- Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2025 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–4, 6–11, 20, and 23–25 over Linnarsson and McCloskey; claims 5, 12, 21, 22, and 26 with ordinary-skill knowledge; claims 13–19 with McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s in the prior sentence and in the subtitle to the relevant portion of its Objection. Id. requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 29. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014- 00148, Paper 4210 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded 10 Patent Owner actually cited to “Pap.41” of Standard Innovation. PO Mot. To Exclude 4. There is no Paper 41 in the record of that case. We presume Patent Owner intended to cite Paper 42, which is the final written decision in that case. by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 15 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1. That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we find Petitioner’s rationale that a skilled artisan would have made the proposed combination to solve the problem of amplification bias persuasive.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 10,240,197 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,240,197 - 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 - PTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00839 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR for claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’863 patent. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is instituted for claims 1–20 of the ’863 patent on the unpatentability grounds asserted in the Petition; and” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have had a minimum of an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–94). Patent Owner proposes that a POSITA “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics, or a similar field and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least,” which we determine to create a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Unlike Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner’s proposal has evidentiary support. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–94). Further, Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the ’863 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction to resolve the challenges here.” Pet. 11. “Patent Owner agrees that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. 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)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Likewise, Fuhse925 does not explicitly disclose a random selection of micro mirrors within the base of a cone. See generally Ex. 1008. At most, Fuhse925 teaches that the normal vector of the reflective facets can have a parallel component N∥, which can vary randomly. Ex. 1008, 3:3–6 (“The second inclination component of the planar facets advantageously varies irregularly in the spreading range, especially according to a random distribution.”), 9:1–31, 11:14–27. Petitioner contends that a POSITA would look to Fuhse925 for explicit detail as to how to implement Fuhse847’s desired normal vector to direct the light to a focal point for the assigned light spot. Pet. 54–56. This, however, does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would have combined Fuhse847’s teaching of assigning a group of micro mirrors within a sphere of influence to every light spot in an image, with Fuhse925’s teaching of a normal vector of the reflective micro mirrors having a randomly varying parallel component N∥, to arrive at a random selection of a set of micro mirrors from a plurality of the micro mirrors located in a base of a cone. On the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded that the combination of Fuhse847, Rich, and Fuhse925 teaches the additional limitation of claim 3. Our determination whether claim 3 would have been obvious over these references is best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,448,863 - PTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00838 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–12 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable over Fuhse262.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’191 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least,” which creates a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Unlike Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner’s proposal has evidentiary support. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–87 (testimony of Dr. Hesselink)). Further, Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the ’191 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals are very similar and that our analysis, at this stage of the proceeding, would be the same regardless of which proposal we adopt.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction.” Pet. 15. “Patent Owner agrees that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 6. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. 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)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“term voxel. See generally Ex. 1006; Ex. 1003 ¶ 176. However, on the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded by the Petition’s analysis and evidence (in particular, Dr. Hesselink’s testimony), that Fushe262 teaches a voxel created by intersecting two or more beams of the reflected ambient light. Dr. Hesselink’s testimony sufficiently explains that light beams reflecting from the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors would create a voxel when the light beams intersect, as shown by Annotated Figure 10. On this record, Patent Owner’s arguments as to the teachings of Fuhse262 are not sufficiently supported by evidence and amount to mere attorney argument. Mere attorney argument has little evidentiary value and does not outweigh the testimonial evidence of Dr. Hesselink, which presently stands unrebutted. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence or explanation in support of a conclusion.”); Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Lab., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Unsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.”); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA 1979) (citing In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972)) (“Arguments of counsel unsupported by competent factual evidence of record are entitled to little weight.”).