- 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 · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00785 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were unpatentable over either asserted § 103 combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). 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).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Petitioner’s single-reference allegations do not align with its two “combination” challenges identified above. As for its “combination” allegations, Petitioner does not identify, for example: (1) which limitations in claim 1 are missing in any of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski; (2) which aspects of any of these references requires modification to achieve the invention of claim 1; (3) which specific reference Petitioner posits to teach any such missing limitation in another reference or as the basis to modify a specific feature in a given reference; or (4) a rational reason as to why the skilled artisan would have combined particular teachings from one of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski with particular teachings of another such reference to achieve the invention of claim 1 as a whole.5 Instead, Petitioner improperly punts its burden to define its obviousness challenges to the Board (and Patent Owner). See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“To the extent the Board disagrees that [any particular] limitation is disclosed by the Chow/Reiffin combination 4 See, e.g., Pet. 16, 19 (“Thus, Chow and Reiffin both disclose or suggest claim [1b].” “Therefore, claim 1 was obvious over Chow and Reiffin separately and over their combination.”); see also id. at 12–19, 37–42. 5 Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have combined Reiffin with Chow for “increased computational power and the ability to solve larger problems.” Pet. 11. These generic “reasons” to combine the alleged teachings of Chow and Reiffin (and Kurowski) lack rational underpinning, particularly because Petitioner does not even identify which teachings of which references are being combined to achieve any particular limitation in claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 40 (“[Petitioner’s] ‘spaghetti on the wall’ approach fails [to] explain how Petitioners’ purported motivation for combining Chow and Reiffin fits with each of the at least 64 different possibilities for combining Chow and Reiffin.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and quotes various passages in Chow. Pet. 13–14. For example, Petitioner identifies that, under “Description of the Related Art,” Chow states: “Typically, workload is apportioned by somehow logically dividing the data to be processed. For example, a block of data might be divided evenly into a number of parts equal to the number of available threads, so that each thread can independently process a separate portion of the data. This is called ‘static’ or ‘a priori’ partitioning.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:38–42; Ex. 1022 ¶ 144). Petitioner also identifies that Chow describes “aggregate tasks” divisible into “multiple sub-tasks,” and “multiple task execution units are independently operated on-demand to sequentially self-allocate and execute sub-tasks of the aggregate task.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:66–2:15). After presenting such quoted passages from Chow, Petitioner proffers the conclusion that Chow discloses the Partitioning Limitation, but does so without sufficiently explaining why such passages allegedly teach or suggest the features of the Partitioning Limitation not only within the context of claim 1 as a whole, but given that Chow itself disparages such “static” or “a priori” partitioning as posing “a significant problem” (Ex. 1003, 1:52–58). Patent Owner persuasively responds (and we agree for the same” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“combination” challenges identified above. As for its “combination” allegations, Petitioner does not identify, for example: (1) which limitations in claim 1 are missing in any of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski; (2) which aspects of any of these references requires modification to achieve the invention of claim 1; (3) which specific reference Petitioner posits to teach any such missing limitation in another reference or as the basis to modify a specific feature in a given reference; or (4) a rational reason as to why the skilled artisan would have combined particular teachings from one of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski with particular teachings of another such reference to achieve the invention of claim 1 as a whole.5 Instead, Petitioner improperly punts its burden to define its obviousness challenges to the Board (and Patent Owner). See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“To the extent the Board disagrees that [any particular] limitation is disclosed by the Chow/Reiffin combination 4 See, e.g., Pet. 16, 19 (“Thus, Chow and Reiffin both disclose or suggest claim [1b].” “Therefore, claim 1 was obvious over Chow and Reiffin separately and over their combination.”); see also id. at 12–19, 37–42. 