- Tiktok Inc. v. Ntech Properties, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01342 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–10 are unpatentable as obvious over each asserted ground; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the petitions failed to establish its additional feed and time-period limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“1b, 1c, and 1e of claim 1 and in claims 4 and 5 of the ’753 patent. Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of “feed” is “one or more associated media elements.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 4. However, as discussed below, this alleged plain and ordinary meaning of feed is not supported by the claim language, the specification of the ’753 patent, or dictionary definitions of feed as contended by Patent Owner. We reject this contention and the related contentions that the cited art may be distinguished from the claims of the ’753 patent based on the recited term “feed.” Patent Owner relies on the language of claim 1 to support its” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ definitions are similar, although we observe that Patent Owner proposes that the person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent or professional experience, whereas Petitioner proposes that such a person would have both a degree and experience. Neither party presents any arguments relating or referring to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Determining the level of ordinary skill in the art involves various factors, 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 prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. Petitioner’s assessment is supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth and is consistent with the ’753 patent and the asserted prior art. However, our obviousness analysis would be the same under either party’s assessment. See Ex. 2014 ¶ 17 (Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, stating that “I note that my definition of a POSITA is similar to that of Dr. Almeroth” and “My opinions in this declaration would not change were I to adopt the definition of a POSITA offered by Dr. Almeroth.”).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“16 With regard to claim 5, the Petition cites paragraphs 97 and 98 of the Almeroth Declaration (Ex. 1002). See Pet. 28–29. We have considered the cited paragraphs in the Almeroth Declatation and found that they consist of nothing more than the inadequate and conclusory contentions in the Petition preceded by, in paragraph 97, “[i]n my opinion” and “it is my opinion” and, in paragraph 98, “[i]t is also my opinion.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97, 98. As related to claim 5, we accord the Almeroth Declaration little or no weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). that might become out-of-date before a user accesses access [sic] them. Ex. 1003, 11:49–58 (emphasis added). The cited passage in Whitehead mentioning “near real-time” does not support finding that Whitehead teaches or suggests the elements recited in claim 5.” slip op. at 39
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends, “[a] POSITA would have modified Whitehead’s mixing server 130 to incorporate Marcus ’904’s algorithm (running on Marcus ’904’s receiver) for receiving, selecting, ordering, and assembling different media streams (both for content and advertising).” Pet. 33. Petitioner supports this contention by articulating the following reasons for the asserted modification of Whitehead’s mixing server 130 to incorporate Marcus ’904’s algorithm: “makes it more likely the system will identify content best suited for a particular user,” “allows for more targeted advertising and/or an opportunity to maximize revenue,” “improves Whitehead’s ability to target content and advertising to a particular user,” “would unlock new revenue sources for Whitehead,” “Marcus ’904’s content selection and concatenation algorithm improves Whitehead’s efficiency,” “[b]oth Whitehead and Marcus ’904 generate custom media programming based on a user profile,” “incorporating Marcus ’904’s teachings would not require redesigning Whitehead’s architecture and instead merely supplements Whitehead’s disclosure,” and “Petitioner’s proposed modification can be implemented entirely in software and does not require any hardware modifications. Indeed, Whitehead acknowledges that such modifications are possible. EX1003 at 19:64-20:6, 22:26-40.” Id. at 33–35 (citing Ex. 1002 (Almeroth Decl.) ¶¶ 110–115) (emphasis omitted). Based on this undisputed showing, we find that one of ordinary skill would have had a motivation to combine the teachings of Whitehead and Marcus ’904 as asserted in the Petition with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 8,886,753 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,753 - Silencerco Weapons Research, LLC v. Huxwrx Safety Co. LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01214 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 12–14, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable; the motion to amend was granted for substitute claims 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37–40, and 42, and denied for …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The ’750 patent states that “the fluid pathway can be a radially serpentine fluid pathway which causes the fluids received in the off axis chamber to flow back and forth around a radius of the off axis chamber,” also using “radially serpentine fluid pathway” to refer to this rotation around the chamber radius “while also traversing a length of the off axis chamber.” Ex. 1001, 4:34–41 (emphasis added). This is the only description of “radially” serpentine flow in the ’750 patent. Notably, the ’750 patent does not use “radially” or “serpentine” to describe a fluid pathway “which causes the fluids to spiral around the central chamber within the off axis chamber along a length of the off axis chamber,” instead referring to such a fluid pathway as a “helical fluid pathway.” Id. at 4:41–44. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Inst. Dec. 11–12. We explained that the flow path depicted above, which is equivalent to that of Figure 14 of the ’750 patent, “flows circumferentially about the central chamber.” Id. at 14. We maintain this interpretation. Stated differently, the depicted flow is around a longitudinal axis of the chamber. See MTA PG 6 (describing the flow path depicted above as “a back and forth flow path around a longitudinal axis of the off axis chamber; that is, a circumferentially serpentine pathway”); see also Ex. 2003 ¶ 40 (Dr. Neitzel describing the flow path depicted above as “a back and forth flow path around a longitudinal axis of the off axis chamber”). The flow is not around a radius of the chamber, which Patent Owner recognizes is required for a flow path to be radially serpentine. See PO Resp. 10 (“Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s conclusion in the [Institution Decision] that ‘radially serpentine’ as recited in the claims of the ’750 patent means a back and forth flow around a radius of the off axis chamber.” (citation modified)); PO Sur-reply 2 (agreeing that “radially serpentine” requires “a back and forth flow around a radius of the off axis chamber”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor its witness, Mr. Nixon, has explained adequately how Thurler’s disclosure of its tube e being perforated for two thirds of its length “contemplates other lengths of perforations.” See Pet. 48; Ex. 1013 ¶ 212. Such conclusory assertions fail to apprise us of why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Thurler’s device in contradiction to Thurler’s explicit disclosure. We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for modifying Thurler’s device. First, the modification is not a matter of design choice because the perforations allow the gases generated by firing the projectile to pass into the space between tubes e and g where they partially expand. See Ex. 1015, 1:84–91. Thus, modifying the number of perforations necessarily affects the flow of gases through the device. Next, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Nixon explains adequately how reducing the amount of perforation in tube e results in an increased fluid length. See Pet. 49; Ex. 1013 ¶ 213. Rather, although less fluid may enter into tube e with Petitioner’s modification, it appears that that fluid would travel the same distance along tubes e and h as in Thurler’s unmodified device. Finally, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Nixon explains adequately how limiting the amount of gases generated by firing the projectile from entering the expansion zones of tubes g and h provides any benefit. To the contrary, limiting the amount of gases in the manner suggested by Petitioner would reduce the suppression of such gases, resulting in a less effective device. Moreover, Thurler discloses that “there is still a space of a few millimeters between [tubes] e and g which is necessary” to prevent the application of “pressure on the projectile causing the same to deviate.” Ex. 1015, 1:106–2:3. Thus, Petitioner’s modification would not result in the passage of gases occurring only at the first three of Thurler’s tubular sleeves as asserted by Petitioner. Additionally, in the Institution Decision, we explained that Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning to support the proposed modification of Thurler’s device regarding parent claim 1 to have concentric tubes around the central tube e. See Inst. Dec. 29–31. This shortcoming, which we maintain, carries through to dependent claim 6. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown, by a” slip op. at 26
- ScopeMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“We agree with Petitioner that the amendment is broadening. Petitioner’s witness testified that he “wouldn’t call a BB gun a high energy device or a high energy weapon.” Paper 33, 18:4–6. Thus, per Petitioner’s witness, use of a BB gun would not be covered by claim 22, no matter what is discharged from the BB gun. However, if high energy material is discharged from that same BB gun, that use would be covered by proposed substitute claim 43 (assuming the other claim recitations were met). See id. at 21:10–12 (Dr. Neitzel agreeing that “if something produces a high energy material, it automatically is a high energy weapon”). Thus, by deleting “high energy device” and replacing that language with “weapon,” proposed substitute claim 43 impermissibly broadens the scope of claim 22. See Sisvel Int'l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“But if a substitute claim ‘is broader in any respect it is considered to be broader than the original claim even though it may be narrower in other respects.’” (citation modified) (quoting Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); see also Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 6 (“A patent owner may not seek to broaden a challenged claim in any respect that enlarges the scope of the claims of the patent . . . . Likewise, a proposed substitute claim may not remove a feature of the claim in a manner that broadens the scope of the claims of the challenged patent.”).” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,286,750 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,286,750 - PTAB · Sep 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00141 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Remand
