- Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00052 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–4, 8–14, and 18–26 not shown unpatentable because they were entitled to priority before the November 2018 Venclexta Label, which therefore was not prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner did not expressly recite hematological malignancies, Petitioner did refer to expertise in clinical oncology, which would encompass the blood cancers recited in the claims. Neither party identifies a difference in the analysis or conclusions that would be based on differences in the ordinary skill in the art analysis. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not identify any issue relating to the preamble that would impact our analysis. We recognize that Patent Owner is suggesting that Petitioner’s expert, at least, is reading the word “clinical” into the treatment language of claim 1. However, the plain language of the claim 1 preamble states “treating lymphoma or leukemia in a human patient” and is supported by a straightforward definition in the Specification of the ’087 patent, expressly limiting the invention to treatment of human patients. See Ex. 1001, 16:25–38. We therefore find that the preamble terms do not need claim construction because there is no actual dispute suggesting that, for example, claim 1 implicitly recites the term “clinical.” See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“d. Analysis Considering the Wands factors as a whole, we find that the limited breadth of the claims, presence of several working examples, significant amount of direction and guidance provided by the ’087 patent, predictability in treating blood cancers with Bcl-2 inhibitors like GDC-0199, and high level of skill in the art are balanced against a large quantity of experimentation. Based on our consideration of the entirety of the evidence, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that undue experimentation would not have been required to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims of the ’087 patent. One underlying theme of Petitioner’s contentions and Petitioner’s expert testimony is the repeated contention that clinical trials were not completed by Patent Owner. See, e.g., Pet. 48 (“venetoclax (GDC-0199) was not FDA-approved”); Ex. 1020 ¶ 193. We find these arguments unpersuasive as we agree with Patent Owner that “[i]t is well established that a patent may be secured, and typically is secured, before the conclusion of clinical trials.” In re Montgomery, 67 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Particularly as to the dependent claims, a preponderance of the evidence of record does not support a finding that undue experimentation would have been required to administer three different doses of GDC-0199 starting with 100 mg, to use multiple daily dosing cycles of one day, to continue until disease progression occurs, or to combine with other treatment compounds. We find that a preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner’s position that any of the dependent claims fail to comply with the enablement requirement.” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Applying Rai and Wertheim to the instant facts, we agree with Patent Owner that, factually and legally, in the ’087 patent “the claimed dosages of 100 mg, 200 mg, and/or 400 mg of GDC-0199 are adequately supported.” PO Second Suppl. Brief 2 (citing PO Resp. 11, 27–29; PO Sur-reply 19, 21– 22; Ex. 1001, 24:20–29.) In particular, the ’087 patent describes all three specific dosage values 100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg in the context of an escalating drug dosage series and Petitioner points to no persuasive statements in the specification that dispute either the effectiveness or the operability of GDC-0199 at any of these dosages.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 11,110,087 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,110,087 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot At Tel Aviv University, Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 3, 2023 · IPR2022-00576 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13, 14, and 23–29 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Roberts and Taraschuk, with or without Wright, because the asserted combinations did not teach or suggest the claimed delta features.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We do not discern a substantial difference between the parties’ definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, we determine that the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the disclosure of the ’872 patent and asserted prior art of record. The findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision would not change had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need not construe any claim term in our Decision in order to resolve the issues before us. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“for a LUT having the recited deltas except for Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis. Although Wright generally teaches compensating for mismatches, Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis fills in limitations 13.8 and 13.9––Petitioner does not set forth a sufficiently supported reason for using the specific values recited in limitations 13.8 and 13.9. At best, Petitioner presents an “obvious to try rationale”: In addition to the reasons mentioned above, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try a mapping scheme in which entries in the look-up table as taught by Taraschuk are selected such that successively decreasing inputs correspond to digital output entries with either decreasing, increasing, or similar deltas between their values. . . . Doing so would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In that regard, the deltas between values of the corresponding digital outputs can either increase, decrease, or stay the same. Accordingly, there are only three possible relationships between deltas of successive digital outputs. With so few possibilities, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try each of them. Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 265). The analysis for 13.8 is incorporated by reference in 13.9. See Pet. 60. Although there are three possible relationships between two, consecutive deltas, there are many possible sequences of deltas––Petitioner does not sufficiently show a finite number of solutions in its challenge.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the portions of Taraschuk in column 7, lines 61–67 and column 8, lines 13–15 cited by Petitioner in its challenge to claim 13 teach “an end-to-end approach” “because that calculation involves predistortion of the input M-bit word by subtracting a digitized analog sample of the ultimate output,” and as such, teach “[a]n approach that necessarily does one combined correction for all of the nonlinearities that occur in-between those ends—whether bit mismatches in the digital logic or non-linearities in the Mach-Zehnder modulator.” PO Sur-reply 18 (citing PO Resp. 30–36; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 48, 49, 85–87, 89, 103; Ex. 1006, 7:34–39, 7:61–67). We further agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that [Patent Owner] and Prof. Dallesasse are not suggesting that Dr. Blumenthal should model the logic-level mismatches. But rather pointing out that calculating an idealized sinusoidal response in isolation is not obvious (or flowing naturally) from a reference that can only deal with compensating the combined response of the modulator and digital logic mismatches together—via real-time pre-distortion fed back from the ultimate output and subtracted from the input. Dallesasse testifies that Dr. Blumenthal starts with the premise that all that is required is deriving a complementary function to the sinusoidal response. . . . But this ignores that the disclosure of Taraschuk describes compensating “the sinusoidal response of the modulator” and “logic level mismatches through the D/A converter” together. . . . Dr. Blumenthal’s complementary sinusoidal correction curve won’t do that. The combined non-linearity from the multiple sources likely won’t simply be evenly sinusoidal. Taraschuk does not disclose, or in my opinion render obvious, any pre-calculation solution. (Taraschuk mentions a real-time analog feedback loop to pre-distort, which would not involve pre-calculation.) And it certainly does not suggest one that could deal with the combined and likely complex non-linearities described.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 11,133,872 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,133,872 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot At Tel Aviv University, Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00575 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 15–22, and 30 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Roberts and Taraschuk because the combination did not teach or suggest the claimed mapping.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Inst. Dec. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:2, 8:8, 6:61–65; Ex. 1003 ¶ 147; Prelim. Resp. 46). Based on our review of the complete record developed during trial, we are persuaded to modify our preliminary determinations. For the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded that the scope of claim 1 does not encompass linear compensation methods effected by analog pre-distortion because the ’872 patent specification distinguishes analog pre-distortion (see Ex. 1001, 1:55–2:34) and the prosecution history specifically distinguishes analog pre-distortion from the claimed approach (see Ex. 1002, 172). We find persuasive Dr. Dallesasse’s testimony that “a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the [’872] patent would understand that th[e] [claimed] approach differs from pre-distortion based on real-time measured analog modulator output.” Ex. 2018 ¶ 33 (citing-in-part Ex. 1001, 2:3–7 (’872 patent disclosing common, prior art solutions such as “an analog predistortion circuit to feed the modulator”)); see also Ex. 1001, (the ’872 patent describing the need for a “digital to analog converter” that would “improve[] linearity of response without sacrificing efficiency or dynamic range” as in the common, prior art solutions). Dr. Dallesasse explains how “the prosecution history of the ’872 patent [illustrates] that when [Patent Owner] changed ‘correct for non-linearities’ to the more specific language ‘determined based on a pattern for actuating drive voltages that alters the linearity of an optical response of the modulator,’” “the Examiner then allowed the claims over a rejection based on Roberts, which “suggests that there are ways to ‘correct for non-linearities’ that do not meet the amended Ex. 2009, 2; Ex. 2003). During prosecution, Patent Owner argued: Roberts does not disclose a “digital-to-digital mapping,” where, “for a given plurality of N digital input data bits, the mapping to the corresponding M digital output data bits is determined based on a pattern for actuating drive voltages that alters the linearity of an optical response of the modulator,” as recited in amended claim 1. Instead, the linear compensation in Roberts is performed pursuant to a compensation function c(t) when the Vx(n) multi-bit sample streams are generated. Importantly, this linear compensation in Roberts occurs before the mapping of Vx(n) to Sx(n). As a result, the mapping between Vx(n) to Sx(n) in Roberts, such as the mapping shown in Table 1 of Roberts, is not a part of the linear compensation operation performed in Roberts. Ex. 1002, 172 (emphasis added). We interpret the quoted passage to exclude analog pre-distortion because we interpret the argument distinguishing Robert’s compensation as happening “before the mapping” to refer to pre-distortion techniques––in particular, those accomplished by analog compensation function, c(t). Id. Both the ’872 patent and Patent Owner’s arguments during prosecution support Dr. Dallesasse’s testimony and Patent Owner’s position that the scope of claim 1 does not encompass linear compensation methods effected by analog pre-distortion.