- Babybjörn AB v. The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00111 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on all challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the reasons offered for a second parallel petition unpersuasive.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“petitioner files two or more petitions challenging the same patent, we consider guidance in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, which provides that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations” and that “multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.” Trial Practice Guide 59 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“TPG”). In such circumstances, a petitioner should provide: (1) a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits, if the Board uses its discretion to institute any of the petitions, and (2) a succinct explanation of the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). TPG 59–60. The Trial Practice Guide provides that “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary” and that “two petitions by a petitioner may be needed, although this should be rare.” Id. at 59.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Petitioner that the still-open outcome of Lynk Labs in any way impacts the availability of Lundh in either the 110 IPR or this proceeding.10 Critically, in Lynk Labs, the Federal Circuit examined the prior art date of a U.S. patent application publication under pre-AIA § 102(e)(1) because the challenged patent in that case had a priority date in February 2004—well before the 2013 effective date of the AIA’s revisions to §§ 102, 103—such that the pre-AIA versions of § 102 determined the” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that this assertion supports the argument for a second petition. As argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s alleged need is undermined by the distribution of its arguments across the 110 IPR and this proceeding. As discussed above, for the “at least one thigh support adjusters” in the 110 IPR, Petitioner relies on one prior art structure from the first category and two prior art structures from the second category; and for the “at least one thigh support adjusters” in this proceeding, Petitioner relies on two prior art structures from the first category and one prior art structure from the second category. Id. In other words, as stated by Patent Owner, “Petitioner was able to address both its constructions in both of its Petitions.” Resp. 3–411; see also Medacta USA, Inc. v. RSB Spine, LLC, IPR2020-00275, Paper 22 at 10–11 (PTAB May 22, 2020) (denying institution of a second-ranked parallel petition challenging the same claims of the same patent and stating, “Because Petitioner was able to present an alternative challenge contingent upon [the] alternative claim construction” in the first-ranked petition, “we fail to see how uncertainty regarding claim construction justifies two petitions.”). In contrast, in the SolarEdge decision cited by Petitioner, the first-ranked petition presented one approach as to the prior art and the second-ranked petition was permitted because it presented a different approach, such that the two petitions “do not overlap in any meaningful way.” SolarEdge v. SMA Solar Techs., IPR2019-01224, Paper 10 at 10 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2020), cited at Expl. 4. Turning to the discovery issue, we determine that the alleged failure of Patent Owner to answer adequately an interrogatory in the Texas Litigation seeking information on “all corresponding disclosures and written 11 Petitioner highlights the two categories of prior art structures identified across the six grounds in these two proceedings rather than the two different constructions for “at least one thigh support adjuster” proposed. Looking at the distributions of the constructions presented, however, the same reasoning above applies as Petitioner relied on each construction at least twice to address the “one thigh support adjuster” in each proceeding. See 110 Petition 27 (relying on both constructions for Ground 1), 53–57 (relying on only a § 112(f) construction for Ground 2), 86–90 (relying on both constructions for Ground 3); Pet. 29–34 (relying on only a § 112(f) construction for Ground 4), 61–63 (relying on both constructions for Ground 5), 88–90 (relying on both constructions for Ground 6). description support for the ‘at least one thigh support adjuster’ limitation” (Ex. 1029 at 5) does not warrant a second petition here. The challenged patent was clearly available to Petitioner, and Petitioner was—even with Patent Owner’s non-substantive answer to the interrogatory (id. at 6)—able to propose a construction of “at least one thigh support adjuster” under § 112(f). See Pet. 7–12. For these reasons, the two different constructions presented do not warrant a second petition in this proceeding.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,786,055 - Babybjörn AB v. The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00110 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus deny institution of inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) (“At any time prior to a decision on institution of inter partes review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute inter partes review.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a four-year degree in a design-based field, which may include fashion design, industrial design, mechanical engineering, or another technical field, or equivalent experience, and familiarity working with child products and/or adjustable products.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Smith Decl. ¶¶ 32–38). