• 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
• 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
• 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
• Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C. / Douglas Dynamics, Inc. v. Meyer Products LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01839 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 28–31, 36, 38, 39, 43, and 44 are unpatentable under § 103(a); claims 8, 32, 33, and 48–54 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The disclosure of the ’829 patent is expressly addressed to the problem of, and a solution for, unreliable and vulnerable electrical connections caused by splicing auxiliary lights into OEM headlight wiring. The Background of the Invention explains that “[t]raditionally, the auxiliary lights were spliced into the existing wiring for the headlights of the vehicle.” slip op. at 11

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

    “As an initial matter, we observe that whether or not the preamble term “light circuit” is limiting has little bearing on the ultimate disposition of this inter partes review, as it is undisputed that Douglas has identified, for each asserted ground of unpatentability, disclosure of a light circuit. See PO Resp. 11–12. Furthermore, we agree with Douglas that “light circuit” does not connote any structure beyond that explicitly recited in the body of the claims. Indeed, it is unclear that either Meyer or Mr. Ricca disputes such conclusion. For example, Meyer states in its Patent Owner Response that” slip op. at 18

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

    “As a general rule, the words “a” or “an” in a patent claim carry the meaning of “one or more.” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008). That rule is particularly applicable 15 where, as here, those words are used in combination with the open-ended antecedent “comprising.” See, e.g., Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “An exception to the general rule that ‘a’ or ‘an’ means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.” Baldwin Graphic, 512 F.3d at 1342–43. We discern no such exception here. First, Meyer has not identified, and we do not discern, any requirement in the language of the claims to support the conclusion that the recited “an auxiliary light connector to connect an auxiliary light” must be a single auxiliary light connector.” slip op. at 15

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

    “As set forth above, Möller explicitly teaches the incorporation of microprocessors and microcontrollers to improve relay-circuitry-based vehicle electronics systems. Ex. 1006, 4:41–48. Contemporaneous prior art 33 references, including Gould and COP8, disclose advantages obtained through the incorporation of microprocessors and microcontrollers into relay circuitry for controlling end devices, further underscoring that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to modify the relay circuitry of Knepel with the microprocessors and microcontrollers of Möller. See Ex. 1010, 9, 11; Ex. 1011, 14. Moreover, Dr. Neuhalfen testifies, without challenge, that it was well-known at the time of invention of the ’829 patent to use microprocessors to control original vehicle lights, as well as auxiliary lights, and identifies numerous advantages that the proposed combination would afford. Ex. 1014 ¶ 59. Indeed, Meyer’s expert, Mr. Ricca, agrees that it would not have been difficult for an ordinarily skilled artisan to supplement the circuit of Knepel to provide microprocessor control of the relays in that circuit. Ex. 1033, 182:6–11. In view of the teachings of Möller itself, and the contemporaneous prior art, as well as the testimony of Dr. Neuhalfen and Mr. Ricca, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the value of using known elements, i.e., microprocessors and microcontrollers, as taught by Möller, to improve the relay circuitry for controlling original vehicle lights and auxiliary lights of Knepel. We likewise find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the microprocessors of Möller could be incorporated into, i.e., used to supplement, the relay circuitry of Knepel. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,265,829 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,265,829
• Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2015-01490 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 10–15, 23, 25, 27, 30, and 41–43 are unpatentable; claims 17 and 47 were not shown unpatentable; claims 28 and 29 were cancelled.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “based on the complex as a whole, rather than just the carbohydrate component, as Fishbane related to iron dextran complexes. Reply 10. We agree with Petitioner that the language of the term “substantially non-immunogenic carbohydrate component” itself only requires an assessment of the immunogenicity of the carbohydrate component, and disagree with Patent Owner that the claims require an assessment of the immunogenicity of the iron carbohydrate complex as a whole. In that regard, we note that the Specification of the ’702 patent supports our construction that the “substantially non-immunogenic carbohydrate component” is limited to the carbohydrate component as opposed to the iron carbohydrate complex as a whole. Specifically, the Specification teaches in the background section that previously available iron dextran products suffered from a “high incidence of anaphylactoid reactions . . . believed to be caused by the formation of antibodies to the dextran moiety,” while “[o]ther parenteral iron products (e.g., iron sucrose and iron gluconate) do not contain the dextran moiety, and the incidence of anaphylaxis with these products is markedly lower.” Ex. 1001, 1:53–57; see also id. at 11:3‒4 (“non-immunogenic carbohydrate component; no cross reactivity with anti-dextran antibodies”). Moreover, the language of independent claim 1 itself does not require a non-immunogenic complex, but only specifies that the “iron carbohydrate complex has a substantially non-immunogenic carbohydrate component.” Moreover, we decline to limit the term “substantially non- immunogenic carbohydrate complex” to require an incidence level of lower than 0.6%. Rather, what is supported by the claim language and the Specification is a low risk such that the incidence of adverse events of the carbohydrate complex is lower than dextran. See, e.g., Tr. 53‒54 (counsel for Patent Owner acknowledging that Fishbane was not incorporated by reference, and that it was only cited as a “see generally”).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “We do not find a significant different between the requirements for the ordinary artisan proposed by Petitioner and Patent Owner. We agree with Petitioner (Pet. 14) that the best evidence of the level of skill in the art are the references themselves, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and, thus, we need not explicitly adopt either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art. Moreover, we note that the result of the analysis regarding the patentability of the claims would be the same under the requirements for the ordinary artisan proposed by either Petitioner or Patent Owner.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableInherency foundUnpatentable