5 Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have combined Reiffin with Chow for “increased computational power and the ability to solve larger problems.” Pet. 11. These generic “reasons” to combine the alleged teachings of Chow and Reiffin (and Kurowski) lack rational underpinning, particularly because Petitioner does not even identify which teachings of which references are being combined to achieve any particular limitation in claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 40 (“[Petitioner’s] ‘spaghetti on the wall’ approach fails [to] explain how Petitioners’ purported motivation for combining Chow and Reiffin fits with each of the at least 64 different possibilities for combining Chow and Reiffin.”). slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,257,582 - 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 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00142 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 5–9, and 11–17 because Skechers showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 11 were obvious over Dua, Hong, and/or Choi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“Here, it is undisputed that Skechers was neither a party to the earlier lululemon IPR nor had ever before challenged the claims of the ’484 patent. Instead, in an attempt to demonstrate a significant relationship between Skechers and lululemon that might justify application of the General Plastic framework, Nike’s sole argument is that “Skechers created a relationship with lululemon by openly admitting that it used lululemon’s petition as a roadmap” and that “[t]his admitted roadmapping creates an implicit relationship between Skechers and lululemon.” PO Sur-Reply 2. We reject the notion that “roadmapping” alone creates a significant relationship. As noted in Videndum, a second petitioner’s reliance on a first petitioner’s earlier-filed petition, “even ‘as a menu or road map,’ is not sufficient to create a significant relationship that favors denial under the first General Plastic factor.” Videndum, at *2 (emphasis added); see also Ford, at *2 (rejecting patent owner’s argument that Ford’s use of prior Volkswagen and Dell IPRs “as a roadmap for its Petition” was sufficient to create “an ‘implicit’ relationship”). In other words, absent some evidence of a non-mandated7 collaboration between Skechers and lululemon (such as proof of a licensing or other technology-sharing agreement regarding the accused product), Skechers’ use of arguments and evidence similar to those in the earlier lululemon IPR does not create a significant relationship. Nor does it appear that Nike could reasonably establish such a relationship given that Skechers is a direct competitor of lululemon, was sued on an entirely different product than lululemon, and was not sued until after lululemon had already sought inter partes review of the challenged patent. See Pet. Reply 1–2 (citing Exs. 1065, 1066).” slip op. at 6
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“In particular, the Board has already performed a detailed analysis of the ’484 patent, including construing the claim terms and applying two of the prior art references—Dua and Hong—that form the primary ground here. As such, the Board is much further along in understanding the challenged claims and the parties’ dispute over their validity than the district court in the parallel litigation. And even if the Final Decision in the lululemon IPR is reversed or remanded on appeal, the Board’s considerable experience with the relevant issues remains. Thus, the fact that the Board has already expended considerable time and resources in deciding the validity of the challenged claims, whereas the district court has not, weighs heavily in favor of institution.10 Indeed, in staying the parallel litigation, the district court expressly recognized the lack of any significant investment by the parties or the court— - “[D]iscovery is still in the early stages.” - “The parties . . . have not yet taken any depositions, any third party discovery, or any expert discovery. . . . Accordingly, this case remains in its early stages.” - “Despite [the parties’] significant work [on claim construction], . . . there is more work ahead of the parties and the Court than behind.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Skechers proposes that one skilled in the art would have had “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” or “at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68). Nike agrees. See Prelim. Resp. 11 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Nike applies Skechers’ definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’).” Accordingly, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as proposed by Skechers.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Skechers notes that “[d]uring the parallel litigation, the parties agreed that the term ‘central portion having a domed, three-dimensional structure’ means ‘central portion having a domed, three-dimensional structure formed during the flat-knitting process, and not afterward’” and that “in the lululemon IPR . . . the Board adopted [this] as its construction.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 2; Ex. 1021, 6) (emphasis added). Nike agrees with that construction. See Prelim. Resp. 11–12 (quoting Pet. 11). Thus, consistent with the parties’ agreement and the Board’s construction in the lululemon IPR, we construe the claimed “central portion having a domed, three-dimensional structure” as meaning it is formed during the knitting process, and not afterward.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,730,484 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00150 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Skechers did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 were unpatentable, principally because the asserted art did not disclose the construed integral knit tongue.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’562 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’562 patent in February 2012 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. 22. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 15. 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 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“inquiries.