- Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,770,121 - Mastercard Incorporated And Mastercard International Incorporated v. Ov Loop, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01289 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Collinge; the Board did not reach the anticipation grounds based on Collinge or the grounds based on Fiske.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in electrical and computer engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience in the field of secure payment system,” and that “[a]dditional education in the field could be substituted for industry experience, and vice versa.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner does not suggest that its proposed level of ordinary skill materially differs from the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See id. We find, on the current record, that the ’171 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 ’171 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We would have reached the same conclusions in this Decision had we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In light of the lack of any dispute over the Second Construction, a construction we find consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, we need not resolve whether the claim language also encompasses Petitioner’s First Construction. Moreover, as explained below, we find Collinge renders obvious the subject matter of the limitation under either construction. See infra Section III.D.5. For the foregoing reasons, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. 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 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because here Petitioner is not relying on some other disclosure to fill a missing limitation absent from Collinge, but is instead relying only on Collinge and the knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art would possess when appreciating the teachings of Collinge. Petitioner is not suggesting Collinge needed to be modified to add the use of an APDU, but, rather, that Collinge’s disclosure already contemplated it based on the well-known background of the art. Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that “the Collinge Provisionals state the disclosures therein are intended to be used in a ‘standard’ PayPass transaction,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “the PayPass Specification (and EMV Specifications, with which the PayPass Specification complies) when reading Collinge.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1009, 8, 14–15, 22–23; Ex. 1050 ¶ 22). in a “standard” PayPass transaction and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, at a minimum, that it would have been obvious from Collinge that the “first set of data” (i.e., the encrypted payload in Collinge) would have been “usable” by the application of Collinge “to formulate an application protocol data unit response,” as required by limitation [1.C]. Petitioner further demonstrates how Collinge discloses that the “first set of data” was “useable by the application to formulate” an APDU response in addressing limitation [1.E–3], which specifically requires “generating a response.” See Pet. Reply 11 (explaining that “[d]etails of how [the encrypted payload] is used to formulate an APDU response are explained where that is separately claimed”); see also id. (citing Pet. 48–50 (addressing limitation [1.E-3])).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,032,171 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,171 - BMW Of North America, LLC / Robert Bosch LLC et al. v. Foras Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01373 · APJ Carl W Whitehead Jr · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 13–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen because the combination teaches determining whether lockstep is recoverable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 8–9. In its Response, Patent Owner does not take exception to our definition. See PO Resp. 3. However, Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience with computer architecture design.” Id. We find Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art are not meaningfully distinguishable from one another. Accordingly, we do not see the need to modify our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. However, our findings would not change even under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are satisfied that Mr. Jones qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 2008, 1 (“Summary” including “embedded systems including both software and hardware”, “Representative Design Work” including, e.g., “Design and implement multiple device drivers for complex Integrated circuits,” “Design of a highly fault tolerant, distributed data acquisition and control, system for a rebreather . . . system architecture, hardware design and layout, embedded firmware, documentation,” “hardware and firmware design,” “[h]ardware and firmware for controlling a unique, battery powered diesel burner…”), 2–3 (list of Publications). We are also satisfied that Mr. Jones’ degree in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering is sufficiently “equivalent” to a degree in Computer Engineering or Computer Science. See PO Sur-reply 11. We decline to give Mr. Jones’ declaration no weight for several additional reasons. One, Petitioner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude Mr. Jones’ declaration, nor has Petitioner filed an objection. See Pet. Reply 2–5; see also Hearing Tr. 32, 33:15–34:8. Two, we are afforded broad discretion in assigning weight that is to be accorded expert testimony. See Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Board was well within its discretion to give more credibility to [one expert over another] unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so.”); see also CTPG5 34–36. In sum, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony should be given no weight because Mr. Jones is not qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art according to our definition. See Pet. Reply 2–5; see also PO Sur-reply 10–13. 