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“mapping is based on an analog feedback loop, by . . . quoting from the reference and leaving out the very next sentence” has merit. Sur-Reply 8 (citing Pet. Reply 23). Petitioner does not sufficiently address the cited teachings and in particular, Taraschuk’s teachings of calculating a difference between a “sampled analog output signal (S) and corresponding M-bit word” to a calculate a mapping “required to obtain the desired output analog signal level.” Ex. 1006, 7:34–39. We are persuaded Petitioner does not sufficiently rebut Patent Owner’s contention that Roberts’ and Taraschuk’s teachings of linear compensation are implemented by analog pre-distortion. Petitioner cannot ignore these teachings of Taraschuk and consider only the portions that support its challenge. See Pet. Reply 17 (citing Pet. 43–45; Ex.1006, 7:56–60) (“Patent Owner’s emphasis on Taraschuk’s digital feedback loop is also misplaced because the Petition simply relied on Taraschuk’s linearizer 44 as a discrete, known device for performing non-linear compensation of a Mach-Zehnder modulator.” (emphasis added)). Petitioner cannot set forth the teachings of Taraschuk in such a piecemeal sufficiently explain why the converter of Taraschuk relies on analog pre-distortion, or explain why analog pre-distortion is encompassed by the invention recited in independent claim 1, Petitioner does not sufficiently carry its burden.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Second, Petitioner concludes that “a POSITA would have found it obvious to map input bits to output bits within the look-up table such that the output bits correspond to voltage values to be transmitted to electrodes of an optical modulator,” but offers no support other than Robert’s teaching that the DSP’s output is a multi-bit parallel binary signal. See id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:40–42). That is, the sole basis for Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to perform the claimed method is that the output is the same. Id. This is impermissible hindsight. Third, Petitioner essentially argues that a person would have found it obvious to perform the mapping because Taraschuk teaches a look-up table and non-linear compensation. Id. at 51–52. Yet the claim recites how the mapping is performed, which is left unaddressed by Petitioner. Id. That is, Petitioner has not shown where Taraschuck teaches mapping a given number look-up table, so that the output bits compensate for the non-linear effects of the optical modulator. Id. at 52. Rather, Petitioner provides a piecemeal analysis that uses the ’872 patent’s specification as a blueprint to pull together a look-up table, non-linear compensation, and a modulator to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. Thus, all three rationales for limitation 1.9 are deficient. See PO Resp. 27.” slip op. at 30
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“We do not discern a substantial difference between the parties’ definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, we determine that the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the disclosure of the ’872 patent and asserted prior art of record. The findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision would not change had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 11,133,872 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,133,872 - Hope Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00125 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted the revised noncontingent motion to amend, canceled claims 18 and 20, and entered substitute claims 28 and 29, which were not proven obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Rogers, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have [had] a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in any of the pharmaceutical sciences with at least 5 years of experience in solid state chemistry; a master’s degree in any of the pharmaceutical sciences with at least 3 years of experience in solid state chemistry; or a Ph.D. in any of the pharmaceutical sciences with 1 year of experience in solid state chemistry. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 24–28). Petitioner further states that such “[a] person could also have qualified as a [person of ordinary skill in the art] with some combination of (1) more formal education and less technical or professional experience or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally MTA, RMTA. Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’363 patent and the prior art of record. We note, however, that neither party contends that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In our Preliminary Guidance, we construed “for a pharmaceutical composition” to mean “in combination with pharmaceutically acceptable excipients,” based on the ’363 patent’s definition providing that “[t]he terms ‘formulation’ or ‘pharmaceutical composition’ as used herein refers to the drug in combination with pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.” Prelim. Guid. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:26–28; Ex. 2010, 17:11–12; Ex. 2011, 26:26– 27). We also encouraged the parties to address whether “for a pharmaceutical composition,” which appears in the preamble of substitute claims 28 and 29, is limiting, as opposed to a statement of intended use or purpose. Id. at 6. Following our Preliminary Guidance, the parties submitted further arguments concerning the term “for a pharmaceutical composition.” Patent Owner argues the term requires that the claimed process provide STS that is sufficiently pure for use in a pediatric patient (see RMTA 8–11) and that the word “drug” in the ’363 patent’s definition of “pharmaceutical composition” requires that the anhydrous STS is of sufficient purity for pharmaceutical use. Reply RMTA 3. Petitioner argues that the construction set forth in our Preliminary Guidance was correct. See Sur-reply RMTA 2–3. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we do not further construe the term “for a pharmaceutical composition” in this Decision because, as discussed in our analysis of obviousness below, it is not necessary to construe the term in order to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 28 and 29 are unpatentable. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“1. Reasonable Number of Substitute Claims A motion to amend must “propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (“A motion to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.”). Patent Owner proposes the same number of substitute claims as the original challenged claims that are cancelled, i.e., a one-to-one substitution for a total of two substitute claims. MTA 2; RMTA. “There is a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of substitute claims per challenged claim is one (1) substitute claim.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3). Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp. RMTA. Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims. 2. Support in the Original Disclosure Patent Owner has identified written description support in the originally filed disclosure of the ’363 patent for the new limitations added for the proposed substitute claims. See RMTA 5–8. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s assertions of support in the original disclosure for the proposed revised substitute claims and determine that sufficient support exists. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp. RMTA. Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner has met this requirement. 3. Respond to a Ground of Unpatentability “A motion to amend may be denied where . . . [t]he amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i). Patent Owner asserts that the proposed revised substitute claims are patentable over the combination of references that forms the basis of the obviousness ground on which we instituted trial. RMTA 12–13. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp. RMTA. Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner has met this requirement. 4. Scope of the Claims Patent Owner asserts that the proposed revised substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of original claims 18 and 20. RMTA 5. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s assertion that the purity amendments of proposed revised substitute claims 28 and 29 narrow the claims’ scope. Id. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp. RMTA. Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner has met this requirement.” slip op. at 17
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“determine the evidence relied on by Petitioner does not support Petitioner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Levenson, Sherman, Edwards, and USP. Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Levenson with Sherman is based on Dr. Rogers’s testimony that “[b]oth references disclose synthesis of sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 151; see Pet. 36, 38. Dr. Rogers further testified it would have been obvious to add Edwards’s dehydrating step to the preparation of STS pentahydrate “which is obtained following the teachings of Levenson and Sherman” because “Edwards itself discloses dehydrating [STS] pentahydrate.” Id. ¶ 154. The Petition included these arguments even though they were inconsistent with Petitioner’s previous statement, during the Sherman prosecution, that Levenson taught STS heptahydrate, and therefore “does not provide any teaching with respect to [STS] pentahydrate.” Ex. 2013, 97. This prior inconsistent statement undercuts Petitioner’s rationale for combining Levenson, Sherman, and Edwards in this proceeding. Moreover, Petitioner’s rationale for combining the references in this proceeding is inconsistent with its statements about Levenson during the Sherman prosecution. Recognizing this inconsistency, Petitioner now takes the position that the Petition and Dr. Rogers’s testimony were incorrect. Paper 32; see Tr. 21:14–22:7, 59:1–2 (reemphasizing that “Petitioner maintains the statements that it made in the Sherman prosecution regarding Levenson”). Petitioner attempts to rationalize the inconsistency between its statements in the Sherman prosecution (including that “Levenson does not provide any teaching with respect to [STS] pentahydrate”) and its position in this proceeding by arguing that Dr. Rogers relies on Levenson as teaching surface activation “regardless of any particular hydrates Levenson discloses.” Tr. 22:8–9. That argument is not persuasive, because Dr. Rogers’s declaration clearly states the primary reason for his opinion that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Levenson with Sherman: “[b]oth references disclose synthesis of sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 151. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Dr. Roger’s reliance on the surface activation teachings of Levenson is because he believes that both references pertain to STS pentahydrate; the surface activation teachings are not stated as an independent reason to combine the references. Id. Petitioner provides no further explanation of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Levenson’s teachings regarding manufacture of STS heptahydrate with Sherman’s and Edwards’s teachings regarding STS pentahydrate, or how a person of ordinary skill would have regarded the difference between STS hydrates. Dr. Rogers’s acknowledgement of stability differences among STS hydrates highlights the insufficiency of Petitioner’s showing in this regard. See Ex. 2005, 35, 39. Having changed its position at the close of trial and having effectively withdrawn Dr. Rogers’s testimony as to similarities between Levenson and” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 10,792,363 not shown unpatentableClaim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,792,363 - Restem, LLC. v. Jadi Cell, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01535 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 were not proven unpatentable: Majore did not anticipate claims 1–13 and 15, and the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 132, 133. Importantly, however, Dr. Olson does not cite anything to support his opinion that the ordinary artisan would have known that MSCs could be cultured to be renewable from subepithelial UC tissue. Nor does Dr. Olson explain why the artisan would have had this understanding aside from simply stating it. Majore uses the word “subepithelial” only once to explain that primitive stem cells are “distributed in subepithelial and intervascular regions,” but this does not teach what Dr. Olson asserts. Accordingly, Dr. Olson’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–16 (finding that an expert’s conclusory assertions that repeat the proposition for which they are offered without “any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning” in support are “conclusory and unsupported, add[] little to the conclusory assertion[s] for which [they are] offered to support, and is” slip op. at 52
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“21 The parties do not dispute that the preamble’s recitation of “isolated cell” serves as a limitation to claim 1 as it provides antecedent basis for its recitation later in the body of the claim. Accordingly, we treat the preamble as limiting. “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” slip op. at 31
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“[JUDGE NEWMAN:] So if -- if the comparison is possible, why did you not present evidence of that comparison? MR. FITZPATRICK: We --we’ve had the -- we had this discussion with our -- with our expert, and our conclusion was that it’s just not -- it wasn’t necessary. The conclusion was that the -- the evidence that’s in the -- in the prior art references, including the fact that it clearly practices the exact same steps as the claims, that was sufficient to -- and would anticipate or render obvious the claims. That’s the only reason we didn’t present evidence -- our own evidence.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (alteration in original). We agree that an ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the teachings of analogous references for information, but to establish obviousness, a party must show that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale to explain why the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the isolated cell with the specific marker profile or why the artisan would have looked to the cited references themselves out of the wide range of references available in the art.” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 9,803,176 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,803,176 - Eve Energy Co., Ltd. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 8, 2022 · IPR2021-00474 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 13 was not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish a reason to modify Brown; challenges to claims 1–12 and the contingent motion to amend were dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’581 patent is a person holding a bachelor’s degree in engineering (mechanical, electrical or chemical), general science, materials science or the equivalent and 3-4 years of work experience with electrochemical cell packaging systems. DI 8 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 5 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, but does not state with specificity what the ordinary and customary meaning of any term may be. Pet. 17. In our Decision on Institution, we interpreted Petitioner’s position to be that no claim term of the ’581 patent requires express construction, and Petitioner did not disagree with this understanding during trial. Patent Owner agreed that no claim term required construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor,868 F.3d at 1017; Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the output conductor of a battery cell appears “simple” and that the proposed modification to Brown may be one of a small set of possible options. But that does not remove Petitioner’s obligation to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some reason to make the modification to the prior art that has been proposed. Requiring a petitioner to articulate a reason to modify the prior art guards against hindsight evaluation of a modification which may only appear obvious after the fact. For this reason, the Supreme Court has noted that “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” and that “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, after evaluating the entirety of the factual record adduced at trial, we cannot conclude that Petitioner has set forth a sufficiently supported reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Brown. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s articulated goal of maximizing the volume of active material in the cell is undercut by the modification it proposes. As Petitioner’s expert Mr. Juzkow admitted, relocating Brown’s output conductor to the bottom of the cell would reduce the volume available for active material by approximately one percent. While we do not disregard Mr. Juzkow’s subsequent testimony that other modifications to Brown’s cell (such as removal of the central screw cavity) could compensate for this loss in volume, the fact remains that Petitioner did not propose these additional modifications in the Petition. It is incumbent on Petitioner to set forth all modifications to the prior art it plans to rely on, and justify why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make them, so that we may fully evaluate whether it would have been obvious to do so. In any event, even if we were to accept Mr. Juzkow’s late assertion of other modifications that could be used to compensate for the loss in volume of active material, the fact remains that it is these other modifications that would be serving the motivation proposed by Petitioner of maximizing the volume of active material; relocating the output conductor would have no positive effect towards this modification. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner’s expressed motivation of maximizing active material volume has no rational relationship to the modification of Brown that is central to its Petition, of relocating the output conductor from the side of the casing to the bottom.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“propose substitute claims 26–38 in the event that we determined original claims 1–13 to be unpatentable. MTA 4. Original claims 1–12 are no longer at issue in this proceeding, having been canceled and replaced by substitute claims 14–25 via a granted Motion to Amend in IPR2020-01211. And we have found that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of 13 Although not raised in briefing by either party, we have also evaluated whether estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) would require a finding of unpatentability of claim 13 in light of our prior determination in IPR2020- 01211 that claims 1–12 are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) (“A patent applicant or owner is precluded from . . . obtaining in any patent: A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim.”). We conclude that it does not. The Board has previously held that defending the patentability of a previously-issued claim in an inter partes review does not qualify as “obtaining in a patent” that claim, and therefore patent owner estoppel does not apply in this situation. See Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00458, Paper 9, 8 (PTAB July 15, 2015). the evidence that claim 13 is unpatentable. The contingency on which Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is based, therefore, has not occurred. We dismiss the Motion to Amend as moot.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,496,581 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,496,581 - Fluid Energy Group Ltd. v. Green Products And Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2022 · IPR2021-00357 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness combinations failed to establish claim 1’s required removal of cementitious material from a distinct surface, and the precise limitations of claims 5 and 6.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument, that “[p]roviding a composition does not require understanding the nuances of each chemical contained therein,” is flawed. Sur-reply 1. To determine whether a claim is unpatentable for obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, we consider “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Here, Patent Owner acknowledges that “[t]he primary difference between known methods and the claimed invention of the ’912 Patent is a novel composition that solved problems associated with the previously used prior art compositions.” Sur-reply 11. Further, the specification informs that “[o]ne of skill in the art will recognize that these compositions are not intended to be limiting, and variations in ingredients and proportions can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention.” Ex. 1001, 3:13–16. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s view that an ordinarily skilled artisan would only need to rely on pre-formulated cleaning compositions and reported safety information, without “their own chemical knowledge,” is inconsistent with the disclosure of the ’912 patent. Sur-reply 2–3. An ordinarily skilled artisan, as required by the ’912 patent, would understand the nuances of the chemicals required by the terms of the claims. Therefore, we find that Petitioner’s definition, on this record, is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosures of the ’912 patent. See Ex. 1001, 3:13–16.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“of intended purpose or use, “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim” as drafted, taking care to avoid importing “‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification.” MPEP § 2111.02 (9th ed. rev. 10.2019 June 2020) (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Particularly, the MPEP explains that: If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Based on the information presented on this record, we determine that nothing in the body of claim 1 supports a determination that the “cleaning” clause of the preamble represents an additional method step of the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 3:23–24. To the contrary, the body of the claim fully and completely sets forth all of the required method steps of the invention, as well as the components of the required composition. See id. at 3:25–4:2. Specifically, independent claim 1 comprises three method-step limitations, namely, “providing a composition,” “applying the composition to a surface,” and “removing the composition . . . from the surface.” Id. Those limitations, taken together, indicate that the preamble’s mention of “cleaning” is a non-limiting intended use of the composition specified in the body of the claim.