, Patent Owner argued, among other things, that the metal foil lacks the requisite rigidity to support the remaining components of the winding axis core (PO Resp. 26–27, 31) and that because metal connecting plates 4a and 5b are positioned within recesses of insulating plates 8 and 9, replacing the metal connecting plates with metal foils would result in an unreliable connection because the metal foil would become embedded within the grooves of the insulating plates (id. at 28–29, 30). Mr. Gardner’s supplemental testimony specifically addresses Dr. Peckerar’s and Patent Owner’s concerns that metal foils would be unsuitable in Kobayashi due to their flexibility and thickness as compared to the insulating plates. Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53 (“the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors”), 70, 71 (explaining that it is the winding core that provides structure not the output conductor plates), 81, 86 (explaining that the person of ordinary skill in the art could either adjust the size of the output conductors or the depth of the cavities themselves), 87. Therefore, Mr. Gardner’s testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood how to account for the technical challenges Patent Owner identified properly responds to arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner response. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Mr. Gardner’s testimony on this issue.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 9,799,858 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,799,858
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01211 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi; substitute claims 14–25 are allowed because the cited combinations do not teach the claimed cup casing structure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’581 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, of about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 6 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We are not persuaded that the identified portions of Mr. Gardner’s Supplemental Declaration are improper. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute known metal foils for the metal conductor plates of Kobayashi in order to reduce the size of inactive materials and improve performance. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 323). In its Response, Patent Owner argued, among other things, that the metal foil lacks the requisite rigidity to support the remaining components of the winding axis core (PO Resp. 22–27, 31), and that because metal connecting plates 4a and 5b are positioned within recesses of insulating plates 8 and 9, replacing the metal connecting plates with metal foils would result in an unreliable connection because the metal foil would become embedded within the grooves of the insulating plates (id. at 28, 31). Mr. Gardner’s supplemental testimony specifically addresses Dr. Peckerar’s and Patent Owner’s concerns that metal foils would be unsuitable in Kobayashi due to their flexibility and thickness as compared to the insulating plates. Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53 (“the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors”), 70, 71 (explaining that it is the winding core that provides structure not the output conductor plates), 81, 86 (explaining that the person of ordinary skill in the art could either adjust the size of the output conductors or the depth of the cavities themselves), 87. Therefore, Mr. Gardner’s testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood how to account for the technical challenges Patent Owner identified properly responds to arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner Response. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Mr. Gardner’s testimony regarding Kobayashi’s modified electrode assembly.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner adequately shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kobayashi to include metal foils in place of its terminal electrode plates. Petitioner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that metal foil may be used in batteries because the use of metal foil as a conductor is common in the art. Pet. 31, 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256, 323). Petitioner directs our attention to Kobayashi which details use of metal foil for conducting elements. Id. at 39; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 21, 26, 27 (describing metal foil electrodes). Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “reducing the thickness of the output conductors has the effect of reducing the ratio of inactive to active components within the cell, which improves energy density . . . . [and is] a well-known goal in the art.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 323. Mr. Gardner further opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the output conductors of Kobayashi in order to increase energy density within the cell” and “to use metal foils as the output conductors, as this furthers the well-known goal in the art of reducing the size of internal battery components.” Id. