• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · PGR2025-00023 · APJ Per Curiam · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’629 publication; the claims are not entitled to the 2013 priority date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSITA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining that “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSITA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSITA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 22; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find a POSITA with respect to the claims of the ’109 patent would have had a two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSITA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither party proposes an express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 22–23 (not proposing any constructions); PO Resp. 23 (“Patent Owner agrees that the terms can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.”). However, Patent Owner states that some of Petitioner’s arguments implicitly construe claim 1 in an erroneous manner. PO Resp. 23–28. “For example, Petitioner argues that ‘an adequate written description would have to either disclose representative examples of the possible working cascades of various proteins or some accurate structural feature of the claimed proteins that allow them to function in the claimed assay as a whole.’” Id. at 23 (quoting Pet. 35). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to what Petitioner’s argument allegedly implies, “Claim 1 is directed to a method for producing an endotoxin assay agent” and does not require the use – Owner that claim 1 does not require the use of endotoxin assay agent. However, the claimed endotoxin assay agent must be capable of performing the assay, as counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged. Tr. 83:5–9.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, to show that the claims of the ’109 patent are unpatentable for lack of written description, Petitioner would have needed to show that the specification as filed (i.e., the ’420 application) fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the July 3, 2023, filing date. Petitioner did not. Pet. 23–24. Nor does Petitioner’s declarant offer testimony that could support such a showing. See Ex. 1003 ¶50 (“I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art in this field for purposes of determining what the inventors disclosed as their invention as of December 10, 2013.”), ¶51 (“Whenever I offer an opinion in this declaration about the knowledge of a POSA, the manner in which a POSA would have understood the claims of the ’109 patent or its description, the manner in have been led to do based on the prior art, I am referencing the December 10, 2013 timeframe.”). In our Institution Decision, we stated: Although the ’420 application is essentially identical to the ’767 application, the person of ordinary skill in 2013 is not the same as in 2023. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he [written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the information presented in the Petition, which is limited to the perspective of a 2013 POSITA, does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable for lack of written description. Inst. Dec. 12 (alterations in original). During trial, Petitioner did not present any further arguments in support of Ground 1. See generally Pet. Reply. Petitioner has failed to prove that claims 1–9 are unpatentable for failing to meet the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Although the evidence before us shows that, in 2013, a POSITA knew how to recombinantly express genes in expression systems such as CHO or HEK-293 cell lines, the evidence shows that this was true only for genes whose genetic sequences were known or readily available. See, e.g., Ex. 1069, 34:11–22 (“Q. Okay. So you would agree that the creation of the recombinant protein requires the underlying sequence of, as you said, the original animal? A. Of course.”) Because it is undisputed that, in 2013, the genetic sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C was unknown, or least not publicly available, Falko-Gunter does not support a finding of adequate written description here. See, e.g., Tr. 48:18–19 (“Patent Owner agrees that there had not been, as of 2013, the full length cDNA sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C published.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,959,109 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,959,109
• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–8 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 4–6 as obvious over Huang2 and Kuo, and claims 7–8 as anticipated by Huang2; claims 2–3 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) “would be a Ph.D. student with a minimum of two years of experience in their faculty advisor’s laboratory” and would have an understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C7). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–29. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”). Importantly, the Specification does not treat the existence of minor peaks as prerequisites for the existence of major peaks. Indeed, the Specification does not discuss “minor peaks” at all. See generally Ex. 1001. Likewise, none of the claims of the ’227 patent, whether challenged or unchallenged, recites “minor peaks” or any additional peaks beyond the disputed “major peaks.” Id. at 23:30–24:42. Nor does the Specification include an example of FFT analysis results in which the average of the peaks therein is calculated and those higher than the average are identified as major peaks.8” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner has the better position. Huang2 teaches crosslinking and provides a reason for doing so (stability). In particular, Huang2 states: “To better mimic skin ECM, electrospun collagen fibers have been fabricated, however, the rapid degradation and poor mechanical properties determine that either crosslinking or combination with other materials is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold.” Ex. 1005, 1791 (emphasis added). It is true that, in describing work actually carried out, Huang2 states that blending with PCL was performed and does not mention crosslinking. See id. at 1792 (“Nanofibrous matrices of PCL and Collagen at a weight ratio of 3:1 were fabricated using electrospinning as previously described.”). However, the prior art – here, Huang2 – is not limited to that which it describes having created. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (“a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples”); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Huang2 teaches two stabilization methods when using collagen in scaffolds. Huang2 states that one or the other “is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold” (when using collagen), but it does not preclude or teach away from using Patent Owner-cited testimony of Dr. Mikos is not as definitive as Patent Owner suggests; Dr. Mikos’s testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would not have done both.” Ex. 2015 ¶64 (emphasis added). The bottom line is that Huang2 teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art two ways to stabilize scaffolds/matrices comprised of collagen, provides a reason for doing so (stability), and does not teach away from using both. We are persuaded that a “scaffold comprising crosslinked fibers comprising collagen” would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Huang2.” slip op. at 33