    “Petition (Pet. 22–27), we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Geisser teaches all the limitations of claim 1, either inherently or explicitly. That is, we agree with Petitioner that Geisser teaches a method of treating a disease characterized by an iron deficiency, specifically iron deficiency anemia (Pet. 23; Ex. 1003, Abstract, 1:4‒7, 2:4‒7, 9:30‒31). We further agree that Geisser teaches a method of administering an iron carbohydrate complex, that is, iron carboxymaltose, in a single dosage form of at least 0.6 grams of elemental iron, as Geisser teaches administering iron carbohydrate complexes as a single dose of 500‒ 1000 mg of iron. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:26‒4:1, 8:7-10, 10:14‒17). In that regard, we credit the testimony of Dr. Linhardt that Geiser discloses iron carboxymaltose, and that Geisser describes a general synthetic method that is nearly identical to the method described in the ʼ702 patent. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8‒10, 13. In addition, as Geisser teaches one of the iron carbohydrate complexes explicitly recited by claim 1, that is, iron carboxymaltose, it would inherently meet the limitation that the carbohydrate component is substantially non-immunogenic and would have substantially no cross-reactivity with anti-dextran antibodies. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.”). The teachings of Geisser support that finding, as Geisser specifically teaches that the complexes have low toxicity and a reduced danger of anaphylactic shock. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:26‒ 2:1, 8:7‒10); see also Ex. 1001, 12:12‒14 (noting that as “[t]he iron carboxymaltose complex (e.g., VIT-45) generally does not contain dextran and [it] does not react with dextran antibodies.”).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,754,702 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,754,702
• Dermira, Inc. v. Purepharm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01594 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hays or obvious over the listed combinations; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable for lack of a reason to add another sweating therapy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “In interpreting claim terms, the claims themselves provide substantial guidance. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, claim 1, from which claims 2–8 depend, recites the dosed amount of glycopyrrolate in solution as “an amount ranging from 3.0 wt. % to 4 wt. %.” Because claim 1 describes the dosed amount by the strength/concentration, it supports our conclusion that term “dosed amount” is not limited by the volume of the glycopyrrolate solution.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenMixed

    “Petitioner may well be correct that preferring a non-anticholinergic does not necessarily exclude administering “another oral and/or topical therapy for reduction of sweating,” as required by challenged claim 4. Petitioner, however, does not point to any credible evidence or otherwise explain why an ordinary artisan would have chosen another therapy to reduce sweating to be administered in combination with glycopyrrolate. Without some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as to why an ordinary artisan would have added a second therapeutic for reducing sweating to the transdermal patch of Bodor, which uses the anticholinergic to eliminate the formation of an aqueous layer between the delivery system and the skin to enhance the penetration of the transdermal drug being delivered, Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating that claim 4 20 would have been obvious over the combination of Bobrove and Bodor. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 20

