• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2026 · IPR2021-01449 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Remand

  Claims 3–5 are unpatentable; claims 1 and 2 are not shown unpatentable. Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over the applied grounds under the remand construction of “movement vector.”

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “was incorrect, vacated the Final Written Decision as to claims 3 and 4, and remanded the case to the Board to determine the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” and decide the outcome for claims 3 and 4 in accordance with that meaning. Atos, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2025 WL 1482404, at *5 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025); Paper 35 (“Federal Circuit Remand,” “Remand,” or “Fed. Cir. Remand”). Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s instructions, the Board authorized the” slip op. at 3

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

    “considered individually and together, have well-understood, common meanings to ordinarily skilled artisans as of the invention date, reflected by the ’174 patent’s specification and other evidence of record noted above. Accordingly, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” is “a vector indicating movement of an object.” 3) “operation indicator” Petitioner” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Dr. Kanellakopoulos’s explanation that angular momentum is not inherent to an object, and its computation requires an arbitrary choice of a point of origin that has no physical meaning in the context of vehicle motion, also supports Patent Owner’s position. Id. ¶ 71 (citing Ex. 2004, 262). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument, that angular momentum cannot be used to detect a vehicle turning, is persuasive. Id. We also find persuasive, as Dr. Kanellakopoulos explains, that Petitioner’s argument regarding the figure on Kleppner 234 is based on misinterpretation of the vectors in that figure. Id. ¶ 67 (explaining that Kleppner 233–234 does not depict a gravity vector).” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Kleppner does not disclose a rotation vector, a person of ordinary skill would have used the knowledge of a rotation vector (because it is a term of art) alongside Kleppner’s teaching, to arrive at claim 1. See Pet. Reply 11. This argument does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner does not explain which teaching of Kleppner a person of ordinary skill would have selected and combined with their knowledge of a rotation vector to yield the method of claim 1, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have recognized based on Kleppner that estimating the angle between a rotation vector and gravity vector could be used to detect a vehicle turning. Nor does Petitioner respond to Patent Owner’s assertion that Kleppner provides no rationale for estimating an angle of alignment between a rotation vector and gravity vector as a way of detecting a vehicle turning. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 65.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,846,174 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,846,174
• Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00290 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 11–17, 21, 22, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, and 42–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4 and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we deemed the differences in the parties’ proposals not material due to their substantial overlap, adopted Patent Owner’s proposal for purposes of that Decision, noted that the outcome of the Decision would not change if we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, and instructed the parties to “explain the differences and their relevance to the patentability issues in this case, and state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences” if either party continued to propose differing proposals during trial. Inst. Dec. 10–11. After institution, neither party has explained the materiality of the differences in their proposals or argued that any issues in this case turn on those differences. Based on our review of the parties’ proposals, we find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of skill exemplified by the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’223 patent. Accordingly, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal in our analysis in this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“[T]he prior art itself” may reflect an appropriate level 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))). The outcome of this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “persuasive and reject Patent Owner’s argument that we should construe the limitation as requiring the absence of one parameter from the display prior to the replacement and the absence of the other parameter after the replacement. We do not view either requirement proposed by Patent Owner as justified based on our review of the claims, specification, and prosecution history.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner Petitioner proposes with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 9–30. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes.” slip op. at 58

