- Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ouster, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01456 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Imai and Higashi, with Grzesik or Pacala for dependent claims; remaining grounds were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or physics, plus 2–3 years of experience in LiDAR design. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–77). Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and two to three years of work experience with electro-optical and electro-mechanical devices or systems, with, at a minimum, at least one year of work experience was with LIDAR designs, where less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa. PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 60). We agree with and will apply Patent Owner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This level of ordinary skill is reflective of the education and experience that would have been required to understand the problems and solutions identified in the ’381 patent and the prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The term “coincident with” as used in the ’381 patent does not require perfect coincidence. To explain why, we provide an annotated version of Figure 2 of the ’381 patent below. In Figure 2 above, the rays of electromagnetic radiation indicated in red originate from illumination source 111, but they are not coincident with the corresponding aperture’s field of view, and instead they are absorbed or blocked by the aperture layer’s stop region. Ex. 1001, 3:61–4:5. As Figure 2 shows, out of five ray lines emitted by illumination source 111, only three are within its corresponding aperture’s field of view. This conveys an understanding that “coincident with” does not require perfect matching of the discrete spot of radiation from the illumination source and the aperture’s field of view.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We begin with the language of the claims. The claims merely require that the “plurality of pixels are arranged in a second arrangement, proportional to the first arrangement.” Ex. 1001, 17:30–31. There are no other specific requirements about “first arrangement” or the “second arrangement” and no specific requirement about what kind of “proportional[ity]” is required. Thus, the language of the claims does not provide a basis for Patent Owner’s narrow reading, nor does it necessarily preclude it.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner identifies multiple reasons to make this combination. First, with respect to Higashi’s bandpass filter, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have been prompted to implement Imai’s system to include a bandpass filter for the received light (as suggested by Higashi) so as to advantageously pass through only light of the operational wavelength of the corresponding laser emitter and ‘eliminate the effect of background light.’” Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 86; Ex. 1003 ¶ 256). Petitioner contends that “the resulting combination would advantageously filter out interfering light sources along the optical path of each of the detector pixels, thereby improving accuracy, improving the signal-to-noise ratio, and reducing the likelihood of false detections at the detector pixel.” Id. at 61. Second, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have been motivated to arrange multiple SPADs in each of Imai’s detector pixels (e.g., pixels 1- 16 in Imai’s FIG. 11) so that “erroneous detection of pixels[] can be reduced” and improved accuracy is achieved.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 71–72; Ex. 1003 ¶ 257; Ex. 1009 ¶ 48). Third, Petitioner contends that using Higashi’s multi-SPADs in Imai’s detector pixels would have led to uninterrupted performance when an individual diode is quenched, and would have furthered Imai’s objective of “inhibiting the increase of detection obtaining time” because multi-SPADs facilitate high speed data processing as they can take turns to receive the incoming photons. Id. (Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 71, 72; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 3– 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 258). Fourth, Petitioner asserts that the combination “was simply the” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 11,178,381 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,178,381 - Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ouster, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2023-01421 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 21 and 23–34 are unpatentable as obvious over Pacala and Droz, or Pacala, Droz, and Villenueve; the Board did not reach the Hall-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 11,175,405 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,405 - Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ouster, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2023-01457 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 44–48 and 50 are unpatentable as obvious over Imai, Higashi, and Grzesik; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In determining the skill level, the Board may consider various factors including the “type of problems encountered in the prior art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. “In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate.” Id.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In relation to Grounds 1A to 1D, Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute whether the claimed “stop region” can encompass a partially transparent material as disclosed by Retterath. PO Resp. 21; Pet. Reply 7–8; PO Sur-Reply 10. Because we do not reach Grounds 1A to 1D in this decision (see § III.D, infra), we need not and do not decide whether a “stop region” may include a partially transparent material. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375, supra.