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed definition, which appears consistent with the record in this proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not argue that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would understand either the challenged patent or the prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Based on the current record, we need not construe explicitly the term “at least one thigh support adjuster” because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. 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)). More particularly, and as discussed below, Petitioner does not show sufficiently how the prior art teaches the structure identified as corresponding to the alleged claimed function. Further, because we deny on the merits (as discussed below), we do not address Patent Owner’s alternative argument that we should deny institution because “Petitioner fails to construe th[is] limitation and otherwise argues for an advisory opinion from the Board on indefiniteness.” Prelim. Resp. 1; see id. at 1–6 (entire argument). 2. “defined by” Limitations 1j and 11l each recite “a first setting, a second setting, and a third setting defined by the adjustable child carrier.” Ex. 1001, 17:38–39 (emphasis added), 19:43–44 (emphasis added). Limitation 6k recites “a first position, a second position, and a third position defined by the adjustable child carrier.” Id. at 18:36–37 (emphasis added). Patent Owner proposes a construction for “defined by” in these limitations. See Prelim. Resp. 12–15. At this stage of the proceeding and based on the current record, we need not construe explicitly “defined by”” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Public accessibility “has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ . . . .” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In Hulu, the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) rejected a petitioner’s argument that a reference necessarily meets “the reasonable likelihood standard for institution where the reference bears conventional markers of publication, such as a copyright date, edition identifiers, publication by a commercial publisher, and the assignment of an ISBN number.” Hulu, Paper 29 at 17. The POP stated: “We do not hold that any particular indicia per se is sufficient at the institution stage. Rather, the indicia on the face of a reference, such as printed dates and stamps, are considered as part of the totality of the evidence.” Id. at 17–18 (citing Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Here, Petitioner provides no citation, no discussion, and no support for its assertion that the Synergy Manual was “published” in “2007.” See Pet. 2. Instead, we are left to assume that Petitioner relies on the text “© BabyBjörn AB, Stockholm, 2007” at the bottom of page 6 of the Synergy Manual. More to the point, Petitioner does not discuss in the Petition any evidence supporting the implicit position that the Synergy Manual was publicly accessible prior to the critical date of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,786,055 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01420 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–19 on all presented grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, and declining Fintiv discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–19 of the ’402 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’402 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Paper 11. Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation “mitigates any concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board, as well as concerns of potentially conflicting decisions.” Sotera, Paper 12 at 19 (citing Sand Revolution, Paper 24 at 12). Accordingly, this factor weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 46
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’402 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent technical training. Additionally, they would have at least three years of experience in designing or programming internet-related processes, such as user profile management and/or web-based targeted advertising.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). For purposes of the Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’).” Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“According to Petitioner: “Because the prior art asserted herein discloses the preferred embodiment within the indisputable scope of the claims, the Board need not construe the outer bounds of the claims as part of these proceedings.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶ 57). Patent Owner responds that, at the preliminary stage of this proceeding, “no term needs explicit construction to resolve any controversy between the parties.” Prelim. Resp. 9. We do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision on institution. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,562,402 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01316 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 on all three obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Home Depot would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“In the absence of specific evidence, we will not attempt to predict how the district court in the related district court litigation will proceed because the court may determine whether or not to stay an individual case, including the related one, based on a variety of circumstances and facts beyond our control and to which the Board is not privy.” Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (Decision Granting Request for Rehearing) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”). If Home Depot were to file a motion to stay in the EDTX Litigation, we decline to speculate how the district court would rule on such a motion. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“RavenWhite does not dispute Home Depot’s assertion that the Examiner did not meaningfully address Hinton and Varghese, either alone or in combination, during prosecution of the ’823 patent. See Ex. 1003. Stated differently, with respect to factor (a), the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Hinton and Varghese, either alone or in combination, to teach 6 All references to the page numbers in the prosecution history of the ’823 patent refer to the page numbers inserted by Home Depot in the bottom, right-hand corner of each page in Exhibit 1003. or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’823 patent, nor did the Examiner apply the teachings of these references to account for language that was added via amendment during prosecution (i.e., a “first client device browser storage area” and a “second client device browser storage area”). With respect to factor (b), RavenWhite does not provide an explanation as to how the teachings of Flash that were applied by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’823 patent are cumulative to the teachings of Hinton and Varghese applied by Home Depot in the Petition. Turning to factor (d), RavenWhite asserts that there is overlap between arguments that were presented during prosecution of the ’823 patent to distinguish the then-pending claims over Flash and the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response to distinguish the challenged claims over Hinton and Varghese. See Prelim. Resp. 25. This overlap, by itself, does not warrant discretionary denial because, as we explain below, Home Depot persuasively explains how the teachings of Hinton and Varghese account for the claimed “first client device browser storage area” and “second client device browser storage area.” See infra Section II.D.4.b and II.E.2.b. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by RavenWhite’s arguments that the Petition presents substantially the same art or arguments that were considered previously by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’823 patent. b. Becton, Dickinson Factors (c), (e), and (f) Advanced Bionics further informs our evaluation of factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics indicates that satisfying the first part of the framework is a prerequisite to reaching the second part of the framework. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8, 10. As we explain above, we determine that the Petition does not present the same or substantially the same art or arguments that were presented previously to the Office during prosecution of the ’823 patent. As a result, we need not reach whether Home Depot has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’823 patent. 2. Summary For the reasons given above, we conclude that the circumstances presented here do not warrant exercising our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). Notably, the Examiner did not meaningfully address Hinton and Varghese, either alone or in combination, during prosecution of the ’823 patent. As a result, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“construction standard as in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). That is, claim terms generally are construed in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent at issue. See id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent,” and “as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Wills, Home Depot argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’823 patent (October 31, 2006) . . . would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with computer networks and digital information transmission techniques or other relevant industry experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 65). In the Preliminary Response, “[RavenWhite] applies [Home Depot’s] definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Pet. 6). At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Home Depot’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’823 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Wills.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,594,823 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00139 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design” and “the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa.” Pet. 23. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner contended Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill is too high. Prelim. Resp. 32. According to Patent Owner, a POSITA would have had “an associate degree in an engineering discipline, and 1–2 years’ experience in electrical power systems” and “[a] lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). Our Institution Decision states that we preliminarily determined a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and two years of experience in electrical power systems. Inst. Dec. 5–6. Patent Owner’s Response states that Patent Owner applies the Board’s 9 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. preliminary determination (PO Resp. 6, n.3), and Petitioner did not subsequently address the issue. Based on the full record, we determine a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and two years of experience in electrical power systems. We are satisfied that this comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’291 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“the cable hangers (which support the current wires, data wires and other wires). That is, a single multi-function line supports the cable hangers, as a messenger wire, and provides a current path, as a grounding conductor.” Ex. 1001, 2:33–37 (emphasis added). And the sentence following that passage, which is cited by both parties, states: “Accordingly, as used herein, a ‘multi-function line’ means a tension member that supports current wires and/or cable hangers, and, which is conductive.” Ex. 1001, 2:37–40 (emphasis added). The sentences immediately following that sentence provide additional context, stating: “That is, a messenger wire is not a ‘multi-function line.’ Similarly, a conductor that does not support other constructs is not a ‘multi-function line.’” Ex. 1001, 2:40–42 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification indicates that a multi-function line is a tension member, “is conductive,” and supports other constructs such as current wires and/or cable hangers. In contrast, the specification does not mention “effective ground fault current path.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the entire record, Petitioner shows that the combination of the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper satisfy the limitations of claim 1. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings, at least because the CAB Website expressly refers to the CAB Whitepaper, suggesting to a POSITA that the references’ teachings should be considered together. Pet. 47–48; see Reply 6–8.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“First, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not shown that the cited products are coextensive with, and have the required nexus between, the products and claim 1. See Reply 18–29. Even if Patent Owner sells an “Integrated Grounding System” that satisfies each limitation of claim 1, that system is undeniably comprised of “various” “exemplary” interchangeable parts that have uses outside of the claimed invention, that at least purportedly relate to many other of Patent Owner’s patents, and that were known in the prior art. E.g., Ex. 2064, ¶ 304 (identifying “exemplary” product part numbers, including CAB-9605, CAB-9705, CAB-9760, and CAB-9607), n.10; App’x A, A5 (identifying a part number “representative” part the “mid-pier kit”); Ex. 1049, 6–7 (identifying Patent Owner’s patent’s relating to different part numbers). For example, Patent Owner identifies two patent numbers purportedly protecting its “grounding Mid Pier Kit,” the ’551 patent and US Pat. No. 10,461,518. Ex. 1049, 6–7. Patent Owner identifies three of its patents as protecting its copper messenger wire, part number CAB-9605: (i) the ’551 patent, (ii) US Pat. No. 10,461,518, and (iii) US Pat. No. 10,811,859. Id. And Patent Owner identifies eight different patents, but not the ’551 patent, as protecting the cited cable hangers, CAB- 9760. Id. And as explained in the analysis above, all of these parts were known and available in the prior art, as evidenced by the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper. We can discern no nexus between the features of the ’551 patent and the alleged objective evidence of nonobviousness given that the so-called “Integrated System” includes multiple, interchangeable, and “exemplary” part numbers that were known in the prior art. See Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“But our case law makes clear that objective evidence of nonobviousness lacks a nexus if it exclusively relates to a feature that was known in the prior art—not necessarily well-known.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); see also Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,177,551 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,177,551 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00178 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 14–22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Almy; the Board did not reach the alternative Caveney grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner also asserts that the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We agree with Petitioner that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 recite an intended use. The bodies of both claims recite a structurally complete system comprising a messenger wire and a plurality of cable hangers that are disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire and have a plurality of cable carrying surfaces structured to support at least one electrical cable of the plurality of electrical cables and are separated by a cable carrier divider. Ex. 1001, 10:27–37. According to the preambles, the system are used “for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels.” Id. at 10:24–26. slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s construction “only replaces ‘organizing’ with ‘separating’” and “organizing” has a broader ordinary meaning than separating and includes “to arrange or order” not merely to separate. Reply 4 (citing Exs. 1052, 1053); id. at 5 (“Separated cables may be organized. But not all organized cables are necessarily separated.”). We adopt Petitioner’s interpretation of “organizing” as “to arrange or order.” Reply 4. This meaning is consistent with the preamble language of “[a] system for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels” comprising a messenger wire and cable hangers disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire with cable carrying surfaces that support electrical cables separated by a divider. Ex. 1001, 10:24–37. The system organizes electrical cables by (1) suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers, (2) supporting the cables on cable carrying surfaces of each cable hanger, and (3) separating the cables on adjacent cable carrying surfaces of the cable hangers by using a divider. The “organizing” in the preamble encompasses each of these ways of arranging or ordering the electrical cables but is not limited to any particular way of doing so and merely recites an intended use of the systems. Because we interpret the preamble as reciting an intended use of the systems, we also interpret this portion of the preamble as an intended use of those systems. Our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s interpretation that organizing means separating because the combination of Almy and Carr renders obvious a system for organizing electrical cables extending from solar panels by suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers that also separate the cables, as discussed infra in Section II.D. See Reply 12 n.4.