- PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01173 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 9–19 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 14–17 are unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the Petition shows “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). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the information presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of claims 1–7 and 9–19 of the ’647 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“this record, articulate a rational motivation to combine supported by Dr. Michniak-Kohn’s testimony, stating that both Lesniak and Bianchi are in the same field as the ’647 patent, which all relate to personal care compositions like deodorant and/or antiperspirant sticks and all discuss hardness as a relevant and measurable parameter for stick compositions. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1001, Abst., 15:6–44, 18:64–26:36; Ex. 1003, Abst., 3:39, 4:22, 8:43–46, 9:45, 9:60–62, 10:17–27, 15:41–42; Ex. 1006, Abst., 1:8–35, 2:56–58, 6:23–29); Ex. 1002 ¶ 81. As Petitioner points out, Lesniak discloses formulating deodorant sticks that have a desirable “skin feel,” prompting a POSA to review a publication like Bianchi ’518 to determine consumer-acceptable hardness ranges in formulating a stick composition. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–79). As Dr. Michniak-Kohn testifies, testimony which we credit based on the record before us, “by the time of the filing of the ’647 Patent, a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance,” such as Bianchi ’518. Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Although Bianchi ’518 describes typical hardness levels of suspensoid antiperspirant sticks as they relate to “the invention,” there is nothing in Bianchi ’518 that would limit the application of preferred hardness levels only to the formulations of Bianchi ’518. See Ex. 1006, 6:23–29; see generally Ex. 1006. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions about a dearth of explanation by Petitioner as to how Lesniak would be modified to achieve the hardness disclosed in Bianchi ’518, Petitioner explains how the hardness of Lesniak’s deodorant stick could be adjusted to achieve the hardness Petitioner sufficiently explains on this record how this would be done: A POSA would have readily understood how to adjust the hardness of the stick, using Lesniak’s ingredients, inasmuch as a POSA would have known that adjusting the amount of structurant (using less if the deodorant was too hard, and vice-versa) could achieve the target hardness. For instance, Lesniak describes formulating a deodorant stick with 8% to 19% of a primary structurant, such as beeswax, and also optionally including 3% to 15% of a secondary structurant, such as sunflower seed wax and/or hydrogenated castor oil. A POSA would have understood that the hardness could be adjusted by altering the amount of the primary structurant and/or by incorporating secondary structurants.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“sticks that have a desirable “skin feel,” prompting a POSA to review a publication like Bianchi ’518 to determine consumer-acceptable hardness ranges in formulating a stick composition. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–79). As Dr. Michniak-Kohn testifies, testimony which we credit based on the record before us, “by the time of the filing of the ’647 Patent, a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance,” such as Bianchi ’518. Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Although Bianchi ’518 describes typical hardness levels of suspensoid antiperspirant sticks as they relate to “the invention,” there is nothing in Bianchi ’518 that would limit the application of preferred hardness levels only to the formulations of Bianchi ’518. See Ex. 1006, 6:23–29; see generally Ex. 1006. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions about a dearth of explanation by Petitioner as to how Lesniak would be modified to achieve the hardness disclosed in Bianchi ’518, Petitioner explains how the hardness of Lesniak’s deodorant stick could be adjusted to achieve the hardness Petitioner sufficiently explains on this record how this would be done: A POSA would have readily understood how to adjust the hardness of the stick, using Lesniak’s ingredients, inasmuch as a POSA would have known that adjusting the amount of structurant (using less if the deodorant was too hard, and vice-versa) could achieve the target hardness. For instance, Lesniak describes formulating a deodorant stick with 8% to 19% of a primary structurant, such as beeswax, and also optionally including 3% to 15% of a secondary structurant, such as sunflower seed wax and/or hydrogenated castor oil. A POSA would have understood that the hardness could be adjusted by altering the amount of the primary structurant and/or by incorporating secondary structurants.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,905,647 - PTAB · Jan 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01104 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 based on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6, 8. “An example of a material error may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Id., 8 n.9. We evaluate Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated material error. Id., 10. Those factors are: (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; . . . (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17–18.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“summarized above, we are persuaded, based on the current record, that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianchi ’518 to arrive at the deodorant stick of at least claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons stated in the Petition. Pet. 24–37. In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak teaches natural anhydrous personal care compositions, including a deodorant stick in the form of an antiperspirant stick. