• RPX Corporation / Huawei Enterprise USA, Inc. et al. v. Parity Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00100 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–16, and 18–19 as obvious over Wilford; claims 5, 10, and 17 as obvious over Wilford and Ayres.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter of the ’378 patent would have had “(a) a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering, and four or more years of experience with networks and networking devices, or (b) a master’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering, and two or more years of experience with networks and networking devices.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 30–34). Patent Owner does not offer a proposed level of skill in its Patent Owner Response and does not address Petitioner’s assertions regarding the education or experience of an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill and acknowledge that the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355; GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Oelrich, 579 F.2d at 91.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “All challenged claims require a “hardware queue.” Petitioner argues “under BRI, the term ‘hardware queue’ should be interpreted to include hardware that is configurable by software to form a queue.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶ 210). Petitioner also suggests that an alternative definition of the term could “require special-purpose hardware circuitry to control at least some portion of the queue.” Id. at 44. Patent Owner does not define explicitly “hardware queue.” Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s declarant asserts “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of a hardware queue, is well known,” i.e., that “such a queue would be designed by a circuit designer and formed to function as a queue as part of the manufacturing process of an electronic circuit,” and that it differs from a software queue “formed by software operating on general purpose or multi-purpose hardware.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. Additionally, Patent Owner’s argument in the Patent Owner Response suggests “hardware queue” means that the queue cannot be a “software queue” and “must be implemented in hardware.” PO Resp. 7, 9–12 (stating “Petitioners do not assert that the queue must be implemented in hardware”).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner demonstrates reasons supported by a rational underpinning for combining Wilford and Ayres, including at least that the combination uses known methods to obtain predictable results. Pet. 61–66. For example, Petitioner provides evidence and argument that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that monitoring CPU utilization as taught in Ayres is a conventional technique for monitoring CPU load in relation to the CPU’s capacity, and that known technology could be employed in Wilford to monitor utilization of the linecard’s CPU (as Ayres does) and provide that information to the added dynamic packet flow rate control module. (Lavian, ¶259 (discussing Ayres and citing Ex. 1112 at 4:67, 9:62-65, 10:18- 20, and 10:26)). Pet. 66. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions in the Petition as to claims 5, 10, and 17.” slip op. at 36

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “because it contains allegedly new arguments. Paper 24. Specifically, Petitioner states Patent Owner argued for the first time “a hardware queue” requires some unspecified “structure” “define[d]” by hardware “such as shift registers.” Paper 42, 2 (citing Sur-Reply at 2–3). Petitioner also asserts that Patent Owner, for the first time in “[t]he Sur-Reply[,] offers unsupported attorney arguments about alleged differences between the ‘hardware queues’ in Exs. 1110 and 1111 and Wilford’s queues based on alleged differences between SRAM and DRAM.” Paper 42, 3 (citing Sur-Reply at 2–3). Petitioner asserts Patent Owner’s arguments could have been made in the Patent Owner Response and thus are waived. Paper 8, 3 (arguments not in POR “will be deemed waived”); Update to the Trial Practice Guide (83 Fed. Reg. 38,989 (Aug. 13, 2018) (notifying the public of the updated “Trial Practice Guide” and its accessibility through the USPTO website: https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP)) at 15 (a “sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered”; a sur-reply may “respond” to arguments “raised” in the reply but “respond … does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to positions taken in a prior filing.”). Petitioner’s motion is denied. Patent Owner’s reference to “shift registers” is in response to arguments in the Reply regarding the definition of hardware queue. Additionally, Patent Owner’s reference to Exhibits 1110 and 1111 are in response to Petitioner’s reference to those exhibits for the first time in its Reply.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,738,378 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,738,378
• Nikon Corporation v. Carl Zeiss AG And ASML Netherlands B.V.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2019 · IPR2018-00686 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Nikon’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–5, 7–10, 16, 24, and 30–33 based on § 325(d) and the priority-date analysis.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically 1 The Petition, in an apparent typographic error, omits claim 5 from its listing of challenged claims on page 1. identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “In the Institution Decision, we denied institution of Ground 1 based on our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 17. Specifically, we determined that the Kaifu reference relied on by Petitioner was considered during prosecution. Id. Petitioner asserts that we misapprehended or overlooked its arguments regarding why its contentions as to Kaifu were not considered by the Examiner.” slip op. at 3

