- Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00282 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 7–9 are unpatentable as obvious, principally over Edwards-’535 and Stern for claims 1–3 and 7–9, and Makower, Edwards-’535, and Stern for claims 1, 2, and 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 27–28 (identifying evidence that clinical experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and therefore be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner’s definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See PO Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, after reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Regardless, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer opinions under either definition. Moreover, the parties do not argue that their respective position would be different under either POSITA definition. See PO Resp. 8 (Patent Owner arguing that the challenges fail “[r]egardless of how a POSITA is defined”); Ex. 1083 ¶ 88 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Accordingly, all of the findings and conclusions herein would be the same under either side’s definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that the part of claim 1’s preamble “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting. Pet. 18. According to Petitioner, the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete apparatus, and the preamble only states an intended use for the device without limiting the claimed structure. Id. at 18–19. Patent Owner neither addresses this issue, nor proposes any other claim construction. PO Resp. 13 (“Patent Owner believes that no claim constructions are required to resolve the issues raised [in this IPR].”). On this record, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive and determine that the part of claim 1’s preamble “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“techniques of delivering bipolar RF ablation energy through expandable devices to the mucosal tissue of different body cavities.” Id. at 39. According to Petitioner, “combining Edwards-’535 and Stern involves applying Stern’s known bipolar pairing technique to Edwards-’535’s known device that was ready for improvement (because Edwards-’535 omits electrode wiring details) to yield predictable results.” Id. Thus, Petitioner concludes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success when modifying Edwards-’535 in view of Stern. Id. at 38–40. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s mapping for claim limitations 1[a]-1[c] and 1[f] above, nor does Patent Owner challenge Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Edwards-’535 with Stern. See PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner, however, argues that Petitioner has failed to show Stern teaches limitations 1[d] and 1[e] “because Stern teaches a device comprising only a single pair of bipolar radiofrequency electrodes and a single radiofrequency output channel.” Id. We find that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Edwards-’535 and Stern and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so for the reasons set forth in the Petition. We also find that the articulated combination of Edwards-’535 and Stern teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed analysis of claim limitations 1[a]-1[c] and [f] and reasoning for combining the references, and credit its supporting evidence. See Pet. 26–33, 43–46; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84–102, 159–165. Below we address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed limitations 1[d] and 1[e].” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“In our view, nothing is missing. Stern teaches that the circuitry in Figure 15 is configured to form multiple pairs of bipolar RF electrodes. Ex. 1033, 12:61–13:2 (explaining “[a]s an example” the closing of certain switches in Figure 15 to activate a bipolar pair between electrodes 220 and 224 and a second bipolar pair between electrodes 222 and 226 and further noting that “[c]learly bipolar operation is not limited to these . . . pair couplings” because other switches could be operated to activate a bipolar pair between electrodes 220 and 222); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–111, 135–138. Indeed, Stern consistently uses the word “pairs,” i.e., the plural not the singular, to describe the bipolar operation of its device. See, e.g., Ex. 1033, 2:36–40, 3:38–40, 12:20–25, 12:29–30, 13:27–44, 20:9–10 (describing the bipolar operation of “pairs” nine times). Accordingly, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Stern teaches a device configured to have at most only a single pair of bipolar RF electrodes. Second, Stern teaches that the “embodiment of FIG. 15 . . . provides flexibility within the bipolar operation so that any pair or any combination of pairs may be utilized together.” Ex. 1033, 13:39–43 (emphasis added). Thus, even if claim 1 did require simultaneous activation of multiple bipolar pairs, we agree with Petitioner that such functionality is also taught by Stern. See Reply 5–6.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,766,286 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,766,286 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00278 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15–17 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner disputes the second part of Petitioner’s definition “because the ‘and/or’ encompasses within the definition . . . persons who only have experience with the clinical use or testing of medical devices.” Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill “would have had more experience than just clinically using medical devices or simply conducting tests with medical devices” Id. at 6–7. To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 33–34 (identifying evidence that clinical experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and therefore be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner’s definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, we apply Petitioner’s definition. Regardless, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer the opinions in his declarations under either definition. Moreover, Patent Owner does not identify any testimony it contends would be different under its POSITA definition. See Ex. 1083 ¶ 103 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Accordingly, all of the findings and conclusions herein would be the same under either side’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Neither side proposes any terms for express construction. Petitioner contends “the Board need not construe any terms because the Challenged Claims are invalid under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 20. “Patent Owner believes that no claim constructions are required to resolve the issues raised” in this IPR. Resp. 13. Nevertheless, in their arguments over whether the prior art teaches certain claim elements, each side accuses the other of misinterpreting or reading requirements beyond their ordinary meaning into those terms. See Reply 3–10 (urging that Patent Owner’s arguments read requirements into elements 1[d] and 1[e]); Sur-Reply 9–15 (arguing Petitioner applies an incorrect definition of “radio frequency output channel”). To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context they are raised in our analysis below. No further express claim construction is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Edwards-535 and Stern, and had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so for the reasons set forth in the Petition. We also find that the articulated combination of Edwards-535 and Stern teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed analysis of claim elements 1[a]-[c] and [f] and reasoning for combining the references, and credit its supporting evidence. See Pet. 7–14, 17–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–103, 113–21. Below we address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed elements 1[d] and 1[e].” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has the more persuasive position and has demonstrated that Stern teaches element 1[e]. Petitioner demonstrates Stern’s multiple RF output channels with the annotated version of Figure 15 shown below. Pet. 42–43. As shown by Petitioner’s annotations above, the channel (highlighted in orange) connecting the output received from voltage source 228 to the first bipolar pair (circled in green on the left) is distinct from the channel connecting the output to the second bipolar electrode pair (circled in purple on the right) because depending on which switches are closed, energy travels through a separate connection between those switches and the corresponding electrodes. We agree with Petitioner, and credit Dr. Martin’s testimony, that each of the output channels highlighted in orange in Stern’s Figure 15 above “are output channels as required by the claims because the channels are separately/individually connected to the electrodes” and “control individual pairs of bipolar RF electrodes.” Id. at 43–44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 124–128; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 45 (“an ‘output channel’ connects electrodes and provides the ability to independently control pairs of electrodes”). This understanding of the term “output channel” is consistent with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “multiple radiofrequency output channels” wherein “each pair” of bipolar RF electrodes “is connected with a respective one of the multiple radio frequency output channels.” Ex. 1001, 52:27–33. The RF generator itself and its connection to the output channels is not recited in claim 1. Instead, the claim language focuses on the connection between the electrode pair and its respective output channel. The description in the specification also focuses on the connection to the electrodes and further explains that having a “separate, controlled electrical channel” for “each pair of electrodes” allows for “different regions of the treatment element to be activated separately.” Ex. 1001, 24:45–52, 48:63–65; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 33 (“[e]very time the patent mentions ‘electrical channel’ or ‘output channel,’ it is referring to connections to electrodes”). This aligns with the depiction of the output channels in the ’318 patent’s figures. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 39–44 (showing RF output channel 961 connected to electrodes). Petitioner demonstrates this in the annotated version of Figure 39 shown below. Reply 8.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 11,033,318 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,033,318 - Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00277 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–12, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over the Edwards-535, Kong, and Stern combinations, with Edwards-886 added for claim 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent Petitioner’s definition could be interpreted to encompass someone who only has experience using or testing unrelated medical devices, we tend to agree with Patent Owner. But it does not follow that experience with the clinical use and testing of medical devices, including those that deliver energy to tissue, would not be relevant background for one of ordinary skill. See Reply 29–31 (identifying evidence that clinical use and testing experience is relevant). The devices and methods in the challenged patent and asserted prior art are designed to be used by clinicians. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 5, 14–15 (explaining that clinicians who use such devices gain extensive experience regarding how they work); see also Ex. 1084, 82:13–83:20 (Dr. Bikson testifying that a physician would perform the claimed method steps). Accordingly, clinical experience using and testing them would inform their design and be relevant experience for one of ordinary skill in the art. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed modification of Petitioner definition, which would remove clinical use and testing from the list of activities in Petitioner’s POSITA definition. See Resp. 7 (proposing redlines). Instead, we apply Petitioner’s definition. Regardless, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Martin, is qualified to offer the opinions in his declarations under either definition and Patent Owner does not identify any testimony it contends would be different under its POSITA definition. See Ex. 1097 ¶ 49 (Dr. Martin testifying that his opinions “remain the same regardless of which definition applies”). Moreover, as explained below, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s challenge to Dr. DelGaudio’s qualifications and give his testimony appropriate weight in our analysis. For these reasons, our findings and conclusions would be the same under either side’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Third, nothing suggests that Dr. DelGaudio is not qualified to offer opinions regarding the knowledge and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, to his relevant clinical experience, Dr. DelGaudio has experience designing different types of medical devices and consulting with device manufacturers to provide feedback and improve devices used in nasal surgery. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 9–11. Thus, even if we had adopted a POSITA definition requiring design and development experience, Dr. DelGaudio would qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art because he has such experience in addition to his extensive clinical background. Id. Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues he is “not an individual capable of designing and developing the medical device used in the claimed method” because “Dr. DelGaudio has no experience in designing medical devices that deliver energy to tissue.” Sur-reply 22–24 (emphasis added). That argument is unavailing because such devices and methods of using them such as those recited in the claims of the ’271 patent are often developed by a team of individuals with different backgrounds and expertise. That Dr. DelGaudio working alone may not be capable of designing and developing such a device does not disqualify him from offering testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly as it relates to those claim elements that recite the use of the device as opposed to its technical details.8 Moreover, Dr. DelGaudio was careful not to overstep the bounds of his expertise, relying on testimony from Dr. Martin to confirm his understanding concerning some of the engineering details of the devices themselves. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94, 124, 127, 130, 151; see also Ex. 1083 ¶ 12 (explaining he relied on Dr. Martin to confirm his understanding of teachings in Stern that disclose “implementation details about circuitry used to operate the bipolar electrodes, the physics of delivering energy to tissue, among other things”); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 66–131 (Dr. Martin testifying regarding a POSITA’s understanding of the prior art as it relates to such elements). Fourth, even if Dr. DelGaudio did not himself qualify as one of ordinary skill, we could still consider his testimony on those matters on which he was qualified. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 52, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents /tpgnov.pdf (“CTPG”) (“A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’”) (citing cases). We agree with Petitioner that this would include matters such as the use of the devices described in the cited references in a clinical setting. See Reply 28. 8 Indeed, by its logic, Patent Owner’s own expert would not be one of ordinary skill in the art because he is not himself capable of practicing the claimed method. See Ex. 1084, 24:13–22, 82:19–83:8 (testifying he has never used an RF device to treat a patient and would not himself perform the recited method).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner’s position is persuasive. Even without taking into account the reasoning based on Baker (which we address separately below), Petitioner has demonstrated a sufficient rationale for incorporating Stern’s arrangement of two rows of bipolar electrode pairs into Edwards-535’s device. Edwards-535 teaches that a plurality of electrodes may be positioned on the surface of its treatment element, but does not specify how those electrodes are arranged or controlled. Ex. 1010, 8:25–27; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 68–69. Stern teaches a control system for selectively delivering power to bipolar electrode pairs arranged in two rows on the surface of its device that provides even heating and precise control. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 80–85. As Dr. DelGaudio explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded these attributes to be particularly beneficial when delivering treatment to the “nasal passages . . . given the uneven morphology of nasal cavity tissue and the proximity of the RF energy delivery to a patient’s brain and other critical tissues within the head.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 94. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s experts that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Stern’s teachings, including the complementary two-row surface electrode arrangement shown in Figure 19, for these reasons. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–94; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 72–73, 75–88, 96–97 (explaining that Stern’s techniques would have been used to improve Edwards-535’s device in a similar way). Petitioner’s reasoning that “arranging electrodes in rows . . . facilitates simple spatial resolution of the applied energy” is also persuasive. See Pet. 47–48. As Dr. Martin explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that arranging bipolar electrodes in two or more rows was a “common way to arrange such electrodes” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 34) and a “simple way to direct energy to specific locations for treatment would have been to place pairs of electrodes in rows . . . along the device at the locations being treated.” Id. ¶ 95.” slip op. at 41