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Nishida-based challenges.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 B2 (“the ’749 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 1–21 of the ’749 patent. Nike, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)2 filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 10) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 13). We discretionarily denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Paper 20. Petitioner filed a request for Director Review of the Decision denying institution. Paper 21. Director Review was granted, the Decision denying institution of inter partes review was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Board. Id. at 4. Specifically, the case was “remanded to the Board with instructions to consider Petitioner’s Nishida grounds and to determine whether the Petition should be instituted.” Id. at 3–4.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the Petition and the Preliminary 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). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’749” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In support of Petitioner’s position, Dr. Adanur testifies that “Nishida discloses that the unfinished surface area 1.1 is part of the web 1 itself,” that Nishida discloses that the computer-controlled process can (using Nishida’s phrase) “put in” up to seven different textile fibers or yarns into the web of material in one operation, and that, “[t]hus, Nishida discloses simultaneously knitting its layouts 2 and tongue 40 (each a ‘textile element’) with the unfinished surface area 1.1 (a ‘surrounding textile structure’).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 216 (citing Ex. 1022, 2:12–20, 4:47–55, 5:45–49). For purposes of institution, we credit that testimony over the testimony of Dr. Pastore, because, on the current record, we regard Dr. Adanur’s testimony as more consistent with the evidence. This and the other related issues may be explored more fully during the trial.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’749 patent in March 2004 would have been someone with at least a few years of experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used in making footwear, or a bachelor’s degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent academic or work experience, including in the footwear industry. EX1002, ¶68. Such a person of ordinary skill would have at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles. For individuals with a lower educational level, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s working experience compensates for any such lower educational level, or vice versa. See id. Pet. 23–24. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, Nike applies Skechers’ definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - Tesla, Inc. v. Graphite Charging Company LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00388 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Wang and Wang with AESO did not establish the claimed analysis, and Cooley did not disclose reducing current power consumption.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the claims require a decision engine to perform those elements.” Tr. 48:17– 20. In light of this, we fail to understand the basis for Patent Owner’s objection to the characterization of the level of ordinary skill involving experience with “intelligent” techniques or devices that control grid electricity. We determine that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner (PO Resp. 12, 49–50) points to the Specification’s list of “[e]xamples of power reduction actions.” Ex. 1001, 8:47–63. Patent Owner asserts that the list includes numerous examples of power reductions that occur in the present and one that takes place in the future—namely, “scheduling nonessential operations at a different time (e.g., nonessential software or hardware upgrades).” Ex. 1001, 8:61–62 (cited at PO Resp. 12, 50). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention (PO Resp. 12) that the applicant, by including the term “current” in the claims, intentionally narrowed the claims to power consumption reductions that occur temporally in the present, rather than those that occur in the future. See Pet. Reply 6–7 (Petitioner asserting that Patent Owner’s position is “inconsistent with the specification’s examples,” but then arguing that the Specification does not support that position rather than pointing to any purported inconsistencies). Because the independent claims recite the term “current,” construing the term in the temporal sense is not, as Petitioner argues, importing into the claims an example from the Specification. See Pet. Reply 8.