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

    “proposed combination based on the argument that a POSITA would have been motivated to switch the layout responsive to a parameter value changing. Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–40, 47–52). For example, we agree with Petitioner that a motivation exists to change the layouts to “best suit the condition of [the] patient” because Naghavi expressly describes an “interactive and dynamic” GUI that “may automatically detect changes in health status . . . and automatically react and rearrange the available options to best suit the condition” of the patient. Ex. 1005 ¶ 63. The supporting expert testimony persuasively relies on this aspect of Naghavi when concluding that “such a change in the severity of a parameter can indicate a change in the patient’s health that may require close monitoring” and a POSITA “would have been motivated to implement this approach of the combination in order to achieve” Naghavi’s objectives. Ex. 1003 ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 63); see also Pet. Reply 23 (“[T]he rearrangement of parameters, as already suggested by Naghavi and implemented according to Hochstedler, advantageously ensures an easy-to-use user interface, e.g., by highlighting information that has changed to warrant user attention.” (citing Pet. 13–14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–43)); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–43.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 8,190,223 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,190,223
• Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00290 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 11–17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, and 42–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we deemed the differences in the parties’ proposals not material due to their substantial overlap, adopted Patent Owner’s proposal for purposes of that Decision, noted that the outcome of the Decision would not change if we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, and instructed the parties to “explain the differences and their relevance to the patentability issues in this case, and state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences” if either party continued to propose differing proposals during trial. Inst. Dec. 10–11. After institution, neither party has explained the materiality of the differences in their proposals or argued that any issues in this case turn on those differences. Based on our review of the parties’ proposals, we find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of skill exemplified by the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’223 patent. Accordingly, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal in our analysis in this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“[T]he prior art itself” may reflect an appropriate level 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))). The outcome of this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes discloses all of the limitations in claim 1. b. Motivation to Combine After summarizing its proposed combination, Petitioner provides a number of reasons for combining the references. Pet. 9–17. Petitioner breaks its motivation to combine arguments into three separate categories that we address below. See id. at 13–17. Patent Owner raises a number of arguments in support of its contention that “a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the references to replace a measured value of one parameter with the measured value of another parameter,” which we address in the context of Petitioner’s arguments below. See PO Resp. 44–57. Many of Patent Owner’s arguments rely on Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions for “replaced” and “measured value,” which we do not adopt for the reasons discussed above. For example, the first sentence in Patent Owner’s argument contends that “Naghavi, Hochstedler and Burnes do not disclose using the same screen area to display two currently measured parameters,” but we do not read the claims as requiring the display of “two currently measured parameters” consistent with Patent Owner’s construction for “measured values.” See id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2042 ¶ 125). Such arguments lack weight given that we have rejected their premise, and although Patent Owner’s arguments are suffused with references to its claim constructions, we attempt to identify where Patent Owner does not rely on those constructions in our analysis below.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 8,190,223 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,190,223
• Pioneer Pet Products, LLC v. Oil-Dri Corporation Of AmericaSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2022-01138 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–8, 10–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Goss; claims 2, 9, 17, and 19 were not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “To prevail in its challenges, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burdens of proof in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(“PHOSITA”) “would have at least a bachelor of science degree in chemistry, mineralogy, geological science, material science, chemical engineering, or mining engineering with at least two to five years of work experience relating to designing specific chemical mixtures including clay or other minerals, particularly absorbents.