- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00151 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–27 unpatentable on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’636 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“25:5 (limitation 1a1: “a portion of the knitted component defining the upper”). “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (alteration in original). Thus, the claim language suggests that the “integral knit tongue” is a component distinct, at least to some degree, from the “upper.” See also Ex. 1001, 2:27–28 (the Specification stating that “[a] knitted component including the upper and an integral knit tongue is incorporated into the article of footwear.”). Limitation 1d reinforces this understanding by requiring the tongue to be joined to a portion of the throat area of the upper. See id. at 6:35–38 (the Specification indicating that the “throat area” is an area of the upper); cf. Ex. 2014, 18–19 (defining “Throat”: “The main opening of a shoe extending from the vamp [(the front part of a shoe upper that covers the toes and part of the foot)] to the ankle.”). In addition to suggesting that the tongue is a component distinct from the upper, the claim language indicates that the integral knit tongue extends through a throat area. See Ex. 1001, 25:10–11 (limitation 1b: “an integral knit tongue . . . extending through a throat area of the knitted component”). With that context, we turn to the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“claim language does not specify it, both parties contend that the “portion of the knitted component” constitutes the majority of the upper. See Pet. 25– 26, 30 (Petitioner applying in this ground that which it characterizes as Patent Owner’s claim construction position); Prelim. Resp. 43 (Patent Owner noting that the Specification states that “a majority of upper 120 is formed from a knitted component 130,” and contending that limitation 1a1 means that “a majority of the upper must be knitted.” (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:57–59)). Nevertheless, we determine for the following reasons that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that central textile element 60 of Dua-956 defines an upper within the meaning of the claims. See Pet. 26. Petitioner contends that, “[w]ith respect to what defines the upper, the ’636 patent discloses that the ‘upper generally extends over the instep and toe areas of the foot, along the medial and lateral sides of the foot, under the foot, and around the heel area of the foot.’” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:44–46, 6:66–67). Petitioner reasons that, “[a]s such, the ’636 patent describes the upper as extending around six parts of the foot: (1) the instep area, (2) the toe area, (3) the medial side, (4) the lateral side, (5) under the foot, and (6) the heel area.” Id. Applying this reasoning to the reference, Petitioner contends that, “[o]f the six upper parts identified in the ’636 patent, only two of them—the medial and lateral sides—are not formed by the central textile element 60,” and therefor “the majority of the parts of the upper are formed by the central element 60.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109). Petitioner provides an annotated versions of Figures 8B and 8C of Dua-956, reproduced below, to depict its contentions. Id. at 30. Above are Figures 8B and 8C of Dua-956—which are, respectively, perspective views depicting a second step and a third step in assembling the article of footwear (Ex. 1029, 3:41–45)—with central textile element 60 shaded green. As Petitioner concedes (Pet. 30) and as the annotated figures above show, central textile element 60 does not form the medial and lateral sides of the footwear. Thus, even if central textile element 60 constitutes the majority of parts of the upper, the sides of the upper remain undefined by the central textile element. Petitioner does not explain adequately how the upper is defined when the side components are missing. We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated adequately for institution that Dua-956 discloses “a portion of the knitted component defining the upper,” as recited in independent claim 1.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner contends that “both upper 70 and 30' are constructed as a single, unitary knit element that defines the upper, and it would have been obvious to construct upper 30 in the same manner.” Pet. 65. Petitioner next turns to Horii, asserting that “Horii discloses “shoes 1 that are characterized by the fact that the entire upper is constructed of a single piece of upper member 2 that is made through weft knitting or circular knitting.’” Id. at 67 (citing Ex. 1017, 9) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner reasons that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to manufacture Dua-956’s upper 30, for example, using the multilayer, single fabric of Horii because Horii’s single-piece knit upper would have provided upper 30 with a seamless structure.” Id. at 68. We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that “[c]onstructing Dua-956’s upper 30 as a single, unitary knit component would not materially change the analysis under Ground 1A.” Pet. 70. In Ground 1A, Petitioner contends that “‘forward portion 61’ of the central textile element 60 is an integral knit tongue that extends through a throat area of the knitted component in the assembled upper 30.” Id. at 34. During the assembly of footwear 10, forward portion 61 is flipped over the top of the footwear and the separate textile elements 40 and 50 (the sides of the footwear) are stitched to the lateral and medial edges (64a and 64b) of forward portion 61—the purported tongue. See Ex. 1029, 9:5–11, Figs. 8B, 8C. Petitioner does not explain adequately how, when modifying the embodiment used in Ground 1A to have a seamless top portion, the purported integral knit tongue is retained in that combination. See Pet. 70 (Petitioner asserting that the proposed combination would still have an exterior surface, an inner surface, lace elements 33, channels 44/54, and loops 35, “along with the other structures identified under Ground 1A,” but not specifically discussing the purported integral knit tongue.). We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that claims 1–6, 8–17, and 19–27 would have been obvious over Dua-596 alone or in combination with Horii.