- Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00536 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because NJOY did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years of industry experience in one of these fields, and such POSA would have been familiar with electrically powered vaporizing articles, their components, or the underlying technologies.” Pet. 6–7. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and either at least two years of experience designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field,” and that “[m]ore education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 17–22). In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’981 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’981 patent and the prior art. However, our decision would not change if we applied Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“None of the constructions proffered by Petitioner is dispositive of the issue of whether to institute inter partes review. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction for any term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“integrate Liu783’s connector with its battery component in order to decrease the possibility of damage to the device during assembly/disassembly. Pet. 23. Petitioner, however, does not provide any evidence that such damage was a point of concern. See generally Pet. Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain how the integrated battery component/connector would result in less damage. See id. (failing to quantify the alleged benefit nor providing any evidence to support its contention that an integrated connector/battery component would decrease damage to the device). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently support its contention that the modified Liu783 device would be more beneficial to the consumer because there are fewer pieces to assemble or misplace. See id. Indeed, Petitioner’s argument runs directly counter to Liu783’s own disclosure which asserts that its three-piece design is more convenient than the previous two-piece design. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 19 (stating “assembly and detachment of the atomizer and the connector become very convenient”), ¶ 3 (stating an “object of the present invention is to . . . facilitate the installation, detachment, and replacement of the electronic cigarette). Similarly, Petitioner does not sufficiently support its contention that integrating the components would reduce the complexity and expense of manufacturing the device (Pet. 23), which is counter to Liu783’s statement that the object of its invention is to “decrease manufacture and use cost” (Ex. 1010 ¶ 3). Conclusory statements by an expert that do not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based are entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,606,981 - ARM Limited v. Icpillar LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00566 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, and 16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Banerjee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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 discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’657 patent, and we determine inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“clarifications concerning the application of the Fintiv factors. See Interim Procedure For Discretionary Denials In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”).9 The Guidance Memo clarifies “the PTAB’s current application of Fintiv to discretionary institution where there is parallel litigation.” Id. at 2. The Guidance Memo instructs us not to “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 reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Id. at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). The Guidance Memo” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we construe the term “outputting by the processor software programming commands to be executed by the hardware integrated circuit for controlling the electronic device” as referring to software programming commands that are capable of controlling an electronic device, that are output by a processor, and that are not merely a circuit design for fabrication. We emphasize that this construction is preliminary and based on the current record; to the extent the parties wish to argue for a different construction or to further clarify this construction, we encourage them to present arguments and supporting evidence at trial. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“On the present record, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Banerjee teaches outputting software intended to be installed on the designed integrated circuit that is capable of controlling the device into which the designed integrated circuit is installed. At paragraphs 72–83, Banerjee discloses the operation of its operating system optimization module. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38, 72–83. In particular, Banerjee teaches that the operating system optimization module can “compile a symmetric multiprocessing operating system” and that “the optimized operating system is compiled into a reduced footprint operating system that is instantiated in the device.” Id. ¶¶ 82–83. Because Banerjee teaches both compiling an operating system and instantiating that operating system in the designed device, the present record shows sufficiently that Banerjee teaches outputting software to run on the designed device. Patent Owner’s declarant, Joseph C. McAlexander III, P.E., disagrees with this interpretation, testifying that Banerjee’s paragraph 83 teaches only “compil[ing] the characteristics of the typical or ‘baseline’ ‘operating system configuration’ . . . in order to analyze its expected ‘footprint’ on the IC and how it is expected to be instantiated on the device.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 65. But the idea that Banerjee is concerned only with analyzing how the operating system is expected to be instantiated appears to contradict Banerjee’s teaching that the “reduced footprint operating system . . . is instantiated in the device,” which suggests actual, not merely expected, instantiation in the device. On the present record, beyond stating that “Banerjee only outputs a hardware description file,” Mr. McAlexander does not explain why Banerjee should be interpreted in this alternate fashion. Id. ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 44, 69, 84). There is no explanation of why the cited paragraphs of Banerjee should be interpreted to limit Banerjee’s disclosure (which, as discussed above, includes a teaching that the operating system is compiled and instantiated in the designed device) to merely outputting a hardware description file. Id. Accordingly, on the present record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Banerjee teaches or suggests limitation 1[d].” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,367,657 - ARM Limited v. Icpillar LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00476 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Banerjee renders at least claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would be “familiar with automated circuit design” and “possess[] this knowledge through training and work experience, including have a Bachelor’s or Master’s Degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least three years of practical experience.” Pet. 11–12. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not challenge the Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp., generally. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’899 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“According to Petitioner, the term should be broadly construed to encompass “internal outputs from compilers that are then used by other portions of the design” and “any form of software or mechanics of ‘providing’ software.” Prelim. Reply 1–3. Petitioner contends that the term must be construed broadly to encompass the embodiment shown in the ’899 patent’s Figure 4 illustrating output 71 of compiler 67, which is an internal input to ASIC Design 69 described as “a circuit design such as a layout or a schematic that can be sent out to a manufacturer for fabrication.” Id. at 1–2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:59–61) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner directs us to the disclosure that Figure 4’s output 71 (ASIC Programming) “may be software to be programmed and/or stored in a fabricated ASIC.” Id. at 2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:61–62) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner contends that the ’899 patent defines “software” broadly. Id. Specifically, Petitioner directs us to a portion of the ’899 patent’s specification that states “[h]erein, reference to software may encompass one or more applications, byte code, one or more computer programs, one or more executable, one or more instructions, logic, machine code, one or more scripts, or source code, and vice versa where appropriate.” Ex. 1001, 17:6–10. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s proffered claim construction is incorrect because the language of the claim itself “does not suggest ‘internal’ software for use by the design tool, nor that the second recited ‘output[]’ could be part of the first.” Prelim. Sur-Reply 2. According to Patent Owner, viewed in context, the ’899 patent defines “software” broadly for “an exemplary computer system, not the invention’s outputs.” Id. Patent Owner asserts this definition describes the software types that a computer could execute, not a definition of “software programming commands” recited in claim 1[d]. Id. Regarding the ’899 patent’s Figure 4, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not shown that Programming 71 must be an internal output for internal use because both Design 69 and Programming 71 are shown as outputs, not inputs, of the compiler. Id. at 4. Regarding the term “layout,” Patent Owner asserts this is merely a description of physical hardware for fabrication and that “[i]t is impossible for ‘software programming commands’ to be ‘stored in “layouts.”’ Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32, 76, 90). For purposes of this Decision, we construe the term “outputting by the processor software programming commands to be executed by the hardware integrated circuit for controlling the electronic device” as referring to software programming commands that are capable of controlling an electronic device, that are output by a processor, and that are not merely a circuit design for fabrication. We emphasize that this construction is preliminary and based on the current record; to the extent the parties wish to argue for a different construction or to further clarify this construction, we encourage them to present arguments and supporting evidence at trial.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“clarifications concerning the application of the Fintiv factors. See Interim Procedure For Discretionary Denials In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”).5 The Guidance Memo clarifies “the PTAB’s current application of Fintiv to discretionary institution where there is parallel litigation.” Id. at 2. The Guidance Memo instructs us not to “discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a 5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_ proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_ 20220621_.pdf. stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Id. at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). When such a stipulation is offered after the Board’s decision on whether to institute review, it is too late to gain the benefit of the rule articulated in the Guidance Memo. NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556, Paper 13, 4 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2022) (precedential). Here, Petitioner “stipulates ‘not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.’” Prelim. Reply 10 (quoting Ex. 1020, 1). Petitioner offered this stipulation prior to a decision on whether to institute review, so it is timely under NXP. Accordingly, pursuant to the Guidance Memo, we do not exercise discretion under Fintiv to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Banerjee. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review with respect to all grounds asserted in the Petition. 3. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 14 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’899 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,924,899 - Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00398 · APJ Elizabeth J Reagan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–12 and 15–20 based on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 10 over Kalliola, Vauclair, and Kalayjian.