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Gardner relies on teachings related to conventional battery design—not button cell batteries—and that he discusses considerations “relating to thickness of the electrodes, not of output conductors.” PO Resp. 19–20. But, Mr. Gardner’s testimony similarly relies on passages directed to “basic concepts” of battery operations and, as a whole, focuses on the concept that reducing the thickness of the terminal electrode plates would “maximize the space available inside the cell for active components,” thereby increasing electrode density and improving battery performance. Ex. 1003 ¶ 323 (citing Ex. 1009, 35). According to Mr. Gardner, “these adjustments would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 104. We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. “Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner adequately shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kobayashi to include metal foils in place of its terminal electrode plates. Petitioner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that metal foil may be used in batteries because the use of metal foil as a conductor is common in the art. Pet. 31, 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256, 323). Petitioner directs our attention to Kobayashi which details use of metal foil for conducting elements. Id. at 39; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 21, 26, 27 (describing metal foil electrodes). Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “reducing the thickness of the output conductors has the effect of reducing the ratio of inactive to active components within the cell, which improves energy density . . . . [and is] a well-known goal in the art.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 323. Mr. Gardner further opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the output conductors of Kobayashi in order to increase energy density within the cell” and “to use metal foils as the output conductors, as this furthers the well-known goal in the art of reducing the size of internal battery components.” Id. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Gardner relies on teachings related to conventional battery design—not button cell batteries—and that he discusses considerations “relating to thickness of the electrodes, not of output conductors.” PO Resp. 19–20. But, Mr. Gardner’s testimony similarly relies on passages directed to “basic concepts” of battery operations and, as a whole, focuses on the concept that reducing the thickness of the terminal electrode plates would “maximize the space available inside the cell for active components,” thereby increasing electrode density and improving battery performance. Ex. 1003 ¶ 323 (citing Ex. 1009, 35). According to Mr. Gardner, “these adjustments would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 104. We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. “Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,496,581 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,496,581
• SNF S.A. v. Solenis Technologies, L.P.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2021 · IPR2020-01730 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and, despite finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 12 and 13, denied institution because most challenged claims did not meet the threshold and review would be inefficient.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be found if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot reached

    “Petitioner offers to waive its arguments with respect to invalidity grounds 2 and 3 if we institute inter partes review. Id. This offer makes our exercise of discretion a closer call, but even absent grounds 2 and 3, granting institution would require that we institute on all claims. We have determined that, for a sizeable majority of challenged claims, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Under the circumstances presented here, we determine it would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources to institute review. See Chevron, Paper 9 at 10–11; Deeper, Paper 7. Accordingly, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to decline to institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 11

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “reasons discussed herein and in the Decision, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to challenged claims 1–11 and 14–21. However, based on the preliminary record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 12 and 13 would have been obvious over the cited art. Accordingly, this case presents the question whether we should exercise our discretion to deny institution. Our decision as to whether discretionary denial is warranted is guided by Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative) and Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Both of these cases explain that “the Board may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” Chevron, Paper 9 at 10–11; Deeper, Paper 7 at 42. In Chevron, the panel ultimately exercised discretion to deny institution where “Petitioner demonstrate[d], at most, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to two dependent claims out of a total of twenty challenged claims.” Chevron, Paper 9 at 12. Similarly, in Deeper, the panel exercised discretion to deny institution where Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to only two out of twenty three challenged claims. Deeper, Paper 7 at 43.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Mixed

    “art – selecting values within the ranges disclosed in the prior art to calculate a ratio – did not support institution because Petitioner never explained how or why it selected any of the specific values it used to calculate the claimed ratio. Dec. 13. We concluded that Petitioner’s second use of the ranges disclosed in the art – optimizing within the disclosed ranges – did not support institution because the prior art did not disclose that the ratio of WAMW to % DADMAC was a result effective variable (id. at 17) and because Petitioner had not shown that independently optimizing WAMW and % DADMAC would lead to copolymer having the claimed ratio (id. at 17–20).” slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,644,320
• Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2020-00780 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 13, 14, 18–20, 22, and 26 are unpatentable based on anticipation by Okamoto or Miyahara and obviousness over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction requiring at least one lead to provide structural support to the LED chip. First, Patent Owner contends that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that the leads must form “the structural frame supporting the LED chip.” Sur-Reply 4. According to Patent Owner, “[o]n its face, the meaning is clear” that “‘lead frame’ is a frame formed by leads.” Id. We do not find this conclusory statement helpful in determining whether the leads in a lead frame are required to provide structural support to the LED chip. Patent Owner does not identify any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that any leads provide direct or indirect support to the LED chip. In fact, Patent Owner refers to several dictionary definitions of the term “lead frame,” none of which makes any reference to support. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1023, 4 (“Lead Frame. The metallic portion of a component package that is used to interconnect with semiconductor die by wire bonding and to provide output terminal leads.”); Ex. 1024, 4 (“lead frame— . . . 2. The metal part of a solid-state device package that achieves electrical connection between the die and other parts of the system of which the IC is a component. . . .); Ex. 1026, 3 (“lead frame the metallic portion of the device package that makes electrical connections from the die to other circuitry.”).” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “The fundamental error in Petitioner’s argument on this point, however, is that the claims at issue in this proceeding do not require “a lead frame including a transparent plate,” but instead “a lead frame having a transparent plate therein.” Petitioner must do more than show that Okamoto discloses that “the transparent plate is part of the lead frame,” as argued in the Petition. And, as we pointed out in our Institution Decision, Petitioner concedes that “Okamoto’s lead frame sits on its transparent plate, rather than the transparent plate being in the lead frame.” Institution Dec. 17 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 34, 36). During the trial, Petitioner did not engage with this issue or provide any reason for us to diverge from our prior conclusion that, because “the plain language of the claims requires that the lead frame have a transparent plate ‘therein’ . . . [b]y Petitioner’s own admission . . . Okamoto does not anticipate.” Id. In other words, because Petitioner concedes that Okamoto’s transparent plate is not in its lead frame, it cannot meet the requirement of claims 1 and 14 that the lead frame have a transparent plate therein. For this reason, we maintain our prior determination that Okamoto does not disclose a lead frame having a transparent plate therein, and as a result, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 14 are anticipated.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Patent Owner also asserts that “Petitioner fails to explain how its proposed modification of wrapping the wiring pattern 6 around the ends of the substrate results in a lower-profile.” PO Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner, “Okamoto already provides the alleged lower-profile benefits of Shimizu, as seen by comparing figure 2 of each reference.” Id. at 18. But Dr. Dupuis supports Petitioner’s contention by stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a “chip-type” package instead of a “lead-type” package in applications where a lower profile is needed. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–134 (citing Ex. 1017, 8:31–67; Ex. 1016, Fig. 1, 33–35; Ex. 1022, Figs. 1–3, 6–8, 13, ¶¶ 2–14). Also, Okamoto states that Figure 2 is “a planar view of the light source device of” Figure 1. Ex. 1008 ¶ 43. And Figure 1 of Okamoto, reproduced above, clearly shows protruding lead frame 8. Id. at Fig. 1, ¶ 29. Figure 2 of Okamoto, however, does not show lead frame 8. See id. at Fig. 2. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Figure 2 of Okamoto shows a package with a lower profile. Instead, the record supports Petitioner’s position that the modified device created using the disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu has a lower profile (i.e., leads wrapped around substrate 2 as opposed to protruding as shown by Okamoto Figures 1 and 8). See Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–142. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner ignores Dr. Schubert’s explanation that Shimizu was directed towards general illumination, while Okamoto is directed towards a signaling light source” so a person of ordinary skill would not combine the two references. Sur-Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1044, 93:15–96:13). Because we do not see this argument in Patent Owner’s Response, nor do we see anything in Dr. Schubert’s declaration to support such an argument, we do not agree that Petitioner improperly failed to respond to an argument. See PO Resp. 12–21; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 112–120. Moreover, we find that both Shimizu and Okamoto disclose methods of creating white light using an LED and, therefore, the evidence supports a finding that both references are relevant to a consideration of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference must either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.”). In sum, on the complete record, we find that the combination of Okamoto and Shimizu teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 14, and we find that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine Okamoto and Shimizu.