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,510,636 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00150 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Skechers did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 were unpatentable, principally because the asserted art did not disclose the construed integral knit tongue.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’562 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’562 patent in February 2012 would have been someone with at least a few years of experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used in making footwear, or a bachelor’s degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent academic or work experience, including in the footwear industry. EX1002, ¶68. Such a person of ordinary skill would have at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles. For individuals with a lower educational level, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s working experience compensates for any such lower educational level, or vice versa. See id. Pet. 22. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“inquiries.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the claims . . . [and t]he second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the properly construed claim to the prior art.” Id. Although an explicit claim construction analysis by a petitioner is not required in every case, a petition nonetheless must identify how the challenged claims are to be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable under the statutory grounds asserted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). And, being part of a prima facia case, such an analysis is part of Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its patentability challenges. Petitioner has failed to satisfy the threshold burden for every ground based on this construction.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find Petitioner’s contentions regarding the two annotated figures to be persuasive. First, those contentions, and the cited opinions of Dr. Adanur, are based on a claim construction that, as discussed above, we reject and for which neither party advocates. Second, Petitioner does not explain adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would discern, even with Petitioner’s added red ovals, a tongue distinct from the upper and tongue extending through the throat area. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s contentions regarding differing textures. See Pet. 32–33. Even if differing textures could rise to the level of distinguishing an integral knit tongue from the upper, the purported tongue texture 48" is not confined to the area identified by Petitioner as the tongue. See Pet. 31 (annotated Figure 11, reproduced above). For example, texture 48" outside of Petitioner’s oval appears to wrap approximately halfway around the ankle opening, which is not argued to be consistent with an ordinary artisan’s understanding of a tongue. Or, put another way, there is no indication that the portion of the 48" texture within Petitioner’s red oval, which purportedly represents the tongue, is distinguishable from the remaining portion of the 48" texture outside of the red oval. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the relatively large area depicted as having texture 48" to be an “integral knit tongue.” In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–4 as anticipated by Dua-592.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,060,562 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00143 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–20 obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For this reason, the Petition fails to demonstrate that the asserted prior art teaches, or renders obvious, the subject matter of claims 1 and 12. Thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to either of the independent claims. 2. Dependent Claims The remaining claims, namely claims 2–11 and 13–20, all ultimately depend from either claim 1 or claim 12. Thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to any of the dependent claims. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“[c]onventional articles of athletic footwear include two primary elements, an upper and a sole structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:3940 (cited at Prelim. Resp. 16). Patent Owner also cites its statement that “[t]he primary elements of footwear 10 are depicted in FIG. 1 as being a sole structure 20 and an upper 30.” Ex. 1001, 4:62– 63 (cited at Prelim. Resp. 16). Additionally, Patent Owner points out (correctly) that every figure of the ’781 patent “depict[s] shoes[] or textile elements that are designed to be incorporated into shoes.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Finally, Patent Owner points to surrounding claim language in both of independent claims 1 and 12 that supports its construction. With respect to claim 1, Patent Owner points out that it “recite[s] an ‘upper’ that is ‘for an article of footwear.’” Id. (quoting claim 1). With respect to claim 12, Patent Owner points out that it “recite[s] . . . an ‘article of footwear comprising’ an ‘upper.’” Id. (quoting claim 12). We agree that the Specification supports Patent Owner’s construction. slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“A claim’s preamble is not necessarily limiting. See, e.g., Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Petition does not take a position as to whether the preambles of claims 1 and 12 are limiting. See Pet. 53 (“If the preamble [of claim 1] is limiting, Cusinato, Bellak, and Dua each disclose an upper for an article of footwear.”), 85 (claim 12 analysis referring back to claim 1 analysis). We construe the preambles of claims 1 and 12 to be limiting, as guided by case law. It is clear that the preambles are being used to help define the invention, i.e., an upper for an article of footwear in the case of claim 1 and an article of footwear having an upper in the case of claim 12. See Bell Communications Research Inc. v. Vitalink Commcations Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it. In other words, when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some other, is the one the patent protects.”). Moreover, the bodies of both claims recite “the upper” which, in the case of claim 1, derives its antecedent basis directly from the preamble and, in the case of claim 12, relies on the preamble’s article of footwear which is recited as comprising an upper. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“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.”).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“As to this hypothetical construct, Petitioner proposes the following: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the '781 [patent] in March 2004 would have been someone with at least a few years of experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used in making footwear, or a bachelor’s degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent academic or work experience, including in the footwear industry. See EX1002, ¶78. Such a person of ordinary skill would have at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles. Id. For individuals with a lower educational level, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person's working experience compensates for any such lower educational level, or vice versa. Id. Pet. 36. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 14– 15. Thus, for purposes of deciding the Petition, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,986,781 - PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00193 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 24–26, or 30 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the 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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’030 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“What is missing from Petitioner’s stated motivation for modifying the array of Cantor is a reason why a POSA would seek to correlate the identification sequence with a location on the array at all. Prelim. Resp. 72. Indeed, the location of a bead on the substrate is not pertinent to the analysis disclosed in Cantor. Ex. 2002 ¶ 172; see also id. at ¶ 31 (Cantor “does not relate to the [spatial] analysis of tissue samples . . . .”). “[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Cantor fails to teach or suggest capture probes distributed randomly on a substrate comprising a nucleic acid sequence that identifies a unique location on the substrate as required by the challenged claims, and Petitioner fails to adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Cantor to make the recited capture probes. In view of the above, we find that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to establish that Cantor teaches or suggests each element of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that any of claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 24–26, and 30 would have been obvious over Cantor.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not argue that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 22–23. Likewise, Patent Owner takes the position that “no claim terms 2 Person of ordinary skill in the art. require explicit construction” for purposes of determining whether to institute inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 19. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, we determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“What is missing from Petitioner’s stated motivation for modifying the array of Cantor is a reason why a POSA would seek to correlate the identification sequence with a location on the array at all. Prelim. Resp. 72. Indeed, the location of a bead on the substrate is not pertinent to the analysis disclosed in Cantor. Ex. 2002 ¶ 172; see also id. at ¶ 31 (Cantor “does not relate to the [spatial] analysis of tissue samples . . . .”). “[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Cantor fails to teach or suggest capture probes distributed randomly on a substrate comprising a nucleic acid sequence that identifies a unique location on the substrate as required by the challenged claims, and Petitioner fails to adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Cantor to make the recited capture probes. In view of the above, we find that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to establish that Cantor teaches or suggests each element of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that any of claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 24–26, and 30 would have been obvious over Cantor.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,761,030 - PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00192 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 5, 17, 20, 23, 28, or 29 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the 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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’138 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Cantor fails to teach or suggest capture probes distributed randomly on a substrate comprising a nucleic acid sequence that identifies a unique location on the substrate as required by the challenged claims, and Petitioner fails to adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Cantor to make the recited capture probes. In view of the above, we find that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to establish that Cantor teaches or suggests each element of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that any of claims 1, 5, 17, 20, 23, 28, and 29 would have been obvious over Cantor. slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“3. Discussion Petitioner challenges whether certain elements of independent claims 1 and 17 are supported by the ’124 provisional and/or whether the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact. Pet. 52–60. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, however, we agree with Patent Owner’s written description analysis, summarized above, and find (1) that the ’124 Provisional provides adequate written description support for each of the challenged claim elements; (2) that the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact; and (3) that the ’138 patent is therefore entitled to the priority date of April 5, 2010. Consequently, Frisen is not prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“3. Discussion Petitioner challenges whether certain elements of independent claims 1 and 17 are supported by the ’124 provisional and/or whether the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact. Pet. 52–60. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, however, we agree with Patent Owner’s written description analysis, summarized above, and find (1) that the ’124 Provisional provides adequate written description support for each of the challenged claim elements; (2) that the ’138 patent’s priority chain is intact; and (3) that the ’138 patent is therefore entitled to the priority date of April 5, 2010. Consequently, Frisen is not prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,549,138 - Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over FR458 with the ’4666 patent and WO133; claims 1–17 are also unpatentable over WO742 with the ’4666 patent and WO133.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ positions about the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar. (See Pet., 13–14; see PO Resp., 10–12.) In light of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations and would have had access to team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Pet. 13–14; see PO Resp. 10–12; see Dec. 6–7.) Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’795 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Although Petitioner puts forth constructions for terms in the claims of the ’795 patent, Patent Owner argues that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the controversy between the parties. (See Pet. 14–19; see PO Resp. 12.) Except as indicated below, we agree that express construction of the claim terms is not required because the parties do not materially dispute the meanings of the terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Limitation (c) of claim 1 recites “syrup formulation” once and then “syrup” by itself twice. The parties agree that two recitations of “syrup” by itself mean and are synonymous with “syrup formulation.” (See Tr. 15:16– 19 (counsel for Petitioner: “[T]he term, syrup, by itself, means the formulation. And for that reason, we--it’s our position that it’s the syrup formulation that has the specific viscosity requirements as well as the other features that we discussed.”); 31:17–20 (counsel for Patent Owner: “But those wherein clauses, what it’s referring to, the syrup formulation and the syrup -- it was all to a complete to a final formulation, right, it’s not just the agave syrup. Everybody here recognizes and understands that from that perspective.”).) Thus, the parties agree that the “viscosity of less than 1500 centipoise at about 22 degrees” limits the final “pharmaceutical syrup formulation for oral administration,” not the “agave syrup” limitation in limitation (b) of claim 1.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues further that Dr. Crowley testifies that, “[g]enerally, suspensions having a viscosity in the range of 20 to 150 cP are considered readily pourable,” but that this range is well below the viscosity range of 200–900 cP taught in WO133 and the preferred viscosity range of 1000–3000 cP taught in the ’4666 patent. (See PO Resp. 45 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 59).) Dr. Crowley testifies that “increasing the viscosity of a suspension formulation has been shown to impair the dissolution characteristics of immediate release acetaminophen” and that, “[w]ith respect to suspensions for oral administration, having a higher viscosity is generally not desirable.” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.) According to Patent Owner, this is a “teaching away” because Petitioner’s own expert testimony demonstrates a motivation not to combine the acetaminophen formulation of FR458- Example 1 with the 1000-3000 cP range of the ’4666 patent and the 200-900 cP range of WO133 since by his own admission doing so would yield bad results (i.e., impairing the dissolution characteristics of the acetaminophen) and generally undesirable higher viscosity. (PO Resp. 46 (citing Berkland Decl., Ex. 2009 ¶ 148).) Dr. Crowley’s cited testimony, however, is about general characteristics of suspensions for oral administration, whereas the WO133 refers specifically to sweetened analgesic formulations. (See Ex. 1006, 8:1– 3 (“The viscosity of the acetaminophen composition generally ranges from about 200–900 centipoise, preferably from about 300–700 centipoise.”); see Pet. Reply 8–9.) As Petitioner notes, Dr. Crowley also testifies that the viscosity of 29 commercially available, pediatric liquid oral antibiotic formulations were measured and determined to range from 20 to 1,780 cP” and that “[t]he viscosity of Children’s Tylenol has been reported to be less than 1,000 centipoise at shear rates between 0.05 and 0.2 reciprocal seconds.” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 58.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Crowley’s testimony contradicts the teachings regarding viscosity of analgesic formulations in the cited prior art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,617,795 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,617,795 - PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01289 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7, 11–15, 17, 19, and 27–29 were unpatentable over Cantor, Cantor and Armani, or Frisen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the 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). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’022 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not argue that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 20. Likewise, Patent Owner takes the position that “no claim terms require explicit construction” for purposes of determining whether to institute inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 20. We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 20. Because Petitioner’s unopposed definition is consistent with the ’022 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt that definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that “[n]ot only does Cantor not teach contacting a ‘tissue sample’ with beads, but Cantor comes nowhere close to suggesting that its beads could be contacted with a tissue sample to identify spatial location.” Prelim. Resp. 50. Here, we are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Cantor, sole inventor of Cantor (Ex. 2002 ¶ 29), that Cantor’s nucleic acid samples are made in bulk from the extraction of nucleic acids from biological material and mixed together “to create the sample nucleic acid prior