• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00611 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated Douglas–Mark and Hamilton-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that experience could substitute for a degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3; PO Resp. 10. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar. For this decision, as in the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level, which is supported by credible testimonial evidence and is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’774 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:16–52. Our decision would be the same, however, if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner argues that we need to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 2–3; PO Resp. 10. However, the parties contest two material claim-construction issues which we address below. To the extent that the parties’ positions depend on interpreting other claim language in a particular way, we discuss the relevant claim language below in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that limitation 1.2 must be performed before limitations 1.3 or 1.4. See Ex. 1001, 35:21–24. See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” (citing Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The evidence suggests that a “target printer” is any printer that is ultimately selected for fabricating the object, and such a printer could send its configuration information either before or after that determination is made in limitation 1.2. This interpretation does not render the word “target” meaningless. At some point, a printer must be determined to be the target printer, which is the one intended to ultimately fabricate the three-dimensional object. But the target printer still exists, and is capable of being queried, before that determination is made. We find the examples in the ’774 patent pertinent to this question. The ’774 patent states that “the target printer may include more than one printer.” Ex. 1001, 18:66–67. In discussing the step of “query target printer for properties 306” (Fig. 3A), the ’774 patent states that “[i]n one aspect, numerous queries are sent to numerous printers, e.g., for use in selecting one or more of the printers as the target printer.” Id. at 19:8–10. Alternatively, “the query is sent to a printer that is not necessarily the target printer as described herein, e.g., when the query or information received from a response to the query is used for the selection of the target printer.” Id. at 19:11–14. Importantly, the second embodiment states that the queried printer “is not necessarily the target printer,” suggesting that the queried printer could be the target printer even before it is determined to be such. Id. at 19:11–12 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence of record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “target printer” can be determined after the query recited in limitation 1.3 or the reception of configuration information recited in limitation 1.4. Thus, the evidence does not impose an ordering between limitations 1.2 and 1.3 or between limitations 1.2 and 1.4. The evidence also does not support Patent Owner’s argument that the two reverse-order examples in the ’774 patent are unclaimed embodiments.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree that Petitioner’s arguments are based on impermissible hindsight, because they are based on the disclosures in Douglas and Mark, and Petitioner has articulated a persuasive reason to combine those references without referring to the ’774 patent itself, as we discuss below. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (an obvious rationale is not improper hindsight if it “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,886,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,886,774
• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · PGR2025-00023 · APJ Per Curiam · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’629 publication; the claims are not entitled to the 2013 priority date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSITA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining that “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSITA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSITA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 22; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find a POSITA with respect to the claims of the ’109 patent would have had a two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSITA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither party proposes an express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 22–23 (not proposing any constructions); PO Resp. 23 (“Patent Owner agrees that the terms can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.”). However, Patent Owner states that some of Petitioner’s arguments implicitly construe claim 1 in an erroneous manner. PO Resp. 23–28. “For example, Petitioner argues that ‘an adequate written description would have to either disclose representative examples of the possible working cascades of various proteins or some accurate structural feature of the claimed proteins that allow them to function in the claimed assay as a whole.’” Id. at 23 (quoting Pet. 35). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to what Petitioner’s argument allegedly implies, “Claim 1 is directed to a method for producing an endotoxin assay agent” and does not require the use – Owner that claim 1 does not require the use of endotoxin assay agent. However, the claimed endotoxin assay agent must be capable of performing the assay, as counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged. Tr. 83:5–9.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, to show that the claims of the ’109 patent are unpatentable for lack of written description, Petitioner would have needed to show that the specification as filed (i.e., the ’420 application) fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the July 3, 2023, filing date. Petitioner did not. Pet. 23–24. Nor does Petitioner’s declarant offer testimony that could support such a showing. See Ex. 1003 ¶50 (“I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art in this field for purposes of determining what the inventors disclosed as their invention as of December 10, 2013.”), ¶51 (“Whenever I offer an opinion in this declaration about the knowledge of a POSA, the manner in which a POSA would have understood the claims of the ’109 patent or its description, the manner in have been led to do based on the prior art, I am referencing the December 10, 2013 timeframe.”). In our Institution Decision, we stated: Although the ’420 application is essentially identical to the ’767 application, the person of ordinary skill in 2013 is not the same as in 2023. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he [written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the information presented in the Petition, which is limited to the perspective of a 2013 POSITA, does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable for lack of written description. Inst. Dec. 12 (alterations in original). During trial, Petitioner did not present any further arguments in support of Ground 1. See generally Pet. Reply. Petitioner has failed to prove that claims 1–9 are unpatentable for failing to meet the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Although the evidence before us shows that, in 2013, a POSITA knew how to recombinantly express genes in expression systems such as CHO or HEK-293 cell lines, the evidence shows that this was true only for genes whose genetic sequences were known or readily available. See, e.g., Ex. 1069, 34:11–22 (“Q. Okay. So you would agree that the creation of the recombinant protein requires the underlying sequence of, as you said, the original animal? A. Of course.”) Because it is undisputed that, in 2013, the genetic sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C was unknown, or least not publicly available, Falko-Gunter does not support a finding of adequate written description here. See, e.g., Tr. 48:18–19 (“Patent Owner agrees that there had not been, as of 2013, the full length cDNA sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C published.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,959,109 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,959,109
• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00440 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 21 is unpatentable as obvious over Mizumura with either the ’498 PCT or McClymont; the Revised Contingent Motion to Amend proposing claim 22 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “overlap to a significant degree, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in a discipline related to biological sciences and having had at least two years of work experience. However, the parties’ proposals differ slightly in the specific subjects in which a POSA would have had a doctoral degree, and whether the person’s work experience must have been directly related to horseshoe crab Factor C. As an initial matter, we find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 19; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. with respect to the claims of the ’318 patent would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related discipline, and about two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 13

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

    “C. Claim Construction The parties agree that “the terms in claim 21 can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning for purposes of this proceeding” without further construction. Pet. 19–20; PO Resp. 11. Because express claim construction is not needed to resolve the issues in this case, we need not, and do not, construe expressly any claim term for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Carrying Out the Invention section, that “[t]he Factor C of the present invention is a Factor C derived from a horseshoe crab,” and states later in the same section that “[e]xamples of the horseshoe crab include . . . Limulus polyphemus.” Ex. 1006, 40. However, none of the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner relate directly to L. polyphemus; instead, the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner are directed to other species, in particular the Japanese horseshoe crab T. tridentatus. Further, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Schaefer, conceded that the ’767 application does not contain Factor C sequence information for L. polyphemus. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 44:25–45:23. Although “[n]o length requirement exists for a disclosure to adequately describe an invention,” Falko-Gunter, 448 F.3d at 1365–1366, we are persuaded that a POSA would not, based on the totality of the above disclosures, reasonably understand that the inventors were in possession of the claimed HEK-293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, in view of the state of the art as of December 10, 2013. In this regard, we note that adequate written description of a biological molecule, such as a HEK293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, requires “more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it”; instead, what is required is “‘a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,’ not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” The Regents of the” slip op. at 21

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

    “Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Neither do we see Petitioner’s arguments regarding the December 10, 2013 priority date to be “mutually opposed” as Dr. Schaefer testified. Ex. 1067, 216:4– 24. Instead, we credit evidence of record, including Dr. Jain’s testimony and the February 22, 2018 Mizumura Declaration, that existence of the full sequence would permit a more complete analysis and that such an analysis would provide a POSA with a reasonable expectation that the claimed L. polyphemus recombinant protein would have a residual activity within the claimed range. See, e.g., Ex. 1029, 2–5; Ex. 1010, 48; Ex. 1065, 117:14– 130:24 (explaining that comparison of partial sequences in the Tokunaga 1991 publication showed “difference around the cleavage site” between T. tridentatus and L. polyphemus but comparison of the full sequence revealed that “the catalytic triad of histidine, serine, aspartate . . . to be more similar between Tachypleus and Limulus”). Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner’s reliance on a statement made by Dr. Mizumura in a declaration submitted during prosecution of the ’767 Application fails to fill the gap in the analysis” regarding reasonable expectation of success, because the declaration “offers no evidence of the percentage of conserved amino acid substitutions that exist to support the conclusion that a POSA would have expected residual activity to be maintained between Tachypleus tridentatus and Limulus polyphemus” PO Resp. 47. However, as noted above, Dr. Mizumura provides an alignment of Factor C proteins from the two different species of horseshoe crab, determines that the similarity between the amino acid sequence is 99.5%, states that the amino acid residues that can undergo N-type sugar chain that L. polyphemus, like T. tridentatus, would also be less susceptible to inhibition by ions. Ex. 1029, 4–5. For the reasons discussed above, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s reasonable expectation of success argument is “nothing more than conclusory assertions with no support.” PO Resp. 46. Rather, we find Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSA would have had reason to combine the teachings of Mizumura and the ’498 PCT, with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the Factor C protein recited in claim 21.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,236,318 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,236,318
• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–8 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 4–6 as obvious over Huang2 and Kuo, and claims 7–8 as anticipated by Huang2; claims 2–3 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) “would be a Ph.D. student with a minimum of two years of experience in their faculty advisor’s laboratory” and would have an understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C7). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–29. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”). Importantly, the Specification does not treat the existence of minor peaks as prerequisites for the existence of major peaks. Indeed, the Specification does not discuss “minor peaks” at all. See generally Ex. 1001. Likewise, none of the claims of the ’227 patent, whether challenged or unchallenged, recites “minor peaks” or any additional peaks beyond the disputed “major peaks.” Id. at 23:30–24:42. Nor does the Specification include an example of FFT analysis results in which the average of the peaks therein is calculated and those higher than the average are identified as major peaks.8” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner has the better position. Huang2 teaches crosslinking and provides a reason for doing so (stability). In particular, Huang2 states: “To better mimic skin ECM, electrospun collagen fibers have been fabricated, however, the rapid degradation and poor mechanical properties determine that either crosslinking or combination with other materials is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold.” Ex. 1005, 1791 (emphasis added). It is true that, in describing work actually carried out, Huang2 states that blending with PCL was performed and does not mention crosslinking. See id. at 1792 (“Nanofibrous matrices of PCL and Collagen at a weight ratio of 3:1 were fabricated using electrospinning as previously described.”). However, the prior art – here, Huang2 – is not limited to that which it describes having created. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (“a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples”); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Huang2 teaches two stabilization methods when using collagen in scaffolds. Huang2 states that one or the other “is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold” (when using collagen), but it does not preclude or teach away from using Patent Owner-cited testimony of Dr. Mikos is not as definitive as Patent Owner suggests; Dr. Mikos’s testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would not have done both.” Ex. 2015 ¶64 (emphasis added). The bottom line is that Huang2 teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art two ways to stabilize scaffolds/matrices comprised of collagen, provides a reason for doing so (stability), and does not teach away from using both. We are persuaded that a “scaffold comprising crosslinked fibers comprising collagen” would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Huang2.” slip op. at 33

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

    “We are not persuaded by Appellant’s citations to either reference. As discussed above, Petitioner’s Ground 1 is premised on a person of ordinary skill in the art altering the native flat sheet structure of Huang2 by rolling it into a jelly-roll structure as taught by Kuo. See Pet. 41 (Beginning its claim 2 arguments with the following: “Claim 1 is obvious for the reasons expressed above in § X.A., supra, which are incorporated herein.”); see also Pet. Reply 17 (“[B]ased on the explicit teaching of Kuo, a POSA would have been motivated to take the electrospun flat scaffold made by the techniques of Huang2, seed it with the desired cells, and roll it to treat a tendon and ligament.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the paragraphs of Kuo that Petitioner cites for disclosing “scaffold sheets,” explicitly describe rolling them into jelly-roll like structures. See Ex. 1018 ¶7 (stating that “the sheet is spirally contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct”), ¶22 (describing a method comprising “forming a tissue construct by contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct” and implanting it in a patient). Petitioner fails to argue that that “one or more elongated sheets” recited in claim 2 would encompass the rolled structure of its proposed modification. Nor does Petitioner articulate a claim construction argument that could support such an argument. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 would have been obvious over Huang2 and Kuo.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 11,318,227 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,318,227
• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00248 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–12 are unpatentable as anticipated by Huang2; claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious over Huang2 and Kumbar. Lee grounds failed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 18– 19 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C5). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 5–6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “A patentee “may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (“[A]ny special definition given to a word must be clearly defined in the specification.”), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.” Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Among the criteria to consider in whether the patentee acted as a lexicographer to define a claim term include (a) whether the patent specification included the statement in question under a section for marks, (c) whether the sentence uses the term “refer to,” which generally “conveys an intent for [that sentence] to be definitional,” and (d) whether there are other non-limiting terms (e.g., “for example,” or “include”) that contradict a definitional intent. Alnylam Pharms., Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., 138 F.4th 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (alteration in original). At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:6–7. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at issue sets out “major peaks” in quotation marks, and then uses the term “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “As discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that the sentence it cites from the Specification of the ’223 patent bears sufficient hallmarks of lexicography. However, the Specification nonetheless lacks any indication that so-called “minor peaks” are a necessary component of the claimed invention. “Although it is firmly settled that an applicant may act as a 9 Figure 8B does not contain “major peaks” despite clearly depicting two “peaks higher than the average of the [three or possibly four] peaks in the result” because none of the peaks is a reflection of fiber alignment. 10 After presenting claim construction arguments based on Ayres 2008, Patent Owner confusingly states: “Finally, whether Ayres-2008 supports [Patent Owner’s] construction is irrelevant.” PO Sur-Reply 5 (emphasis added). definition that is contrary to the ordinary meaning of a claim term unless it communicates a deliberate and clear preference for this alternative definition.” Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., 351 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). There is no indication that the patentee sought to require “minor peaks” within the scope of the claimed invention. Nor are we persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the scope of the term “major peaks” to require non-major peaks. We interpret the Specification’s statement that “‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result” (Ex. 1001, 13:6–7) to be teaching a person of ordinary skill in the art how to identify or discern “major peaks,” which indicate a principal axis of alignment, from any non-major peaks, which would be caused by something else. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider “major peaks” as used in the ’223 patent as referring to peaks that reflect the sole axis or primary axis of fiber alignment. See, e.g., id. at code (54) (“ALIGNED FIBER AND METHOD OF USE THEREOF”), code (57) (“A scaffold comprising an aligned fiber.”), 1:6–7 (“The invention relates to an aligned fiber and method of use thereof.”), 1:11–12 (“The invention relates to a scaffold comprising an aligned fiber.”), 13:16–17 (“Alignment of the fibers in the scaffold may be measured by a fast Fourier transform (FFT) analysis.”). This would certainly include peaks materially higher than the average of the peaks in the result, but it would not be limited to situations involving peaks of different heights or require so-called minor peaks. Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we do not construe the claims to require non-major peaks.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner argues that, for the aligned sample, a major peak occurs at about 90° as identified by Petitioner’s annotation (red arrow). Pet. 30–31. As support, Petitioner directs us to Huang2’s explicit description of what the peak indicates, namely that “[t]he narrow peak of the normalized intensity values in anisotropic [aligned] matrices (Figure 1C) indicated that PCL/Coll nanofibers aligned along a single axis (Fig. 1B).” Id. at 31 (alterations in original) (quoting Ex. 1005, 1794). Patent Owner disputes that the illustrated peak is a major peak solely based on the lack of any lesser peaks. See PO Resp. 13 (“[T]he height of the sole peak is identical to—not higher than—the average height of the peaks in the result.”). As discussed above, however, we do not construe “major peaks” as requiring the existence of non-major peaks. We find that the illustrated peak in the Aniso plot of the FFT analysis results (Figure 1C) is a major peak within the meaning of the claim. The evidence in support of this finding is overwhelming. First, the term “Aniso” as used in Huang2 refers to fibers “with alignment.” Ex. 1005, 1792. Huang2 describes fabricating such matrices of aligned fibers with electrospinning, the same method used to impart alignment in the ’223 patent. Id. at 1791–92. Huang2 visually confirms that the fibers in fact are aligned via scanning electron microscopy. Id. at Fig. 1B. Further, Huang2 explicitly states that the peak illustrated in the Aniso plot of the FFT analysis results (Figure 1C) is caused by the fact that the “PCL/Coll nanofibers aligned along a single axis (Fig. 1B).” Id. at 1794. This is precisely what electrospinning may yield aligned fibers and images of aligned fibers will yield FFT results with major peaks. Ex. 1001, 2:18–19, 4:46–60, 13:16–26. Additionally, Huang2 itself considers the peak illustrated in the Aniso plot of the FFT analysis to be significant, stating: “In contrast [to the Aniso plot], the lack of a significant peak for the fibers collected on a stationary surface [(i.e., without electrospinning)] demonstrated no preferred fiber orientation in the isotropic matrices” (i.e., the Iso plot). Ex. 1005, 1794. Indeed, the asserted major peak in the Aniso plot shown in Huang2’s Figure 1C is higher than any other data point on the plot. For these reasons, we find the peak to be a major peak.15 Petitioner acknowledges that Figure 1C only reports its results” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,137,223 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman
  Patents in suitUS 10,137,223