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The term “coincident with” as used in the ’750 patent does not require perfect coincidence. To explain why, we provide an annotated version of Figure 2 of the ’750 patent below. In Figure 2 above, the rays of electromagnetic radiation indicated in red originate from illumination source 111, but they are not coincident with the corresponding aperture’s field of view, and instead they are absorbed or blocked by the aperture layer’s stop region. Ex. 1001, 3:51–63. As Figure 2 shows, out of five ray lines emitted by illumination source 111, only three are within its corresponding aperture’s field of view. This conveys an understanding that “coincident with” does not require perfect matching of the discrete spot of radiation from the illumination source and the aperture’s field of view.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that multiple reasons would have prompted a POSITA to combine Grzesik’s cross talk absorption layer (corresponding to the claimed “aperture layer”) in the Imai-Higashi combination. Pet. 51–53. First, Petitioner contends that implementing Grzesik’s absorption layer in the Imai-Higashi combination would reduce cross talk consistent with Imai’s objective of improving resolution by allowing for more pixels to be used in a specified detection area. Id. at 51–52 (citing Ex. 1012, 4:65–5:6, 5:11–32; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 212–213). Second, Petitioner asserts that the combination would have been prompted as “the application of known techniques (Grzesik’s suggested improvement for a cross talk absorption layer to reduce secondary detection) to a known system (the primary Imai LiDAR system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (benefits articulated above).” Id. at 52 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success at adapting Grzesik’s cross talk absorption layer to the scanning laser radar of the Imai-Higashi combination.” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 214). Specifically, Petitioner contends that “Grzesik demonstrates the known benefits of implementing a cross talk absorption layer disposed on the detector array, with apertures of the cross talk absorption layer aligned with individual detectors, and describes using its cross talk absorption layer on Geiger-mode APDs (e.g., SPADs) as used by the Imai-Higashi combination.” Id. at 52–53 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 214). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions concerning the motivation to combine Imai, Higashi, and Grzesik, or the reasonable expectation of success a POSITA would have had in making the combination. Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Imai, Higashi, and Grzesik with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 11,190,750 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,190,750 - Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ouster, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2023-01422 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–14, 16–17, and 19–25 not shown unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds, principally because the combinations lacked claimed limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Considering the applicable factors in light of the parties’ contentions, we adopt the following level of ordinary skill in the art, which we apply in this Decision: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and two to three years of work experience with electro-optical and electro-mechanical devices or systems, relevant to light ranging systems. Less work experience would have been compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa. The work experience would have included at least one year relevant to light ranging systems including LIDAR with a rotor-stator structure. We determine that this level of skill is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’515 patent and the prior art. See, e.g., Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ex. 1001, 1:30–3:48; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3–10; Ex. 1005, 1:1–2:31; Ex. 1006, 1:1–2:60; Ex. 1007, 1. We also determine that the proposed level of skill is reflective of the education and experience a person of ordinary skill would have had. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–41; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 67–68.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that the claimed “stator circuit board” and “stator assembly” are separate and distinct elements in claims 1 and 14 because they are set forth as separate elements in these claims. See Ex. 1001, 48:27–29, 48:37–42, 50:8–10. Similarly, claim 22 recites “a stator circuit board assembly” that includes as subcomponents “a first circuit board,” “a second circuit board,” and a “stator assembly” which are separate and distinct subelements. Id. at 51:49–59. “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the invention.” Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Gr., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). This construction is confirmed by the ’515 patent’s specification. For example, the specification states that stator assembly 644 is affixed to circuit board 622, and, consistent with this statement, Figures 6A and 6D show them as separate elements joined together. Ex. 1001, 28:28–31, 30:16–24. Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the specification’s stating that the stator elements are “built onto” or “integrated on” circuit boards (or assemblies containing them) does not mean that the stator assembly and circuit board are the same thing. Pet. Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:19–22, 4:28–31). Rather, the specification describes the stator elements as part of the stator assembly which is coupled to a circuit board, as follows: VII. Integrated Electric Motor According to certain embodiments, an electric rotary motor can be integrated directly onto the circuit boards. The motor can have a "pancake" or "axial" design having a planar rotor assembly on a rotor board that opposes a planar stator assembly on an opposing stator board. The stator and rotor assemblies of the electric motor can be integrated onto the boards of the rotary actuator 608, i.e., the elements of the electric motor are one of many components on the surface of the printed circuit boards and thus a separate motor module is not required for LIDAR system 600. For example, referring back to FIG. 6D, stator assembly 644 can include an annular arrangement of multiple stator elements 644(i), e.g., vertically oriented solenoids (having their longitudinal axes perpendicular to the surface of the board) that are affixed (e.g., using an adhesive) to a board of the lower circuit board assembly 620 (e.g., board 622) or to a soft magnetic core that is then affixed to the lower circuit board assembly 620. Ex. 1001, 30:16–22. Thus, the ’515 patent’s specification expressly states that the stator elements of the stator assembly can be affixed to a printed circuit board, and thus the stator assembly is not the same thing as the board. Other parts of the specification are consistent with this view. See, e.g., id. at 4:54–57, 5:14–18, 6:50–53, 16:22–25.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We have construed claim 1’s limitation 1(g) to require “stator circuit board” and “stator assembly” that are separate and distinct elements. See § III.C.1, supra. Johnson discloses coil windings that are formed by patterning interleaved structures in a multi-layered printed circuit board (PCB) forming the stator platform 330, and interconnecting them in groups with vias filled with conductive material. Ex. 1005, 11:66–13:57. Figs. 3C–3D; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 138–139. We agree with Patent Owner that a POSITA would have considered the coil windings to be subcomponents of Johnson’s stator platform 330, which do not define a separate and distinct “stator assembly . . . coupled to a stator circuit board.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 139. In other words, the “printed” conductive tracks and traces would have been considered part of the PCB, not something separate. Id. Although Petitioner contends that Johnson discloses other embodiments in which a stator assembly is comprised of wires wound around a magnetic core (Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:30–39, 4:56– 5:7; Ex. 1050 ¶ 30)), Petitioner does not show that Johnson discloses that those embodiments are coupled to a stator circuit board as recited in claim 1’s limitation 1(g). Petitioner did not rely on Pacala, Pardhan, nor Zhang to cover the deficiencies of Johnson. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. Johnson, Pardhan, and Zhang all disclose transformer coils positioned inside of the rotor/stator elements of the motor. Specifically, Johnson’s Figure 3B shows a transformer coil 310b positioned inside rotor elements (magnets 320, 322, 324, 326), and Figure 3C shows the corresponding transformer coil (unnumbered) inside of the stator coils defined by conductive structures. Ex. 1005, 11:51–60, 13:26–40. Similarly, Pardhan shows in Figure 7B a transformer 740a, 740b positioned inside of rotor/stator elements 738a, 738b, and suggests that a smaller rotary transformer is desirable. Ex. 1006, 20:64–21:13. Likewise, Zhang’s Figures 2 and 3 show an electrical power transmission unit including first coupling coil (5) and second coupling coil (unnumbered) positioned inside of motor coil (2). Ex. 1007, 4–5. Against the teachings of Johnson, Pardhan, and Zhang, Petitioner argues that putting the transformer coils outside of the stator coils would have been an obvious design choice. Pet. 50–51, 54–55. However, as Patent Owner noted, “merely stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious.” PO Resp. 50 (citing Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1067–70, 1069 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Ex. 2004 ¶ 186). That Johnson, Pardhan, and Zhang all disclose the transformer coils inside of the rotor/stator elements of the motor suggests that there were good reasons for doing this in their configurations. Zhang expressly teaches that one such reason is to avoid interference with power transmission.15 Ex. 1007, 3. Thus, according to Zhang, moving transformer coils outside of the rotor/stator elements in Petitioner’s combination would undesirably interfere with power transmission such that a POSITA would not have pursued the combination. Accordingly, we find that claim 22’s limitation 22(h) is missing from the combination of Pacala, Johnson, Pardhan, and Zhang.” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 11,287,515 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,287,515 - PTAB · Mar 5, 2025 · IPR2024-01357 · APJ Daniel Kazhdan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, and 29 on all four obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We find that this factor marginally favors Petitioners. Fintiv explains that the fact that a “district court has denied a motion for stay without prejudice” and has indicated on the record “that it will consider a renewed motion or reconsider a motion to stay if a PTAB trial is instituted” “has usually weighed against exercising authority to deny institution.