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 23. We adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner because it appears consistent with the record, including the prior art. See GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We generally agree with Petitioner that the assumptions and approximations made in the calculations described in the ’397 patent to determine the external surface area of the components of the litter render the computations only a general approximation of the respective surface areas. See Pet. Reply 9–12. We need not, however, reach the issue of whether the 47% surface area limitation requires the use of the multi-step method disclosed in the ’397 patent because Petitioner followed that methodology in its arguments and evidence in its Reply. See Pet. Reply 13. Importantly, Patent Owner agrees that Petitioner followed the approach set forth in the ’397 patent, and argues that we need not construe “external surface area” to resolve any dispute between the parties. See PO Sur-reply 23–24 (arguing that we need not “determine whether ‘total external surface area’ must be determined using the same multi-step approach” in the ’397 patent to resolve the controversy because “the only calculation of external surface area relied on by Petitioner was presented in the Reply and it followed the methodology of the [’]397 Patent”); PO Supp. Sur-reply 2 (same). Based on our review of the current record, we need not and do not formally construe any claim terms to resolve the patentability issues in this inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent some implicit claim construction disputes remain, we address those issues in the context of the challenges below.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “review of the record, we find that Petitioner fails to articulate an adequate rationale for the combination of Goss and House. The Petition contains only a single sentence addressing the issue, without any citation to record evidence or declaration support. See Pet. 46. In addition, the assertion merely states the conclusion that a “PHOSITA would understand that there is a rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Goss and House as required under patent law because both are related to cat litter having similar characteristics.” Id. This assertion, at most, addresses the fact that Goss and House are in the same field or that they are analogous art, but does not explain why a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine Goss and House. See id. In addition, the Petition lacks sufficient explanation of how Petitioner proposes to combine Goss and House. See Pet. 46–53. Instead, when Petitioner relies on House in this challenge, it appears to be a back-up argument in the event that we find Goss fails to disclose the limitation. Merely stating that Goss and House both disclose a limitation does not explain which aspects of House Petitioner proposes adding to Goss or what the resulting litter composition would look like. See id. The details of the resulting litter based on the combination of Goss and House matter here because it could impact whether all limitations of a given claim are satisfied by the combination. For example, Petitioner relies exclusively on specific examples from Goss for the 47% surface area limitation, but adding some aspects of House’s litter components to meet other limitations could undermine Petitioner’s reliance on Goss’s specific examples. The failure of the Petition to set forth a specific combination elides these issues. See Pet. 46–51. Petitioner’s Reply arguably addresses some of these concerns by providing a more fulsome motivation section, backed by new expert testimony, and specific litter examples based on Goss and various cellulose filler materials allegedly disclosed by House. See Pet. Reply 24–25 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 7); see also PO Sur-reply 18–22 (arguing that Petitioner’s Reply still fails to articulate an adequate motivation to combine). This analysis goes far beyond the limited analysis in the Petition, and Petitioner provides no reason why it could not have been included in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 24–25. As noted below, in some situations petitioners should be afforded the opportunity to go beyond the arguments in a petition when addressing a new claim construction or other new argument raised by a patent owner or an” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 11,026,397 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,026,397
• Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. American Wave Machines, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01033 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, and 16–18 are unpatentable as obvious over McFarland and Chutter; claims 3–6, 8, and 12–15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “pools would have “knowledge and familiarity with: (i) design of mechanical structures and (ii) fluid characteristics and the interaction of fluid forces upon mechanical structures,” and that this knowledge “could be obtained by: (i) successfully completing a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering or (ii) at least 5 years of experience in a job working with control systems, including designing or implementing such wave generation machines.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 36–37). AWM does not contest that assertion. See PO Resp. 2 (“it will be assumed that a PHOSITA has a background and the level of skill described in Petitioner’s definition”). We see no reason to deviate from WhiteWater’s proffered level of skill in the art. Thus, we adopt WhiteWater’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We need not expressly construe the disputed “controller” limitation because, as discussed below, WhiteWater prevails in its challenge of claims 1, 11, and 16, even assuming AWM’s proposed construction is correct. 2. “the delay . . . is a fraction of the chamber period” AWM construes this claim limitation to mean that the delay is “a portion of the whole chamber period,” in other words, a time period “less than the whole chamber period.” PO Resp. 6–7. WhiteWater, in turn, contends that the term “fraction” is not limited to “something ‘less than a whole’” and can be represented simply as a “quotient of two numbers.” Pet. Reply 5. We need not expressly construe term “fraction” as used in this claim limitation because, as discussed below, WhiteWater fails in its challenge of claims 3, 8, and 12, even assuming its proposed construction is correct.” slip op. at 9