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a skilled artisan would not have replaced Almy’s wire loops with Carr’s hangers to prevent cross-induction because Almy discloses only DC power cables that extend from the photovoltaic (PV) modules to a combiner box and inverter that converts DC current to AC current without disclosing AC cables or data cables in close proximity to Almy’s DC cables that could create a cross-induction effect. PO Resp. 39– 44 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 15, 34, Figs. 3, 6; Ex. 2038 ¶¶ 153, 154, 157–160, 163; Ex. 2004, 85:23–86:2, 148:9–14, 154:12–19). We disagree. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have used Carr’s cable hangers to organize electrical cables in Almy’s solar power system and prevent cross-induction between AC, DC, and/or data cables. Pet. 45–46; Reply 12–13; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55. A skilled artisan would know that Carr’s cable hangers would improve Almy’s solar power system by supporting AC, DC, and/or data cables without cross-induction. Pet. 46; Reply 13; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 48, 96–99; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34, 2:15–27, Fig. 1. Carr’s hangers would satisfy regulations requiring AC and DC cables to be separated. Reply 13. Because Almy’s wire loops cannot comply with NEC regulations that require the separation of AC, DC, and data cables, they limit the ability of Almy’s system to power trackers with AC current to move PV modules to track the sun and obtain maximum power. Ex. 1001, 1:20–56; PO Resp. 7–8 (describing the solar industry trend to use trackers and NEC rules requiring separation of AC, DC, and signal cables for such systems). Carr’s hangers would enable Almy’s solar power system to organize AC, DC, and data cables for solar panels and trackers on a single messenger wire to increase efficiency, comply with NEC rules, prevent cross induction, and avoid the costs of trenching and cable trays. Reply 12–13; Pet. 45–47; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34 (Carr’s cable hangers separate arial conducting cables to minimize cross induction); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–36 (describing the benefits of separating electrical cables with hangers), 48, 96–98 (wire loops cannot prevent cross induction between current- and non-current-carrying cables as hangers do); Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55 (NEC rules require separation of AC, DC, and signal cables); see Metso Mins., Inc. v Powerscreen Int’l Distrib., 526 F. App’x 988, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding a motivation to combine to create a solution that complies with road permit regulations). Carr’s hangers would provide a simple, robust means to support and separate current- and non-current-carrying cables to prevent cross induction without deforming under load in Almy’s solar power system. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)) (“This is the so-called ‘known-technique’ rationale. And if there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.”); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (an implicit motivation to combine exists when a combination produces a stronger, cheaper, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, and/or more efficient product); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32 (IEEE Standard 142 and NSC Rule 235G require spacing of current-carrying and data cables to avoid cross-linking), 42 (2014 NEC spacing requirements), 96–99 (Carr’s hangers support and space conducting cables to prevent cross-linking).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,349,291 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,349,291 - Robert Bosch LLC / Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00292 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed substantially constant hydraulic-fluid thickness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Westport does not dispute Bosch’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4 (quoting Pet. 23). Based on our review, we see no reason not to adopt Bosch’s undisputed definition of the level of skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the prior art and the specification of the ’829 patent.