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35, 4:22, 5:5–32, 10: 27, 10:32–33). Lesniak explains that such compositions include at least one antimicrobial (i.e., zinc oxide) and a where the compositions are free of an aluminum salt. Id., 24–25. While Petitioner concedes that Lesniak does not expressly teach that its compositions include magnesium hydroxide, for that element, Petitioner combines Phinney disclosure for using magnesium hydroxide as an antimicrobial in a deodorant stick. Id., 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:33–37). And Petitioner provides a reason to combine Lesniak and Phinney, noting that “[b]oth Lesniak and Phinney are directed to deodorants with ‘natural ingredients’ and both describe the use of known antimicrobials”. Id., 26–27 (citing to Ex. 1003, 4:61–5:31, 9:45, 10:27, 10:31–33, 3:39–4:21, 8:31–9:59; Ex. 1004, 1:5–9, 1:15–19, 5:52–67, 6:31–34, 8:40–44). Petitioner concludes that “a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate magnesium hydroxide into Lesniak’s composition following Phinney’s guidance, as this combination would improve odor protection while maintaining the ‘natural’ composition intended by Lesniak.” Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62 (same). Petitioner also concedes that Lesniak also does not expressly teach hardness as measured by penetration within an ASTM-D 1321 needle test, but that Bianchi ’518 discloses a hardness range by needle penetration. Id at 26–28. By combining these references of record in the manner proposed by the Petitioner, we are persuaded on the record before us that those of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianci ’518 to meet each limitation of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition. See e.g. id., 27 (“a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–64 (same). Patent” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“summarized above, we are persuaded, based on the current record, that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianchi ’518 to arrive at the deodorant stick of at least claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons stated in the Petition. Pet. 24–37. In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak teaches natural anhydrous personal care compositions, including a deodorant stick in the form of an antiperspirant stick. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35, 4:22, 5:5–32, 10: 27, 10:32–33). Lesniak explains that such compositions include at least one antimicrobial (i.e., zinc oxide) and a where the compositions are free of an aluminum salt. Id., 24–25. While Petitioner concedes that Lesniak does not expressly teach that its compositions include magnesium hydroxide, for that element, Petitioner combines Phinney disclosure for using magnesium hydroxide as an antimicrobial in a deodorant stick. Id., 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:33–37). And Petitioner provides a reason to combine Lesniak and Phinney, noting that “[b]oth Lesniak and Phinney are directed to deodorants with ‘natural ingredients’ and both describe the use of known antimicrobials”. Id., 26–27 (citing to Ex. 1003, 4:61–5:31, 9:45, 10:27, 10:31–33, 3:39–4:21, 8:31–9:59; Ex. 1004, 1:5–9, 1:15–19, 5:52–67, 6:31–34, 8:40–44). Petitioner concludes that “a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate magnesium hydroxide into Lesniak’s composition following Phinney’s guidance, as this combination would improve odor protection while maintaining the ‘natural’ composition intended by Lesniak.” Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62 (same). Petitioner also concedes that Lesniak also does not expressly teach hardness as measured by penetration within an ASTM-D 1321 needle test, but that Bianchi ’518 discloses a hardness range by needle penetration. Id at 26–28. By combining these references of record in the manner proposed by the Petitioner, we are persuaded on the record before us that those of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianci ’518 to meet each limitation of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition. See e.g. id., 27 (“a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–64 (same). Patent” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree; and (2) at least two years of experience in cosmetics formulations.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications. Prelim. Resp. 8. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal above, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,540,999 - Shanghai Hongene Biotech Corp. v. Chemgenes Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00862 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable because Aerschot anticipates them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Baran is principally experienced in P(V) chemistry presupposes that experience indicates an ignorance of P(III) chemistry. We do not find this position consistent with the breadth of Dr. Baran’s experience as indicated by his Curriculum Vitae. See Ex. 1003, 47–102. We weigh the testimonies of both Dr. Baran and Dr. Hrdlicka, against the cumulative weight of the evidence of record in assessing their credibility and probative value.