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

    “chamber 11 includes “operating device 30” and “flow control devices 17, 19.” Ex. 1005, 3:11-16, 3:43–45. According to Chutter, each chamber 11 “has similar mechanisms and the bank of chambers can be operated in any desired rhythm or sequence by a controller 40 coupled to each of operating devices 30 so that the pool can be provided with recreational waves of any desired pattern.” Id. at 4:3–13 (emphasis added). The pattern of waves “may be varied, as is well known, according to the sequencing at which pressurized air is delivered to the plurality of chambers.” Id. at 2:55–58 (emphasis added). Notably, Chutter teaches that central controller 40 is “arranged to control the rhythm or pattern of the several operating means so that, for example, all operating means” are actuated either “simultaneously” to create an “essentially linear” wave effect, or “sequentially” to create a “curved” or “non-orthogonal” wave effect. Id. at 2:12–39 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:58–59 (“Adjacent chambers may be air pressurized alternately or simultaneously.”). Consistent with that disclosure, Chutter depicts controller 40 with multiple “connection” arrows to also indicate that a single, common controller controls the valve structure8 in multiple of Chutter’s wave-generating chambers 11. See id. at Fig. 1. Based on Chutter’s disclosures as a whole, we find that Chutter’s central controller 40 exemplifies a well-known and conventional controller 8 During the oral hearing, AWM’s counsel conceded that the term “valve structure,” as used in the claims, means not only “a set of valves,” but also “additional structure,” such as the means “to operate those valves” or “the actuator for the valves.” Hrg. Tr. 33:1–17. As such, we view Chutter’s operating means 30 and flow control devices 17 and 19 as corresponding to the claimed “valve structure.” capable of being connected to the valve structure in each of a series of wavegenerating chambers so as to actuate the valve structures in a sequential and delayed fashion to create a surf-simulating wave in a pool. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 162; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 129–130. With that in mind, we further find that one skilled in the art would have looked to Chutter to reprogram or modify McFarland’s controller to operate in the same manner as Chutter’s controller so that McFarland’s controller was also capable of actuating the wave-generating chambers in a sequential and delayed fashion, as required by independent claims 1, 11, and 16. See Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 163–164; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 131–133. Indeed, both McFarland and Chutter seek to create desirable surf waves and have similar wave-generating structures, such as a bank of chambers at one end of a pool and a controller for actuating a valve structure in each chamber to release water from the chamber into the pool. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 163; Ex. 1016 ¶ 131.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “As discussed above, WhiteWater persuasively shows that the combination of McFarland and Chutter teaches or suggests the disputed “controller” limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, in particular, limitations 1.C, 1.D, 1.D.1, 11.C, 11.D, 11.D.1, 16.C, and 16.D.1. AWM does not otherwise dispute WhiteWater’s showing of how the asserted combination teaches the remaining limitations of the independent claims. See PO Resp. 44, 49, 53, 62 (identifying claim elements 1.C, 1.D, 1.D.1, 11.C, 11.D, 11.D.1, 16.C, and 16.D.1 as being absent from the asserted combination). Nor does AWM dispute WhiteWater’s showing that the asserted combination teaches the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18, contending only that they are “distinguishable over McFarland and Chutter for at least the same reasons previously explained” with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16. Based on our review, we find that the record fully supports WhiteWater’s showing that the asserted combination teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 16, as well as the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18. See Pet. 58–63. In sum, after weighing all relevant factual findings, including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of McFarland and Chutter, and any differences between their combined teachings and the claimed invention,9 we conclude that WhiteWater demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, and 16–18 of the ’966 patent are unpatentable as obvious over McFarland and Chutter. Having determined those claims to be unpatentable, we do not address whether they are also unpatentable under WhiteWater’s alternative theories based on McFarland alone and Chutter alone. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (non-precedential) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and, thus, has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,434,966 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,434,966
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00605 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable over Gravesen and Brister; claims 7, 11, and 18–28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest possible effective filing date (“POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a related subject, and one or more years of experience researching, developing and/or designing insertable medical devices, including, e.g., systems for implanting wearable medical devices such as cannulas, infusion sets, and analyte sensors, or equivalent experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 11 n.1. Because 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, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