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“To be clear, claim 1 requires removing a “released cementitious material” from “a surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2. Petitioner provides no persuasive reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the term “cementitious material” to include “an efflorescence”—indeed, as just noted, the ’912 patent expressly distinguishes those two materials. Id. at 2:59–61. Claim 1 does not broadly encompass a step of removing a released efflorescence from a cementitious material, but is limited to by its plain terms to removing a “released cementitious material” from “a surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2; see also id. at 2:61–62 (distinguishing “an efflorescence” from “cementitious materials”). In a nutshell, the claim language does not explicitly or implicitly support a construction that broadly encompasses a method of “applying the composition to a surface” of a cementitious material to “release” an efflorescense (id. at 3:28–29), even though one embodiment seems to allow for such use (id. at 2:38–39, 2:59–61). Taking account of the totality of the information presented, we determine that construing “surface” and “cementitious material” using the examples in the majority of the embodiments provided in the ’912 patent specification is necessary to “tether the claims to what the specification[] indicate[s] the inventor actually invented.” Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In doing so, we adopt “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention . . . [which] in the end, [is] the correct construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Accordingly, on this record, we construe claim 1, and each other challenged claim through dependence from claim 1, to require a step of applying a composition to “a surface” structurally separate and distinct from the “cementitious material” that is released and removed “from the surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Sargent discloses “that urea hydrochloride is an inexpensive and useful agent for the removal of the build-up of water-insoluble metal salts on surfaces, and the dissolution of water-insoluble metal salt dispersions or suspensions.” Resp. 21–22 (quoting Ex. 1006, 2:3–6). Although the background section of the ’912 patent describes the “removal of water-insoluble cementitious and lime materials” as “a difficult process,” Petitioner directs us to no evidence sufficient to establish that calcium carbonate is “a cementitious material” within the meaning of claim 1. Ex. 1001, 1:13–14, 3:28–29; see Pet. 22; Reply 14 (totality of Petitioner’s information on point). Instead, in conclusory fashion, Petitioner simply assumes that Sargent’s disclosure of “water-insoluble metal salt dispersions or suspensions” and “calcium carbonate” constitute “cementitious material” within the scope of claim 1. Reply 14; see Pet. 22 (relying on Sargent’s disclosure of the removal of “calcium carbonate”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 103 (conclusory opinion cited at Pet. 22 and Reply 14). Further, Petitioner assumes that the “applying” and “removing” steps of claim 1 are satisfied by Sargent’s application of a composition “to a surface of a cementitious material to release a portion of the cementitious material therefrom.” Pet. 16 (Petitioner’s emphasis). Specifically, Petitioner argues that Sargent teaches the removal of released cementitious material from the surface because an ordinarily skilled artisan “would understand that a result of Sargent’s rinsing process is to remove the composition by rinsing with water, which will also release at least a portion of any cementitious material, such as calcium carbonate, dissolved from the surface.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:57–7:2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). For reasons explained above in our claim construction analysis, however, we construe claim 1 to require application of the composition to a surface distinct from the cementitious material being removed from the surface. See supra II.C.2. As Patent Owner contends, “It would be absurd to hold that cleaning a surface involves removing the surface from the surface,” because “[t]he background section of the ’912 Patent clearly contemplates that surfaces to be cleaned include surfaces of vehicles and that it is undesirable to ‘damage the target surface.’” Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:46). As explained above, we do not give limiting effect to the preamble of” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 7,938,912 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,938,912 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01031 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the prior art taught or suggested the claimed narrow band-rejection filter or a sufficient reason to add one.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner assert that construction of any claim term is required to resolve any issues in dispute. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); PO Resp. 10–11.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 effective filing date of the ’657 patent. See Pet. 5. Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to the ’657 patent because the inventors of the ’657 patent conceived and reduced to practice the ’657 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12. To support this position, Patent Owner provides argument and evidence relating to the conception of the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10–21. Id. at 15– 39. An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Evidence of such conception and reduction to practice must be provided on a claim-by-claim basis.