5 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (CTPG) (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner did not challenge Petitioner’s position on these terms. See Prelim. Resp. 1–13. We determined there were no claim terms that needed to be construed in our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 9– 10. Post-institution, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of these terms and “does not believe either term requires construction, because . . . Petitioner fails to demonstrate obviousness regardless of how these terms [(“lockstep is recoverable” and “loss of lockstep is recoverable”)] are construed. PO Resp. 2. We agree with Patent Owner that no claim construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. That is, we do not discern any claim terms that are in controversy on the full record. 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 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Mr. Jones’ testimony amounts to conjecture because it is unsupported by evidence, for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 2007 ¶ 32; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight”). However, we find that Dr. Brogioli provides sufficient persuasive evidence as to how firmware FRC logic would be used and modified in the Bigbee/Nguyen combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 57–58, 96–98. As discussed above, Bigbee uses firmware FRC logic to check for an error within a processor core. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35–37, Fig. 4A. Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic does not determine if lockstep is recoverable. Id. Similar to Bigbee, Nguyen also uses firmware FRC logic to check for an error within a processor core. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 9, 18, Fig. 7. However, the difference is that Nguyen’s firmware FRC logic determines if lockstep is recoverable. Id. We find for the reasons given by Petitioner and Dr. Brogioli including those summarized supra, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bigbee by implementing Nguyen’s determination in firmware. Pet. 33–35 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 94 (stating that “[i]mplementing logical steps in firmware was known in the art”); ¶ 95 (stating that Bigbee’s system “is compliant with well-known industry standards”); ¶ 98 (stating that “firmware is flexible” and “can be modified after production, updated, and supported relatively quickly and inexpensively.”)). In contrast, Patent Owner’s arguments fail to convince us that a person of ordinary skill in the art, having knowledge of Nguyen’s teaching of determining lockstep recovery, would not have able to modify Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic to determine if lockstep is recoverable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also id. at 418. Accordingly, Petitioner has presented reasoning, with rational underpinnings, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to modify Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic based upon Nguyen’s teachings and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Accordingly, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that this element is taught or suggested by the Bigbee/Nguyen combination.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,502,958 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,502,958 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01281 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 13 would have been obvious over Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in Sept. 2007 would have had a working knowledge of network communications techniques and highspeed packet processing technologies. Ex.1003, ¶20. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in network communications. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶20. Pet. 13. We use this definition for purposes of this Decision because it appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the ’471 patent.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that no terms require express construction. Pet. 13. We do not expressly construe any terms at this time. Realtime, 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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to the claim requirement that the direct memory access device concurrently write the packet buffer memory and the protocol stack layer memory, Petitioner asserts that neither Cornett nor Paatela explicitly describes the timing of packet writing. Pet. 42. Petitioner asserts, however, that Nelson discloses writing a packet header separately and in parallel with writing the entire packet. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 6:66–7:4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Indeed, Nelson explains that the parallel storage action “avoid[s] having to read the frames out of the [larger frame] buffer” when reading a header, which eliminates the need for a separate reading step and “allows the routing decision to be made before the [frame] buffer becomes available.” Ex. 1006, 2:1–22 (containing the quoted language), 7:1–4 (describing “parallel . . . storage”). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to write the packet header at the same time as writing the entire packet in Cornett, because Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson are concerned with speed, and writing in parallel would increase speed (vs. writing serially). Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90); see also id. at 26 (similar argument). Reviewing Petitioner’s position with respect to independent claim 13, we determine that Petitioner has addressed each limitation in sufficient detail and with adequate citations to the record. Petitioner has also provided sufficient reasons for combining the teachings of Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Reviewing the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,738,471 - PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01347 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–27 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). We must 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” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesNo construction neededOther