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6–7. That is what happened here. When the district court denied Petitioner Savant’s motion for a stay in the Ohio litigation, it stated that, “[i]f the Patent Trial and Appeal Board accepts the petition for inter partes review, the parties may rebrief this issue.” See No. 1:24-cv-473 (N.D. Ohio) December 12, 2024, Order. Ex. 1025. Thus, this factor weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“prevail in showing that it would have been obvious to use blue light with a wavelength that is greater than 440 nm. Basin-2007 does not specify a specific wavelength for the blue light, but, as Patent Owner acknowledges, “blue light is generally emitted in the range of 380 to 500 nm.” Prelim. Resp. 55; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 121. Thus, the question is whether a skilled artisan, when looking for which wavelength to use, would have found it obvious to use anything in the half of the blue-light range that is greater than or equal to 440 nm. On its own, this overlap in ranges would be strong evidence of obviousness. See Galderma Lab’ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Petitioners show even more. Basin-2005 discloses that there is an “assum[ption]” that blue-light LEDs emit “in the range of 420-490 nm.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 30 (cited in Pet. 25). Basin-2005 additionally teaches that its “blue, UV, or near UV LED[s]” are “relatively easy to implement and consistently produce[] the desired white light temperature.” Id. ¶ 6 (cited in Pet. 25). Furthermore, Shimizu and Stokes indicate that people were using higher wavelength blue-light in their LEDs. See Pet. 8, 24–25 (citing sources). Because a skilled artisan would have needed to select some wavelength for the blue light disclosed in Basin-2007, at this stage, we conclude that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to include wavelengths from the higher end of the range—as disclosed in so many references. Basin-2007 discloses using a “conventional white light LED.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 21. As evidenced by Shimizu and Stokes, the conventional white light LED sources used blue light with wavelengths greater than or equal to 440 nm. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 121 (citing sources). Patent Owner argues that “quantum efficiency” considerations would lead to using lower wavelengths, but Patent Owner does not explain why these same considerations did not convince Basin-2005, Shimizu, or Stokes to use lower wavelengths. Based on our review of the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that the combined teachings of Basin-2005 and Basin-2007 render claim 1 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioners, [A person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had an undergraduate degree (i.e., B.S., B.S.E. or the equivalent) in electrical engineering, materials science, physics, or a similar discipline. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would also have one to two years of experience in the field of LED packaging design. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa. Pet. 6. For purposes of institution, “Patent Owner takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 36–37. At this stage, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioners and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “light diffusing layer” is exactly what it says: “a layer that diffuses light.” The claims separately recite one function for this layer: it must “improve[] an off-state white appearance of the wavelength conversion component.” Ex. 1001 at 26:15–17; see id. at 27:25–27. That is all.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,198,416 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01159 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 were unpatentable over the asserted PayPal-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We must look to all the intrinsic evidence of record, including the claim language itself, the specification of the ’621 patent, and its prosecution history, to determine whether the “providing” steps of independent claims 1, 8, and 25, and the “receiving” step of independent claims 15 and 23, should be limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” See, e.g., DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,620,621 - PTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · IPR2023-01458 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied institution because the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, including over Hall and Borowski.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“We entered a first Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper 8), and Petitioner filed a Request for Director Review (Paper 13). The former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office vacated our denial of institution and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the former Director’s decision. Paper 14. After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Director’s Review Decision, and the post Director’s Review Supplemental Briefing (Papers 16 and 17), and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’236 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Director’s Review Decision, and the post Director’s Review Supplemental Briefing (Papers 16 and 17), and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’236 patent. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’236 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts: “A [person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’)] as of August 24, 2016 would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or physics, and two to three years of experience in LiDAR design.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–64). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 9. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is consistent with the ’236 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying this standard, we generally give claim terms 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. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); see also Pet. 10 (“[N]o formal constructions are necessary.”); Prelim. Resp. 10 (“[N]o formal constructions are necessary.”).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,422,236
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.