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

    “On the full trial record, we again find that Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing is unwarranted. First, the intrinsic record does not support Patent Owner’s required “central” axis. Patent Owner argues that the Specification describes two inserter embodiments as having “rotors,” and those rotors have a central axis. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 29:25–28, 29:55–59, Figs. 32, 45). Patent Owner, however, fails to explain why those embodiments should be understood to limit the claims. For example, in Phillips, the Federal Circuit “expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the Petition does state that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of a ‘recess’ to include ‘an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room),’” the Petition does not specify what else is “include[d]” in this term, nor does it specify that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire interior of a housing. The Petition also does not invoke the Specification as demonstrating that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire housing.13 Pet. 64 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s belated proposal also conflicts with the language of the claims themselves. Independent claim 1 recites “a rotor disposed within the inserter housing.” Ex. 1001, 43:42. Dependent claim 7 narrows claim 1 by reciting that “the housing comprises a recess in which the rotor is received.” Id. at 44:11–12. If the interior of the inserter housing and the recess could be one and the same as Petitioner proposes, there would be no need for claim 7, because it would not further limit claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”); see also Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The concept of claim differentiation ‘normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.’”) (quoting Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, we decline Petitioner’s belated request to construe “recess” to include “an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder.” 13 We acknowledge that Petitioner argued that the entire interior of Gravesen’s housing maps to the claimed “recess,” but this was in the context of comparing the prior art to the claim as construed. Indeed, Petitioner asserted that “the space within [Gravesen’s] housing is an alcove.” Pet. 64– 65 (emphasis added). In sum, Petitioner did not timely argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “recess” includes an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder. We adopt the only construction Petitioner offered and supported in the Petition. In view of the above, we construe “recess” as meaning “an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room).”” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,945,649 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,945,649
• Pelican Biothermal, LLC v. Va-Q-Tec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · PGR2021-00085 · APJ Barry L Grossman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the motion to amend but held amended claim 64 unpatentable as anticipated by NanoCool 98596-type products and obvious over the cited combinations; all other amended claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that amended claim 64 is unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Non-Contingent Motion to Amend is granted for claims 64 and denied for all other amended claims; and” slip op. at 77

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A. Status as Prior Art Is a Substantive Issue, Not an Evidentiary Issue. A motion to exclude is not an appropriate mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of evidence, such as whether a reference qualifies as prior art, or the proper weight that should be afforded an argument. See Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, Paper 113, 4, 8–9 (PTAB September 3, 2015); PTAB Consol. Trial Practice Guide 79 (Nov. 30 Mr. Zumwalt testifies that other NanoCool products, designated by product number 85430 and 98630, also have the same configuration as the 98830 product and are made by the same process. Thus, “the 98830, 85430, and 98630 products can be collectively referred to as ‘98830-type’ products all having the same relevant design.” Ex. 1030 ¶ 17. 2019) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact. A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence—arguments regarding weight should appear only in the merits documents.”); Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2017-02187, Paper 42,17 (PTAB May 21, 2019) (status as prior art “is a substantive issue, not an evidentiary issue.”) Thus, whether the NanoCool 98830 product is prior art is not the proper basis for Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude evidence concerning the NanoCool 98830 product.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Harber provide any analysis of the factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill, identified above, to support their conclusory statements. We give Mr. Harber’s conclusory testimony minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(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.”). Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to which we have been directed of the need for specific education or experience in biological or chemical technologies related to the claimed containers and inserts.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and at least two to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [insulated shipping containers] depending on education level.” Pet. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Exhibit 1002 is the Declaration testimony of Mr. Paul Haber. Mr. Harber actually states a slightly different level of ordinary skill. Mr. Harber testifies: The hypothetical POSITA would have: (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and have at least three to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [Insulated Shipping Containers][29]. Such a person may also have (ii) a higher level degree, such as a PhD and/or Master’s degree in engineering, or related sciences, and have at least two to three years of experience in designing and testing ISCs. 29 See Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. Ex. 1002 ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Mr. Harber also testifies that “[t]hese descriptions are approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,766,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,766,685
• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01209 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, and 9–25 are unpatentable; claims 5, 7, and 8 are not shown unpatentable, based on anticipation by Kim and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “C. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, we interpret claims under the same standard” slip op. at 10