“1. Means-Plus-Function Terms Challenged claim 26 recites elements using the word “means.” See Ex. 1001, 21:6–22:5. The use of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies.9 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. We must first identify the claimed function. Then, we must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Id. at 1351 (citation omitted). The parties do not dispute that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies to those “means” elements recited in claim 26. See Pet. 6–8; see generally Prelim. Resp. a. “system firmware means for detecting loss of lockstep (LOL) for a processor in a multi-processor system” (Claim limitation [26a])” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that these terms “should be construed to include both mismatch errors and errors that may eventually result in mismatch errors constituting a ‘precursor to lockstep mismatch’—including at least one of (1) detecting a lockstep mismatch error; and (2) detecting an error that may eventually cause a lockstep mismatch error.” Pet. 6. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he specification provides detecting these two types of errors as examples of detection of LOL.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:40–3:6, 7:25–36; Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 34–36). Petitioner further asserts that this construction “is consistent with the undisputed construction in the IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958.” Id. (citing BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Foras Techs. Ltd., IPR2023-01373, Paper 18 at 2 (PTAB July 12, 2024)). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position or discuss claim construction in the Preliminary Response. meaning of these claim terms that would affect this Decision. Therefore, we determine that at this stage, we do not need to expressly construe these claim terms to resolve a controversy. 3. Summary and Conclusion For the reasons given, we determine that at this stage, we do not need expressly to construe any claim term for this Decision. 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., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent, and at least two years of prior work experience with computer architecture design, including fault-tolerant computer architecture design,” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 28–30). At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to this contention. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’302 patent specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,624,302 - PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01346 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Fox, Safford, and Arai, with or without Landry.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“As can be seen in the discussion above and the analysis of Petitioner’s grounds below, Arai and Landry are significant to Petitioner’s challenges. Because the Office did not previously consider all of the prior art references or combinations of references relied on in the Petition, including Arai and Landry, and because Arai and Landry are not the same or substantially the same as the art that was previously considered, we determine the Office did not previously consider the same or substantially the same prior art as is relied on in the Petition.8 Further, we find that there is not a substantial overlap, if any, between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art, including Arai and Landry, as discussed above. Therefore, part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is not met, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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 provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Furthermore, we deny Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny institution in this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We therefore institute inter partes review on all challenged claims and all grounds. See” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Motivation to Combine Fox, Safford, and Arai and Fox, Safford, Landry, and Arai Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill “would have found it obvious to combine Fox’s multiprocessor system with Safford’s lockstep processor and error detection logics and Arai’s processor-switching implementation details.” Pet. 10. Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated to implement the processors in Fox as lockstep processors to improve reliability and availability of Fox’s server system for critical processes, for which higher reliability and availability of the system are desired.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 90. He further testifies that “[a person or ordinary skill] also would have been motivated to implement in Fox the error detection logics that detect loss of lockstep together with the lockstep processors as taught by Safford to implement lockstep functions and further improve availability of the system.” Id. He testifies that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood how to implement Fox’s processors as lockstep processors with error detection logics and expect success. [A person of ordinary skill] would only have applied well-known configurations and ordinary hardware and software configuration skills.” Id. ¶ 91. Dr. Brogioli provides additional reasons motivating the combination. Id. ¶¶ 92–99. Petitioner contends that “Arai discloses switching the role of a failing processor with a spare processor.” Pet. 10. Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated to incorporate Arai’s teaching of transferring processor context from the failing processor to the spare processor not to interrupt the operating system and its running applications as desired by Fox.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 109. He reasons that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood that incorporating Arai’s benefit of switching the role of the failing processor to the spare processor without affecting the operating system and running applications, which is expressly taught as desirable by both Fox and Arai and well known in the art.” Id. ¶ 110. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill also would have been motivated to further combine these references with Landry. Pet. 33–35. Dr. Brogioli testifies that “Landry discloses a fault-tolerant boot process that dynamically designates a functional CPU as logical CPU0 that performs the unique functions of a boot processor.