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2026 · IPR2025-00140 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7–18 were not shown unpatentable because Ribarits does not disclose a mouthpiece disposed on the pivotal mount.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Trove contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products” and that “[m]ore work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 25). While CamelBak offers “a similar, though slightly different level,” it nonetheless “discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes of the Board’s decision in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 27. That being the case, we adopt Trove’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art, as it is 2 JP 2002-211613A, published July 31, 2002 (Ex. 1004, “Nakajima”). 3 WO 2004/063042 A2, published July 29, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Ribarits”). 4 US 4,485,963, issued Dec. 4, 1984 (Ex. 1007, “Panicci”). 5 US 6,523,711 B1, issued Feb. 25, 2003 (Ex. 1008, “Hughes”). reasonable and consistent with what is reflected in the asserted prior art and the specification of the ’250 patent. B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 7

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

    “We will not bite. CamelBak’s original assertion—that the plain and ordinary meaning of the constituent parts of “mouth” and “piece” is “a piece (or part) that goes in the mouth”—underscores the fallacy of CamelBak’s additional physical contact requirement. PO Resp. 28 (emphasis added). Indeed, in support of that earlier assertion, CamelBak pointed to the very dictionary definition that we relied on at institution in construing “mouthpiece” as a part that either “goes in the mouth or to which the mouth is applied.” See id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2005 (emphasis added)). Even the original testimony of CamelBak’s own expert confirms that one skilled in the art “would understand that the term ‘mouthpiece’ is commonly known in the art as a part designed for a user’s mouth,” without any requirement for physical contact with the mouth. Ex. 2016 ¶ 58 (citing Ex. 2005) (emphasis added)). And nothing in the Specification limits that common understanding. Although, indisputably, the Specification contemplates an embodiment where the user physically contacts the mouthpiece with their teeth (i.e., a bite-actuated mouthpiece), it also contemplates an embodiment where the user simply inserts the bottle in their mouth and commences fluid flow by squeezing it. See Ex. 1001, 10:9–13. That disclosure supports a meaning of “mouthpiece” that simply requires placement in the opening of the user’s mouth without necessarily incurring physical contact with some portion of the mouth, such as the teeth, tongue, or lips. Indeed, had CamelBak wished to premise the meaning of “mouthpiece” on some sort of physical contact with the mouth, it knew how to do so. For instance, the independent claims of CamelBak’s earlier ’255 patent, which is the subject of the related 1137 IPR, are limited in just such a manner, as they recite “wherein the resilient mouthpiece is adapted to resiliently compress responsive to compressive forces applied to the resilient mouthpiece by a user’s teeth.” Ex. 2023, at 20–25 (emphasis added). Thus, we reject CamelBak’s attempt to narrow our construction of “mouthpiece” to something other than “a part (as of an instrument) that goes in the mouth or to which the mouth is applied.” Neither the intrinsic nor extrinsic evidence supports the narrower construction proposed by CamelBak.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In reply, Trove argues that CamelBak’s “novel” construction that the mouthpiece moves with rotational motion about that same axis of rotation defined by the two joint as the pivotal mount and in the same direction as the pivotal mount “are inconsistent with the claim language’s plain and ordinary meaning and find no support in the intrinsic and extrinsic record.” See Pet. Reply 16. But, because we find that, when properly construed, the claimed “pivotal movement with the pivotal mount” about “two joints that define a pivotal axis” requires that the mouthpiece rotate about the same axis and in the same direction as the pivotal mount, we reject Trove’s argument as unavailing. And, although we agree with Trove that Nakajima’s mouthpiece engages in counter-clockwise rotation about a “Second Pivot Axis” when Nakajima’s lid 4 is opened (id. at 20–22), that rotation is about a different axis—one defined by Nakajima’s protrusions 24 rather than the claimed “pivotal axis” defined by Nakajima’s hinge shafts 19—and in a different manner—an upward and counterclockwise path rather than the claimed “pivotal movement with the pivotal mount” defined by Nakajima’s lid 4. Finally, in an alternative theory, Trove and its expert use “image- manipulation tools” in an attempt to show that Nakajima’s mouthpiece engages in some initial “clockwise-rotation” with Nakajima’s lid as it is opened. See Pet. Reply 18–24. We reject that theory as entirely conjectural and unsupported by the evidence.” slip op. at 39

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

    “We disagree. As discussed above, the proper construction of “for pivotal movement with the pivotal mount” requires that the mouthpiece mirror the rotational movement of the pivotal mount, i.e., rotate about the same axis as the pivotal mount and in the same direction as the pivotal mount. See supra § II.B.3. But Nakajima’s mouthpiece does neither, and, thus, does not exhibit the claimed “pivotal movement with the pivotal mount” about “two joints that define a pivotal axis for . . . the pivotal mount axis,” as properly construed.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 11,851,250 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,851,250
• Motorola Mobility LLC / Google LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00040 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 6–9 as anticipated or obvious over the asserted references, and claim 5 as obvious over Yook or Yook in view of Purcell.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because the Petition presents argument and evidence that substantively demonstrates, with clarity and particularity, how and why each reference discloses, teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the displaying element recited in limitation 1[B]. We agree with Petitioner that “Patent Owner neglects to address the actual substance of the Petition, which clearly addresses this limitation with respect to each reference.” Reply 1–2. The Petition addresses in detail how each asserted reference discloses displaying two applications on two separate displays in accordance with the displaying element, by presenting multiple annotated figures from Yook, Lee, Aguilar, and Purcell. Pet. 27–30, 47–50, 62–63, 77–78. The Petition also cites and quotes the accompanying descriptions for the annotated figures from each prior art reference as well as explanatory expert opinion testimony from Dr. Rodriguez. Id. (citing Rodriguez Decl. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–74, 119–122, 149–150, 182–183; Yook Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47, 51, 58, 96–101, Figs. 4b, 4d, 5; Lee Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 48–53, Figs. 4, 6, 9, 10; Aguilar Ex. 1006, 7:1–7, Figs. 5–5d; Purcell Ex. 1007 ¶ 16, Fig. 2). We provide detailed examples below of how the Petition maps Yook and Lee onto the displaying element of limitation 1[B] in compliance with the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Although we do not provide detailed examples directed to Aguilar and Purcell, we find the Petition maps Aguilar and Purcell onto the displaying element of limitation 1[B] in compliance with the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “Instead, Patent Owner chose to raise an entirely new theory of patentability. Sur-Reply 3–13; Tr. 28:8–20. Patent Owner’s new theory is based on a claim construction that construes claim 1 of the ’756 patent as “recit[ing] a specific order of steps that must be performed in the order written.” Id. at 3–4. “Because of this order, the [displaying element] must occur after both (two) ‘selecting’ steps,” and Patent Owner contends none of the prior art references asserted in the Petition “meets the order required by claim 1.” Id. at 4. We will not consider Patent Owner’s new theory of patentability raised for the first time in its Sur-Reply. See Apple Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the reply brief, which could have been raised in the opening brief, is waived). Patent Owner should have raised its “specific order of steps” argument in the Response. By failing to do so, Patent Owner has waived the argument. Id.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Third, we are further persuaded by Dr. Surati’s testimony that the wave shape visual indicator depicted in Figures 10A–C of the ’756 patent indicates that a user can do something, but not necessarily what that something is (e.g., minimizing or maximizing). Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1012, 200:1–6). It is telling that Dr. Surati testified that only through repeated use and exposure would a user recognize a relationship between a wave shape and the functions of maximizing or minimizing an application. Id. (citing Ex. 1012, 197:13–199:22). We are also persuaded by Dr. Rodriguez’s testimony regarding the teachings of Yook: Yook therefore teaches giving users the ability to transition a split-screen application back into full screen mode. Further, a POSITA would have understood that this ability would undoubtedly be implemented in the form of a visual indicator, which, from the 2000s to today, is the industry’s universal method of alerting a user to an accessible function. . . . Ex. 1003 ¶ 107 (emphasis added); For claim 5, Yook discloses many different types of “icons” that are used to receive user gesture inputs. See, e.g., Figs. 1, 4e, 5a, 5c, 5d, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Examples of these icons are displayed below: Id. ¶ 108; and A POSITA would have understood that Yook’s icons can have a wave shape because the shape taken by a visual indicator, or icon, is merely a matter of common and routine design choice. Indeed, the shape of an icon does not affect its function or how a gesture input is received. Id. ¶ 109 (emphasis added). In short, we are persuaded Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that a displayed visual indicator that “has a wave shape” is a design choice not affecting the function of the visual indicator, and a visual indicator that “has a wave shape” would have been an obvious design choice to a POSITA in view of Yook.” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. We adopt the parties’ agreed level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the description in the ’756 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 9,134,756 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,134,756
• Google LLC / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2026 · IPR2025-00060 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 12–16, and 20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 20 as anticipated by Ogawa, and claims 4–9 and 14–16 as obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Claim 1 also recites “wherein the first and second states comprise an open application state.” Given the usage of “comprise” in this clause, we determine that the possible first and second states must include an open application state but the states are not limited to an open application state. Claim 12 similarly recites a processor that is operable to “displaying an icon associated with the application in at least one of the first display and the second display, wherein the icon indicates that the application is in one of two or more states associated with a display status of the application” and “wherein the first and second states comprise an open application state.” Ex. 1001, 16:12–19. Given the usage of “comprise” in these clauses, we determine that the first and second states must include an open application state but are not limited to an open application state that is being displayed in the corresponding display status as argued by Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which requires the application to be “open and being displayed in the corresponding display condition/status,” further narrows the wherein clauses of claims 1 and 12 which do not require the application to be open and displayed. In fact, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Surati, testified that the applications have multiple states and are not limited to open application states. Ex. 1016, 50:4–51:4. Patent Owner does not cite to an any portion of the Specification or prosecution history in support of its construction. PO Resp. 7–9.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with two years of work experience in the field of user interface technologies, including e.g., graphical interface technologies, or a related field. . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 10. We apply Petitioner’s uncontested definition because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’080 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “For the following reasons, we find that Petitioner establishes that Ogawa discloses this limitation. Patent Owner’s contentions are not responsive to Petitioner’s mapping of Ogawa to claim limitation [1.f]. This claim limitation recites that “the morphing comprising changing the shape and size of the icon.” Ex. 1001, 15:4–7. Petitioner relies on the size and shape of access bar 42 changing as shown by a comparison of Ogawa’s Figure 4(B) and Figure 4(C). Pet. 24– 25. Patent Owner does not dispute that the size and shape of access bar 42 changes from Figure 4(B) to Figure 4(C). See PO Resp. 10–16. Patent Owner focuses on the color of access bar 42 shown as cross- hatching in Figure 4 to argue that the icon does not represent the state of the application. PO Resp. 12–14. However, the color of access bar 42 and the size and shape of access bar 42 are set independently of each other by different functions. Ogawa explains that: [t]he splitting position of the screen is indicated by a pointer 44. When the pointer 44 is designated with the pen 12 and the pen is moved left or right (along the access bar 42), the splitting ratio (horizontal size ratio) of the two screens 13A, 13B changes as depicted in FIG. 4(C). Ex. 1005 ¶ 19.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Petitioner next contends that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify “Ogawa’s display control method using Yook’s technique such that Ogawa’s method would have included first displaying a program across both logically divided displays of display input surface 13 . . . to increase the viewing area for the program as shown and described [in] Yook’s figures 4b and 4d.” Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 137). Petitioner further contends that the modification would “include[] minimizing the program to occupy only one of the first and second parts of display input surface 13 . . . as also shown and described with reference to Yook’s figures 4b and 4d.” Id. at 55. Petitioner then provides an example of the modification. Id. Namely, Ogawa’s operation would have been modified so that “when a user elects to split a screen in figure 4(A) using the split screen menu 41, the program is first displayed like in figure 4(C) . . . across two displays and then, based on user input to minimize the program size” resulting in the program displayed on one display. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 137; Ex. 1005, Figs. 4(A)–4(C)). Petitioner next contends that the modification of Ogawa with Yook “would have involved the substitution of one known way of displaying a program” as shown in Ogawa “with another known display method” as shown in Yook, “and thus would yield a predictable result.” Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 139). Patent Owner does not address claim 4. See PO Resp. 10–18. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and argument and find that Petitioner has shown that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ogawa and Yook as a simple substitution of one known way of displaying a program for another with a predictable result. Ex. 1002 ¶ 139. Further, Petitioner has also shown that the combination of Ogawa and Yook teaches the limitations of claim 4. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,842,080 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,842,080
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2026 · IPR2022-01002 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1–9 and 12–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Paulraj and Heath under § 103.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “determining no challenged claim had been proved unpatentable by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”). Paper 41. Petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Papers 43, 44. On January 13, 2026, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, on the basis that the Board erred by not considering certain alternative arguments presented in the Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 29), which were properly responsive to claim construction proposed in the Patent Owner Response and adopted by the Board.1 Paper 45. In its Reply, Petitioner alternatively argued that even under the Patent Owner’s claim construction relating to “the plurality of antennas,” the same prior art references nonetheless still rendered obvious the challenged claims. In this remand proceeding, neither party requested the filing of additional briefing, despite having been given an opportunity to make and explain such a request. Paper 51. We have authority to conduct this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Having considered all of the arguments presented in Petitioner’s Reply, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 and 12–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’083 patent”) are unpatentable. A.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner additionally states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not in its Response address the level of ordinary skill. Patent Owner’s expert witness, Dr. Cooklev, testifies that he “will apply the same definition of the level of skill of a POSITA [as Petitioner].” Ex. 2004 ¶ 19. Based on the evidence of record, we determine a person of ordinary skill would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems. This is consistent with Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, with the exception of Petitioner’s open-ended reference to “at least” two years of experience, because that would improperly encompass a level of experience only possessed by an expert. This articulation of the level of ordinary skill is also the same as what we determined in the Final Written decision issued on November 30, 2023. Paper 41, 6. C. slip op. at 6

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