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner fails to establish that Kim discloses “determining that the individual is a driver of the vehicle based at least in part on acceleration, forces, velocity, the at least one location point, and time.”” slip op. at 46

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “nexus and therefore fails to establish that any alleged evidence of objective indicia supports a finding of non-obviousness. Accordingly, we give Patent Owner’s reliance on objective indicia of non-obviousness no weight in our obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 9,152,609 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,152,609
• C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2019-00035 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 16, 25–27, 29–37, and 39–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17–19, 28, and 38 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “IPR2019-00208 and this proceeding do not involve an “identical issue” despite Patent Owner relying on essentially the same body of objective evidence of nonobviousness in both proceedings. The challenged claims in this proceeding materially differ from those at issue in IPR2019- 00208. Compare Ex. 1001, 27:47–30:57, with IPR2019-00208, Ex. 1001, 11:47–12:28; see also PO Remand Br. 23. The material differences in the claims, alone, and thus the issues previously decided, precludes a finding of collateral estoppel. Therefore, we conclude that Patent Owner is not collaterally estopped from relying upon its objective evidence of nonobviousness. Rather, we consider and weigh that evidence as it applies to the claims at issue in this proceeding below.” slip op. at 54

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

    “However, we disagree with Patent Owner’s interpretation of limitation 1a as requiring that the compartment for receiving the medical assembly be “distinct” from the first compartment or that the medical assembly be disposed within the “compartment” of limitation 1a. Limitation 1f requires “at least two compartments,” but expressly recites a functional limitation for only “a first compartment” among the “at least two compartments.” Ex. 1001, 27:60–62. Claim 1 does not further limit the unspecified compartment among the “at least two compartments” or specify what items, if any, are placed within it. See id. at 27:47–67. Two unchallenged dependent claims, claims 4 and 11, further recite that “the at least two compartments” further comprise “a second compartment.” Claim 4 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites, in pertinent part: “the at least two compartments further comprising a second compartment separated from the first compartment by a wall with an opening, further comprising a catheter assembly disposed within the second compartment, the catheter assembly comprising a fluid bag.” Id. at 28:21–25 (emphasis added). Claim 11 depends from claim 10, which depends from claim 1, and similarly recites: “the at least two compartments further comprising a second compartment separated from the first compartment by a wall with an opening, further comprising a catheter assembly disposed within the second compartment.” Id. at 28:47–51 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the relevant art would have a bachelor’s degree in packaging engineering, mechanical engineering, or industrial design. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–16); PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶ 38). Alternatively, such a person could have an engineering degree in another technical field along with about two years of experience designing medical packaging. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–16); PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶ 38). Neither party contends that a person of ordinary skill needs to be a medical practitioner, but both parties agree that the person of ordinary skill would consult with medical practitioners familiar with catheterization procedures. Pet. 18; PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 78). Slight differences exist in the formulation of the level of ordinary skill between the parties. We, however, discern no meaningful difference because none of those differences would affect the outcome of our analysis. Accordingly, we apply the level of skill set forth in the preceding paragraph.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “Petitioner argues that shallow area 11B “facilitates easy lubrication of the catheter” simply because it is shallow and “it was well-known to ‘(a) apply lubricant directly on the catheter; and (b) use the same compartment where lubricant is stored to lubricate the catheter.’” Pet. Remand Br. 28–29 (citing Pet. 32, 34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 231). Patent Owner persuasively responds, however, that a practitioner would not use the same compartment to collect urine and lubricate the catheter because the lubricant would contaminate the urine specimen collected in the compartment. PO Remand Br. 3–4 (citing PO Resp. 36; Op. *8); see also Ex. 2027 ¶ 175 (Ms. Chiappetta testifying that “lubrication in the portion of the tray that collects urine will contaminate the urine,” which would invalidate any testing of the patient’s urine). Although it may be easier to lubricate a catheter in shallow area 11B than in deep area 11A, we find that Solazzo’s shallow area 11B is not well-suited, configured, or intended for lubricating a catheter; rather, Solazzo recommends using lubricating wells 31 and 33 for that purpose. We credit Ms. Chiappetta’s supporting testimony to that effect. See Ex. 2027 ¶ 175. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the combined teachings of Solazzo and Serany render claim 7 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,745,088 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,745,088