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Given the interchangeable nature taught for various features of Wang’s embodiments, it would have been a routine and obvious matter for a POSA to combine aspects from Wang’s various embodiments (e.g., data acquisition, internal hardware, data analysis performed by the UMC receiver 400 and/or the display 200). Moreover, many of Wang’s embodiments–particularly of specific smart appliance types– include common components, thus further confirming combinability of aspects of the disclosed embodiments. A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining features of the embodiments together. Id. at 77–78 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 201–203). We determine that these reasons are inadequate and too generic to satisfy Petitioner’s burden as they lack a clear explanation of what and how “aspects from Wang’s various embodiments” are proposed to be combined along with reasoning specific to that proposal. Petitioner, for example, does not explain adequately or persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a display that purportedly receives and analyzes data to a “smart appliance,” when that appliance already has an application processor that purportedly receives and analyzes the same data. It is not enough for Petitioner to allege that all of the elements of the challenged claims can be found somewhere in the various embodiments of Wang; Petitioner must also show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the elements in the manner as arranged in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). We find Petitioner has not shown an adequate reason to combine embodiments.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that these reasons are inadequate and too generic to satisfy Petitioner’s burden as they lack a clear explanation of what and how “aspects from Wang’s various embodiments” are proposed to be combined along with reasoning specific to that proposal. Petitioner, for example, does not explain adequately or persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a display that purportedly receives and analyzes data to a “smart appliance,” when that appliance already has an application processor that purportedly receives and analyzes the same data. It is not enough for Petitioner to allege that all of the elements of the challenged claims can be found somewhere in the various embodiments of Wang; Petitioner must also show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the elements in the manner as arranged in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). We find Petitioner has not shown an adequate reason to combine embodiments.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,291,243 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,291,243 - Tesla, Inc. v. Graphite Charging Company, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00387 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 over Kimura; claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 16 over Kimura and Hotta; claims 3, 10, and 17 over Kimura and King.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We understand Petitioner’s phrase “experience working on software and/or hardware used to manage charging processes for electric vehicles” to encompass data processing systems similar to that proposed by Patent Owner, but with a slightly narrower area of application. We determine that Petitioner’s definition, as set out in the block quote above, is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For the purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, as block quoted above, of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same. Cf. Pet. Reply 15 (Petitioner asserting that “[Patent Owner] takes issue with the level of ordinary skill in the art . . ., but never argues that the level impacts how the Board should understand the arguments. Petitioner’s positions apply regardless.”).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that the Specification evidences a clear intent by the patentees to redefine (either explicitly or by implication) or to otherwise narrow the scope of the claim terms “request” and “response,” as Patent Owner urges. The statements in the Specification upon which Patent Owner relies are referring to “Request 414” and “Response 418.” See PO Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:3–4, 12:12–14). As indicated by the reference numbers, the Specification is discussing a specific request and a specific response in the context of Figure 4, which is described as depicting “an illustrative embodiment.” See Ex. 1001, 10:51–53 (“FIG. 4 is a system for managing a charging process of an electric vehicle in accordance with an illustrative embodiment.”), 12:1–19, Fig. 4. By stressing the illustrative nature of the embodiment of Figure 4, the patentees indicated an intent for it to not be limiting. See also Ex. 1001, 15:44–47 (the Specification stating: “The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed.”); Hill-Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1373 (“[T]hose terms [including, datalink 39] are used synonymously only in describing a particular numbered component in the figure depicting the preferred embodiment, and never in describing the datalink of the invention generally.”). At oral argument, Patent Owner’s counsel, relying on the opinion of Dr. Cameron, argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “read the definition without the reference numbers.” Tr. 43:23–44:9. Thus, we understand Patent Owner to argue that the Specification provides an explicit definition when one reads out a portion of the Specification—converting, for example, “Request 414 is a message” to “Request is a message.” This is not persuasive as it involves editing the evidence to conform to Patent Owner’s argument, rather than an argument supported by the Specification as written by the patentees. Patent Owner does not direct us to any portion of the Specification that clearly defines “request” and “response” generally or, for example, uses phrasing implying that those terms are defined for “the present invention.” See, e.g., Hill-Rom Services, Inc., 755 F.3d at 1372 (“For example, we have held that disclaimer applies when the patentee makes statements such as “the present invention requires . . .’ or ‘the present invention is . . .’ or ‘all embodiments of the present invention are . . . .’”); Astrazeneca, 384 F.3d at 1339 (discussing defining by implication and determining that the “specification’s statement that ‘[t]he solubilizers suitable according to the invention are defined below’ provides a strong signal of lexicography.”).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We fail to discern a clear disparagement of the use of signals in the Specification that would justify excluding signals from the scope of the claimed invention. The Specification does not mention in these excerpts the use of signals, and thus does not characterize “using signals as less ‘complete, flexible, and interoperable,’” as Patent Owner impliedly argues. PO Sur-reply 11. The Specification characterizes “the most rudimentary charging scenarios” as including situations such as a car owner merely plugging the electric vehicle into a common electric outlet at the owner’s house, and suggests that illustrative embodiments are an improvement in that they apply to “much broader and more complex sets of circumstances than this simple scenario.” See Ex. 1001, 6:60–7:2. An example of a “complex transaction[]” is the car owner using a charging station located away from the owner’s house and being required to pay for the charge. See id. at 7:2– 11. To the extent there is any disparagement, it is merely of the simple scenario of the owner plugging the car into the standard household outlet. Cf. Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ([T]his court also recognizes that disparaging comments alone do not necessarily show a manifest or express disavowal of the criticized subject matter.”). Additionally, Patent Owner does not direct us to any portion of the Specification that indicates, for example, that the use of messages is a very important feature of the claimed invention and that alternatives (e.g., signals) are disparaged. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1372 (citing Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L., 450 F.3d at 1354–55); see id. at 1377 (holding that there is no disavowal or lexicography where “[t]here is no language that extolls the virtues of interfaces that both send and receive messages or language that disparages interfaces that only send messages.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Sur-reply 15 (citing Ex. 1021, 161:5–21). Patent Owner overstates that testimony, which is that “[t]here’s actually disincentive for using messages all together.” Ex. 1021, 161:17–18. Regardless, even if correct, the existence of some disincentives does not necessarily negate a motivation to make the proposed combination. 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.”). We find that Petitioner’s assertion—that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by a desire to assure a safe and commercially-desirable system (Pet. 53)—to have rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Patent Owner argues that Dr. Cameron “explained [that] . . . it would not be simple because Hotta uses two-stage charging subroutines.” PO Sur-reply 16 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 118). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Cameron’s testimony. The cited paragraph 118 states that Hotta’s figures depict “two-stage charging subroutines different from both the ’391 patent and Kimura,” and that there are “fundamental differences.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 118. Dr. Cameron does not go so far as to opine that combining the teachings as Petitioner’s proposes would not be considered simple by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Leapfrog presents no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in this type of device was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”). Dr. MacCarley, on the other hand, credibly testifies that “making use of Hotta’s command keys in Kimura’s system . . . would have been a simple substitution of one known element (Kimura’s lightly- described main switch) for another known element (Hotta’s command keys) to achieve predictable results (a charging process that can be stopped by pressing Hotta’s charging stop command key . . .).” Ex. 1009 ¶ 147. We credit Dr. MacCarley’s testimony over that of Dr. Cameron’s because it is consistent with a sufficiently reasoned rationale of a simple substitution and is supported by the references.” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 8,103,391 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,103,391 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Hunter’S Manufacturing Company, Inc. D/B/A Tenpoint Crossbow Technologies v. Ravin Crossbows, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00407 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Stanziale ’771; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, the recited expression “mounted to” is broad. The Federal Circuit has explained that words in a claim “will ordinarily be given their full meaning,” without imposing narrowing modifications on the claim language. Johnson Worldwide, 175 F.3d at 989, see also Virginia Panel, 133 F.3d at 865–66. As to whether the “mounted to” connection may be an indirect connection, the parties agree that an indirect connection is permitted — a view that is amply supported by the intrinsic record, as discussed above. With regard to the types of movement that may occur between a “string guide” and a corresponding “limb,” the intrinsic record shows that that various types of movements (including no movement at all) are characterized as “mounted to.” Slight variations of “mounted to,” occurring in the intrinsic record, are helpful in understanding the claim language — particularly because the ’015 patent itself uses such a variant (“mounted . . . on”) to describe the very connection (between a “string guide” and a “limb”) that is elsewhere, and in claim 1, is described as “mounted to.” See Ex. 1001, 5:23–26.