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the claims . . . [and t]he second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the properly construed claim to the prior art.” Id. Although an explicit claim construction analysis by a petitioner is not required in every case, a petition nonetheless must identify how the challenged claims are to be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable under the statutory grounds asserted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). And, being part of a prima facia case, such an analysis is part of Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its patentability challenges. Petitioner has failed to satisfy the threshold burden for every ground based on this construction.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find Petitioner’s contentions regarding the two annotated figures to be persuasive. First, those contentions, and the cited opinions of Dr. Adanur, are based on a claim construction that, as discussed above, we reject and for which neither party advocates. Second, Petitioner does not explain adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would discern, even with Petitioner’s added red ovals, a tongue distinct from the upper and tongue extending through the throat area. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s contentions regarding differing textures. See Pet. 32–33. Even if differing textures could rise to the level of distinguishing an integral knit tongue from the upper, the purported tongue texture 48" is not confined to the area identified by Petitioner as the tongue. See Pet. 31 (annotated Figure 11, reproduced above). For example, texture 48" outside of Petitioner’s oval appears to wrap approximately halfway around the ankle opening, which is not argued to be consistent with an ordinary artisan’s understanding of a tongue. Or, put another way, there is no indication that the portion of the 48" texture within Petitioner’s red oval, which purportedly represents the tongue, is distinguishable from the remaining portion of the 48" texture outside of the red oval. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the relatively large area depicted as having texture 48" to be an “integral knit tongue.” In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–4 as anticipated by Dua-592.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,060,562 - PTAB · Feb 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00996 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 13–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. The art or arguments presented in the Petition are not “substantially the same” as those previously presented to the Office when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art and arguments. Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trs. of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that: [A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree or higher in electrical engineering, at least 3 years of experience designing or researching electronic circuits, and familiarity with power electronics and inductive power transfer circuits. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner adopts the Petitioner’s proposal.” Prelim. Resp. 17. 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 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard,” and “[h]ere, given the remarkable overlap between the preferred embodiment of the ’461 patent and the prior art/predictable combinations articulated in Grounds 1A–3, Petitioners submit that no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner states that, “[t]o simplify the issues before the Board, Patent Owner has not asserted any claim constructions in this preliminary response and adopts the Petitioner’s position that ‘[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.’” Prelim. Resp. 17 (quoting Pet. 8). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner does not cite to evidence, such as expert testimony, to support its implied argument that Olson’s measured current is “fundamentally different” from the current received by the primary coil. See Prelim. Resp. 31–32. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Woods, on the other hand, testifies, inter alia, that “[t]he ‘[c]urrent measured by current measure block 226 is used in the calculation of power, which as depicted in FIG. 14, measures the ‘power in’ provided to transmit block 214/primary coil 54.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 74–75, Fig. 14) (first alteration added); see also, e.g., id. ¶ 42 (Dr. Woods testifying that the measured current to the power supply “is the current driving the external antenna 52, via the transmit block 214 and to the primary coil 54.” (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 74–75, 112, Fig. 14)). Paragraph 75 of Olson, cited in support of that testimony, provides: “The power in is gauged by the power generated by charging unit 50 and is determined by multiplying the voltage of the internal voltage of charging unit 50, e.g., the voltage of a battery or batteries internal to charging unit 50, by the current driving external antenna 52.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 75 (emphasis added). We note that external antenna 52 includes primary coil 54. See, e.g., Fig. 14. Dr. Woods’ testimony is, at this stage, unrebutted. Patent Owner also argues that “Petitioner fails to provide any evidence regarding the function of Olson’s microprocessor 212 in relation to measuring input power,” and that, “[w]hile Olson describes a power calculation in paragraph [0075], Olson does not describe this power calculation as performed by microprocessor 212.” Prelim. Resp. 32 (citing Pet. 16; Ex. 1004 ¶ 72) (first alteration added). At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the microprocessor. Although Patent Owner does not bear the burden to show patentability, we observe that Patent Owner does not suggest that there is another component in Olson’s external charging device that might perform the admittedly-disclosed power calculation. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Dr. Woods testifies that microprocessor 212 receives the measured current and the input voltage of the charging device, and, from those values, calculates power in. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–44 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 71–78, Fig. 14); see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 74, Fig. 14 (Olson stating that “[c]urrent measured by current measure block 226 is used in the calculation of power in along with the voltage of batteries 160,” and Figure 14 depicting the signal from measure block 226 as an input to microprocessor 212). Dr. Woods’ testimony is, at this stage, unrebutted.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,626,461 - MPL Brands NV, Inc. v. Buzzballz, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · PGR2024-00035 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on all asserted grounds after finding the patent eligible for PGR and each challenged claim more likely than not unpatentable under at least one obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level). However, we find some ambiguity in the last sentence of Petitioner’s proposal (“A POSITA could substitute additional education for industry experience and vice versa.”) because the reference to “additional education” is not tethered to relevant education. Accordingly, we modify the last sentence of Petitioner’s proposal to clarify that the additional education must be relevant. Thus, we restate that for purposes of this Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’441 patent would have had: (i) an associate’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical, industrial or manufacturing engineering and (ii) at least two to three years of practical experience with designing or manufacturing mechanical products such as food or beverage packaging. A POSITA could substitute additional relevant education for practical experience and vice versa. B. Post-Grant Review Eligibility As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Petitioner has” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“In view of the evidence discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that there is adequate written description support for a transparent container body such that a depression in the container base is “visible through at least a portion of the container body,” as recited in claims 9, 10, 15, and 16. Prelim. Resp. 9. Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that the ’441 patent does not disclose “a transparent/translucent liquid” (Pet. 7), we again disagree. As Patent Owner points out, “the ’441 Patent mentions beverages, such as ‘beer and soda,’ as liquids for which the claimed container would be suitable.” Prelim. Resp. 10 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:25–27). Patent Owner demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that beer is typically see-through, or translucent.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 (Till) ¶ 24 (discussing an inspection apparatus for bottles that “are filled with a transparent liquid (e.g. beer, table water, mineral water, wine etc.)”); Ex. 2013 (Schnuckle) ¶ 8 (noting “translucent to transparent liquids such as water, soda, juice, or the like”)). We agree with Patent Owner that the ’441 patent’s identification of “beer and soda as beverages the described and claimed container was intended to hold” provides adequate written description support “for having transparent or translucent liquids within the container.”12 Prelim. Resp. 10. For the reasons discussed above, on this record Petitioner has not demonstrated that claims 9, 10, 15, and 16 include subject matter having a November 10, 2023, priority date. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the ’441 patent is eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 3(n)(1)(A).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. As an initial matter, Mr. Kirkpatrick is opining about a design patent application, and Patent Owner has not established that Mr. Kirkpatrick possesses the education and experience of a designer of ordinary skill in the art of ornamental aspects of containers for storing liquids or solids. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 5 (implying that Mr. Kirkpatrick is a generalist whose experience with design patents is in preparing formal drawings of designs invented by others).17 For this reason alone, on this record we accord Mr. Kirkpatrick’s declaration little weight on the question of whether the ’195 parent application provides adequate written description support for originally-filed Figure 2 of the ’813 design application. See, e.g., Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case . . . a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.”). Even if Mr. Kirkpatrick’s opinions were relevant, they would not change our conclusion regarding lack of adequate written description. Mr. Kirkpatrick attributes the differences between the drawings to “choices in drafting strategy of the respective illustrators,” such as how to use “contour lines to illustrate sloped surfaces” and how much detail to include for well-known features like pop-tops. See Ex. 2001 (Kirkpatrick Decl.) ¶¶ 19, 23–24, 28–32.18 These arguments are unavailing. First, there is no evidence of record indicating that the figures in the ’195 parent application and ’813 design application were created by different illustrators. Second, 17 Patent Owner also has not established that Mr. Kirkpatrick possesses the education and experience of a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’441 patent, as we have defined it here. Supra Section II.A. 18 Mr. Kirkpatrick’s analysis of a photograph of a can submitted by the applicant during prosecution (see Ex. 2001 (Kirkpatrick Decl.) ¶¶ 25–32) is additionally unavailing because there is no evidence of record indicating that the patent illustrator(s) used this particular photograph or the depicted can to create the patent illustrations. we agree with Petitioner that even if different illustrators employ different drafting strategies, this “does not absolve Patent Owner’s responsibility not to add new matter.” Prelim. Reply 6.” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Because the ’441 patent is eligible for post-grant review, we turn to an analysis of whether the Petition demonstrates “that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). C. Petitioner’s Grounds of Alleged Unpatentability As noted above in Section I.E, Petitioner asserts four different obviousness grounds. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not address the merits of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,932,441 - PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00994 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 9–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Onishi-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially 4 For purposes of this Decision, we assume the challenged claims have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant aspects of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112- 29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), and we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. The art or arguments presented in the Petition are not “substantially the same” as those previously presented to the Office when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art and arguments. Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trs. of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 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 ’696 patent. Further, we decline to discretionarily deny inter partes review. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’696 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. However, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Mercier, opines that [A]t the time of the ’696 Patent, a POSITA would have a working knowledge of wireless charging and inductive charging. The person would have gained this knowledge through an undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working in the field of wireless or inductive charging device design, or testing of such wireless or inductive charging device testing, or 5 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. an equivalent combination of academic study and work experience. More education (e.g., a Master’s degree) or work experience any relevant field may compensate for a deficit in one of the relevant qualifications stated above. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26. We observe that, in Dr. Mercier’s definition, the undergraduate degree categories are a bit broader and the experience possibly a bit more specific than in Petitioner’s definition. However, at this stage and absent argument to the contrary by the parties, we discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. 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. We note, however, that were we to adopt Dr. Mercier’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“near-linear region—consistent with the quoted applicant’s use of the term “near-linear”—rather than a linear or non-linear region, which seemingly would encompass the entire curve. As to the second part, we understand Patent Owner to be referring to the purported benefit of linear control, and we determine that Patent Owner has not explained adequately why such a benefit should be read into the claim term “substantially different,” particularly where the quoted Specification support does not explicitly mention linear regulation.7 See Ex. 1001, 21:61–63 (“The induced voltage 7 To the extent that Patent Owner relies on its declarant’s testimony as an explanation of Patent Owner’s claim construction position, we remind Patent Owner about the prohibition on incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019, 35–36 can be increased by reducing the transmission frequency and can be reduced by increasing the transmission frequency.”). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that— consistent with the Specification’s description of the frequency that is “[p]referably . . . selected” and applicant’s argument regarding the same during prosecution—“a transmission frequency substantially different from said characteristic resonant frequency of said inductive couple” encompasses frequencies that lie within one of the near-linear regions of a frequency-amplitude graph associated with the inductive couple. See Ex. 1001, 21:20– 24; Ex. 1002, 70. At this time and for purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not reach the issue of the outer bounds of the scope of “substantially different.” We also note that independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim and the subject limitation 1.7 further defines the “driving circuit” recited in limitations 1.5 and 1.6. Specifically, limitation 1.7 requires a driving circuit that is “configured and operable to produce said oscillating driving voltage at a transmission frequency” that is “substantially different” from the inductive couple’s resonant frequency. Ex. 1001, 28:43–46. In future briefing, the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art references should focus on that recited structure, i.e., a circuit that is configured and operable to produce the recited frequency.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,048,696
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.