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “written description. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal brackets omitted) (en banc) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Thus, the specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed, at the time of filing, the subject matter that he or she has claimed. Id. “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement is a question of fact. Id. at 1351, 1355. Entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject matter that is disclosed, not to that which is obvious. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that because the open ended term “comprising” was used in the original claim reciting “a” signal, the recitation of “a” signal and “one or more” signals would have the same scope. An indefinite article, such as “a,” in patent parlance encompasses “one or more” when used, as here, in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.” Id. Thus, the claim as amended, which removes the open ended preface “comprising” and changes the modifier of “select signals” from “a” to “one or more,” does not change the scope of the claim in that respect. It merely is a different phrasing. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, any description of a system with one signal would necessarily support a claim to one or more signals. Inst. Dec. 28. Additionally, the claim, as amended, does not suggest there is choice between alternatives that would meet this claim. For example, the claim does not require a choice between a first type of signal and a second type of signal. The claim recites “one” signal, which can be optionally accompanied (“or”) by “more” signals.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,728,574
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00359 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 32, 34, 37–38, 55–57, and 59 are unpatentable over Cunningham; claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, 24–31, 36, 42, 43, 46–49, 51–54, and 60–64 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “This argument is conclusory and not supported by sufficient evidence. Moreover, the stated conclusion is vague with respect to the limitation at issue. Petitioner argues that “the node 18 must translate messages” (id. (emphasis added)), but does not explicitly argue that all three recited pieces of information—“the select information, the transmitter identification information, and transceiver identification information”—must be translated. Even assuming Mason’s node must translate all three recited pieces of information, Petitioner does not show that all such translated pieces of information must be further transmitted to the AMR server over the WAN. In particular, Petitioner does not show that transceiver identification information would have to be further transmitted.” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that such a construction is “non- specific, vague and unhelpful” in the context of the ’692 patent. Reply. 16. Patent Owner’s construction limits “low power” to signals having a “limited transmission range,” but provides no guidance of what “limited” means, or what its boundaries might be. Petitioner argues correctly that Patent Owner’s construction fails to address questions its proposed construction raises, such as, what a ‘limited’ transmission range means and how ‘limited’ the range must be (i.e., what the range’s distance should be), whether the transmission range depends on the particular system or application, and whether other factors should be considered in determining whether the transmission range is limited.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Notably, Petitioner says these contentions are “further evidence” but does not explain how this evidence is to be used to buttress Cunningham’s disclosure or how it is to be combined with Cunningham’s disclosure. Specifically, given the limited contentions in the Petition detailed above, Petitioner does not explain how Energy Management Services or the “routines” described in the Provisional send control signals from the computer to the actuator as required by the claims. For example, even if we to accept that the “Williams Network Control Center” creates control signals as required by the claim Petitioner has not explained how those signals are translated from network transfer protocol to RF signals and then translated to an analog signal that can be used at an actuator. Even though the ’978 Provisional is allegedly incorporated by reference, an obviousness determination still requires--“[w]hether a [obviousness challenge] is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference[--] a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2017); c.f. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding obviousness shown despite fact that “all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments pictured side by side in the patent, not in one embodiment” because the party showed motivation to combine and reasonable likelihood of success). Additionally, “there must be evidence presented on the obviousness of the claim as a whole.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727); see also Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a whole, not separate pieces of the claim”). Here, the “routines” described in the ’978 Provisional work differently than the “utility prices” embodiment of Cunningham. Petitioner has not explained how those would work together to meet the claim limitations.” slip op. at 30