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Upon further review, and in light of the arguments in Petitioner’s Reply (Reply 21–24), we conclude that our preliminary determination in the Institution Decision was in error, to the extent that we agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments that claims 13 and 26 require “all layers” of the LED to be transparent. The claims recite “a plurality of III-nitride layers, including an active region that emits light, wherein all of the layers except for the active region are transparent.” Ex. 1001, 21:46–52. The second half of this phrase, which contains the transparency requirement, recites “the layers,” meaning that it relies on an earlier recitation in the claim for antecedent basis of “layers.” This basis is found in the recitation of “a plurality of III-nitride layers.” In other words, the proper interpretation of “all of the layers” in claims 13 and 26 is that the term refers back to the III-nitride layers, not all of the layers of the LED as a whole (such as, for example, a mirror). And the parties agree that the mirror of a conventional LED is not a III-nitride layer. Tr. 18:15–18; 45:4–13. As a result, our preliminary determination that the non-transparent mirror of the APA LEDs prevented a finding of obviousness was incorrect. We agree with Petitioner that the ’916 patent admits that LEDs having transparent III-nitride layers were conventional in the art, and that these are “all of the layers except for the active region” as required in claims 13 and 26. Notably, during the trial Patent Owner did not attempt to defend against Petitioner’s ground for the same reason it raised in the Preliminary Response; instead, Patent Owner now argues that because of the mirror on conventional LEDs, these devices would not meet the claim limitation that “light is extracted effectively through all the layers.” PO Resp. 21. But this reflects a misunderstanding of Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability, which does not rely on the APA for this limitation. Petitioner’s ground is based on the argument that, while Okamoto discloses an LED without a mirror, it does not “specifically describe the layers of its blue LEDs, other than to say that it is a GaN-based LED.” Pet. 61. Petitioner turns to the APA for this missing information regarding the layers that were conventionally used in LEDs; but notably, the Petition does not rely on the APA’s mirror. Id. All Petitioner concludes from the APA is that a person of skill in the art “would reasonably expect the GaN-based LEDs of Okamoto to include multiple layers, which layers would at least include an active layer sandwiched between a p-side layer and an n-side layer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 203– 205; Ex. 1001, 10:20–31). Patent Owner’s argument that the application of the APA’s layers to Okamoto would have brought along the mirror of the APA LED’s is therefore misguided and unpersuasive. In sum, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to conventional LEDs, such as those admitted to be prior art in the ’916 patent, when determining the layers of Okamoto’s LED. And according to the ’916 patent, these conventional III-nitride layers would have been understood to be transparent to an emission wavelength. As a result, we conclude that claims 13 and 26 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu in light of the APA.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 10,217,916 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,217,916
• Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’S, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2021 · IPR2020-00689 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 16 are unpatentable: claim 15 as anticipated by Ogawa and obvious over Ogawa and Masahiro; claim 16 as obvious over Ogawa with Cherk, and with Masahiro and Cherk.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and are not persuaded that our original definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art was in error. While the claims at issue refer to an optical grade fabric, we note that the fabric is not the invention. Rather, as stated in the Specification, the field of the invention is “cleaning tools for electronic display screens, and more specifically to cleaning tools for computer display screens and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–6. The claims further narrow the field of the invention to cleaning tools in the form of a doll-like structure. Id. at col. 6, l. 37. Based on the forgoing, we continue to apply the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art we used in our Decision on Institution. However, the findings and conclusions set forth below would have been the same had we instead adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and conclude that Petitioner has the better position. The term “display screen,” as used in the challenged claims, refers to an intended use of the cleaning tool. As such, it does limit the scope of the claims. We begin by noting that the challenged claims are directed to a device or apparatus. Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 8–13. As such, the claims “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (1990). The preamble of both claims 6 and 11 read in part: “doll-like figure for cleaning or wiping the surface of a display screen.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 37–38; col. 7, ll. 1–2. Both claims end with the clause “providing a pliant cleaning tool for wiping a display screen.