    “Patent Owner contends: “The plain meaning of the claims requires that the same ‘plurality of antennas’ be used for transmitting and receiving the plurality of signal streams.” PO Resp. 5, 9–12. Citing Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, Patent Owner contends that the ’083 patent’s Specification describes embodiments that use the same antennas for both transmitting and receiving data streams. PO Resp. 7–9 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34–35). In the Final Written Decision, we determined: Although we do not understand the claims to require both transmission and reception “via all antennas” all of the time, we determine the claims require a set of antennas in which at least some of the antennas are for both transmitting and receiving. We disagree with Petitioner that two separate sets of antennas— one set of transmitting antennas and a separate, nonoverlapping set of receiving antennas—fall within the scope of the challenged claims. Paper 41, 13 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit agreed with our claim construction. Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, U.S. Ct. App. Fed. Cir., slip op. 24-1419 (January 13, 2026) (2026 WL 91021) (Paper 45, 2–4). We continue to apply the same construction here that we adopted in the Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “legally sufficient motivation for modifying Paulraj, but only attempted to show that the modification “could” have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art which is not enough for a showing of obviousness. Sur-reply 8–9. We disagree with Patent Owner. Establishing that certain technique was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the challenged patent constitutes sufficient motivation to make a modification in accordance with what was well-known in the art to one of ordinary skill, absent factors not present here. Indeed, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. That would be the situation where a technique was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, unless there is actual difficulty in making the application. The “improvement” here, although not articulated by Petitioner, is inherent with the technique, not requiring use of separate antennas for transmitting and receiving, i.e., eliminating the need for additional parts. Further, it is not necessary to show that a modification is the “best option,” because any “suitable option” would suffice. See Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Here, Patent Owner does not assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had difficulty modifying Paulraj to use some of the same antennas both for transmitting and for receiving. Nor does Patent Owner dispute that it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same antenna(s) for both transmitting and for receiving. We further note the following description in the Specification of the ’083 patent: “The typical CT/MD [cellular telephone/mobile device] has one transmitter and one receiver (T/R), with one antenna.” Ex. 1001, 1:47–48. That statement is fully consistent with Petitioner’s assertion that it was well-known to use the same antenna for transmitting and for receiving. For the foregoing reasons, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently has shown that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paulraj such that some of the same antennas would be used both for transmitting and for receiving, according to limitations 1[b], 1[d], and 1[e].” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,191,083 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,191,083
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00954 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3 and 8–19 are unpatentable: claim 3 is anticipated by Yu and obvious over Okashita, Okashita and Yu, and Burgener and Okashita; claims 8–19 are obvious over Burgener and Okashita, with or without Yu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “ORDER For the foregoing reasons, ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion to Amend (Paper 19) is granted, and claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are canceled;” slip op. at 37

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of ordinary skill, arguing that a bachelor’s degree, not a master’s degree, is all that is required because that is the “target audience for the ’886 Patent.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Id. We used Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Neither party argues any issue as dependent on the level of ordinary skill or the differences between the proposals. Accordingly, the issues here are not dependent on the level of ordinary skill and the result is the same regardless of which definition is adopted. On this record, there is no reason to change from Petitioner’s definition used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “transistors” as a term that might require construction during trial. Inst. Dec. 17–18. At the hearing, the Petitioner argued that “cascaded transistors” means “[ar]ranged in a series of or in succession of stages so that each stage derives from or acts upon the product of the preceding [transistor]” and that there is no dispute that the limitation is taught by the prior art. Tr. 9:15–22. Patent Owner takes no position as to whether or not the prior art discloses “cascaded transistors.” Id. at 33:13–21 (“For the remainder of this proceeding, post institution, we have not taken any position regarding the scope of the cascaded transistors or the disclosure of the cascaded transistors in any of the prior art. We have not disputed that.”). Because Patent Owner takes no position on the issue, there is no dispute that “cascaded transistors” are shown in the prior art, construction is not necessary. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. original)). 2. “isolated island” Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that the prior art teaches or suggests claim 3’s recitation of “said plurality of cascaded transistors is situated within an isolated island.” Pet. 35–36; PO Resp. 16–17. Although the parties dispute whether an “isolated island” is shown in the prior art, neither party proposes a construction for the term “isolated island.” We agree that the arguments presented do not require construction of “isolated island.” The issues can be determined on the plain meaning of the term in view of the arguments made. See Section II.D below.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown Yu is analogous art to Okashita. Both references are directed to the manufacture of semiconductors, which we find to be the field of endeavor. Ex. 1004, 1:47– 58; Ex. 1005, 1:16–26. More specifically, we agree with Petitioner and find that both references are in the same field of endeavor because they relate to SOI configuration. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 7–8, 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–80, 90–91). Because we find the references relied upon are in the same field of endeavor, we need not reach whether they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,745,886 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,745,886

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.