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

    “We are not persuaded by Appellant’s citations to either reference. As discussed above, Petitioner’s Ground 1 is premised on a person of ordinary skill in the art altering the native flat sheet structure of Huang2 by rolling it into a jelly-roll structure as taught by Kuo. See Pet. 41 (Beginning its claim 2 arguments with the following: “Claim 1 is obvious for the reasons expressed above in § X.A., supra, which are incorporated herein.”); see also Pet. Reply 17 (“[B]ased on the explicit teaching of Kuo, a POSA would have been motivated to take the electrospun flat scaffold made by the techniques of Huang2, seed it with the desired cells, and roll it to treat a tendon and ligament.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the paragraphs of Kuo that Petitioner cites for disclosing “scaffold sheets,” explicitly describe rolling them into jelly-roll like structures. See Ex. 1018 ¶7 (stating that “the sheet is spirally contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct”), ¶22 (describing a method comprising “forming a tissue construct by contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct” and implanting it in a patient). Petitioner fails to argue that that “one or more elongated sheets” recited in claim 2 would encompass the rolled structure of its proposed modification. Nor does Petitioner articulate a claim construction argument that could support such an argument. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 would have been obvious over Huang2 and Kuo.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 11,318,227 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,318,227
• Avanos Medical, Inc. v. Stratus Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2026 · IPR2024-01209 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations, principally Racz, Fitz, and Lee; both parties’ motions to exclude are dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 58). Patent Owner’s proposal is too narrow in two respects. First, it mandates certain education and experience in RF neurotomy specifically. This is too narrow as the description of the scope of the invention set forth in the ’782 patent as described above is not limited to RF neurotomy. Second, it requires the POSA to be both a physician who performs thermal ablation (RF neurotomy specifically) and an engineer with training and experience “in the design and development of devices and methods” for performing the same. Id. This is too narrow because it excludes physicians and other advanced degree holders who research and design devices and methods for performing thermal ablation but do not actually operate on patients. We adopt the Petitioner’s definition of a POSA, quoted above, as it is reflective of the level of skill in the art when viewed in light of the disclosure of the ’782 patent. Supra (quoting Pet. 11).” slip op. at 16