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all of the challenged claims of the ’680 patent based on all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“art, “at the time of the ’680 Patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field and 2–4 years of experience with wireless ranging and positioning systems, wireless communication devices, and associated computer programming” but that “[a]dditional industry experience or technical training may offset less formal education, while advanced degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser levels of industry experience.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). We find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art of the ’680 patent. This proposal is also supported by the Buehrer Declaration. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.9” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionNo construction neededOther
“construction in a parallel proceeding,11 for the following term: “[a] pairing signal.” Pet. 6 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1009, 15–16). Petitioner proposes that we construe “[a] pairing signal” as “[p]rocessor signal to initiate a wireless device pairing sequence.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1009, 15–16). On the present record, Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed construction.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“ordinary skill in the art to “combine the prior art elements of Kalliola’s WCD communicating with a signal emitter via Bluetooth with Vauclair’s pairing menu and processor signals to yield the predictable result of a pairing signal in response to a first indication from a user to pair the WCD to the signal emitter” because “Bluetooth pairing and pairing menus were conventional well prior to the invention of the ’680 patent” and “there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 175; Ex. 1004 ¶ 4).” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,265,680 - Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00399 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been shown obvious over Kalliola, Turunen, Oswald, Vauclair, and Kalayjian.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and we institute inter partes review on all of the challenged claims based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“1 Patent Owner does not request that we exercise our discretion to deny institution of either parallel petition. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s explanation of the need for two parallel petitions is sufficient to justify not exercising discretion to deny institution in either case. The parallel petitions challenge different sets of claims of the ’246 patent, and there are a large number of claims challenged collectively between the two petitions.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field and 2-4 years of experience with wireless ranging and positioning systems, wireless communication devices, and associated computer programming.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion on the present record. Prelim. Resp. 1–22. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’246 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition is also supported by the testimony of Dr. Buehrer. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 35.10” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes construing two terms. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1011, 6–11). First, Petitioner proposes that we construe “[t]ime of flight calculations” as “[d]etermining the amount of time between when a signal is transmitted and when a reply signal is received.” Id. at 6. Second, Petitioner proposes that we construe “[s]ignal delay” as “[d]ifference in time between when a signal is received at two or more antennas.” Id. On the present record, Patent Owner does not dispute these proposed constructions. Prelim. Resp. 1–22. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the constructions proposed by Petitioner. Those constructions are supported by briefing in the parallel district court case, in which they were proposed by Patent Owner. Ex. 1011, 6–11.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,350,246 - Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00397 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 and 11 were obvious, failing to show that the graphical user interface generates the claimed signals.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’381 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute inter partes review of claims 1–9 and 11 of the ’381 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 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). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner for the purposes of this Decision because it is consistent with the ’381 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“a. Claim 1 We determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that Kalayjian and Vauclair would have rendered claim 1 obvious. This determination is based on the evidence and argument presented for limitations 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(ii), so we solely address issues relating to these limitations below.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,768,381 - Motif Foodworks, Inc. v. Impossible Foods, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00206 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 and 14–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Giacino, Proulx, and Conrad, with Perret or MacLeod for certain dependent claims; the Board did not reach other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The District Court’s claim construction for the term “compound” is shown below. Ex. 2016, 8–11. Claim Term District Court Construction The “sulfur compound” limitation must be satisfied by a compound that is present compound10 separately from a protein; “compound” will not be construed as being limited to compounds used as flavor precursors The District Court’s claim construction order cites to U.S. Patent 11,013,250 (the ’250 patent”) as representative of the ’096 patent and other related patents involved in the District Court litigation. See Ex. 2016, 7 (“Claim 1 of the ʼ250 patent claims is generally representative for purposes of the parties’ dispute.”). The District Court determined that plant proteins 10 Ex. 2016, 9, 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:26–27).