to mixing that with the solid phase nucleic acids to capture molecule(s) from the sample nucleic acid.” Id. at ¶ 17. More specifically, “nucleic acids are extracted from the different types of cells within a tissue sample without preserving their spatial distribution.” Id. at ¶ 19. Thus, these types of “bulk-analysis techniques provide no information about spatial location of biological molecules in tissue samples.” Id. at ¶ 17. While we recognize that Cantor discloses “providing the beads according to an (X,Y) array” (Pet. 39, citing to Dr. Puglisi, Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 65– 66), this disclosure makes no mention of using this array to map where the nucleic acids of Cantor came from relative to the original sample, let alone when that original sample is a tissue. See e.g. Ex. 1031, 17. The only mentions of “tissue” made in Cantor are in reference to where the sample may be obtained, for example, “[t]he biological sample can be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue.” Id. at 6. Cantor provides no teaching, however, regarding how to use a tissue sample with the probes and methods described in Cantor to identify where the target nucleic acids of Cantor were spatially located within the tissue sample itself. Incidental to the parties’ dispute is whether Petitioner’s reliance on and characterization of Cantor’s use of the terms “sample” and “nucleic acid sample” as equivalent in meaning to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims is persuasive. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1031, 6). Here, we note that Cantor discloses that “[s]ample nucleic acid may be derived from one or more samples or sources.” Ex. 1031, 5; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 35, 149. Cantor refers to “sample” as the thing that contains the sample nucleic acid. Ex. 1031, 5. For example, Cantor discloses that “[a] sample may be collected from an organism.” Ex. 1031, 6; Ex. 2002 ¶ 42. When a “sample” comes from a living (or formerly living) source, Cantor refers to that sample as a “biological sample,” which can “be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue, cells, a cell pellet, a cell extract, or a biopsy, or a biological fluid . . . .” Id. Those samples, however, are further processed in bulk to obtain the nucleic acid sample. For example, Cantor discloses that the “sample nucleic acid may be a result of nucleic acid purification or isolation and/or amplification of nucleic acid molecules from the sample.” Ex. 1031, 7; see also id. at 54 (The “sample nucleic acid” is derived from a sample or source “by any means commonly known in the art, including but not limited to cell lysis procedures using chemical, physical or electrolytic lysis methods.”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 39. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s attempts to characterize Cantor’s “nucleic acid sample” as synonymous to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims. Rather, we agree with Dr. Cantor that “[a] tissue is simply the source of the sample nucleic acid used in [Cantor’s] methods”—it is not the sample nucleic acid itself. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 36, 150. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence to the contrary.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,480,022 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11, 12, 15–17, and 20 as obvious over Kim; claims 3–5, 13, 14, 18, and 19 over Kim and Ishibashi; and claim 10 over Kim and Goss.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 5; see also id. (“A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.”). Patent Owner very similarly proposes that the skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two to three years [of] experience in designing or developing telecommunication systems.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶42). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’664 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“16). We generally agree, with the one caveat acknowledged by counsel for Patent Owner during the hearing. The caveat is that, although step [a] must be performed before step [b], it is within the scope of claim 1 if step [a] continues to be performed even after step [b] begins. Tr. 25:25–26:3 (Mr. Engel: “Well, I think in practicality, there would always be monitoring because there’s multiple media streams. So, you could have multiple alerts come in and the system could decide which one is more important. So, I don’t think you stop monitoring per se.”). We agree that continued performance of step [a], even after step [b] begins, is within the scope of claim 1. Second, Patent Owner proposes that “endpoint” means “end-user device,” as agreed to in district court. PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2004, 16). We adopt this construction. However, as will become evident below, this construction does little to address the actual dispute between the parties regarding application of “endpoint” to the prior art asserted in Ground 7 (Kim). Third, Patent Owner proposes that “media stream” means “audio or video or both, which may include associated data,” as adjudicated in district court. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004, 42). We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Analogous artUnpatentable
“2. Combination of Kim and Ishibashi Petitioner argues that both references are from the same field of endeavor as the ’664 patent, namely emergency communication systems. Pet. 80 (citing various portions of Exhibits 1001, 1008, and 1009). We are persuaded of this fact, which, in any event, Patent Owner does not dispute. See PO Resp. 57 (arguing against Ground 8 solely on the basis of its Ground 7 arguments). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,831,664 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,831,664 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01292 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 17–21 are unpatentable over Ohel; claims 5 and 11–16 were not shown unpatentable over Ohel or Nigawara.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Williams, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the parties’ citations to the specification and find examples that support Petitioner’s view that the term “entity” is broad enough to encompass dispatchers and individual users. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:52–4:5, 7:18–20, Fig. 1). However, we find no disclosure that redefines “entity” or excludes dispatchers and individual users from the category of “entity.” Patent Owner’s best examples (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–21, 3:59–62) are no more than non-limiting examples. On the complete record, we conclude that “entity” is broad enough to include dispatchers and individual users.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot reached