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 50–51; col. 7, ll. 13–14. These phrases are crafted in terms of a device for performing a specific function or use. This type of phrase has been found to recite an intended use and not a physical limitation. See Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1294–96 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The recitation of the intended use in the body of the claim does not affect our analysis. The term for wiping a display screen still recites a use of the device that does not impart a structural limitation.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67. Dr. Adanur’s experience and expertise appears to be primarily focused on textiles. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8–24. While Dr. Adanur testified that he has some experience in the area of plush toys, that experience appears to be limited to selection of fabric that could be used to manufacture plush toys and making several puppets at home to earn extra money. Ex. 1027, 52, 57–59, 78–79. In addition, Dr. Adanur does not cite to any evidence other than Ogawa to support his opinions as to what one skilled in the art would envision upon reading Ogawa. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 84–87. Patent Owner, however, contends that Ogawa is silent as to whether the tool has an inner chamber made from a piece of optical grade fabric and a piece of non-optical grade fabric. PO Resp. 1, 22. 4 King, Make Your Own Teddy Bears, 1985 (Ex. 1026) (“King”). 5 Cockrill, The Teddy Bear Encyclopedia, 1993 (Ex. 1025) (“Cockrill”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,195,831 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,195,831
• Argentum Pharmaceutical LLC v. Novartis AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 5, 2020 · IPR2016-01479 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted prior-art combinations did not establish a reasonable expectation of success in treating advanced PNETs after chemotherapy failure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.10 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “Judged by the correct standard, the evidence leaves little doubt that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pursue everolimus as a potential treatment option for advanced PNETs after failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Novartis does not seriously contend otherwise, focusing its arguments instead on whether the motivation to pursue everolimus was greater than the motivation to pursue other possible treatments. Not only does Öberg 2004 discusses rapamycin as an “interesting new compound” that suggests clinical trials with rapamycin in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy, it specifically provides a treatment algorithm that shows rapamycin among the potential “experimental therapies” following failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Ex. 1027, 60, Fig 1. And O’Donnell specifically demonstrates that administration of everolimus to human cancer patients was safe. Ex. 1029, 200. We credit Dr. Ratain’s testimony that by 2005, there was a “significant body” of data on the administration of everolimus to humans, but no reported clinical data on rapamycin. Ex. 1003 ¶ 135. Given the difference in information on everolimus and rapamycin, we find that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to pursue everolimus as an alternative to the rapamycin disclosed in Öberg 2004. Even if a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to pursue everolimus, however, our inquiry does not end there. Argentum must also prove that the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). That “expectation of success need only be reasonable, not absolute.” Id. at 1364. “Whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success . . . is measured as of the date of the invention.” Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman–La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner

    “the only prior art clinical trial of everolimus presented to us, was a Phase I trial designed to test dosages, not efficacy. Ex. 1029, 803. While Öberg 2004 does disclose the promise of rapamycin, we agree with the District Court that at the time of the invention the mTOR pathway was insufficiently understood, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected rapamycin’s “promise,” as reported in Öberg 2004, to translate to everolimus. Ex. 1027, 60. And in regard to Boulay 2004, Novartis argues that the record lacks sufficient evidence to support Argentum’s contention that the CA20948 rat pancreatic tumor model described therein was applicable to the treatment of PNETs. Ex. 1005, 253. On this point, again we agree with the District Court. District Court Decision, 287 F. Supp. 3d at 526 (“I find that Defendant has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that CA20948 is a PNET model.”). Upon evaluating the full record before us, we find that the CA20948 tumor model line originated from a pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which is distinct from a neuroendocrine tumor (NET). Ex. 2038, 197–99; Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 132–134. We credit and rely on Dr. Kulke’s testimony that pancreatic adenocarcinomas and PNETs were known to differ in their origin, incidence, clinical behavior, molecular genetics, and responses to pharmacotherapies. Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 57, 135–136. Argentum does not dispute the distinction between CA20948 and PNETs, but instead argues that tests performed on CA20948 would nevertheless be understood to be applicable to PNETs. Reply 17–18. Argentum’s primary support for this argument derives from the De Jong reference, which discloses the use of the CA20948 pancreatic tumor line in a study of the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors. Ex. 1010, Abstract. As based treatment of tumors using radioactive somatostatin-analogues. PO Resp. 33; Ex.1010, 356–58. Both neuroendocrine tumors and CA20948 express somatostatin receptors; it is this commonality that made CA20948 useful as a model for NETs in De Jong’s study of radiation treatment. Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 139, 141. But just because some features of a cell line make it useful in studies of tumors where those features are relevant, it does not necessarily follow that the cell line is relevant to all studies of those tumors. See Tr. 14:15–25. As Dr. Kulke credibly explains, the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood from the De Jong radiation treatment study that CA20948 could be used as a model for NETs in a pharmacotherapy study. Ex. 2041 ¶ 143–146. For these reasons, we agree with the District Court that Argentum has not proven CA20948 to be a PNET model; nor is there reason to believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered CA20948 to be applicable to studying the treatment of PNETs with mTOR inhibitors, much less such treatment after the failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy.” slip op. at 18

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We agree. If Argentum had submitted only certain portions of Dr. Kulke’s testimony into the record before us, Novartis would be entitled to rely on FRE 106 to request that the Board admit other portions of his testimony that, in fairness, should be considered. But that is not what Novartis requests here; nor could it, given that Exhibits 1070, 1095, and 1119 were already admitted in their entirety. And in any event, Novartis’ request would not have been proper as part of a motion to exclude. Upon reviewing the Motion, it is clear that Novartis is using its FRE 106 arguments as a vehicle for introducing additional citations to, and discussion of, Dr. Kulke’s testimony that were not introduced in the multiple other opportunities for merits briefing that Novartis had during this trial. For this” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,006,224 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,006,224
• Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste OyjSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2020 · IPR2018-01374 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 7, 10, 20, and 24 are unpatentable; claims 1–5, 8, 9, 11–19, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable, because the cited art did not teach the claimed iron-content limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Neste argues that REG’s proposed level of skill in the art is “unreasonably high” and instead proffers that “a person of ordinary skill in the field of biofuel engineering and processing as of Feb. 15, 2011 would have had a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry and at least two to three years of experience with processes for manufacturing hydrocarbons from bio renewable feedstocks.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶ 31). Neither party indicates that the outcome of any arguments made in this case would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with the parties that the ordinarily skilled artisan, in February 2011, would have had at least a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry and would have had several years of experience in processing and refining biofuels. We need not parse the particular amount of education or experience given that neither party asserts this determination would have had any effect on the arguments or analysis in this case. Further, we find that the prior art of record reflects the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We have again reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, and again decline to import into the claim a requirement that the bio oil must be pre-treated. As we discussed in our institution decision, nothing in the ’185 patent indicates that the definition of bio oil is so limited. And we note that certain dependent claims of the ’185 patent, for example claim 21, specifically recite a pre-treatment step, leading to the conclusion that the bio oils of the independent claims are not limited to only pretreated bio oils. Neste’s new evidence introduced during trial is extrinsic to the patent, based on the testimony of Dr. Klein regarding the criticality of the iron content range. See PO Resp. 3 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 35–36, 38). In any event, we fail to see how the criticality of the claimed range mandates that the bio oil be pretreated prior to undergoing the claimed process. While Dr. Klein testifies that it is “clear from the ‘185 patent [that] a bio oil feed must be pretreated to render it suitable for commercial hydrotreatment” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 35), the portion of the patent he cites for this proposition states only that “bio-based feedstock (glyceride oil) to be used as feed material for hydrotreatment reaction can be purified to iron content of less than 1 to 0.2 w-ppm.” Ex. 1001, 4:50–55 (emphasis added). But this statement does not address the use of a bio oil that already contains an iron content within the claimed range, which therefore would not need purification. Indeed, the ’185 patent discusses “experiments with palm oil having very low level of impurities.” Ex. 1001, 4:45–46. Based on the foregoing, we maintain our view that the claim term requires no construction beyond its express language. The bio oil to be used in the method of claim 1 may be pretreated to achieve the claimed iron content, but pretreatment is not required by the claim.