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“24. Pet. 20–26. Focusing on independent claim 1’s limitation “a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamin, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof,” Petitioner asserts Brown’s disclosure of “pea flour” meets this limitation because “pea flour contains cystine, thiamine, and methionine.” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1012 (Brown) ¶ 364; Ex. 1003 (Tarte) ¶¶ 121–125; Ex. 1050/Ex. 1059 (Jahreis), 39, 41, 86; Ex. 1106, 3, 6–7). Petitioner qualifies that its mapping of “pea flour” to this claim limitation is based on the interpretation of “compound” as “not . . . limited to free compounds.” Id. at 22 n.7. Specifically, Petitioner states that the mapping is based on Brown’s “pea flour, which contains proteins having the claimed sugar and sulfur compounds.” Id. at 12; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 105 (reiterating this statement). Brown states, in pertinent part, “[a] muscle replica comprising pea flour, sunflower oil, and glucose.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 364. Dr. Tarté states in his declaration that a person of ordinary skill “would have understood that pea flour includes cystine, methionine, and thiamine.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121–125. On cross-examination, Dr. Tarté stated that this mapping to the claim is based on an understanding that Brown’s proteins satisfy the sulfur compound limitation. Ex. 2032, 33:19–34:12; 98:11–99.9 (“[I]n as much as . . . Patent Owner considers proteins to satisfy the sulfur compound claim, then . . . the pea protein flour of Brown also satisfies the [sulfur] compound claim.”), 117:9–118:8. Patent Owner asserts that the Petition’s anticipation ground must fail if the claimed compound limitation does not extend to proteins. PO Resp. 13. Because we adopt the District Court’s construction of the claim term “compound,” Petitioner’s contention that Brown anticipates the ’096 patent necessarily fails. See Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631 (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). Petitioner concedes that the viability of this ground depends on construing the term “compound” to include whole proteins, and has failed to present evidence in this proceeding that Brown discloses a sulfur compound that is separate from a protein. Tr. 50:21–52:13 (Petitioner’s counsel conceding that the anticipation ground is not viable under the District Court’s claim construction for “compound”). Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Brown.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner
“The analogous-art test requires a showing that a reference is either in the field of endeavor of the challenged patent or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to establish Crane as analogous art under this legal framework. PO Resp. 36–40; PO Sur-Reply 1–2. First, Patent Owner asserts Crane is not “from the same field of endeavor” as the ’096 patent. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 2030 (Qian Decl.) ¶ 86). Based on this record, the ’096 patent is directed to food products while Crane, on the other hand, relates to “methods for producing recombinant functional heme-binding proteins.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–25; Ex. 1014, code (57). As Patent Owner points out, Crane does not even mention food products or any flavor functionality of heme-binding proteins. PO Resp. 37. Petitioner does not address Crane’s field of endeavor in its Petition or Reply. See Pet. 36–50; Pet. Reply 1 (“Petitioner . . . relies on the arguments made in the Petition for Ground 1 and 3A-3D”). We agree with Patent Owner that Crane is not from the same field of endeavor as the ’096 patent. Next, Patent Owner asserts the Petition fails to explain how Crane’s recombinant heme-binding protein is pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’096 patent inventors. According to Patent Owner, the problem solved by the inventors was “to provide meat-like-food products that overcome the limitations of prior-art meat substitutes.” PO Resp. 38. Crane, however, is directed to producing recombinant heme-binding proteins with complete heme incorporation. Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 3–5; Ex. 2030 ¶ 87. Neither Crane nor the Petition addresses how this is relevant to improving meat-associated flavors or aromas in food flavor additives. See generally, Ex. 1014; Pet. 36–50. The Petition asserts that Crane’s recombinant heme-binding protein, if used in place of Conrad’s blood/hemoglobin, which is added to improve taste, “would have produced the proteins with a high degree of purity.” Pet. 47–48. The Petition asserts that the benefit of high purity is greater control over the amount added and consistency in the end product. Id. at 48.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“argument at trial, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s basis for improving the nutritional content of the food product of Giacino is unsupported by the record. Proulx identifies iron deficiency as “a major nutritional problem, affecting over 2 billion people[.]” Ex. 1019, 1518; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93; see also Pet. Reply 25. Based on the evidence in this record, Giacino’s compositions lack a significant source of iron. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 387, 407. Furthermore, like Proulx, Giacino’s composition is intended to be an additive to food products. Specifically, Giacino’s composition is intended to be added to synthetic meat fibers, that may benefit from a source of iron, by mimicking not only the “meaty flavor” or aroma of meat, but the nutritional profile of conventionally sourced beef as well. Ex. 1003 ¶ 410; Ex. 1015, 7:22–26. This reasoning is supported by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Tarté. Ex. 1003 ¶ 410. Patent Owner acknowledges the nutritive aspect of the addition is a “bonus” to the flavor impact. PO Sur-Reply 25–26. Proulx explicitly teaches adding leghemoglobin as an additive to food (“food fortificant”), therefore a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Ex. 1019, Abs.; see id. at 1521 (“added with tortillas”). Even if the addition of Proulx’s leghemoglobin were to produce autooxidation and impact Giacino’s meaty flavor, the benefit of Proulx’s leghemoglobin as an additive to a food composition is not disputed and supports the combination. “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”). Moreover, the evidence of record regarding the asserted negative effect on aroma and flavor due to heme proteins is that this negative impact is merely a possibility. Ex. 2030 ¶ 76 (Dr. Qian states that heme proteins have an “unpredictable effect” and refers to statements made in related patent prosecution that “fortification [with] iron has a potential negative effect on organoleptic quality of maize products, in that soluble forms of iron can cause oxidative rancidity,” quoting Ex. 1148, 2715). Based on the evidence of record, the benefit of adding heme protein taught by Proulx outweighs the potential negative effect that it may have on Giacino’s flavoring additive. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence in this record supports Petitioner’s assertion that a POSITA would have been motivated to nutritionally fortify Giacino’s meat flavoring composition by adding Proulx’s soy leghemoglobin.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,943,096 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,943,096 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00251 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 5–9 are obvious over Neibauer and Cheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based upon the present record, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the asserted art in the manner described by Petitioner. We, therefore, find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of institution that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had reason to combine the teachings Neibauer and Cheng in the manner described in the Petition, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Cheng is sparse. Neibauer and Cheng were among dozens of other references identified on information disclosure sheets submitted during prosecution, and there is no clear evidence of record that Neibauer and Cheng were ever discussed substantively. See generally Ex. 1022. Petitioner argues that “the Examiner erred by overlooking [Neibauer and Cheng] and the compelling grounds of unpatentability they provided.” Prelim. Reply 1. “Neibauer and Cheng were stronger prior art because they disclosed the limitations the Examiner thought were missing from Chow, including the “uploading,” “reformatting,” and “automatically generating” limitations that he highlighted in the Notice of Allowance.” Id. In light of this sparse record, Petitioner’s showing on the merits with respect to Neibauer and Cheng is sufficient to demonstrate that the Office erred with respect to its consideration of these references during prosecution of the ’427 patent. To the extent the Office substantively considered Neibauer and Cheng and concluded that their combination does not teach claim 1, this was material error. It is also notable that the Office cited and relied on both Neibauer and Cheng in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,135,801 B2, a parent in the same family as the ’427 patent, which resulted in cancellation of all claims of that patent. For the reasons discussed below with respect to the merits, the asserted combination of Neibauer and Cheng sufficiently teaches claim 1. Given the Petition’s detailed analysis, including the supporting testimony of Dr. Madisetti, and the sparse record developed by the Office addressing Neibauer and Cheng during prosecution of the ’427 patent, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the Office materially erred when it found that the prior art does not teach claim 1.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states “[f]or purposes of this Response, [Patent Owner] applies Petitioner’s characterization of a POSITA.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’427 patent and the prior art before us and is supported by the testimonial evidence. Therefore, for the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Given this preliminary record, we do not see a basis for adopting Patent Owner’s proposed meaning of “uploading” as “data sent from a client to a server.” We do not discern a rationale in the claims or the intrinsic record to include the term “client” within the meaning of “uploading.” Rather, given the current record, we preliminarily determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “uploading” as it is used in the ’427 patent and would have been understood by someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention is “transferring data from an external data source to a set of servers.” This preliminary determination does not preclude the parties from proposing, presenting evidence, or arguing a different meaning for the term “uploading” during trial. To the extent the parties disagree with this preliminary determination, the parties should present their evidence and arguments as permitted by our rules.4 A final determination as to the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “uploading” as it is used in the ’427 patent will be made after the close of all the evidence and after any oral hearing in this matter.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,839,427 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00249 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Neibauer, Ausems, Cheng, and Squibbs.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“relying on are the same or substantially the same as references that were before the Office. In particular, there is no dispute that neither Harvey nor Ausems was considered by the Office, nor that Harvey is not substantially the same as any reference that was before the Office. Prelim. Resp. 9–10; Prelim. Reply 3. Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Ausems is substantially the same as Rensin. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Ausems to teach the incorporation of a camera into a mobile device, permitting the recording, storage, and transmission of digital images. Pet. 23; Prelim. Reply 3. We have reviewed the section of Rensin to which Patent Owner directs us (Ex. 2003, 2:2–21), and we do not see substantially the same functionality. Although Rensin teaches that “PDA expansion slots may be used to enhance the PDA capabilities with a digital camera,” Patent Owner does not explain, and it is not clear from our review of Rensin, that Rensin discloses the use of the mobile device to transmit the images recorded by the camera. Ex. 2003, 2:2–21. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Rensin is substantially the same as Ausems. 3. Conclusion Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ausems with those of Neibauer in the manner described above. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 114–117. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Ausems’s ability to share photos captured by a mobile device with Neibauer’s Yahoo! club in order to “dramatically expand[] the universe of image data that the club based on the current record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. ¶ 117. Accordingly, on the present record, the combination of Neibauer and Ausems teaches limitation 1a.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile devices, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18). At this stage, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” See Prelim. Resp. 15. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed and implement the teachings of the ’578 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition is also supported by the testimony of Dr. Madisetti. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18.8” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 8. Petitioner also discusses various claim construction arguments made in the district court proceeding. See id. at 25–27, 65–66. At this stage, Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that “no express constructions are required.” Prelim. Resp. 16. 8 If Patent Owner disagrees with this formulation of the level of skill in the art, it must raise that disagreement in its Response. If a different level of skill would affect the outcome in this case, the parties must brief that issue as well. The failure of Patent Owner to describe how a different level of skill in the art is determinative will be a forfeiture of that argument. If there is a dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, then the parties are also encouraged to submit evidence, other than conclusory expert testimony, that supports their position. claim terms.9 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,619,578 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00246 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 6–11, 13–18, and 20–27, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Neibauer, Miller, and Cheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Madisetti argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile devices, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a [person having ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–44). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the invention claimed in the ’336 patent.10” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 8. Petitioner also discusses various claim construction arguments made in the district court proceeding. See id. at 28–29, 65. At this stage, Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that “no express constructions are required,” and further agrees “that the ordinary and customary meanings of the claim terms apply.” Prelim. Resp. 19. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.11 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“considered by the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 6–13; Ex. 1001, code (56). Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Miller is substantially the same as Agboatwalla. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Miller for being able to select different types of communication tools for a group: Miller discloses a number of web-based forms that allow the user to (among other things) specify a name and description for the environment (Fig. 13B) identify the members of the environment (Fig. 13C, 14A-C), and select the various communication features (e.g. bulletin board, etc.) that will be available for members (Fig. 16). (Miller, 0045:12-0046:27.) With respect to the selection of communications features, Miller discloses a user interface for allowing the user to select (from a list) the particular features that will be included in the collaborative environment. (Miller, Fig. 16, 0047:31-0048:9, 0042:29-32 (“The group creator selects from among these functions, preferably by way of an easy-to-use web browser interface, and these choices are stored in a database and associated with the group members.”).) These selections are then used in creating the environment or group. (Miller, 0043:3-6 (“In step 1104, the environment is created… to permit the group members to activate the functions selected for the group.”); EX1002, ¶104.) Pet. 19 (emphasis added).13 We have reviewed the section of Agboatwalla to which Patent Owner directs us (Ex. 2003, 2:32–50) and do not see substantially the same functionality. Although Agboatwalla describes a user being able to select what content may be viewed (see id.), Patent Owner does not direct us to, and we do not see, Miller’s teaching of selecting different types of communication pathways that may be selected for a group. Accordingly, Miller is not substantially the same as Agboatwalla. 13 References to Miller are to Petitioner’s pagination in the exhibit, for consistency with the Petition. Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings in the manner described above. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–108. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Miller’s ability to select communication channels with Neibauer’s Yahoo! Club in order “to enhance the flexibility and customizability of clubs in Neibauer.” Id. ¶ 107. This would allow the founder to eliminate certain features that “may not have been particularly useful or desirable for some clubs.” Id. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See id. ¶ 108.” slip op. at 26
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,793,336
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.