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner’s argument is inapposite, as it is premised on reading a limitation into the claims, namely that the information encoded in the RF signal must be translated in real time. Further, we agree with Petitioner, that even under such an erroneously narrow construction, Cunningham would meet the limitation. In that regard, Petitioner argues that, “although Cunningham discloses sending cumulative data readings, individual signals from the sensor are identified by the gateway and this information is then transmitted (with transmitter identification information) to a computer on the WAN.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶31–32; Ex. 1004, 31:6–28). Petitioner argues, and we are persuaded, that “Cunningham explains that the ‘most current cumulative reading’ is the current absolute ‘reading’ (i.e., information signal) from the sensor (Ex. 1004, 13:44–46) and that two cumulative readings can be used to ‘interpolate’ and ‘recover’ a missed reading (i.e., a signal from the sensor).” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 13:44–56; 31:6–27; Pet. 75; Ex. 1002 ¶¶115, 152; Ex. 1046 ¶32). We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. Lastly, claim 32 also recites “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” To meet this limitation, Petitioner accurately points out that “Cunningham discloses that[,] in response to receiving information from the sensor interface module through the data collection modules, the host module compiles the information into a user specified readable format and stores it for later retrieval upon demand from a customer computer or workstation.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:19–27, 44:12–41, 44:53–64, 46:44–61, 47:44–54, Ex. 1002 ¶¶138–140). Patent Owner does not contest that Cunningham discloses “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” See PO Resp. 22–29, 41–46. We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,437,692 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,437,692
• National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Technical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00699 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6 and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Assanelli; claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable over Kiefer and Assanelli; claims 6 and 20 are unpatentable over Lam and …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “In addition, on April 5, Patent Owner filed a Request for Adverse Judgment seeking cancelation of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 of the ’518 patent (Paper 44), which we granted (Paper 50). Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’518 patent remain in trial. Id.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of sophistication of the ’518 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of sophistication of the ’518 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of 13 ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’518 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “to . . . compute the effect of stressors on the wall of said tubular good” (Ex. 1001, 10:4–7), and that requirement is captured by our construction of that claim phrase to mean “causing a computer to use at least some of the information contained in the computer readable recording to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular” 18 (Inst. Dec. 8). To the extent Patent Owner contends that the term “computer” should be understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., as referring to a device for performing calculations on data, we agree, and observe that such understanding is captured by our original construction. Accordingly, for the reasons above, as well as those set forth in the Decision to Institute (id.), we construe the phrase “causing a computer means to use at least some of the information contained in said computer readable recording to compute the effect of stressors on the wall of said tubular good” to mean “causing a computer to use at least some of the information contained in the computer readable recording to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular.”” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,401,518 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,401,518
• National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Technical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00648 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 4 was held unpatentable as anticipated by Assanelli and obvious over Kiefer and Assanelli and over Lam and Assanelli.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “On April 5, 2018, Patent Owner filed a Request for Adverse Judgment, disclaiming and canceling claims 1–3 of the ’887 patent (Paper 41), which was granted on July 11, 2018 (Paper 44).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of 11 sophistication of the ’887 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’887 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner’s description of a relevant skilled artisan as possessing at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical, petroleum, or chemical engineering, and having at least 2–3 years of experience with pipe testing technology is supported by the record as a” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of 11 sophistication of the ’887 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’887 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Claim 4 expressly requires the use of a “computer means to compute the effect of stresses on the wall of said tubular good” (Ex. 1001, 10:36–38), and that requirement is captured by our construction of that claim phrase to 16 mean “using a computer to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular” (Inst. Dec. 8). To the extent Patent Owner contends that the term “computer” should be understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., as referring to a device for performing calculations on data, we agree, and observe that such understanding is captured by our original construction. Accordingly, for the reasons above, as well as those set forth in the Decision to Institute (Inst. Dec. 8–9), we construe the phrase “using a computer to compute the effect of stresses on the wall of said tubular good” to mean “using a computer to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular.” We further note that there is no meaningful dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation of “computer,” as Petitioner contends that Assanelli discloses the use of a computer to perform calculations, i.e., finite element analysis (“FEA”) or finite element modeling (“FEM”),2 using data obtained from inspection of a tubular good in order to model the effect of various stresses on that tubular good. See, e.g., Pet. 23–24 (describing the data acquisition and FEA modeling steps disclosed by Assanelli).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,263,887 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,263,887
• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00561 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–7 were held unpatentable as obvious over Averbuj and Tsern; trial as to claim 1 was terminated based on collateral estoppel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that “collateral estoppel does not apply to the application of the claim 1 limitations in assessing dependent claims 2–7.” Id. at 2. Patent Owner further asserts “[a] party seeking to apply collateral estoppel based on a prior action must show that (1) the identical issue was actually litigated; (2) the issue was actually decided in a final decision on the merits; (3) the issue was necessary to the final decision; and (4) the party being estopped was adequately represented in the prior action [i.e. “the United Access test”].” Id. at 2 (citing United Access Techs., LLC v. CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC, 778 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). We agree that this is the proper test to use to assess the applicability of collateral estoppel. Nevertheless, we note United Access applies collateral estoppel in a different context and suggests that issue preclusion can be applied in an obvoisness challenge, even if the final decision on the original issue was considered under an anticipation challenge. In particular, in United Access it was noted that “[i]ssue preclusion [traditionally called “collateral estoppel”3] applies to issues litigated in prior disputes . . . [and, thus, i]t thus makes no difference that the earlier no-damages-due-to-competition ruling arose in a case under the Truth in Negotiation Act and that this dispute arises under the False Claims Act and the common law.” United Access, 778 F.3d. at 726. The “issue” of whether Averbuj teaches the limitations of claim 1 is identical to the issue in and has been litigated in the ‘970 IPR which found that Averbuj anticipates the limitations of claim 1.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the ‘434 Patent would have been someone with “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Patent Owner asserts through its declarant: [A Person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been] working on the design of memory devices, would have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and at least five years of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Master of Science degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and at least three years of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. Also alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Doctorate degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and have at least one year of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. I agree with Petitioner’s expert that the memory industry requires a POSITA with industry experience. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 32–33. 16 Neither party has argued that the difference between the parties’ articulated level of skill should change the analysis as to patentability. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill, above, and acknowledge that, commensurate with that articulation of the level of skill, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Pet. 41. In other words, Petitioner asserts that because a BIST unit can be incorporated into a chip mounted on a PCB and because memory module 12 is part of the BIST unit, memory unit 12 is mounted on a PCB. We disagree. Unlike claim 1, which simply requires the memory unit is “on” the PCB, claim 2 requires that the memory module be a “physically separate component” and “mounted” on the PCB. Petitioner has not shown sufficient support for its broad reading that a module which is a circuit embedded in a larger circuit included in a chip may be considered a physically separate component mounted on a PCB. Claims 3–7 depend from claim 2, and the Petition fails to provide additional prior art disclosures that cure the deficiency with respect to claim 2; that is, disclosure of separate components 22 mounted on a printed circuit board in Averbuj. Pet. 41–48. Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, its assertion that claims 2–7 are anticipated by Averbuj.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,001,434 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,001,434
• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00577 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, 8, and 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Halbert and Amidi; the other asserted grounds did not establish unpatentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Neither party has argued that the difference between the parties’ articulated level of skill should change the analysis as to patentability. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill and acknowledge that the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. 10 Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “C. Claim Construction Analysis We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any term of the claims.” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “written to or read from simultaneously. Pet. 37–41. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Halbert’s directing of data, during a write operation, from the system memory data bus to registers 126 and 128 in successive clock cycles means that data being received by the memory devices corresponding to registers 126 and 128, respectively (e.g., ranks 140 and 142, respectively), occurs in successive clock cycles. Thus, according to Petitioner, “those memory devices associated with register 126 (i.e. Rank 140) receive data transmission from the system memory controller in the first clock cycle, but not in the second clock cycle . . . [and] those memory devices associated with register 128 (i.e., Rank 142) receive data transmissions from the system memory controller in the second clock cycle, but not in the first clock cycle.” Id. at 38. Therefore, according to Petitioner, Halbert does not, and cannot, write to the memory devices in ranks 140 and 142 simultaneously, because the memory devices in ranks 140 and 142 do not receive data concurrently. Id. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserts8 while data is sequentially latched onto registers 126 and 128, that data is then concurrently, not sequentially, written to memory device array 140/142—such operation is illustrated in Fig. 4, 8 Patent Owner chose not to request additional briefing to address this ground and arguments in the Preliminary Response are generally waived (Paper 8, 2–3), however, we acknowledge these arguments due to the unusual circumstance created by the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS. 15 above. Thus, all of Halbert’s memory devices are selected or enabled concurrently such that Halbert can write to all of its memory devices simultaneously. This is not, and is exactly counter to, the Petitioner’s assertions that the memory devices in ranks 140 and 142 receive—and thus, store—data sequentially. Prelim. Resp. 27–28. We agree. Petitioner has not explained how latching data to registers 126 and 128 is data transmission between a memory controller and a memory module when registers 126 and 128 are outside of the memory module. Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect to claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10–12 do not cure this deficiency.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Based on Petitioner’s citations to specific prior art disclosures and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Halbert with Amidi’s teachings to include rank select functionality. Pet. 64– 66. For example, Petitioner asserts: 19 To employ this chip select functionality of Amidi in the system of Halbert would have been only the arrangement old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, i.e., the predictable result of operating each rank at desired times, and well within the level of ordinary skill to achieve. EX1003 ¶¶175-176. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the chip select functionality of Amidi in the system of Halbert to permit the use of lower density, and therefore cheaper and more readily available, memory in the system of Halbert, while using the existing address and data signal lines of Halbert. EX1019, ¶[0008]; see also id., ¶¶ [0002- 0012]; EX1003 ¶177. A skilled artisan would also have been motivated to include such prior art chip selection signals in Halbert in order to follow the traditional design of memory ranks including the use of traditional memory devices and the traditional address signals, as Halbert explains. EX1005, 3:55-57; EX1003 ¶178. Furthermore, Halbert suggests such a use by disclosing that “[m]any other variations on the illustrated embodiments are possible. For instance, . . . [t]he illustrated examples also show two ranks of memory, but other numbers of ranks are also possible.” EX1005, 9:20-26. Skilled artisans at the time would have understood that, in case the number of ranks is increased, chip/bank select signals would need to be used to activate some but not all of the ranks. See, e.g., EX1019 at FIGS. 5, 6A-6B (showing logic circuitry to generate chip select signals for” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,516,185 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,516,185
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2018 · IPR2016-01895 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–11, 13–21, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Johnson, Mason/EIA-709.1/Shuey/C12.18, and anticipated by Johnson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 2002 ¶ 76. Patent Owner asserts using its lower level of skill in the art “would diminish the motivation of a POSITA would have for combining references identified in the instituted grounds.” Id. at ¶ 82. We disagree that an understanding of how to design and build a wireless, multi-hop communications systems is a leap in knowledge that would create a motivation to combine that would not be there under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of skill. See Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 9–11. Thus, we do not discern a difference between the two proposed levels of skill that affects the analysis in this IPR. However, for clarity we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill, which is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Here, the intrinsic evidence does not support limiting the challenged claims to sending “original” messages. Thus, sending sensed data acquired from another device is within the ambit of the challenged claims. In fact, dependent claims 2, 11, 15, 17, 21 specifically recite a sensor and/or actuator which suggests that the independent claims can be broader and may not require a remote device “including” a sensor and/or actuator. Additionally, the court in the related Amazon litigation did not construe “remote devices” to require actuators. Id. at 16, 74. For the reasons above, the broadest reasonable construction of the remote device terms does not require a sensor and/or actuator. Based on the 4 Sipco, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2-08-cv-00359 (E.D. Tex.) (“the related Amazon litigation”). 