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those claim terms “that are in controversy” need be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, there does not appear to be a dispute over the meaning of any claim terms. And, after reviewing the record, we do not perceive the need to expressly construe any particular claim term in order to determine patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In contrast, the testimony of Bosch’s expert ignores Klügl’s express teachings and is fraught with contradictions that undermine the weight of that testimony. While this case may be seen as a battle of the experts over their respective interpretations of Klügl, it is clear that Bosch’s expert loses given his inability to credibly explain his opinions during cross-examination. For instance, despite opining in his declaration that Klügl satisfies claim element 1(e) because “the fluid in chamber 5 is held in place by a membrane 6 and moves through a cylindrical space of constant width and unchanging shape” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 220 (emphasis added)), surprisingly, Bosch’s expert could not, or would not, provide his opinion when asked on cross-examination about the meaning of “flexible” and “membrane” in the context of Klügl’s disclosure— Q. [By Westport’s counsel] What’s your understanding what flexible means in the context of the Klugl reference? . . . A. [By Bosch’s expert] Again, I haven’t been asked to offer a formal opinion of what flexible means in light of this, but if you want to talk about a specific -- excuse me -- part of the document, I’d be happy to. Q. What is a membrane? A. Usually, it’s a thin sheet of material but I haven’t formed a formal opinion on it. Q. What is a flexible membrane? A. Again, I haven’t offered a formal opinion what a flexible membrane is.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Westport. That is because Bosch’s argument that Klügl’s hydraulic fluid maintains substantially constant thickness is premised on the erroneous belief that Klügl’s membrane 6 will not flex. But, as Westport correctly notes, Klügl expressly teaches that membrane 6 is “flexible.” See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 7:45–47 (“[F]lexible membranes 6, 8, 26 . . . have a progressive characteristic curve of the spring force in relation to the spring deflection.”), 7:68–9:31 (repeatedly referencing “first flexible element (6)” and “first flexible membrane (6)”). Consistent with this flexibility, Klügl explains that membrane 6 flexes to maintain contact with drive piston 3, stating specifically that “in the rest position without being actuated due to thermal influences or signs of aging, . . . the first membrane 6 is moved in the direction of the drive piston 3” or “is pushed in by the drive piston 3 so that the transmission medium is pressed through the throttle 10 into the compensation chamber 7.” Ex. 1006, 3:63–4:10 (emphases added). And because Klügl’s membrane 6 flexes when transmission module 2 is unactuated, it follows that membrane 6 will also flex when transmission module 2 is actuated.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 6,298,829 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,298,829 - Robert Bosch LLC / Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00293 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 13, 14, 17–21, and 26–28, 41 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed hydraulic link limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends: A POSITA in the technology field of the ’138 patent would have had a degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2 years of professional experience working with the design and development of fuel injection systems for internal combustion engines or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience. (See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 37–39, 41.) This POSITA would be aware of and generally knowledgeable about how fuel injector valves are structured and operate, and how they are used to deliver fuel to an engine’s combustion chambers. (Id., ¶ 40.) Pet. 23. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. See PO Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Based on the complete record, we do not perceive the need to construe any claim limitation. Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe the claim preambles here where the construction is not ‘material to the [obviousness] dispute.’” (citations omitted, alteration in original)).” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“mere fact” that Klügl labels the membrane as “flexible.” As discussed, Patent Owner explains Klügl teaches membrane 6 is flexible and that membrane 6 deflects and moves in response to fluid pressure in chamber 5 and contact with piston 3. PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:63–4:10). Additionally, Dr. Atkinson’s testimony is consistent with Klügl’s disclosure. Dr. Atkinson, explains that “[i]n all embodiments shown, Klügl only ever specifies and describes membrane 6 as a “flexible” membrane or element acknowledging that this flexibility is a necessary and desired feature of its intended purpose and behavior.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 80. With this underlying disclosure in mind, Dr. Atkinson further reasons that a flexible membrane will tend to deform longitudinally upward where it contacts the drive piston and bulge outward based on the structure disclosed in Figure 1. See id. ¶¶ 63, 66–67, 77–81, 87. In contrast, Dr. Quinlan’s testimony in many instances, including this one, is substantively incomplete and fraught with contradictions that undermine the weight of his testimony. For example, at his cross- examination deposition, he testified that he had seen and worked with membranes, but could not provide his opinion on the meaning of “flexible” or “membrane” as disclosed in Klügl. See Ex. 2025, 47:14–48:1. Dr. Quinlan was then directed to column 8 in Klügl, where Klügl teaches among other things that “the transmission module (2) has a pressure chamber (5), which is filled with a transmission medium and is delimited by a first flexible membrane (6).” See id. at 65:5–15; Ex. 1006, 8:44–46 (emphasis added). Provided below is the exchange between Patent Owner’s counsel and Dr. Quinlan regarding this express disclosure: slip op. at 37