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

    “With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶106 (Dr. Robert D. Tucker’s11 testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). In instituting the IPR, we found no need to provide an express construction of any claim term. Inst. Dec. 12. We likewise find no need to do so now, as neither party has proposed a construction for any claim term and none of the parties’ arguments turns on a disputed meaning of any claim language.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “(Fed. Cir. 1985)). “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.” Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658–59. Patent Owner argues that Lee is not analogous art under the first criterion because “Lee does not relate to neurotomy at all.” PO Resp. 34. However, as discussed above, the field of the invention is not limited to neurotomy. The field of the invention is thermal ablation generally, which encompasses RF neurotomy, but which is not limited to RF neurotomy. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. To the contrary, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Lee is analogous art, under at least the first Clay criterion, because it “discloses various techniques for deploying electrodes from the tip of an RF ablation device.” Pet. 18.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Tucker’s testimony is not a bald conclusion. His conclusion as to a reasonable expectation of success is set forth in paragraph 148 of his declaration. Ex. 1031 ¶148. It is supported extensively with testimony regarding what the prior art teaches (see id. ¶¶110–117 (Racz), ¶¶118–123 (Fitz), ¶¶124–131 (Lee)) and why and how a POSA would have combined the prior art teachings (see id. ¶¶132–147). Dr. Tucker’s testimony clearly is entitled to weight. Since 1983, he has “been a Professor at the University of Iowa where [he] direct[s] an active research program in radiofrequency electrosurgical procedures and instrumentation.” Ex. 1031 ¶3. He has a Ph.D. in biophysics, and he is also a medical doctor (albeit he is not Board certified as pointed out by Patent Owner19). Id. ¶2. He also has additional training and experience that is relevant, but which is not necessary, but further establishes that he is well qualified to offer the opinions set forth in his declaration. Id. ¶¶2–11. Patent Owner argues that Dr. Tucker is not qualified to testify here because “he is not Board certified” and he is “not a pain-specialist physician and has never performed a neurotomy.” PO Resp. 30. Dr. Tucker explained, however, that he is not Board certified nor does he operate on 19 See PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2020, 10:19–12:20). patients because his work focuses on the development of instrumentation, not the use of it, explaining on cross-examination:” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 10,966,782 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,966,782
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01052 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–6 and 13–16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted Watanabe combinations were unsupported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “cameras.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–38). Petitioner further contends “[a]n advanced graduate degree in the disciplines cited above may make up for the work experience indicated above.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute and applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 6. We find that Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the ’832 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Thus, we apply Petitioner’s proposal in our analysis.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we construed “determin[ing] a viewing window for the visual content as a function of progress through the progress length” as “requiring determining a viewing window for different times of the video.” Inst. Dec. 21. Neither party disputes this construction. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 1–7. We maintain this same construction.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thomason are in the same field of endeavor. Thomason describes a camera and method for correctly orientating pictures from the camera. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 2 29–40, Figs. 3a–3b. In particular, Thomason is interested in rotating and cropping images to reduce the effect of poor orientation. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 34, 36). Pacurariu likewise describes aligning and resizing/cropping of a captured image to correct poor orientation. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 3, 45–56, Figs. 5A–5C. The preponderance of the evidence also supports that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the Pacurariu’s teachings with Thomason to predictably improve Thomason. Thomason teaches correct rotation of video data and makes use of rotation sensor to correct rotated images. Pet. 19–21 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–77). Pacurariu similarly uses sensors and measures tilt angle of the camera. Id at 21–22 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–52, Fig. 6; Ex. 1002 ¶ 78). Pacurariu further teaches that its tilt data angle can be stored for each “video frame.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52). Petitioner, with support from credible testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos, explains how the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu could be successfully combined. Id. at 23 (citing, for example, Ex. 1002 ¶ 81). A person of ordinary skill in the art could have known that Thomason’s system could be improved by saving rotation data for each video frame and correcting images on a frame-by-frame basis. Id. at 23–24. The testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos is credible in this regard. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81. Petitioner and Dr. Katsaggelos explain the references’ teachings and, based on these teachings, assert that a person having skill in the art would have had reason to combine with reasonable expectation of success based on those teachings. Reason to combine may properly come from the references themselves. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (explaining reason to combine may come from “interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–81, 89–92; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 8–9, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 41, 46, 51–52, 55–57, Figs. 6, 7.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence of nonobviousness, also referred to as secondary considerations. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential). We first consider whether Patent Owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 33. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75).” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 11,336,832 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,336,832
• Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00983 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 10, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over Alexander and Cosper; the alternative Gregorio-based grounds did not establish unpatentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “112(f). Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But if the term does not use the word “means,” then it is presumed not to be subject to Section 112(f). Id. “That presumption can be overcome, but only if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “The correct inquiry, when ‘means’ is absent from a limitation, is whether the limitation, read in light of the remaining claim language, specification, prosecution history, and relevant extrinsic evidence, has sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “both parties have asserted in the Apple Litigation that the “control component” requirement is a means-plus-function limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f), despite the fact that the control component limitation does not recite “means for.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1012, 3–8; Ex. 1013, 13); PO Resp. 6–7. Indeed, the court in the Apple Litigation has concluded that the control component requirement is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and has construed that requirement accordingly: Function: receiving control signals input to the oscillating resonant module; receiving outputs from the one or more sensors; controlling oscillation of the mass to produce a vibration response according to the received control signals by generating, using one or more of the received sensor outputs, control outputs to an actuator that drives the mass to oscillate. Structure: a microcontroller, a processor, a microprocessor, or a CPU that performs the algorithm shown in Figure 45 or the algorithm described in the corresponding text. See, e.g., 31:19–32:13, and equivalents thereof. Ex. 2001, 10; Ex. 2002, 40. Because of the Apple Litigation record, Petitioner presents its challenges in the alternative, first applying a plain meaning approach to the control component requirement, and also analyzing the requirement under the construction adopted in the Apple Litigation. Pet. 3–5. We adopt the court’s construction in the Apple Litigation. 35 U.S.C.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s expert declarant contends that person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of vibration-generating systems; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 27. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 2. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’882 patent specification.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “(1) Analogous Art Our reviewing court has stated that “[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotes omitted). While these two criteria are helpful in many instances, we must not lose sight of the key question at hand: what is “prior art” as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)? References that are “too remote to be treated as ‘prior art’” are excluded from the obviousness analysis. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741, 226 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The non-analogous art test provides helpful insight on the underlying question of what is “prior art” within the meaning of the statute; we should not, however, be blind to the reality of the circumstances of the case before us. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA (1979). Nor should we adhere to rigid and mandatory formulas that overly limit the inquiry. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,152,882 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,152,882
• Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems Inc., D/B/A/ RevelhmiAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00698 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 based on the asserted combinations of Izumi, Cosper, Rossi, Ibuki, and Aldrich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the degree. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30–31). Patent Owner contends a POSITA would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years of professional experience with electro-mechanical control systems, or other similarly relevant industry experience. PO Resp. 2–3. Additional relevant industry experience may compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa. Id. Patent Owner further contends this is similar to Petitioner’s POSITA contention. Id. at 3. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’767 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our reasoning herein would be the same under Patent Owner’s similar proposal.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Claim 1, Preamble. Both parties agree that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. PO Resp. 6. We agree that claim 1’s preamble is limiting. We also note that the parties agreed that this preamble is limiting in the District Court case. Dist. Ct. Const. 10.