• Carrier Fire & Security Americas Corporation v. Sentrilock, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 14, 2022 · IPR2021-00664 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 23, 24, 28, 29, 35, 37, and 39–47 are unpatentable as obvious over Mosgrove, Harold, and Imran; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “a person with at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electronics, Electrical, or Mechanical Engineering or related discipline, [and/]or at least three years of experience working with access control devices.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19).10 Such a person of ordinary skill in the art could have both this level of education and experience without straying from Petitioner’s definition. Patent Owner neither contests Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan nor proposes an alternative. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, however, expressly adopts Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2015 ¶ 20. We likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it here.11 hindsight, and is biased in favor of Petitioner because of employment history, and, hence, we should give his testimony “no weight.” See Resp. 9– 19. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s positions. The evidence shows that Mr. Comerford is qualified to testify on the issues in this proceeding, and we find his opinions are based on his understanding of the perspective of the ordinarily skilled artisan, his experience, the ordinary meaning of claim terms, and the disclosures of the prior art, are supported by evidence, and do not rely on the ’541 patent as a roadmap so as to infect his opinions with improper hindsight. See generally Ex. 1002; Ex. 1028; Ex. 1029. 10 We understand Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan to be inclusive regarding education and experience because such is reflected in Mr. Comerford’s cited testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 19 (“I am such a person.”). 11 The parties use the acronym POSA to refer to the person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Pet.; Resp.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner states that “[f]or purposes of this IPR, Petitioner does not believe any claim term requires a construction in order to resolve if the Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on the prior art presented.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner indicates it agrees with Petitioner “that the terms of the Challenged Claims should be understood as written.” See Resp. 6–7. We agree with the parties and determine that no claim term requires express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). C.” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “In order to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) (benefit of provisional application’s filing date requires disclosure of claimed invention “in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112”); Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381–82 (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571–72. We agree with Petitioner that the ’773 provisional does not describe the key identification tag/device required by all claims so as to satisfy § 112. Such a component is described by the ’400 patent as the RFID tag. See Ex. 1006, Fig. 5 (element 74). The ’773 provisional, on the other hand, describes nothing that could be considered the claimed key identification tag or device “for attachment to the at least one key” as recited by claim 23 or “attaching a key identification device to a key” as recited by claim 45. Ex. 1002, 23:1–5, 24:32–35. Nothing in the ’773 provisional hints that anything, be it a tag or generic device, is attached to its otherwise disclosed key; therefore, we cannot agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. See generally Ex. 1005. The ’773 provisional merely indicates that a key can be contained in, removed from, and replaced in a key container module that can somehow sense the key’s presence, but provides no description as to how this sensing is accomplished, and certainly does not describe that anything attached to the key allows this sensing. Id. ¶ 4. slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Trial Practice Guide we explain that a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in [a] reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g.[,] to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019)14 (“CTPG” or “Trial Practice Guide”) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Trial Practice Guide further explains that “‘[r]espond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing,” and “[w]hile replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Id. at 74. “In most cases, the Board is capable of identifying new issues or belatedly presented evidence when weighing the evidence at the close of trial, and disregarding any new issues or belatedly presented evidence that exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” CTPG 80 (Nov. 2019). The Board has regularly shown this capability. See Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The Board refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)); Apple Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“Accepting . . . 14 Available at www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”). Thus, we find any suggestion by Petitioner that Mosgrove’s entire key container or key compartment is the conductive container of Diaferia is a new and late argument, which we will not consider. Likewise, we find any suggestion by Petitioner that some sort of wire or cable (or something of that nature) might be used to connect a key put inside a conductive container to a key tag that is outside that conductive container so that the tag might be inserted into a key-sensing circuit is also a new and late argument, which we will not consider.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,949,541 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,949,541

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.