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’ sole argument — i.e., that Stanziale ’771 fails to teach the “mounted to” limitation — is based upon its construction of the “mounted to” limitation, which permits the “string guide” to be rotatable relative the corresponding “limb,” but permits no other type of relative motion. See PO Resp. 4, 13–14. As discussed above, we do not accept Patent Owner’s construction of the “mounted to” limitation. In Stanziale ’771, first and second pulleys 145, 146, and interconnecting pivot 147 (all three of which Petitioner maps to claim 1’s “string guide[s]”) are pivotally connected to a number of intermediate members (e.g., lever arms or pushing arms 32, connecting elements 27, and constraining member 29) which are, in turn, pivotally connected to elastic members 10 (which Petitioner maps to claim 1’s “limb[s]”). See Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1012 7:9–17, 8:26–8:13, 11:8–9, 14:18–15:22, 16:24–25, 16:29, 17:2, 17:15–17, 17:24–27, 19:12–30, 20:32–21:16, Figs. 1–7; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 177–179); see also Ex. 1012 11:3–7, 11:34–12:4, 12:10–17, 16:29–18:3, 18:22–19:30, Figs. 8, 9, 10a, 10b. Therefore, Stanziale ’771, in Petitioner’s mapping, teaches the “string guide[s]” connected indirectly to the “limb[s].” Per the construction of the “mounted to” limitation employed herein (“connected to, either directly or indirectly”), Petitioner establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Stanziale ’771 teaches the “string guide[s]” “mounted to” the “limb[s],” as recited in claim 1 of the ’015 patent. Contrary to Patent Owner’s concerns (see Paper 47, 1), the indirect connection between Stanziale ’771’s “string guide[s]” and “limb[s]” is not “unbounded.” Rather, the connection disclosed by Stanziale ’771 is the type of indirect connection supported by the intrinsic record. See supra § II.B. Patent Owner’s contention that “a POSA would be disinclined to rely on [Stanziale ’771] as a reference for the improved crossbow design disclosed in Claim 1” is not persuasive. See PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶ 46). The test for anticipation is whether a prior art reference discloses each and every element recited in the claim, not whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been inclined to rely on the reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1369.” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Motions to exclude evidence are authorized under 35 C.F.R. § 42.64. Rule 42.64(b)(1) states: “Once a trial has been instituted, any objection [to evidence] must be filed within five business days of service of evidence to which the objection is directed.” Further, “[t]he objection must identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 35 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). “A motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any objection.” 35 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In the present proceeding, Petitioner proposed — and Patent Owner does not dispute (see PO Resp. 3) — the following definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art: A hypothetical POSA to which the ’015 Patent pertains would be a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows. (Ex. 1016 ¶17.) Such a person would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows. (Id.) Pet. 28. As discussed above, we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill for the purposes of this Decision. See supra § II.A. Petitioner alleges various deficiencies in Mr. Teater’s background, education, and knowledge. Paper 39, 4–8. Nevertheless, Mr. Teater satisfies the definition, of a person of ordinary skill in the art, that Petitioner advanced. Specifically, Mr. Teater has reviewed crossbows for 14 years, encompassing the relevant priority date for the ’015 patent, during which time he wrote evaluations of various bows and crossbows, developed and published testing standards for crossbows, and served on the Archery Trade Association’s technical committee for standards and guidelines. Paper 41, 4 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 3, 4, 7). Accordingly, Mr. Teater satisfies Petitioner’s definition of “a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows.” Pet. 28. Petitioner emphasizes that Mr. Teater “does not have a degree in mechanical engineering.” Paper 39, 4 (citing Ex. 2034, 1; Ex. 1034, 43:20–44:5). However, no degree of any kind is mandatory for satisfying Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, Petitioner’s definition states that “[s]uch a person would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows.” Pet. 28 (emphasis added). There is no dispute that Mr. Teater meets this standard. Petitioner raises various other issues that form no part of the definition that Petitioner advanced — for example, whether Mr. Teater has taught courses related to crossbows, whether he is named as an inventor on a” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 9,354,015 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,354,015 - Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 14, 2024 · IPR2023-00442 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Dixon because Dixon anticipates them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“We adopt the same reasoning here, and conclude that the evidence of record and the Specification of the ’681 patent support construing the preamble’s recitation of a “method for treating a patient with an angiogenic eye disorder” as meaning administering a compound, i.e., the recited VEGF antagonist, to a patient for the purpose of improving or providing a beneficial effect in their angiogenic eye disorder. We find that, as in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, although the claims “encompass a clinical result, they do not require such a result.” (emphasis added). 