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Because neither party asserts that construction of “driving component” or “control component” is necessary to resolve the issues before us, we decline to expressly construe these claim terms. See, e.g., 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 clarity, because Petitioner argues that plain and ordinary meaning is appropriate and because Patent Owner does not dispute that construction, we adopt the plain and ordinary meaning of these claim terms when comparing the challenged claims to the prior art. Other claim terms. It is unnecessary for us to expressly construe other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Izumi’s module to include multiple sensors in accordance with Cosper’s teachings. Pet. 15. Petitioner argues that the sensors would monitor the moving element and generate a control signal in accordance with Izumi. Id. at 15–16. Petitioner further argues that Izumi’s controller would have been implemented using a microprocessor and memory as Cosper suggests. Id. at 16. Petitioner argues three reasons why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Izumi with Cosper’s teachings. Id. at 16–19. First, Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Cosper as a way to further Izumi’s objective of having a sensor that detects the and controls the movement of the moving element. Id. at 16–17. Second, Petitioner argues that the combination of Izumi and Cosper would have enhanced reliability of the feedback sensors by capturing “data specific to different operating parameters.” Id. at 17–18. Third, combining the references’ teachings would “facilitat[e] implementation of software instructions” by using a microprocessor and memory. Id. at 18–19. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s rationale to combine the references’ teachings. Based on our review and consideration of the record, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Izumi and Cosper in the manner Petitioner argues (“the Izumi-Cosper combination”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,093,767 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,093,767
• Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems Inc., D/B/A/ RevelhmiAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00697 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable under § 103 based on the combinations of prior art listed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the degree. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30–31). Patent Owner contends a POSITA would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years of professional experience with electro-mechanical control systems, or other similarly relevant industry experience. PO Resp. 2–3. Additional relevant industry experience may compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa. Id. Patent Owner further contends this is similar to Petitioner’s POSITA contention and states that “Patent Owner does not believe that any of the arguments herein would change if the Board were to adopt Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill rather than Patent Owner’s.” Id. at 3. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’767 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our reasoning herein would be the same under Patent Owner’s similar proposal.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Claim 1, Preamble. Both parties agree that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. Pet. 6; PO Resp. 6. We agree that claim 1’s preamble is limiting. We also note that the parties agreed that this preamble is limiting in the District Court case. Dist. Ct. Const. 10.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Because neither party asserts that construction of “driving component” or “control component” is necessary to resolve the issues before us, we decline to expressly construe these claim terms. See, e.g., 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 clarity, because Petitioner argues that plain and ordinary meaning is appropriate and because Patent Owner does not dispute that construction, we adopt the plain and ordinary meaning of these claim terms when comparing the challenged claims to the prior art. Other claim terms. It is unnecessary for us to expressly construe other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Our reviewing court has stated that “[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotes omitted). While these two criteria are helpful in many instances, we must not lose sight of the key question at hand: what is “prior art” as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)? References that are “too remote to be treated as ‘prior art’” are excluded from the obviousness analysis. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741, 226 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The non-analogous art test provides helpful insight on the underlying question of what is “prior art” within the meaning of the statute; we should not, however, be blind to the reality of the circumstances of the case before us. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA (1979). Nor should we adhere to rigid and mandatory formulas that overly limit the inquiry. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,093,767 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,093,767
• Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00460 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–21 under Nishida grounds and claims 11 and 21 also over Nishida with Zuckerman; Zuckerman-only grounds fail for lack of a surrounding structure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that: A hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in textile engineering, mechanical engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear. Ex.1003, ¶¶34-37. For individuals with different educational backgrounds, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s additional experience compensates for any differences in that person’s education as stated above. Id., ¶37. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 13. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Id. at 99:12–25. Dr. Brookstein stated during his deposition that he has “49 years of experience of teaching textile engineering.” Id. at 97:6–8. We credit Dr. Brookstein’s testimony over that of Dr. Pastore’s because it is consistent with the reference and based on decades of experience in the textile field. Nishida’s claim 1 states that, “during the production of the material web (1), [shoe patterns] . . . are produced by . . . a textile production method within the material web.” Ex. 1005, 9. We find that Nishida’s claim language discloses the recited, “simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure.”” slip op. at 22