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Figure 1 of Klügl depicts an injection valve including housing 12 and piezoelectric actuator 1, which is arranged between upper stop 13 and transmission module 2. Ex. 1006, 1:47–51. We observe that transmission module 2 includes pressure chamber 5 that is at least partially filled with hydraulic fluid and is “delimited” by first membrane 6. Id. at 1:60–62, 1:68–2:2. Throttle or connecting bore 10 connects pressure chamber 5 to compensation chamber 7. Id. at 1:62–66. The connecting bore or throttle allows transmission fluid to flow between pressure chamber 5 and compensation chamber 7. Id. at 3:56–4:10. We further note that Klügl expressly teaches first membrane 6 is “flexible.” Ex. 1006, 7:45–47 (“[F]lexible membranes 6, 8, 26 . . . have a progressive characteristic curve of the spring force in relation to the spring deflection.”). Indeed, consistent with this flexibility, Klügl explains that membrane 6 “moves” to maintain contact with drive piston 3. Specifically, Klügl teaches: [i]f the piezoelectric actuator 1 shortens in the rest position without being actuated due to thermal influences or signs of aging in relation to the housing 12, the spring plate 8 pushes the transmission medium from the compensation chamber 7 via the throttle 10 into the pressure chamber 5, so that the first membrane 6 is moved in the direction of the drive piston 3 and, as a result, the drive piston 3 bears against the first membrane 6 despite the shortening of the piezoelectric actuator 1. However, if the distance between the piezoelectric actuator 1 and the drive piston 3 is reduced, the first membrane 6 is pushed in by the drive piston 3 so that the transmission medium is pressed through the throttle 10 into the compensation chamber 7 against the spring force of the spring plate 8. As a result, the drive piston 3 is always in contact with the first membrane 6 in this case as well. Id. at 3:63–4:10 (emphases added).” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 6,575,138 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,575,138 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00993 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). 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). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a Bachelor’s degree or comparable technical degree in Industrial Design or Mechanical Engineering or equivalent work experience, and at least one year’s worth of experience in research, design and/or development related to appliances for moving air such as hair dryers (or other comparable industrial design),” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–19. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 27–28. We find, for purposes of this Decision, that the ’979 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’979 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes no express construction and contends that the Petition is based on Patent Owner’s position in district court that no construction is necessary. Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1013). Patent Owner proposes no express construction at this stage of the proceeding, and states that “the claim terms can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 28. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). In the absence of any dispute over the construction of any claim term, we find no express construction necessary for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“3. Reasons Supporting the Combination of Saito and Lindsey Petitioner also fails to show sufficiently a reason for the asserted combination of Saito and Lindsey. See Pet. 22–29. Petitioner argues, for example, that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to combine Saito’s brush attachment with Lindsey’s teaching of an array of vanes, disposed in a turbinate arrangement, to generate a spinning airflow to provide increased lift and volume to the hair.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–94). According to Petitioner, “incorporation of vanes, as taught by Lindsey, would have improved Saito’s hair styling attachment by changing the air flow paths from an outwardly radial direction to transverse or perpendicular (i.e., tangential) to create a spinning/rotational flow.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). Petitioner, however, fails to show sufficiently that Lindsey’s attachment generates a “spinning/rotational flow.” In fact, Petitioner notes that Lindsey, itself, describes the discharge of air as being in a “spinning, turbulent manner” which provides “additional lift and volume to hair.” Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1005, 10:28–33); see also Ex. 1005, 9:47–64 (stating that the “turbinate arrangement and the features of the vanes and their disposition provide flow paths of discharged air having continually varying and spiraling radii about the axis of air flow” and that “the discharged hot air is spun out from the central portion of the vanes in a turbulent manner”). Additionally, Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that Petitioner does not provide any reason for “the six additional unacknowledged modifications” to the vanes of Lindsey employed in Petitioner’s asserted combination as depicted in Petitioner’s model attachment. Prelim. motivation for those changes alone is reason enough to deny institution.” Id. at 59. Indeed, Petitioner neither acknowledges, for example, that its model attachment eliminated the prongs and holes of the vanes of Lindsey nor offers any sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done so. Absent from the Petition is any sufficient explanation why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have only