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s position is persuasive. Stern’s Figure 15 shows bipolar electrodes 220 and 224 in a first horizontal row and electrodes 222 and 226 in a second horizontal row. Stern teaches that bipolar pairs can be formed between various combination of these electrodes resulting in both pairs within a row and pairs formed across two rows. See Ex. 1033, 12:61–13:2 (explaining that “bipolar operation is not limited to [electrode] 220-224 and 222-226 pair couplings” because pairs could also be formed across rows, e.g., between electrodes 220 and 222). Stern’s Figure 19 likewise depicts a plurality of electrodes arranged in two rows. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71–74 (Dr. Martin explaining that the physical arrangement in Figure 19 is complementary to the control structure in Figure 15 and that there are two rows regardless of which electrodes are paired). In bipolar operation, each of these figures depicts “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” as recited in element 1[a] because there are two rows comprising multiple pairs.15 Patent Owner’s narrower interpretation of the phrase “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” is not consistent with the intrinsic record. According to Patent Owner and Dr. Bikson, it is not enough that there are two rows of electrodes comprising multiple pairs––rather each row must itself contain multiple pairs. See Resp. 23; Ex. 2001 ¶ 75 (“A row of only two electrodes is not a row of bipolar electrode pairs because a row of only two electrodes has at most a single pair (not multiple pairs).”). As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s interpretation assumes that the “s” in “pairs” modifies each row individually, rather than the recited “rows” collectively. But the claim 15 In reply to Patent Owner’s argument that there must be at least three electrodes in a row for that row to contain multiple pairs, Petitioner shows that Stern also discloses rows with three or more electrodes. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 36– 40; Ex. 1097 ¶¶ 39–41 (identifying rows with three or more electrodes in Stern’s Figures 4a and 19). We need not address that showing in detail because, as explained below, element 1[a] does not require that there be more than one pair in each row. language does not specify that each row has pairs (plural). Rather, given its plain meaning, “two rows of bipolar electrode pairs” encompasses an arrangement like that shown in Stern’s Figure 15. Ex. 1097 ¶ 30 (Dr. Martin explaining that “what is required is (1) more than one bipolar electrode pair that are (2) spread across rows”). This broader understanding is confirmed by the specification of the” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 11,241,271 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,241,271 - PTAB · Apr 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01473 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6, 7, 17, and 22–25 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, including its Cai-based grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Considering the arguments and evidence currently of record, we determine the Petition demonstrates “a reasonable likelihood that [P]etitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6, 7, 17, and 22–25 of the ’360 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficient. According to the ’360 patent, “[t]he field of the invention is related to sensor arrays for the detection and diagnosis of disease states.” Ex. 1001, 1:28–29. The Specification describes accomplishing such by analysis of protein coronas using techniques such as LC-MS/MS. See id. at 4:43–5:2 (describing Figure 1). The prior art cited by Petitioner also describes the analysis of protein coronas using similar analytical techniques. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 584; Ex. 1007, 1870; Ex. 1008, 355–356. Accordingly, the present record supports that a POSA would have an understanding of both proteins and the analytical techniques, e.g., mass spectrometry, that can be used to characterize them. We understand Petitioner’s definition of a POSA to encompass these elements. It requires a formal degree in chemistry,5 which itself entails some knowledge of proteins and related analytical techniques, along with several years’ additional experience in proteomics, protein analysis, or mass spectrometry. Moreover, Petitioner’s definition is flexible in that it allows higher education or skill with, e.g., mass spectrometry, to make up for a lack of specific experience with proteomics assay and protein coronas. This explanation is reasonable and supported on the current record.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Third, and perhaps most importantly, there is “no requirement for perfect match between an expert’s experience and the relevant field.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) 34, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“CTPG”). (citing SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). A person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art to testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, there is no dispute that Dr. Vargas is qualified in the art of mass spectrometry and, on the current record, we discern no reason why she is not qualified to offer the testimony in her declaration. At most, Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Vargas lacks experience “perform[ing] mass spectrometry techniques specifically for protein analysis,” goes to the weight we should afford her testimony at trial. See Prelim. Resp. 28–29. It is not a sufficient reason to deny institution, particularly given that Dr. Vargas’s testimony is only part of the showing offered in support of the Petition. 6 Patent Owner’s narrow characterization of Dr. Vargas’s experience (see Prelim. Resp. 28–29) is arguably inconsistent with the description in her CV (Ex. 1004). In any event, Patent Owner will have an opportunity to examine Dr. Vargas regarding her qualifications.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner “submits that no express construction of terms is necessary.