8 F.4th 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We consequently reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction that the language of the preamble reciting a “method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder” requires not only an intent to treat, but, additionally, a high degree of efficacy on par with monthly Lucentis. See PO Resp. 9–10.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim terms “initial dose,” “secondary dose,” and “tertiary dose.” Petitioner proposes adoption of the definitions expressly set forth in the Specification of the ’681 patent, viz., that the initial dose is the dose “administered at the beginning of the treatment regimen,” and is followed by the secondary doses that are “administered after the initial dose,” and the tertiary doses are “administered after the secondary doses” and may be distinguished from the secondary doses “in terms of frequency of administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–44. Patent Owner does not expressly dispute Petitioner’s construction, other than to argue that, by 2011, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “initial” and “secondary” doses to correspond to loading doses and “tertiary” doses to correspond to maintenance doses. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66; Ex. 2349, 6–11. Patent Owner contends that the purpose (and expected effect) of loading doses was to achieve visual acuity gains and retina drying, and the goal of less frequent maintenance doses was to maintain the efficacy achieved with loading doses. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2056 ¶ 66). As we have explained above, we do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the definition of these terms requires a high, or otherwise defined, degree of efficacy. As we stated in the -00881 and -01225 Decisions: Based on those express definitions in the Specification, we do not find cause to construe the terms differently. In particular, we do not find that the Specification requires the “tertiary doses” to maintain any efficacy gain achieved after the initial and secondary doses, or that the term suggests any specific level of efficacy. The Specification unequivocally states that “[t]he terms ‘initial dose,’ ‘secondary doses,’ and ‘tertiary doses,’ refer to the temporal sequence of administration of the VEGF antagonist.”” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, the second step of the Praxair analysis is to determine whether the printed matter is functionally related to its “substrate.” Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032. Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight. Id. (citing DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850). However, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Id. (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). More specifically, printed matter is functionally related to its substrate when the language changes not mere thoughts or outcomes, but provides action steps that the method requires. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the test for printed matter is whether it “merely informs people of the claimed information, or whether it instead interacts with the other elements of the claim to … cause a specific action in a claimed process.”); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that language “is only a statement of purpose and intended result” where its “expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner notes that the Petitioner in the ’00881 IPR proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field. Pet. 17–18 (quoting -00881 IPR, Paper 94 at 9–10). Furthermore, it was asserted that such a person would typically have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D. (or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical field), with practical academic or medical experience in (i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders, including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or (ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF antagonists. Id. at 18 (citing -00881 IPR Paper 94 at 10). Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. In the -01225 IPR, we adopted the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the challenged claims of the ’681 patent, concluding that that definition was consistent with the level of skill in the art. See -01225 IPR, Paper 96 at 52–53. Having previously adopted this definition of the level of skill in the art for the claims of the ’681 patent, we do so again in the present proceeding.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,130,681 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,130,681 - Zebra Technologies Corporation v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01374 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–10, 15, 16, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over Garber and Werb, with Andersen added for claims 6, 7, and 18.