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “The intrinsic record of the ’185 patent contains no indication that bio oil intermediate was a new term coined to signify a specific class of bio oils, as Neste contends. The written description contains a section devoted to providing specific definitions for terminology, including “bio oil,” “glyceride oil,” and “hydrotreatment.” Ex. 1001, 3:28–4:7. There is no mention of a bio oil intermediate, which would be expected if the inventors had intended to coin a new term. The only use of “intermediate” in the entire written description is as follows: “disclosed is a glyceride oil intermediate, which intermediate consists of glyceride oil from at least one renewable source and the iron content of said glyceride oil is less than 1 w-ppm.” Id. at 4:64–67. The sentence preceding that one states only that the “purification result can be obtained (depending on used feedstock) using pretreatment methods.” Id. at 4:61–62 (emphasis added). As can be seen, there is no mention in this passage that the “glyceride oil intermediate” must be pretreated, and no indication it is a novel term coined by the inventors. In any event, Neste has not given us reason to depart from the general presumption that a claim preamble is not limiting. The body of claim 6 recites a structurally complete invention, defining the bio oil intermediate according to its iron content. There is no reason to rely on the preamble of the claim for any structure, or for antecedent basis for any claim term. Therefore, we conclude that the preamble does not “breathe life and meaning” into the claim, but rather recites an intended use for the structurally complete invention recited in the body of the claim. As such, we decline to adopt Neste’s modified construction of the claim term, and maintain our prior construction of claim 6’s preamble.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Upon evaluation of the record as a whole, we believe Neste has the better argument, and conclude that the iron content of the bio oil in claim 1 should be determined when the feed is introduced to the catalyst bed. This interpretation is, most importantly, reflected in the structure of the claim. Claim 1 contains a single process step, of “subjecting a bio oil . . . to a hydrotreatment process.” Immediately following this process step is a wherein clause that requires the iron content of “said bio oil” to be within a certain range. The necessary implication of this claim structure is that “said bio oil” is referring to the substance that is being subjected to the hydrotreatment process, meaning the iron content that is relevant to the claim is the iron content at the time of hydrotreatment with a catalyst. The claim, as a comprising claim, does not exclude the presence of other treatment steps such as purification or dilution, but the structure of the claim does imply that these additional steps should be performed prior to determining whether the iron content of the feed is within the claimed range.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,742,185 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,742,185
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Daniel L. FlammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2018 · IPR2017-00391 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1 and 5–7 over Lieberman-based or Qian grounds, claims 2–3 over grounds adding Hanawa, and claim 4 over grounds adding Collins.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’221 patent would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical, or chemical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and three to four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields,” a Master’s degree in the same fields “and two to three years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields,” or “a PhD in electrical, mechanical, or chemical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–51). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response. Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. B.” slip op. at 6

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

    “May 30, 1997); see Pet. 16. For claims of an expired patent, the Board’s claim interpretation is similar to that of a district court, i.e., consistent with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Under the Phillips standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and in the context of the entire patent disclosure and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–14. Only those terms in controversy need to 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) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of the Decision on Institution, we determined that, based on the record at the time, no claim term required express construction (Dec. on Inst. 6–7), and we see no reason to modify that determination in light of the record developed at trial. C.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary and do not agree with them for the following reasons. Patent Owner contends that Lieberman’s capacitive currents “are not the same thing as the capacitive currents referenced in the ’221 patent” (PO Resp. 4), but does not provide sufficient objective analysis or evidence demonstrating why that is the case. As Petitioner notes, claim 1 does not limit the claimed capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure to a specific type of capacitive current, the ’221 patent does not provide a definition of “capacitive current,” and Patent Owner “has not provided any proposed construction for the term.