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“The parties’ proposed definitions of the level of ordinary skill, although different facially, are similar substantively. For example, both parties argue that a POSA would have high levels of skill, with advanced degrees and/or extensive work experience in organic chemistry.3 See Pet. 12; PO Resp. 20–21. In addition, Petitioner contends that a POSA would have had experience in the development of oligonucleotide building blocks. Pet. 16. Similarly, Patent Owner asserts that a POSA would have had education and/or experience in “the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids.” PO Resp. 20–21. After considering the parties’ arguments and the prior art, we determine that a POSA would have had a Ph.D. (or equivalent degree) in organic chemistry or medicinal chemistry, with at least two to three years of post-graduate work experience in the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids, including, but not limited to, the syntheses of oligonucleotides through solid phase oligonucleotide synthesis. In addition, an individual with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree and at least five years of work experience in these fields also would qualify as a POSA.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to address the construction of any claim term.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be disclosed in a single piece of prior art. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For a claim directed to a genus, if a prior art reference discloses a species falling within the claimed genus, the species anticipates the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960); see also Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that when a claim element is written in Markush form, “the entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the Markush group is in the prior art”).” slip op. at 5
Patent outcomesUS 8,541,569 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,541,569 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00520 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Dexcom did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 were unpatentable under either Stafford–Raymond ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Burden of Proof “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity … the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Therefore, in an inter partes review, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable; that burden never shifts to the patentee. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). At the institution stage, Petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find these arguments persuasive. It may be so that Turner teaches that its recesses 77 receive rotation-restricting protrusions 71, which “extend[] into each recess 77 such that the recess side walls interfere with the protrusions to prevent rotation of the insertion device relative to body 20.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 69. And, it may also be so that Turner teaches this assembly as an advantage in that it prevents rotation of body 20. Id. However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In each of the ’335 Specification, Stafford, Raymond, and Turner, the OBU is universally depicted as having a circular perimeter oriented around a longitudinal axis, and possessing either a cylindrical shape (’335 patent, Stafford, Raymond) or a roughly domed shape, with a circular, circumferential collar. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8, 17, 52, 54; Ex. 1009, Figs 3A–C, 4A; Ex. 1010, Figs. 14–16, Ex. 1011, Figs. 2A–B, 5G, 7A-B, 9, 11, 13A–B, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 30, 37, 38. Moreover, in each description of the location of recesses 3766 in the ’335 Specification, the recesses are described as being located “on the side walls” of the OBU. See Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 8–12; col. 45, ll. 61–64. Given the circular perimeter of all of these embodiments of the disclosures of the ’335 Specification, the teachings of Petitioner’s cited references, the dictionary definition of “periphery” as being “the perimeter of a circle or other closed curve,” and the ordinary meaning that the terms would have had to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention, in view of the ’335 Specification and file history” (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13), we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on body electronics unit housing” would be located “on the circumference of the on-body housing,” as we concluded in the ’01396 IPR Decision. See Dec. 48; see also Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 9–14 (stating that “gripping arms 3762 [of medical device carrier 3730] are provided with engagement boss 3764 which are configured to engage with corresponding recesses 3766 provided on the side walls of the on body housing 322”).” slip op. at 38
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its 12 The Petition makes a design choice argument with respect to the teachings of Raymond on Ground 1, contending that “it would have been an obvious design choice to implement two spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing—one to engage the protrusions on each of the two arms taught by Raymond.” Pet. 38. However, Petitioner adduced no prior art teaching or evidence of record of “spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing” that Reply Brief if that argument could first have been raised in its Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Univ. of Massachusetts, 2018 WL 4278992, *5 n.4 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2018); Matterport, Inc. v. Appliance Comp. III, Inc., 2021 WL 6340164, *9–10 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2021).” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,266,335 - Shanghai Hongene Biotech Corp. v. Chemgenes Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00490 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable: claim 1 is anticipated by Reddy; claims 2–4 are obvious over the stated combinations; claim 5 is anticipated by Gaur.