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,901,191 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH v. Lumenco, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00837 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 were obvious over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 of the ’691 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s reading of limitation [1d]. This limitation requires that each set of micro mirrors has a differing cone angle offset. A claim requiring “each” of an item to have a particular structure requires all instances of the item to have that structure. See In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (claim reciting that “each wire leg” have an offset is not satisfied by prior-art device in which not all of its wire legs have an offset); cf. Micron Tech., Inc. v. U.S., 243 F.3d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The use of the words ‘each’ and ‘any’ to modify ‘employee . . . leaves no doubt as to the Congressional intention to include all employees within the scope of the [Fair Labor Standards] Act unless specifically excluded.”) (quoting U.S. v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 362–63 (1945)); ResQNet.com v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (excerpt in specification using words “each field” and “fields” refers to all, not just some, fields). Thus, for each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each image to have a “differing cone angle offset,” the cone angle offsets of all the sets of micro mirrors must differ from each other. Consequently, as Patent Owner states (Prelim. Resp. 12), a set of micromirrors producing a pixel for a first image must have a cone angle offset that is different from the other sets of micromirrors producing pixels for that image, and also different from the sets of micromirrors producing pixels for any other image. Petitioner has not made us aware of anything in the Specification that suggests otherwise. We are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d] under this interpretation. Petitioner has not identified, and we are unable to find, any teaching in Fuhse262 that each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images has a differing cone angle offset from those of the other sets of micro mirrors. Petitioner asserts instead that “a POSITA would understand that there is a differing cone angle offset for each image because the surface normal of each image, which dictate the cone of reflected rays and cone axis, are required to be different.” Pet. 41. But this assertion suggests, at most, that the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a first image have different cone angle offsets than the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a second image; Petitioner does not appear to be asserting that, e.g., all the sets of micro mirrors creating pixels for the first image are also different from each other, as limitation [1d] requires. Because we are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d], we are not persuaded that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious over Fuhse262 and Fuhse925.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the art “would have had a minimum of an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Patent Owner responds that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics, or a similar field and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ positions, and do not believe that our decision would differ under either definition. Nonetheless, at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We also presume that the cited prior art references reflect the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that no terms require construction. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 10. We also do not see the need to expressly construe any claim term, as the threshold question of institution can be decided without doing so. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,317,691 - Ascend Elements, Inc. v. Duesenfeld GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00948 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 7–10, 12, 13, and 19 on all asserted grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Hanisch-Dunagan combinations with added references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Hanisch in view of Dunagan and Hayashi, Meador, or Shin. 5. Claims 2, 3, and 7–10 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’097 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a master’s degree in chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, materials science/engineering, or a related field, and three to five years of experience in design and implementation of battery recycling processes.” Pet. 15–16. Patent Owner argues to the contrary that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have [had] at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, materials science, chemical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 to 3 years of academic or industry experience in the recycling or processing of lithium-ion batteries.” Prelim. Resp. 13. On the present record, neither party argues that the result would be any different should we adopt a different definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as, on the present record, it appears consistent with the ’097 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner argues that “[t]he ’097 Patent expressly defines ‘drying’ to mean ‘the removal of at least one solvent in the conducting salt.’” Pet. 16 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:23–25). Petitioner also argues that “[a]ll other terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning under Philips and do not need further construction for the purposes of this Petition.” Id. Patent Owner argues that “[n]o claim terms require express construction to determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability of any claim and, thus, deny institution.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on the present record, we need not expressly construe any claim terms at this time.6 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))).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“On the present record, we do not find the relationship between URT and Petitioner to be significant to the degree that raises concerns under Valve and General Plastic. In Valve, two factors affected the determination that there was a significant relationship between the two petitioners at issue: “Valve and HTC were co-defendants in the District Court litigation,” and “the petitions . . . challenge[d] the same claims of the [challenged] patent.” IPR2019-00062, Paper 11, 10. Here, one of these factors is absent, and the other is not entirely present. URT and Petitioner are not co-defendants in the related infringement lawsuit, which accuses only Petitioner. Ex. 2014, 1. As for the claims challenged in the two petitions, Patent Owner is correct that all claims challenged in the present proceeding are also challenged in IPR2024-00887, but the reverse is not true. The petition in IPR2024-00887 challenges claims 15–17 of the ’097 patent, none of which is challenged here. Compare Pet. 3, with IPR2024-00887, Paper 2, 4–5. Thus, there is a significant difference between the present situation and that in Valve.