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 6). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Flamm’s supporting testimony on this issue because it is conclusory in nature. Ex. 2003 ¶ 11; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (stating a lack of objective support for an expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value in [a patentability] determination”). In particular, Dr. Flamm’s testimony is identical to Patent Owner’s argument as it appears in the Patent Owner Response, and does not provide objective support for his statements. Absent underlying facts or data to support Dr. Flamm’s opinion, we are not convinced that Lieberman’s capacitive currents are different than those encompassed by claim 1 of the ’221 patent. See Reply 6 (“Lieberman expressly contradicts [Patent Owner’s] argument by teaching that the transformer ‘reduces the undesired capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil to plasma by a factor of two.’” (citing Ex. 1006, 56; emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 20

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

    “Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s contention “that the systems described by Lieberman and Dible ‘have a high degree of similarity in structure, purpose, and operation’ that ‘would render modification of the former with aspects of the latter straightforward and well within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art’” is “purely conclusory,” and, therefore, Petitioner fails to establish a motivation to combine Dible with Lieberman. PO Resp. 27. We disagree. Petitioner provides a number of reasons, supported by rational underpinnings, as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine or modify the teachings of Lieberman and Dible. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132– 135); see In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 911, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating that the relevant inquiry is whether there is “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). With respect to degree of similarity between the systems disclosed in Lieberman and Dible, Petitioner persuasively argues, with citations to evidence of record, that both references “are directed to inductively-coupled plasma generation for semiconductor processing, specifically including etching and deposition,” and “also discuss the manipulation of phase and anti-phase portions of an RF field.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1006, 5, 56; Ex. 1007, 1:15–19, 2:42–56, Fig. 5(a)–5(b)); Ex. 1003 ¶ 135. Petitioner also argues that “Dible offers user control” that “would allow for fine-tuning of the phase and anti-phase portions, e.g., to render the device a capacitive coupling device, inductive coupling device, or a combination thereof” that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized “would augment Lieberman’s design.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1007, Abs., 2:39–46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 133). Specifically, Petitioner points to Dible’s teaching that “inductively coupled plasma generates higher plasma density that is more suitable for certain low pressure processes.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 1:52–54). Dr. Graves further testifies that “capacitively coupled plasma has known uses, e.g., for relatively high pressure applications,” which “can result in faster etch rates,” and, “[a]ccordingly, Dible’s user control provides greater flexibility for different processes and fabrication techniques.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 133 (citing Ex. 1025, 1:15–23; Ex. 1026, 1:5–50, 2:42–57). Additionally, Petitioner notes that “Lieberman specifically describes, for certain applications, the desirability for reducing capacitively coupled radio frequency currents flowing from the coil to the plasma,” and that Dible similarly “describes the possibility of adjusting relative proportions of inductive and capacitive coupling components of the coil to the plasma by adjusting the relative phases on the ends of the coil.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1006, 56; Ex. 1007, 2:39–42). Based on these disclosures, we find Petitioner’s argument that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to improve Lieberman’s system with Dible by including Dible’s control circuit to enable adjustment of the phase and anti- phase portions to control the proportions of inductive and capacitive coupling currents, e.g., to minimize the capacitive coupling and apply power only by inductive coupling” to be persuasive. Id. at 47–48; Ex. 1003 ¶ 134. Accordingly, we find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Dible when determining how to control the adjustment of the phase difference in Lieberman’s system. We also have reviewed the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that all of the elements of independent claim 1, and claims 5–7 that depend, directly or indirectly, therefrom, are disclosed in the combined teachings of Lieberman and Dible. Pet. 41–45. After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s positions, as well as their supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1, and claims 5–7 that depend, directly or indirectly, therefrom, would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Lieberman and Dible. G.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,017,221 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,017,221

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.