“have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 7,324,802 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,324,802 - PTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, 25, and 26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Zwinkels.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“3. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Zwinkels. D. Remaining Claims of Ground 1 and Grounds 2 and 3 The threshold for institution is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to any single claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the [P]etitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). Thus, because we have decided to grant review of claim 1, we do the same for all claims challenged and all grounds raised. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is granted and inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 12, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,434,394 B2 on the grounds presented; and” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“to move forwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame. Pet. 33–38. For example, paragraph 20, as cited by Petitioner, discloses that the rollers “are movably suspended in the frame in vertical direction, wherein the suspension of said roll or rollers is arranged to convert relative horizontal movements of the roll or rollers into vertical movements thereby compensating and/or attenuating said horizontal movements by gravity.” Ex. 1004 ¶20 (cited at Pet. 34). Further, Zwinkels attributes the forward and rearward movement to the use of the bicycle by the person exercising on it. See Ex. 1004 ¶27 (describing the “horizontal movements induced by the accelerations and decelerations of the training cyclist”) (cited at Pet. 35). Petitioner also cites multiple figures that illustrate forward and rearward movement. Pet. 35–37 (reproducing Ex. 1004, Figs. 3, 5, and 6). There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is configured to enable the upper member to move forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member in response to fore-aft forces that are transferred to the upper member from the item of exercise equipment in response to use of the item of exercise equipment,” as recited in claim 1. e) “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is further configured to provide upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface during movement of the upper member forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member.” Petitioner argues that Zwinkels’s pendulum arms 6 enable the rollers to move upward and downward relative to the frame while the rollers are also moving forwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame. Pet. 39–42. For example, paragraph 24, as cited by Petitioner, discloses that the pendulum arms connecting the rollers at fixed pivoting points on the frame “provides an easy and effective solution for absorbing and attenuating horizontal movements by converting these horizontal movements to vertical movements.” Ex. 1004 ¶24 (cited at Pet. 39). Petitioner also reproduces Figures 5 and 6, which illustrate the displacement of rollers in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 5–6). Figure 5 is reproduced below. Figure 5, reproduced above, “shows the embodiment in which there are two rollers 4 for the bicycle back wheel.” Ex. 1004 ¶34. Figure 5 shows two configurations of the embodiment on left and right sides. Ex. 1004 ¶34, Fig. 5. The configuration “at the left of FIG. 5 shows the pendulum arms 6 in a resting position, whereas the [configuration] on the right shows the pendulum arms 6 after they have due to the connecting link 7 concertedly moved to the right due to a force FH, causing that the rollers 4 have moved vertically upwards.” Ex. 1004 ¶34. There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is further configured to provide upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface during movement of the upper member forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member,” as recited in claim 1. f) “wherein the upper member is oriented parallel to the support surface plane during movement of the upper member relative to the lower member in the fore-aft direction and during upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface” Petitioner argues that Zwinkels’s rollers are oriented parallel to the ground or floor at all times. Pet. 42–44. Petitioner argues that this is clearly shown in Figure 5, which we reproduced in the immediate section above. See Pet. 43 (citing and annotating Ex. 1004, Fig. 5). We agree. There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the upper member is oriented parallel to the support surface plane during movement of the upper member relative to the lower member in the fore-aft direction and during upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface,” as recited in claim 1. 3. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Zwinkels.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“1. Zwinkels (Ex. 1004) Zwinkels was filed November 4, 2010, and published June 9, 2011. Ex. 1004, codes (22), (43). Petitioner argues that, based on its filing date, “Zwinkels is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).” Pet. 15. On the record presented, we agree. In addition, the current record supports that, based on its publication date, Zwinkels is prior art also under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose an express construction of any term of claim 1. See Pet. 14 (“Petitioner submits that for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.”). At this stage of the proceeding, we discern no need to provide an express construction of any term of any claim.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,434,394
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.