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

    “We find the District Court’s reasoning persuasive, and we, like the District Court, decline to adopt Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction. However, for purposes of deciding the dispositive fact issue before us, we need not determine the precise boundaries of “surrounding textile structure,” for example whether it completely or mostly encircles the textile element, and if “mostly,” what percentage of encircling is required. See Pet. Reply 2 (Petitioner characterizing Patent Owner’s position as “mostly” means over 50%); id. at 4 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that the “surrounding” need not be complete, i.e., 100%); PO Sur-reply 3–4 (Patent Owner arguing that “Zuckerman’s textile structures . . . each abut only about 25% of the periphery of Zuckerman’s blank.”). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the portion of Zuckerman’s strip 13 in purple to surround the green blank 11 (textile element) under any reasonable construction of “surrounding textile structure.” Dr. Pastore testifies that “Zuckerman discloses two separate textile structures adjacent the blank—one on each side . . . they abut only two sides of Zuckerman’s blank, with each structure abutting only about a quarter of the blank’s periphery,” and opines that “a POSITA would not have understood these two separate structures, designated by purple in the figure above, to be a textile structure ‘surrounding’ the blank [shown in green].” Ex. 2003 ¶ 54. We find Dr. Pastore’s tesimony credible as it is consistent with Zuckerman’s Figure and with the plain and ordinary meaning of “surrounding” and with the Specification of the ’749 patent (particularly Figure 9). Dr. Brookstein’s testimony, on the other hand, is based on Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction—that any part of a textile area that is not a textile element is “surrounding textile structure”—” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00282 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 7–9 are unpatentable as obvious, principally over Edwards-’535 and Stern for claims 1–3 and 7–9, and Makower, Edwards-’535, and Stern for claims 1, 2, and 4.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 27–28 (identifying evidence that clinical experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and therefore be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner’s definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See PO Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, after reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Regardless, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer opinions under either definition. Moreover, the parties do not argue that their respective position would be different under either POSITA definition. See PO Resp. 8 (Patent Owner arguing that the challenges fail “[r]egardless of how a POSITA is defined”); Ex. 1083 ¶ 88 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Accordingly, all of the findings and conclusions herein would be the same under either side’s definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner argues that the part of claim 1’s preamble “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting. Pet. 18. According to Petitioner, the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete apparatus, and the preamble only states an intended use for the device without limiting the claimed structure. Id. at 18–19. Patent Owner neither addresses this issue, nor proposes any other claim construction. PO Resp. 13 (“Patent Owner believes that no claim constructions are required to resolve the issues raised [in this IPR].”). On this record, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive and determine that the part of claim 1’s preamble “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting.” slip op. at 9

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

    “techniques of delivering bipolar RF ablation energy through expandable devices to the mucosal tissue of different body cavities.” Id. at 39. According to Petitioner, “combining Edwards-’535 and Stern involves applying Stern’s known bipolar pairing technique to Edwards-’535’s known device that was ready for improvement (because Edwards-’535 omits electrode wiring details) to yield predictable results.” Id. Thus, Petitioner concludes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success when modifying Edwards-’535 in view of Stern. Id. at 38–40. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s mapping for claim limitations 1[a]-1[c] and 1[f] above, nor does Patent Owner challenge Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Edwards-’535 with Stern. See PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner, however, argues that Petitioner has failed to show Stern teaches limitations 1[d] and 1[e] “because Stern teaches a device comprising only a single pair of bipolar radiofrequency electrodes and a single radiofrequency output channel.” Id. We find that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Edwards-’535 and Stern and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so for the reasons set forth in the Petition. We also find that the articulated combination of Edwards-’535 and Stern teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed analysis of claim limitations 1[a]-1[c] and [f] and reasoning for combining the references, and credit its supporting evidence. See Pet. 26–33, 43–46; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84–102, 159–165. Below we address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed limitations 1[d] and 1[e].” slip op. at 17