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 147. He testifies further that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood Landry’s process would have been a suitable option for selecting a boot processor in Fox’s system consistent with the initialization protocol of the IA-32 multiprocessor system.” Id. He asserts that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood the benefits of implementing Landry’s boot processor selection process in Fox.” Id. ¶ 148. Among other reasons, “[a person of ordinary skill] would have further understood that using the logical CPU0 as the identification for the boot processor allows for transparent replacement of the physical processor experiencing a failure with another processor without interrupting the operating system.” Id. At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to these arguments by Petitioner or refute the testimony by Dr. Brogioli. On this record, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated a motivation to combine Fox and Safford with Arai and to further combine these references with Landry with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We are not aware of any controversy between the parties over the meaning of these claim terms that would affect this Decision. Therefore, we determine that at this stage, we do not need to expressly construe these claim terms to resolve a controversy.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,627,781 - PTAB · Mar 5, 2025 · IPR2024-01357 · APJ Daniel Kazhdan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, and 29 on all four obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We find that this factor marginally favors Petitioners. Fintiv explains that the fact that a “district court has denied a motion for stay without prejudice” and has indicated on the record “that it will consider a renewed motion or reconsider a motion to stay if a PTAB trial is instituted” “has usually weighed against exercising authority to deny institution.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6–7. That is what happened here. When the district court denied Petitioner Savant’s motion for a stay in the Ohio litigation, it stated that, “[i]f the Patent Trial and Appeal Board accepts the petition for inter partes review, the parties may rebrief this issue.” See No. 1:24-cv-473 (N.D. Ohio) December 12, 2024, Order. Ex. 1025. Thus, this factor weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“prevail in showing that it would have been obvious to use blue light with a wavelength that is greater than 440 nm. Basin-2007 does not specify a specific wavelength for the blue light, but, as Patent Owner acknowledges, “blue light is generally emitted in the range of 380 to 500 nm.” Prelim. Resp. 55; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 121. Thus, the question is whether a skilled artisan, when looking for which wavelength to use, would have found it obvious to use anything in the half of the blue-light range that is greater than or equal to 440 nm. On its own, this overlap in ranges would be strong evidence of obviousness. See Galderma Lab’ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Petitioners show even more. Basin-2005 discloses that there is an “assum[ption]” that blue-light LEDs emit “in the range of 420-490 nm.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 30 (cited in Pet. 25). Basin-2005 additionally teaches that its “blue, UV, or near UV LED[s]” are “relatively easy to implement and consistently produce[] the desired white light temperature.” Id. ¶ 6 (cited in Pet. 25). Furthermore, Shimizu and Stokes indicate that people were using higher wavelength blue-light in their LEDs. See Pet. 8, 24–25 (citing sources). Because a skilled artisan would have needed to select some wavelength for the blue light disclosed in Basin-2007, at this stage, we conclude that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to include wavelengths from the higher end of the range—as disclosed in so many references. Basin-2007 discloses using a “conventional white light LED.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 21. As evidenced by Shimizu and Stokes, the conventional white light LED sources used blue light with wavelengths greater than or equal to 440 nm. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 121 (citing sources). Patent Owner argues that “quantum efficiency” considerations would lead to using lower wavelengths, but Patent Owner does not explain why these same considerations did not convince Basin-2005, Shimizu, or Stokes to use lower wavelengths. Based on our review of the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that the combined teachings of Basin-2005 and Basin-2007 render claim 1 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioners, [A person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had an undergraduate degree (i.e., B.S., B.S.E. or the equivalent) in electrical engineering, materials science, physics, or a similar discipline. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would also have one to two years of experience in the field of LED packaging design. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa. Pet. 6. For purposes of institution, “Patent Owner takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 36–37. At this stage, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioners and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “light diffusing layer” is exactly what it says: “a layer that diffuses light.” The claims separately recite one function for this layer: it must “improve[] an off-state white appearance of the wavelength conversion component.” Ex. 1001 at 26:15–17; see id. at 27:25–27. That is all.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - 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 · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01156 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–30 on all grounds, finding it more likely than not that the claims are unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of any of the claim terms and neither party identifies a claim construction that would impact our analysis. We therefore find that, at this stage of the proceeding, there are no terms that need claim construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts (without opposition): A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of invention would have a working knowledge of microbiology and would have been involved in developing testing methodologies for analysis of samples such as food products (“validation methodologies”). The POSA would most likely have an advanced degree in microbiology, food science, or animal science and at least two years of work experience but may alternatively have a bachelor’s degree in those areas and at least four years of experience with validation methodologies. The POSA would have been familiar with relevant scientific literature and industry regulations, directives, and guidelines relating to validation methodologies.