chosen attachment features from Saito and Lindsey that correspond to claimed elements of the ’979 patent, while disregarding all attachment features taught by Saito and Lindsey that are inconsistent with claimed elements of the ’979 patent. In sum, we have considered all of the arguments advanced by Petitioner in support of its asserted combination and determine Petitioner has not sufficiently shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the asserted references in the manner set forth in the Petition by Petitioner.11” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,044,979 - United Services Automobile Association v. Auto Telematics Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00857 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–55 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–54 over the grounds listed in the decision and claim 55 over Curry, Rabu, and Berkobin.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under Patent Owner’s proposed addition to Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner to the extent that “driving period” refers to a time during which the vehicle is being driven, but we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the recited driving period “must be the entire 3 Although Petitioner cites to page 99 (see Pet. Reply 4), the language quoted by Petitioner appears on page 100. Petitioner makes similar mistakes throughout the Reply when citing Mr. Wilson’s deposition transcript, which we correct in our citations herein. period in which the vehicle is being driven.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 6. Initially, the claims do not recite “entire.” Additionally, and as noted by Patent Owner, the determination of the start of the driving period may be based on an input received from the user interface. See id. at 11; see also Ex. 1001, 3:32–37 (“To this end [of preserving the finite storage capacity of the mobile device], it is preferred that when the application is executed, it controls the mobile device to register the start of a driving period in response to an initialisation input. The initialisation input may comprise a user input—for example, the user manually executing the application on the mobile device.” (emphasis added)). The ’879 patent thus contemplates the driver initiating the recited start of a driving period in which the mobile telecommunications device collects and processes sensor data, and does not impart any requirement for the user to initiate the start of the driving period at any particular time. The ’879 patent alternatively discloses automatically determining the start of the driving period when sensor data reaches predetermined values, such as “once a velocity greater than 20 kilometers per hour is detected.” Ex. 1001, 19:1–6. The ’879 patent thus contemplates the vehicle being driven for some amount of time before the start of the driving period. Therefore, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the ’879 patent does not require the recited driving period to be the entire period in which the vehicle is being driven.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“artisan] would have readily found relevant solutions within Rabu, and would have expected success in incorporating Rabu’s solutions within Curry.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 93. Dr. Michalson explains this is because Rabu teaches that “a smart phone processor leveraging a ‘generally conventional’ accelerometer such as that found in Curry’s phone can be used to determine both an orientation angle and motion status of the smart phone,” and further teaches “switching operating modes based on determining that the phone is ‘docked in a moving vehicle’ (as opposed to being ‘handheld while located in a moving vehicle’).” Id. We credit Dr. Michalson’s testimony in this respect because it is consistent with and supported by the disclosures of Curry and Rabu cited and discussed therein. Moreover, these disclosures are consistent with and support Petitioner’s reasoning for the combination that “Rabu would have motivated [an ordinarily skilled artisan] to enhance Curry’s phone by configuring it to leverage orientation data from the same accelerometer to determine whether the phone is removably attached to the vehicle.” Pet. 24 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 129). This is because Curry’s mobile device already includes accelerometers. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. Petitioner explains that “[c]onsistent with both Curry and Rabu, the Curry-Rabu phone would appropriately restrict phone interactions depending on the determined status.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89).” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The field of endeavor is determined “by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Id.; see also In re Deminski, 796 F.2d at 442 (finding that if a prior art reference discloses essentially the same structure and function as the invention, it is likely in the same field of endeavor). Katayama describes a driving monitor that records driver behavior and “a surrounding situation” during a period before and after an accident. Ex. 1024 ¶ 1; Pet. Reply 23. Similarly, the ’879 patent discloses a mobile device adapted for installation to a vehicle and configured to log driving information associated with how the vehicle is driven. Ex. 1001, 1:22–27; Pet. Reply 23. Thus, we agree that Katayama is analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’879 patent. See Pet. Reply 23.” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 10,198,879 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,198,879
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.