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“However, we prefer Patent Owner’s definition of the required 2–3 years of experience in “the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids, including, but not limited to, the syntheses of oligonucleotides through solid phase oligonucleotide synthesis (‘SPOS’)” to Petitioner’s more generalized requirement of having experience in “medicinal chemistry, synthetic organic chemistry, and nucleic acid chemistry, including the development of oligonucleotide therapeutics, diagnostics, or building blocks.” Both parties acknowledge that the level of skill in the art is very high. See, e.g., Resp. 17; Reply 2. We find that, to achieve a level of ordinary skill in the art, a person with the requisite educational background would require 2–3 years of experience for one possessing a doctorate in the relevant field, or 3–5 years for one with a lesser degree (to compensate for the additional educational experience gained by achieving a doctorate) in the specific techniques recited by Patent Owner. We reject the terminal clause “pursuant to P(III) chemistry” proposed by Patent Owner as redundant in that a person engaged for a number of years in “the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids” including SPOS, would likely have an operant knowledge of P(III) chemistry. Consequently we adopt the following definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art: “A person of ordinary skill in the art having a Ph.D. (or equivalent degree) in organic or medicinal chemistry, and 2 to 3 years of post-graduate work experience in the development and syntheses of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids, including, but not limited to, the syntheses of oligonucleotides through solid phase oligonucleotide synthesis (‘SPOS’)” and, alternatively, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in organic or medicinal chemistry who had at least 5 years of extensive work experience in these fields.”” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“As for Dr. Baran, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Baran is not sufficiently experienced or qualified to opine with respect to the claimed subject matter. A review of Dr. Baran’s extensive curriculum vitae (Ex. 1003, 79–137), indicates that he is deeply experienced and extensively published in the field of oligonucleotide synthesis. Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Baran is principally experienced in P(V) techniques presupposes that experience in that technique indicates an ignorance of P(III) methodologies. We do not find this position consistent with the breadth of Dr. Baran’s C.V. We will weigh Dr. Baran’s testimony, and that of Dr. Hrdlicka, against the cumulative weight of the evidence of record in this inter partes review in assessing the credibility and probative value of their respective testimonies.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Both parties agree that the terms of the challenged claims should be given the ordinary and customary meaning of such terms as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. Pet. 17; PO Resp. 15 (both citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100). Accordingly we see no need for explicitly construing any of the terms of the challenged claims beyond that standard.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Furthermore, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that clear errors exist in the wording of challenged claims 3–5. Both parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the limitation reciting “where M is selected from the group consisting of succinyl, oxalyl, and hydroquinolynyl” should properly read “where M is selected from the group consisting of ethyl, oxalyl, and hydroquinolynyl.” Pet. 18–20; PO Resp. 15. Both parties further agree that the language of claim 5 mistakenly omits the italicized portions of the limitation reciting “NH is capable of being attached to a solid support with a spacer selected from the group consisting of C1–C20 alkyl, ethyloxyglycol, and a combination of alkyl and ethyleneglycoxy,” as is expressly recited in claims 3 and 4. Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158); PO Resp. 15. We agree with both parties’ reasoning with respect to these errors, and we construe the claims as reciting the corrected language, such that claims 3–5 read, in relevant part “where M is selected from the group consisting of ethyl, oxalyl, and hydroquinolynyl” and claim 5 additionally reads “NH is capable of being attached to a solid support with a spacer selected from the group consisting of C1–C20 alkyl, ethyloxyglycol, and a combination of alkyl and ethyleneglycoxy.” See Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112, 1119–20 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the Board erred in not correcting a “conspicuous” and undisputed error in claim).” slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 9,884,885 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,884,885 - Cala Health, Inc. v. Emkinetics Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00511 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 6 based on Govier anticipation and Govier-Williams obviousness; claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 based on obviousness over Govier-Mumford and Govier-Williams-Mumford.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“We conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in the field of biomedical engineering, or a related discipline, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices” and that “[a]dditional work experience could serve as a substitute for a formal degree and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner argues that “no claim terms require express construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 10. We agree and do not expressly construe any terms. 