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,050,097 - PTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00887 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 7–10, 12, 13, and 15–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 12 is anticipated by LithoRec.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with 1 In the Introduction and section headings of the Petition, Petitioner identifies claims 1–3, 7–9, 12, 13, and 15–19 as the challenged claims. Pet. i–ii. In the substantive content of the Petition, however, Petitioner includes claim 10 as a challenged claim as well. Id. at 34–35. respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and we institute inter partes review on all of the challenged claims based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, materials science, chemical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 to 3 years of academic or industry [experience] in the recycling or processing of lithiumion batteries.” Pet. 14. On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as, on the present record, it appears consistent with the ’097 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “[n]o claim construction is needed,” because “[t]he claims are unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 15. That said, Petitioner directs us to alleged definitions of several terms in the specification or prosecution history of the ’097 patent. Id. at 15–17. Patent Owner argues that “[c]laim construction is not required to deny the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 26. Based on the present record, we agree with both parties that we need not expressly construe any claim terms at this time.6 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))).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“In order to anticipate a claimed invention, a prior art reference must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention without undue experimentation.” Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In addition, “[a]n anticipatory reference need only enable subject matter that falls within the scope of the claims at issue, nothing more.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,050,097 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00849 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 18, 20, 26, and 27 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedOther
“1. “safety device” For the ’745 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelOther
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various non-” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“5. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness a) Legal Standards Objective evidence of non-obviousness “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean, 699 F.3d at 1349. Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, objective evidence of nonobviousness (or “secondary considerations”) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 72
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“cited by Petitioner, we find that on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 18 and 20 based on Socwell, Magid, and Sclater.” slip op. at 82
Patent outcomesUS 10,799,745 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,799,745 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00843 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30–34, 37–39, 41, 45–49, 57, and 59 are unpatentable under § 103 over Chickering, Magid, and Sclater; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’884 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 13
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Dr. Blair to be unpersuasive, because we do not agree that the claimed running surface is required to be a surface with which a runner’s feet are intended to make contact when using a treadmill. Dr. Blair testifies that “[a] POSA would understand a treadmill’s ‘running surface’ to be a surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use” and that, because a runner’s feet is not intended to contact the belt at the area where the forward rollers meet the rearward rollers, that area is not part of the running surface. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–92. Dr. Blair’s testimony, however, contains no sufficient explanation to support his conclusion of what a POSA would understand by the term “running surface.” See id. ¶ 90. Further, Dr. Blair’s testimony is inconsistent with the language of claim 30. Claim 30 recites: “the running belt comprises a curved running surface.” Ex. 1001, 35:58–59. The language of claim 30 does not require the running belt’s running surface to only be portions that the runner typically or is intended to run upon. Dr. Blair’s testimony is also inconsistent with the ’884 patent which does not describe the running surface as being limited to the surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use. See generally id. The ’884 patent describes numerous examples of continuous running surfaces with a wide variety of” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 10,561,884 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,561,884 - Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00836 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14, and 18 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 15 and 25 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’580 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’580 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as a means-plus-function claim limitation with corresponding structure being “a operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever.” Ex. 1033, 17–22. Both parties agree that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” to encompass “a one-way bearing assembly, a cam locking system, a taper lock, a user operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever” and equivalents.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Both parties agree that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” to encompass “a one-way bearing assembly, a cam locking system, a taper lock, a user operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever” and equivalents.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that either of Chickering or Magid teaches away from the combination proposed in the Petition — modifying Chickering’s single-belt embodiment to include Magid’s unidirectional control mean 6, 6’ (Pet. 41). Patent Owner points to differences between Chickering and Magid, but we are not persuaded that those differences – number of belts, use as a therapeutic device as opposed to a recreational exercise device, use of handles – would discourage a POSA from making the proposed combination. Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 57–59. slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,039,580 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,039,580
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.