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

    “In our view, nothing is missing. Stern teaches that the circuitry in Figure 15 is configured to form multiple pairs of bipolar RF electrodes. Ex. 1033, 12:61–13:2 (explaining “[a]s an example” the closing of certain switches in Figure 15 to activate a bipolar pair between electrodes 220 and 224 and a second bipolar pair between electrodes 222 and 226 and further noting that “[c]learly bipolar operation is not limited to these . . . pair couplings” because other switches could be operated to activate a bipolar pair between electrodes 220 and 222); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–111, 135–138. Indeed, Stern consistently uses the word “pairs,” i.e., the plural not the singular, to describe the bipolar operation of its device. See, e.g., Ex. 1033, 2:36–40, 3:38–40, 12:20–25, 12:29–30, 13:27–44, 20:9–10 (describing the bipolar operation of “pairs” nine times). Accordingly, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Stern teaches a device configured to have at most only a single pair of bipolar RF electrodes. Second, Stern teaches that the “embodiment of FIG. 15 . . . provides flexibility within the bipolar operation so that any pair or any combination of pairs may be utilized together.” Ex. 1033, 13:39–43 (emphasis added). Thus, even if claim 1 did require simultaneous activation of multiple bipolar pairs, we agree with Petitioner that such functionality is also taught by Stern. See Reply 5–6.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,766,286 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,766,286
• Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00278 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15–17 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner disputes the second part of Petitioner’s definition “because the ‘and/or’ encompasses within the definition . . . persons who only have experience with the clinical use or testing of medical devices.” Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill “would have had more experience than just clinically using medical devices or simply conducting tests with medical devices” Id. at 6–7. To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 33–34 (identifying evidence that clinical experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and therefore be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner’s definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, we apply Petitioner’s definition. Regardless, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer the opinions in his declarations under either definition. Moreover, Patent Owner does not identify any testimony it contends would be different under its POSITA definition. See Ex. 1083 ¶ 103 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Accordingly, all of the findings and conclusions herein would be the same under either side’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither side proposes any terms for express construction. Petitioner contends “the Board need not construe any terms because the Challenged Claims are invalid under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 20. “Patent Owner believes that no claim constructions are required to resolve the issues raised” in this IPR. Resp. 13. Nevertheless, in their arguments over whether the prior art teaches certain claim elements, each side accuses the other of misinterpreting or reading requirements beyond their ordinary meaning into those terms. See Reply 3–10 (urging that Patent Owner’s arguments read requirements into elements 1[d] and 1[e]); Sur-Reply 9–15 (arguing Petitioner applies an incorrect definition of “radio frequency output channel”). To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context they are raised in our analysis below. No further express claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Edwards-535 and Stern, and had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so for the reasons set forth in the Petition. We also find that the articulated combination of Edwards-535 and Stern teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed analysis of claim elements 1[a]-[c] and [f] and reasoning for combining the references, and credit its supporting evidence. See Pet. 7–14, 17–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–103, 113–21. Below we address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed elements 1[d] and 1[e].” slip op. at 23

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

    “We find that Petitioner has the more persuasive position and has demonstrated that Stern teaches element 1[e]. Petitioner demonstrates Stern’s multiple RF output channels with the annotated version of Figure 15 shown below. Pet. 42–43. As shown by Petitioner’s annotations above, the channel (highlighted in orange) connecting the output received from voltage source 228 to the first bipolar pair (circled in green on the left) is distinct from the channel connecting the output to the second bipolar electrode pair (circled in purple on the right) because depending on which switches are closed, energy travels through a separate connection between those switches and the corresponding electrodes. We agree with Petitioner, and credit Dr. Martin’s testimony, that each of the output channels highlighted in orange in Stern’s Figure 15 above “are output channels as required by the claims because the channels are separately/individually connected to the electrodes” and “control individual pairs of bipolar RF electrodes.” Id. at 43–44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 124–128; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 45 (“an ‘output channel’ connects electrodes and provides the ability to independently control pairs of electrodes”). This understanding of the term “output channel” is consistent with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “multiple radiofrequency output channels” wherein “each pair” of bipolar RF electrodes “is connected with a respective one of the multiple radio frequency output channels.” Ex. 1001, 52:27–33. The RF generator itself and its connection to the output channels is not recited in claim 1. Instead, the claim language focuses on the connection between the electrode pair and its respective output channel. The description in the specification also focuses on the connection to the electrodes and further explains that having a “separate, controlled electrical channel” for “each pair of electrodes” allows for “different regions of the treatment element to be activated separately.” Ex. 1001, 24:45–52, 48:63–65; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 33 (“[e]very time the patent mentions ‘electrical channel’ or ‘output channel,’ it is referring to connections to electrodes”). This aligns with the depiction of the output channels in the ’318 patent’s figures. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 39–44 (showing RF output channel 961 connected to electrodes). Petitioner demonstrates this in the annotated version of Figure 39 shown below. Reply 8.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,033,318 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,033,318

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.