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’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Govier describes a study in which patients with overactive bladders were given “percutaneous electrical stimulations via a 34 gauge needle placed near the tibial nerve 3 finger breadths above the ankle.” Ex. 1005, 1193. Specifically, “[a] 34 gauge, solid stainless steel needle was advanced through the skin” and “the needle was advanced approximately 3 to 4 cm. posterior to the tibia and, if advanced further, would traverse anterior to the fibula.” Id. at 1194. Govier further explains that “[a]n electrocardiogram ground pad was placed over the medial aspect of the calcaneus” and “[a] stimulator was then connected to the needle and the ipsilateral ground pad.” Id. This arrangement is depicted in Govier’s Figure 3, which is reproduced below.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 9,387,338 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,387,338 - Cala Health, Inc. v. Emkinetics Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00508 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Govier and obvious over Govier and Williams; the Board did not reach the additional grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in the field of biomedical engineering, or a related engineering discipline, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices” and that “[a]dditional work experience could serve as a substitute for an engineering degree.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner argues that “no claim terms require express construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 10. We agree and do not expressly construe any terms. 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’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and evidence and conclude that they prove anticipation of the challenged claims by Govier for the reasons given by Petitioner. Pet. 19–55.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“For claim 1, Petitioner asserts that, if Govier does not disclose applying an electrode patch to the outer surface of the skin, skilled artisans would have had reason to substitute Williams’s known electrode patch for Govier’s ground pad as a simple substitution of one known structure for another performing the same function—“creating a current path along the tibial nerve”—and yielding the same results—“ability to stimulate the tibial nerve to treat overactive bladder.” Id. at 21–24. Petitioner contends also that, if Govier does not disclose a controller including a pulse generator, skilled artisans would have had reason “to substitute Williams’s pulse generator for Govier’s stimulator.” Id. at 27–29. Petitioner reasons that skilled artisans would have found it obvious to try Williams’s pulse generator because of its similarities with Govier’s stimulator—“each create current pulses between 1–10 mA.” Id. at 28. Petitioner reasons further that using Williams’s pulse generator would have been a simple substitution. Id.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 9,757,584 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,757,584 - Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 14, 2024 · IPR2023-00442 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Dixon because Dixon anticipates them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“We adopt the same reasoning here, and conclude that the evidence of record and the Specification of the ’681 patent support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to a patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” (emphasis added). 8 F.4th 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We consequently reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction that the language of the preamble reciting a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder” requires not only an intent to treat, but, additionally, a high degree of efficacy on par with monthly Lucentis. See PO Resp. 9–10.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44. Patent Owner does not expressly dispute Petitioner’s construction, other than to argue that, by 2011, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “initial” and “secondary” doses to correspond to loading doses and “tertiary” doses to correspond to maintenance doses. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66; Ex. 2349, 6–11. Patent Owner contends that the purpose (and expected effect) of loading doses was to achieve visual acuity gains and retina drying, and the goal of less frequent maintenance doses was to maintain the efficacy achieved with loading doses. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66). As we have explained above, we do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the definition of these terms requires a high, or otherwise defined, degree of efficacy. As we stated in the -00881 and -01225 Decisions: Based on those express definitions in the Specification, we do not find cause to construe the terms differently. In particular, we do not find that the Specification requires the “tertiary doses” to maintain any efficacy gain achieved after the initial and secondary doses, or that the term suggests any specific level of efficacy. The Specification unequivocally states that “[t]he terms ‘initial dose,’ ‘secondary doses,’ and ‘tertiary doses,’ refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist.”” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, the second step of the Praxair analysis is to determine whether the printed matter is functionally related to its “substrate.” Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032. Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight. Id. (citing DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850). However, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id. (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). More specifically, printed matter is functionally related to its substrate when the language changes not mere thoughts or outcomes, but provides action steps that the method requires. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the test for printed matter is whether it “merely informs people of the claimed information, or whether it instead interacts with the other elements of the claim to … cause a specific action in a claimed process.”); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that language “is only a statement of purpose and intended result” where its “expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner notes that the Petitioner in the ’00881 IPR proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field. Pet. 17–18 (quoting -00881 IPR, Paper 94 at 9–10). Furthermore, it was asserted that such a person would typically have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D. (or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders, including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Id. at 18 (citing -00881 IPR Paper 94 at 10). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. In the -01225 IPR, we adopted the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the challenged claims of the ’681 patent, concluding that that definition was consistent with the level of skill in the art. See -01225 IPR, Paper 96 at 52–53. Having previously adopted this definition of the level of skill in the art for the claims of the ’681 patent, we do so again in the present proceeding.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,130,681 - PTAB · Apr 15, 2024 · IPR2023-01409 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 and all eight asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Stafford and Cote render at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“that if “the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive.” Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10. Although Petitioner did not specifically state that the Examiner erred in not rejecting the claims over the prior art asserted here, under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, based on our analysis of the current record as a whole, we find that Petitioner has “ma[d]e a showing of material error,” in fact, the Petition is premised on it. Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9. In particular, Petitioner shows that the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive, namely, the teachings of at least Stafford and Cote, as highlighted in Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds. See Pet. 5 (arguing that each of Cote and Brenneman “provides express teachings on inserters for on-body units that were not considered by the Examiner”), 20–84 (Ground 1). In the Reasons for Allowance, the Examiner stated that “[w]hile Brister (US 2006/0016700) teaches the bulk of the claimed limitations, it fails to teach a housing . . . and an inserter with a sharp” that extends through the housing as claimed. Ex. 1002, 977. Petitioner, however, sufficiently demonstrates for purposes of institution that Stafford and Cote disclose these limitations. See Pet. 33–84 (explaining why Stafford and Cote teach or suggest the limitations of the challenged claims); see also infra Section III.E (determining that, on the current record, Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that the claims challenged in Ground 1 are unpatentable as obvious over Stafford and Cote). Based on the circumstances elucidated by the current record, we find that Petitioner adequately shows that the Examiner “misapprehend[ed] or overlook[ed] specific teachings” of at least Stafford and Cote that “impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 n.9. That is, Petitioner shows that the Examiner materially erred by not applying at least Stafford and Cote in the manner Petitioner argues and as supported by Dr. Fletcher.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After considering the arguments and cited evidence of record, we find that for purposes of institution, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Stafford and Cote would have rendered claim 1 obvious. We have reviewed the arguments and evidence of record for claims 2–6, 9–14, 16–24, 27, 29, and 30 in Ground 1, and similarly find that for purposes of institution, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Stafford and Cote would have rendered these claims obvious. See Pet. 20–84; Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶¶ 44–155. On this basis, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds in the Petition. See SAS Institute Inc., 138 S. Ct. at 1358; 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 30
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.11 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had: a bachelor’s degree in bioengineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related subject, and one or more years of experience researching, developing, and/or designing insertable medical devices, including, e.g., systems for implanting wearable medical devices such as cannulas, infusion sets, and analyte sensors, or equivalent experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. 10 The record does not presently include any objective indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. 11 For purposes of this Decision, we apply a priority date of February 3, 2009. See supra 8 n.2. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes that any claim term requires an express construction. See Pet. 19; see generally Prelim. Resp. We find it unnecessary to construe any claim term to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. 