8 record before us, it is unnecessary to expressly construe the remote device terms further.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Based on Petitioner’s citations to specific prior art disclosures and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that it also would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Mason, with EIA-709.1’s teachings, to include an address that varies in size. Pet. 50. For example, Petitioner contends: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to use the scalable destination address of EIA-709.1 in Mason’s system. The ‘492 patent uses scalable addresses in order to accommodate systems of different sizes and complexity. Ex. 1001 at 9:59-61. The scalable addresses of EIA-709.1 would also accommodate systems of different sizes and complexity in a more flexible manner. Mason expresses a desire to implement a large scale AMR system. Mason at 1:46-48, 5:25-57. Mason also recognizes the importance of uniquely identifying a large number of destination meters. Mason at 10:43-56. Using the scalable addresses of EIA-709.1 in Mason’s system would allow a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to effectively identify message destinations in networks with increasing sizes and complexity. Kinney, ¶¶116-117. Moreover, Mason explicitly discloses that the LonTalk protocol can be used with its system. Mason at 17:4-9. The LonTalk protocol ultimately was adopted as EIA-709.1. Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024. Indeed, the LonTalk protocol specification includes the same scalable addresses disclosed in EIA-709.1. Ex. 1020 at 14-16. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would thus be motivated to combine Mason and EIA-709.1, with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Kinney, ¶118.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “configured to detect a condition and output a signal to the controller,” as recited in claim 15. In that regard, Petitioner contends each meter 12 of Mason includes a metering board for performing the metering function. Pet. 44; Ex. 1006, 5:59–63. Each meter also includes a set of analog transducers. Id.; Ex. 1006, 5:59–64. Thus, according to Petitioner a person of ordinary skill in the art “would appreciate that a sensor is a type of transducer, and that Mason’s transducers are sensors. Mason’s metering board and/or analog transducers correspond to the claimed ‘sensor.’” We agree and credit Petitioner’s declarant’s supporting testimony. Pet. 44; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. Petitioner also asserts the metering board and/or analog transducers are operable to detect a condition related to, for example, electricity, gas, or water, and output meter information corresponding to the condition to the meter’s controller. Pet. 44; Ex. 1006, 5:32–41, 9:56–65, 15:37–47, 49–53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. c. Claims 17 Petitioner persuades us that Mason teaches “at least one actuator configured to implement an action corresponding to the command code,” as recited in claim 17. In that regard, Petitioner contends Mason discloses that each meter 12 includes a disconnect switch drive circuit. Pet. 45; Ex. 1006, 5:59–64. Thus, according to Petitioner a person of ordinary skill in the art 48 “would appreciate that a disconnect drive circuit implements an action, such as a disconnect function, in response to receiving a command to do so using the C12.18 protocol. This operation corresponds to the claimed actuator configured to implement an action corresponding to the command code.” Pet. 45; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. We agree and credit Petitioner’s declarant’s supporting testimony. Ex. 1002 ¶ 101.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 7,697,492 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,697,492
• Teoxane S.A. v. Allergan, PLC Et Al.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2017-02002 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may be instituted only upon a showing 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). Taking account of the information presented, we determine that the Petition fails to make out that threshold showing for review. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute a trial.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a B.S. or M.S. in biochemistry, polymer chemistry, medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry, or a related field with “several years” of practical experience. Alternatively, according to Petitioner, the ordinary artisan would have had less practical experience but a Ph.D. in one of those fields, or an M.D. in dermatology, plastic surgery, or a specialty related to the clinical use of dermal fillers. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 12–13). Patent Owner does not contest that argument in the Preliminary Response. For purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s definition, which, on this record, is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reveal the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Second, a term in a patent preamble is limiting when it “breathes life and meaning into the patent claims.