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field” and “significant experience with detection devices, like RFID and metal detectors.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposal or offer a different definition, and we determine that Petitioner’s formulation is consistent with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’711 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We thus apply Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. B.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“The lack of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 2 The District Court similarly concluded that “sensing subsystem” “is not a means- plus-function term subject to § 112 ¶ 6.” See Ex. 1015, 4. 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “When a claim term lacks the word ‘means,’ the presumption can be overcome . . . if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. at 1349 (citation omitted). “Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.” Id. at 1350 (citation omitted). We conclude that Petitioner has not overcome the presumption against applying § 112, ¶ 6. Petitioner’s critical propositions—that “the ‘sensing subsystem’ term is a nonce word” and that “the purely functional prefix ‘sensing’ does nothing to impart structure to the term ‘subsystem’” (Pet. 6)—are conclusory attorney-argument for which Petitioner points to no adequate evidentiary support. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”). Accordingly, we maintain our determination that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply to “a sensing subsystem configured to provide a signal having a signature representing a presence of a radio frequency identification (RFID) object.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededMixed
“We do not adopt either of the proposed constructions because we conclude they add features from embodiments but fail to identify the required “clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended” to limit the claims in the manner proposed. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Instead, we conclude that “sensing subsystem” is “a component configured to detect a signal representing an object,” as proposed by Petitioner, but without “self-contained.” This is functionally the same as Patent Owner’s proposed construction with the conversion concept omitted, and also consistent with the District Court’s construction, which was “components configured to detect and convert a signal representing an object.” See Ex. 1015, 4.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that “multiscan, coherent signal processing” does not require multiple scans. As noted above, Petitioner and Dr. Sharony acknowledge that “multiscan, coherent signal processing” is not a term of art and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of “multiscan” requires multiple scans because the term is a combination of the prefix “multi,” which means more than one, with “scan.” Interpreting “multiscan” to cover only a single scan would read the prefix “multi” out of the claim term. Similarly, construing “multiscan” to require multiple signals, but not multiple scans, would read “scan” out of the term. Our understanding is consistent with the ’711 patent, which states as follows: The integrated mode of operation may employ multiscan, coherent signal processing of diverse multiple inputs to achieve significantly higher detection sensitivities thereby allowing more precise object location and identification. Ex. 1001, 18:18–22 (emphasis added). This sentence indicates that “multiscan, coherent signal processing” processes “diverse multiple inputs” to achieve higher 4 Here and elsewhere we substitute italics for bold emphasis used by the parties. detection sensitivities. However, it does not redefine the ordinary meaning of the term “multiscan” so that it would cover scanning only once rather than scanning multiple times, or cover receiving multiple inputs but not multiple scans.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,557,711 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,557,711 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00566 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9, 34–39, 41–43, and 45 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dixon; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Owner and its experts proposed claim construction of “effectively treating” as meaning “noninferior,” “statistically noninferior,” or “comparable.” Pet. Reply 4. Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner, and its expert, Dr. Do, advance the proposed construction of “effectively treating, ” with no explanation for what that means, or how it comports with the challenged dependent claims that recite visual acuity limitations ranging from losing less than 15 letters to gaining more than 15 letters. Id. at 4–5.” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“inter partes review are anticipated by Dixon and therefore unpatentable (Ground 1). Because we reach this conclusion, we do not reach Petitioner’s contentions that the claims are obvious on the basis of Ground 5. Nor does our analysis rely upon, or cite to, Exhibit 1058. We consequently dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1058.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 10,888,601 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,888,601
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.