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Dr. Glew’s testimony that Hong, like Barber, does not suggest that a filter is required to protect a DC power source applied to a target from an RF power source applied to substrate. Ex. 2009 ¶ 152. We further agree that, rather than supporting Petitioner’s position, Hong supports Patent Owner’s position that at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought that RF coupling into a remote pulsed DC power source was a concern or that it would have been desirable to place a filter between the DC power source and the substrate. Id. ¶ 153.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,381,657 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01091 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to establish the claimed narrow band-rejection filter or a sufficient reason to add one to Barber’s system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner assert that construction of any claim term is required to resolve any issues in dispute. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); PO Resp. 10–11. In our Decision on Institution we invited the parties to address whether the claim term “providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate” requires that (1) the frequency of the RF bias be the same as the frequency at which the filter operates or whether (2) the frequency of the RF bias could be a shift from the frequency at which the filter operates. Inst. Dec. 37–38. Patent Owner states the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties in the copending litigation allegedly agreed requires the claimed filter “to have a rejection band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022, 7–10). Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)” but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1. On the full record now before us, we agree that express construction of this term is not necessary as resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias is the same as, or a shift from, the frequency at which the filter operates. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 22–23. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Subramanian, testified that the difference between a narrow band-rejection filter and a band-rejection filter depends on the relationship between the bandwidth and the center frequency. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 95:15– 21 (explaining that the bandwidth is “much, much, much smaller than the center frequency”). There is inadequate evidence that the bandwidth of Hirose’s filter is sufficiently narrow to constitute a narrow band-rejection filter. Rather, the evidence of record shows that Hirose’s filter is a band-rejection filter, not a narrow band-rejection filter.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached
“Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose, which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’657 patent, was prior art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent Owner presents evidence it contends shows a date of conception of claims 1–8 and 10–21 prior to July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. For the purposes of this decision, we need not determine whether Hirose qualifies as prior art, because, as explained below, even if Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that all of the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting Hirose.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,381,657 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-00104 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish the asserted obviousness grounds, including the required narrow band-rejection filter and motivation to modify Barber.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“whether the claim term “providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate” requires that (1) the frequency of the RF bias be the same as the frequency at which the filter operates or whether (2) the frequency of the RF bias could be a shift from the frequency at which the filter operates. Inst. Dec. 37–38. Patent Owner states the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties in the copending litigation allegedly agreed requires the claimed filter “to have a rejection band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022, 7–10). Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)” but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1. On the full record now before us, we agree that express construction of this term is not necessary as resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias is the same as, or a shift from, the frequency at which the filter operates. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached
“patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 effective filing date of the ’657 patent. See Pet. 5. Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to the ’657 patent because the inventors of the ’657 patent conceived and reduced to practice the ’657 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12. To support this position, Patent Owner provides argument and evidence relating to the conception of the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10–21. Id. at 15– 39. An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Evidence of such conception and reduction to practice must be provided on a claim-by-claim basis.” slip op. at 18
- BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable
“It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the cited art teaches each limitation of the challenged claims and to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d 1378. Here, Petitioner does not sufficiently demonstrate that Hirose teaches or suggests a narrow band-rejection filter as recited in claim elements 2[c] and 2[d]. See Pet. 21–22.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,381,657
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.