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 269 (CCPA 1976). “Whether to treat a preamble as a limitation is a determination ‘resolved only on review of the entire” patent disclosure “to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.’” Catalina Mktg. Int’l. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Our review of the ’475 patent persuades us that the inventors “actually invented and intended to encompass by” claim 1 a stable composition as defined in the specification. Catalina Mktg. Int’l., 289 F.2d at 808. The inventors disclosed and claimed a “stable” composition containing both HA and lidocaine that overcame the “relative inferior stability properties” of prior art compositions. Ex. 1001, 2:6–32. In that regard, the specification repeatedly refers to the ability of the claimed compositions to remain stable after high-temperature sterilization procedures (such as autoclaving) or shelf-storage storage for prolonged lengths of time. See, e.g., id. at 2:42–49 (contrasting the “enhanced stability” of the claimed compositions “relative to conventional HA-based compositions including” “lidocaine” “when subjected to sterilization techniques such as autoclaving” or “when stored for long periods of time at ambient temperature”);” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “One final point pertaining to the “stable” limitation requires discussion. The specification makes clear that stability, in the context of the ’475 patent, relates to the “shelf life” of the composition “when stored for a lengthy period of time” prior to injection into a patient, for example, “for a period of time of at least 6 months to a year or more.” Id. at 6:51–53, 13:51; see id. at 2:26–27 (objective of invention is to provide “HA-based injectable compositions which incorporate lidocaine” that are not “prone to” degradation “when placed in storage for any significant amount of time”), 4:42–43, 5:33–38 (composition has “enhanced stability” “when stored at ambient temperature for an extended period of time”), 8:4–5 (the composition of the invention will “remain stable when stored for long periods of time at room temperature”). Accordingly, we determine that the preamble term “stable” (Ex. 1001, 16:40) “breathes life and meaning into” claim 1 and, therefore, is limiting. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 269. We adopt for purposes of this decision the following definition of “stable,” which is advanced by Petitioner: soft tissue filler that is free of viable microorganisms as determined by a sterility test recognized by a regulatory authority, the filler can be sterilized by any method known in the art, and is resistant to degradation such that the composition maintains one or more of the following aspects: transparent appearance, pH, extrusion force and/or rheological characteristics, hyaluronic acid (HA) concentration, sterility, osmolarity, and lidocaine concentration, after being effectively sterilized by autoclaving and subsequently stored at a temperature of at least about 25° C for at least about two months. Pet. 11. That construction is not opposed by Patent Owner at this stage of the proceeding (Prelim. Resp. 3–4) and is substantially consistent with an express definition set forth in the specification. Ex. 1001, 5:17–20.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,450,475
• Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., And Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2018 · IPR2016-01412 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 16–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Palermo, Joshi, and Handbook, and over Oshlack, Joshi, Handbook, and Doyon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’976 patent would have “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, polymer chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical technology, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacology, and/or a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex.1007 ¶¶ 31– 34). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 74–75). We, therefore, apply that skill level in our analysis, with the understanding that the level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be more persuasive based on the ’376 patent specification. In particular, the specification defines “unsuitable for injection” “to mean that one would have substantial difficulty injecting the dosage form (e.g., due to pain upon administration or difficulty pushing the dosage form through a syringe) due to the viscosity imparted on the dosage form, thereby reducing the potential for abuse of the opioid analgesic from the dosage form.” Ex. 1001, 3:15–20. Additionally, in an example concerning the formation of a gel at different concentrations, the specification characterizes certain solutions as “THICK (10 cP to 60 cP): Although a syringe can be filled with this solution, it was hard to do.” Id. at 32:8–24, Table 3. Thus, the specification teaches that a viscosity of at least 10 cP is difficult to pull into a syringe or administer parenterally (via injection). Patent Owner does not address these teachings of the specification. We, therefore, determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “unsuitable for parenteral administration” and “unsuitable to pull into an insulin syringe” encompasses a gelling agent that imparts a viscosity of at least 10 cP.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “articulated a four-factor test in determining whether collateral estoppel attaches: “(1) the identity of the issues in a prior proceeding; (2) the issues were actually litigated; (3) the determination of the issues was necessary to the resulting judgment; and (4) the party defending against preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.” Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Collateral estoppel can attach in proceedings before the Office for identical issues that were addressed with respect to a different patent during prior district court litigation. See In re Arunachalam, No. 2016-1607, 2017 WL 4387224, at *2–4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2017) (“In light of Dr. Arunachalam’s previous opportunity to litigate the validity of the asserted claims of the ’500 Patent, which contain the [same] terms . . . , we see no reason to allow her to appeal the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’556 Patent, which also contain the same critical terms.”). All four factors for collateral estoppel are met here. With regard to the first factor, the issue of Joshi’s status as prior art is identical for both proceedings. The ’376 patent is part of the same chain of continuity as the ’888 patent, and both patents share the same specification and claim priority to the same non-provisional application filed August 6, 2002 and provisional application filed August 6, 2001. As such, to the extent Joshi qualifies as prior art to the ’888 patent, it would also qualify as prior art to the ’376 patent.” slip op. at 16

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateWritten description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Although the statements above encompass “mixtures” of HPMC and PEO among a myriad of other possibilities for the gelling agent, we find no basis to conclude that the inventors of the ’376 patent were in possession of the specifically claimed formulation from such a broad disclosure.11 The 10 The April 25th draft application is heavily redacted and we thus cannot discern what other materials were specifically contemplated as “thickening agents” by that time. See Ex. 2091, 5. However, given the nature and amount of the redactions and Patent Owner’s assertion that the draft application ultimately led to the filing of the ’534 provisional with the broad disclosure set forth above, we find it reasonable to conclude that additional materials were included in the draft application. Moreover, the draft application was forwarded as part of an email from Patent Owner’s attorney, which “[e]nclosed the latest draft of the tamper resistant application.” Ex. 2091. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the list of thickening agents included as part of the draft application originated from the inventors as opposed to patent counsel. 11 We recognize that the same broad disclosure with a “laundry list” of possible gelling agents is found in the specification of the ’376 patent. See Federal Circuit has held that such “laundry list” disclosures are insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement when there is no further guidance (“blazemarks”) provided about which species or combination of species included as part of the list may be selected to arrive at the claimed invention. See Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Not having specifically named or mentioned the combination in any manner, “one is left to select[] from the myriads of possibilities encompassed by the broad disclosure, with no guide indicating or directing that this particular selection should be made rather than any of the many others which could also be made.” In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967); see also Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure in each application must ‘reasonably convey[ ]’ to those skilled in the art that as of the claimed priority date the inventor was in possession of the later claimed subject matter.”) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Other evidence of record further supports our conclusion that the inventors of the ’376 patent had not conceived of or reduced to practice the claimed formulation prior to Joshi’s August 30, 2001 filing date. In his Declaration, inventor Benjamin Oshlack attests that Patent Owner’s laboratory scientists focused on “testing the syringeability of various concentration solutions of pectin, sodium alginate, and sodium acrylate, as well as combinations of pectin and sodium alginate” between January 4 and Ex. 1001, 6:46–62. We, however, do not address the issue of written description support for any of the subsequently filed applications. 17, 2001. Ex. 2081 ¶ 22. Additionally, Mr. Oshlack attests that the scientists had evaluated “xanthan gum, carrageenan, and locust bean gum (and combinations thereof) as gelling agents, between April 5 and 12, 2001.” Id. ¶ 23. None of the laboratory notebook excerpts proffered by Patent Owner mention a combination of HPMC and PEO as gelling agents to be used in an oxycodone formulation. Exs. 2087–2090. Consistent with the testing actually done, the working examples set forth in the ’534 provisional (as well as in the ’376 patent) focus on xantham gum, pectin, microcrystalline cellulose, and hydroxyethlcellulose as the gelling agents. See Ex. 1026, 44– 49 (Examples 1–5). We find, therefore, that the inventors did not particularly consider either PEO or HPMC, let alone both PEO and HPMC in combination, when evaluating possible gelling agents for an abuse-deterrent formulation of oxycodone. Accordingly, because we find that the ’376 patent is not entitled to a filing date earlier than August 6, 2002, we further determine that Joshi qualifies as § 102(e) prior art as of that date. Having determined that Joshi qualifies as prior art, we turn to the merits of Petitioner’s patentability challenges.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,034,376 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,034,376

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.