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’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Any final written decision entered in this case may include express claim constructions, or may include discussion of claim scope that differs from that provided in our analysis below. Any final claim constructions will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,202,591 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01325 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–6 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 1, 4, and 4–6 of the ’033 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“concerning the ’834 patent, the intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful in revealing an affirmative meaning for the claims’ “spacing(s)” terms. IPR2023-01151, Paper 12, 39–41. The Specification does not use the term “spacings” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful, but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them. And, portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. For example, the applicant distinguished claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 2140, 1001 (suggesting a more “loosely defined fiber structure” may be covered); see also Ex. 1002, 29–30 (asserting the claimed design has “a lesser [fiber] density construction” compared to Walther). This begs the question, at what point does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” convert to a cloth having a “loosely defined” fiber structure that would come within the scope of the claimed “spacings?” The record does not answer. Applicant’s suggestion during prosecution that the claimed spacings between fibers are “intentionally placed” about the frame and not simply “the spacing that may be inherent” in fibrous cloths is also unavailing on this record in clearly defining the metes and bounds of the term. Ex. 1002, 28–29. Whether the alleged absence of “objective boundaries” for the term “spacings” supports a conclusion that the claims are invalid as indefinite would be a question for the court. Paper 11, 5 (arguing There is insufficient technical detail available to determine whether the SAPIEN 3 Ultra does or does not include “spacings” as claimed and we take no position on whether such device infringes any claim of the ’033 patent. that a conclusion that the claims are indefinite is “outside the Board’s [IPR] jurisdiction”).12 Notwithstanding the lack of any express claim construction for the “spacings” term from either party, claim 1 of the ’033 patent requires something more than just “spacings.” Claim 1 requires “spacings extending through a thickness of the sealing assembly that allow fluid to pass therethrough when the prosthetic heart valve assembly is in an undeployed state.” Ex. 1001, 22:11–15 (emphasis added). In other words, the spacings must allow fluid to pass through the sealing assembly’s thickness when the valve is undeployed. For reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded on this record that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that this limitation is met—particularly the fluid-passing element—in the proposed combinations of Spenser or Levi with Spenser II.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We, thus, find Dr. Brecker’s testimony more credible that “[i]t would, accordingly, be counterintuitive for a [POSA] to look to a device designed to occlude a blood vessel when designing a TAVR.” Id. ¶¶ 119–120 (testifying “[n]o [POSA] would look to this [occluder] design when considering a TAVR valve and . . . would further have concerns about the pro-thrombotic potential of the arrangement of fibers in Chuter”). Where a proposed combination would run counter to the primary reference’s stated purpose, the POSA would not generally be motivated to make that combination. Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 43
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner
“Grounds 1 and 2 is based on the combination of either Levi and Spenser II, or Spenser and Spenser II. Yet Petitioner purports to modify Spenser II’s compressible material, or supplant it with something else, based on “porous” fabrics allegedly known elsewhere in the art, which art is not identified in the Petition itself as part of any asserted combination. Pet. 49. To see what specific modifications or combinations Petitioner might be suggesting, requires we look to three paragraphs of Dr. Buller’s Declaration, cited but not discussed by Petitioner, where eight additional references are mentioned. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (identifying Exs. 1106–1112, and 1129). This format is an improper incorporation-by-reference of argument and evidence that, had Petitioner wanted to pursue some other combination of asserted art beyond Levi, Spenser, and Spenser II, needed to be set forth explicitly in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Moreover, it leaves the record unclear and forces Patent Owner, the Board, and the public to guess at what combination(s) are, in fact, being urged. We also find that Petitioner’s position reveals a hindsight bias insofar as it suggests, with the aim of arriving at the claimed subject matter, removing Spenser II’s “sufficiently dense” and fluid impermeable compressible material (Ex. 2128 ¶ 222) in favor of some other sufficiently “porous” and fluid permeable material. Hindsight is further evidenced because Spenser II’s cited material is already described as being compressible and adapted to allow coagulation and tissue ingrowth—factors cited by Patent Owner as allegedly motivating a change to some other material. Ex. 1011 ¶ 145. Altogether, we find unpersuasive Petitioner’s position based on unspecified combinations of unasserted prior art to achieve benefits that Spenser II’s existing compressible material already provides.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,491,033
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.