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Determining whether claims are anticipated involves a two-step analysis. The first step involves construction of the claims of the patent at issue. Claim construction is a question of law reviewed de novo.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed.Cir.2011). “The second step [of an anticipation analysis] involves comparing the claims to the prior art. Anticipation is a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1296. “A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reference may anticipate inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed “is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“The motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one. “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed,” [but the] “analysis ‘need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’” Intel Corp. v. PACT XXP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 420 (emphasis added)). “[I]f 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,” because KSR explains that “if a technique has been used to improve one device [or method], and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices [or methods] in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 1380 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; and Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). If addressing a known problem, the prior art combination need not be “the best option, only . . . a suitable option.” Id. (quoting Intel, 21 F.4th at 800 (emphasis original)).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,845,486 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00186 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review on all challenged claims and all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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.” A decision to institute under § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). In addition, if the Board institutes trial, it will “institute on all grounds in the petition.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 5–6 (Nov. 2019); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, for the reasons described below, we institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Office (“USPTO”) issued a Memorandum titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Memorandum”)11, which states, among other things, that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have 11 Available at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_ discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_2022 0621_.pdf. reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memorandum 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). By email dated November 25, 2024, Petitioner requested leave to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to address, inter alia, its proposed submission of a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 3001. We denied Petitioner’s request for briefing, but granted its request to submit the stipulation. Id. The Sotera stipulation avers that “if IPR Nos. IPR2024- 00183, IPR2024-00185, and IPR2024-00186 are instituted, National Beef will not pursue in the related district court proceeding, Inst. for Envtl. Health, Inc. v. Nat’ / Beef Packing Co., LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00826 (D. Del. Aug. 1, 2023), any ground National Beef raised or reasonably could have raised in the aforementioned IPRs,” and that the stipulation “binds National Beef in the related district court proceeding, Inst. for Envtl. Health, Inc. v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co., LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00826 (D. Del. Aug. 1, 2023).” Ex. 1064. Applying the guidance provided in the Memorandum, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution in this proceeding under Fintiv because Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation.” slip op. at 20
- BurdenInstituted
“Thus, Petitioner has accounted for each step/element of independent claims 1 and 37 as taught by the combination of ICMSF and Gombas, and has also provided a reason why, with rational underpinnings, the prior art would have been combined and modified, with a reasonable expectation of success. On the current record, including Patent Owner’s arguments that we considered and are addressed in detail below, Petitioner’s evidence for this ground is sufficient to provide a reasonable likelihood of success in demonstrating unpatentability of at least one claim.” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “lots” does not require construction because on the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of the term, and neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identify any way that claim construction may impact our decision. We also agree with Patent Owner that the ’771 patent provides definitions that guide the understanding of the term “lots” including: The term “test lot” or “reportable lot” as used herein to refer to an assemblage of one or more specimens of a medium or process (e.g. assemblage of specimens of air, water, solids or of products of a production process, etc.), where such assemblage can be sampled by taking portions of the one or more specimens thereof, and where the one or more specimens of the assemblage are operationally linked in a manner (e.g., proximity, time, process step, etc.) whereby information derived about sampled portions is operationally applicable to all specimens of the assemblage, and thus to the test lot. In particular instances, portions are synonymous with specimens. Ex. 1003, 5:43‒54. The ’771 patent similarly provides definitions for “product portion,” “test lot sample,” and “composite lot-unit” that provide significant guidance and clarity as to the meaning of these terms. Ex. 1003, 5:60‒6:4, 6:12‒29, 7:49‒63. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We decline to expressly interpret this term at this time.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,637,771
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.