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner agrees no construction is needed at this stage. See Prelim. Resp. 26. We agree that no formal claim construction is necessary for this decision. 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)). To the extent we have concerns regarding the parties’ apparent interpretation of the claim language, or in some instances Patent Owner’s attempt to read-in unrecited limitations, we address those arguments below.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,435,360 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 11–22 based on the §103(a) challenge over Xu-752 and Jones, after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 16–22.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Having reviewed Petitioner’s showing, we find that it demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 16 is unpatenable over Xu-752 and Jones. Patent Owner’s arguments in the Preliminary Response are unavailing on the current record. We address those arguments below.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Having reviewed Petitioner’s showing, we find that it demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 16 is unpatenable over Xu-752 and Jones. Patent Owner’s arguments in the Preliminary Response are unavailing on the current record. We address those arguments below.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Oka is not cumulative of Jones. Jones discloses an impedance measuring system for measuring the impedance of each well of a multiwell plate. Ex. 1006, code (57). Moreover, Jones clearly teaches that the daughter boards in its system “may be equipped with multiple analog-to-digital converters.” Id. ¶ 18. Oka, in contrast, does not. As Patent Owner acknowledges, “Oka is a planar multielectrode array that 11 Oka et al., “A new planar multielectrode array for extracellular recording: application to hippocampal acute slice,” 93 J. of Neuroscience Methods 61– 67 (1999) (Ex. 1026) (“Oka”). measures via extracellular recording instead of impedance.” Prelim. Resp. 51 n. 10 (emphases added). This is consistent with the applicants’ arguments during prosecution that Oka does not disclose a multiwell plate, plurality of wells, or even measuring cell-substrate impedance. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 191–193. Moreover, as Petitioner points out, Oka appears to disclose only a single ADC connected to a switch. See Ex. 1026, 63 (Fig. 2); see also Ex. 1002, 188 (applicant urging that “Oka uses a switch to connect the AD-C to different electrodes at different times” and therefore is not performing measurements for individual electrode arrays). Thus, unlike Jones, Oka does not disclose a plurality of ADCs, much less multiple ADCs arranged and operated in parallel such that impedances for multiple wells are measured at a time.12” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner does not dispute or otherwise respond to Petitioner’s description of a POSA in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,906,508 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01077 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 11, and 13–20 based on the Schröder and Mestas obviousness challenge; it did not decide whether the Yuen and Mestas challenge met the institution threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“2. Discussion Part I of the Advanced Bionics framework asks whether the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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). For the reasons that follow, we determine that the reasonable likelihood standard is met, and we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art. Based on the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, and two years of experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. A POSA would have been familiar with sensor system design and signal processing. A higher level of education or skill can substitute for less experience, and vice versa. Ex. 1002 ¶ 29. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’859 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We agree with the parties that it is not necessary for us to provide an express construction for any claim term for purposes of determining whether to institute an inter partes review. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 21. Nevertheless, there appears to be a dispute about the meaning of the term, “ring,” which we discuss below for purposes of providing guidance.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,139,859 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01078 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 11–15, and 38–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Schröder and Mestas.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6, 11–15, and 38–43 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In view of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Mestas as cumulative. Noting that the Office allowed claims of the ’686 Application over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0106603 (Ex. 2006, “Weast”), Patent Owner argues that Mestas discloses the same wristband as Weast. Prelim. Resp. 10–12, 58. Patent Owner overlooks that the Office’s consideration of Weast in the prosecution of the ’686 Application occurred after the ’953 patent issued, which does not show consideration of Weast’s or Mestas’s wristband configuration in the allowance of the ’953 patent’s claims. Ex. 2009, 1, 3; Ex. 1001, code (45); Prelim. Resp. 10–12, 58.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 7 (Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 12. Based on the testimony of Dr. Anthony, we agree with Petitioner’s stated understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1002 ¶ 29. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’953 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner expresses that it “does not believe that any term requires express construction.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute this assertion. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage, we need not and do not construe expressly any claim language. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,281,953 - Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Noble Innovations NC L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2025 · IPR2023-01254 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 5–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Grounds 1–4; each ground relies on the Board’s combinations of Wolcott or Young with Davidson, with or without Fitz-Gibbon.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner has sufficiently, and we find accurately, mapped the limitations of the challenged claims to the disclosures of Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, identified reasons with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the references, and shown that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in such a predictable endeavor. Regarding the reasons to combine Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz- Gibbon, they are each analogous art as each is directed to solving the problem of retaining dentifrice, a pellet or any dentifrice, on a toothbrush, within a dedicated space between its bristles. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (the prior art is from the same field of endeavor as the invention and also addresses the particular problem with which the invention/inventor is involved); see generally Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207 (Mr. Fletcher testifying to the same). We agree that the prior art combination and asserted modifications would be predictable and well within the level of ordinary skill to accomplish, making success entirely expected. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207; Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the advantages disclosed by Davidson regarding its bristles 13 and well 12 retaining any type of dentifrice would similarly advantage Wolcott’s toothbrush, which is designed to similarly retain a dentifrice pellet in a recess using bristles. See Ex. 1009, 1:1–41, 2:39–3:1, 3:55–4:9, Figs. 4, 5; Ex. 1010, 2:11–14, 2:24– 27, 3:20–24, Figs. 1–3; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 121–122. Similarly, Fitz-Gibbon discloses its toothbrush’s bristles or, more accurately, tufts of bristles 13, are disposed at an angle toward, and to hold, dentifrice in a chamber/pocket; we find this feature, which Fitz-Gibbon describes as “exceedingly valuable,” would also have been reasonably incorporated into the toothbrush achieved by the combination of Wolcott and Davidson, with an expectation of success. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 204–207; Ex. 1011, 2:58–87. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have had ample reason to combine Wolcott and Davidson, or Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, and the result of doing so would have been obvious.” slip op. at 38
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art or POSITA, but Patent Owner neither proposes a definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan nor opposes Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Mr. Kodama, testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan as of the invention date would be defined identically as proposed by Petitioner. Ex. 2001 ¶ 46. We accept and use Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’332 patent, itself. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as 10 Petitioner uses the acronym POSITA to reference the person of ordinary skill in the art. evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the bristles must be angled and disagree with Patent Owner. As explained above, it remains generally uncontested that the claim language “angled capsule retaining elements” includes within its scope angled bristles. This is well supported by the intrinsic record: only one type of angled structure is disclosed in the ’332 patent as functioning to retain an oral care capsule on a toothbrush, and that structure is “a plurality of angled bristles adapted to retain an oral care capsule in the capsule receiving zone.”12 Ex. 1001, 2:57–67, 4:62–5:13. The ’332 patent explains 11 Patent Owner actually cites “‘627 patent app” at paragraph 36,” without ever mentioning any exhibit of record in the proceeding. We understand Patent Owner to refer to Petitioner’s Exhibit 1003, as this is the only occurrence of the ’627 application of record. 12 The ’332 patent also describes “a movable retaining element,” which is a separate structure from the angled bristles that comprise the angled capsule retaining elements, that is described as some sort of openable access to the that bristles are angled toward the center of a capsule receiving zone such that an oral care capsule can be loaded there-into by spreading apart the angled bristles, inserting the oral care capsule past the angled bristles, and depositing the oral care capsule in the capsule receiving zone; thereafter the angled bristles relax to their angled state and retain the oral care capsule. Id.; see also id.at 7:19–42, 9:54–10:11 (describing how a dispensing device can accomplish this loading).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner has sufficiently, and we find accurately, mapped the limitations of the challenged claims to the disclosures of Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, identified reasons with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the references, and shown that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in such a predictable endeavor. Regarding the reasons to combine Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz- Gibbon, they are each analogous art as each is directed to solving the problem of retaining dentifrice, a pellet or any dentifrice, on a toothbrush, within a dedicated space between its bristles. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (the prior art is from the same field of endeavor as the invention and also addresses the particular problem with which the invention/inventor is involved); see generally Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207 (Mr. Fletcher testifying to the same). We agree that the prior art combination and asserted modifications would be predictable and well within the level of ordinary skill to accomplish, making success entirely expected. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207; Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the advantages disclosed by Davidson regarding its bristles 13 and well 12 retaining any type of dentifrice would similarly advantage Wolcott’s toothbrush, which is designed to similarly retain a dentifrice pellet in a recess using bristles. See Ex. 1009, 1:1–41, 2:39–3:1, 3:55–4:9, Figs. 4, 5; Ex. 1010, 2:11–14, 2:24– 27, 3:20–24, Figs. 1–3; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 121–122. Similarly, Fitz-Gibbon discloses its toothbrush’s bristles or, more accurately, tufts of bristles 13, are disposed at an angle toward, and to hold, dentifrice in a chamber/pocket; we find this feature, which Fitz-Gibbon describes as “exceedingly valuable,” would also have been reasonably incorporated into the toothbrush achieved by the combination of Wolcott and Davidson, with an expectation of success. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 204–207; Ex. 1011, 2:58–87. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have had ample reason to combine Wolcott and Davidson, or Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, and the result of doing so would have been obvious.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,881,332 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,881,332 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · PGR2024-00039 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–17, finding the Schröder obviousness challenge to claim 1 met the institution threshold; it did not reach the remaining challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“2. Discussion Part I of the Advanced Bionics framework asks whether the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner’s showing for the printed circuit board of claim element 1[c], as summarized above, is sufficient for purposes of granting institution of a post-grant review. For purposes of institution, Petitioner’s contentions are adequately supported by Schröder, which describes inlay 12 as a “flexible carrier material, e.g. PET, Kapton, etc.” and a “carrier” for the antenna, chip module, and “at least one further electronic component,” as well as Schröder’s Figures 7 and 8, which depict inlay 12 between ring halves 16 and 18. Ex. 1007, 12:28–42, 12:48–52, 12:61–65, 13:23–25. We have considered Patent Owner’s argument that Schröder’s inlay 12 “is merely a substance for holding the coil in place, not a printed circuit board,” as well as Patent Owner’s argument contrasting Schröder’s description of inlay 12 with the express disclosure of “a circuit on a circuit board” elsewhere in the reference. Prelim. Resp. 29–30 (emphasis omitted; citing Ex. 1007, 8:57–59, 22:48–50; Ex. 20119). These arguments raise a serious issue about whether a POSITA would have understood Schröder’s inlay 12 as teaching a printed circuit board. This issue would benefit from further development at trial.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“E. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art At this stage of the proceeding, there is no dispute about the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, and two years of experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. A POSITA would have been familiar with sensor system design and signal processing. A higher level of education or skill can substitute for less experience, and vice versa. Ex. 1002 ¶ 29. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’702 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with the parties that it is not necessary for us to provide an express construction for any claim term for purposes of determining whether to institute a post-grant review. Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 21.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,874,702 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2024 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR of claims 1–10 and 12–18; Petitioner met the institution threshold for claim 1 based on obviousness over Schröder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In applying § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). We also consider the non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part), which “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art At this stage of the proceeding, there is no dispute about the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, and two years of experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. A POSITA would have been familiar with sensor system design and signal experience, and vice versa. Ex. 1002 ¶ 21. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’178 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with the parties that it is not necessary for us to provide an express construction for any claim term for purposes of determining whether to institute a post-grant review. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 25.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Petitioner relies on Dr. Anthony’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood Figures 6–8 as showing a cavity as recited in claim 1 and the battery must be arranged within that cavity because “[o]therwise, if the battery did not fit within the ‘finger-ring,’ the ‘finger-ring’ either has (1) a battery that sticks out or is exposed to the environment or (2) a wired connection to power its components, which is contrary to the intent of having a portable, wearable device.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 166. Dr. Anthony opines that “[a] POSITA would have understood that the battery’s location within the cavity is the ‘first portion’ of the cavity because the battery necessarily occupies space in the cavity.” Id. ¶ 168. Such testimony, when viewed along with the rest of Petitioner’s showing, provides sufficient basis for institution.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,868,178
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.