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

    “(citing Ex. 1009, 1821). Hays instructs that glycopyrrolate solutions should be carefully applied while avoiding the mouth, nose, and eyes. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 1798, 1809). For example, it discloses applying a cotton applicator dipped in the glycopyrrolate solution to the skin while holding the hair up out the way to treat patients with gustatory sweating in the hairline. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Dr. Guy testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood the cotton applicator in Hays “as being any of a cotton ball, a cotton pad, a cotton swab, or having a cotton component as a part of a larger applicator.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 72. According to Hays, glycopyrrolate in concentrations of 0.5%, 1.0%, and up to 4% provided effective control of gustatory sweating with no significant side effects. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hays discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Bobrove specifically teaches applying a “roll on” glycopyrrolate solution. Ex. 1008, 6:26–27, 6:36–37. It, however, also generally teaches that glycopyrrolate is administered topically. Id. at 4:1. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to look for other means to apply glycopyrrolate. As Dr. Guy testifies, “[t]here are a limited number of ways to topically deliver a drug to a patient’s skin.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 16. In addition, Bobrove suggests to avoid the eyes, nose, and mouth during the topical administration. Ex. 1008, 5:37–39. Given these considerations, Bodor provides an effective alternative: a cotton cloth to absorb the drug and rub it on the skin. Ex. 1030, 15:39–54; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 17 (explaining that, at the time of the invention, an ordinary artisan would have known that use of medicated pads “allowed for topical application of a solution, for example to a subject’s face, while excluding application to sensitive areas such as the eyes or mucous membranes”). Thus, we conclude Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ordinary artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Bobrove and Bodor. In sum, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an ordinary artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Bobrove and Bodor, and that the combination teaches each and every limitation of claims 1 and 2. Claims 4, 5, and 8” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,252,316 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,252,316
• Dermira, Inc. v. Purepharm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01593 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–10 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hays or obvious over the stated combinations; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable for lack of a reason to add another sweating therapy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In interpreting claim terms, the claims themselves provide substantial guidance. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, the challenged claims recite the dosed amount of glycopyrrolate in solution as “an amount ranging from 1.0 wt. % to 6 wt. %” (claim 1); “an amount ranging from 2.0 wt. % to 6.0 wt. %” (claim 9); and “an amount ranging from 2.0 wt. % to 4.0 wt. %” (claim 10). Because the claims describe the dosed amount by the strength/concentration, they support our conclusion that term “dosed amount” is not limited by the volume of the glycopyrrolate solution.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties disagree over the level of ordinary skill.8 See Pet. 17–18; PO Resp. 3; Reply 9. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to resolve this dispute because the prior art itself reflects an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “not qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art because he is not a clinician, physician, or pharmacist. PO Resp. 3–4. We disagree with Patent Owner on this issue. All asserted references relate to topical administration of pharmaceutical compositions. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 4:1; Ex. 1010, 2:35–38; Ex. 1030, 3:60–61. In addition, the challenged ’524 patent relates to the topical delivery of glycopyrrolate to reduce excessive sweating and minimize side effects. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:13–21. Dr. Guy has over 30 years of experience in fields including topical drug delivery, transdermal” slip op. at 16

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

    “water base and a vanishing cream base in 0.5 to 1% concentration. It completely controls gustatory sweating for several days or more.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1009, 1821). Hays instructs that glycopyrrolate solutions should be carefully applied while avoiding the mouth, nose, and eyes. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 1798, 1809). For example, it discloses applying a cotton applicator dipped in the glycopyrrolate solution to the skin while holding the hair up out the way to treat patients with gustatory sweating in the hairline. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Dr. Guy testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood the cotton applicator in Hays “as being any of a cotton ball, a cotton pad, a cotton swab, or having a cotton component as a part of a larger applicator.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 90. According to Hays, glycopyrrolate in concentrations of 0.5%, 1.0%, and up to 4% provided effective control of gustatory sweating with no significant side effects. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1009, 1819). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hays discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,679,524 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,679,524
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00529 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 10–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the INOmax label, Bernasconi, Loh, and Goyal; claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 are also anticipated and obvious over the INOmax label.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “method of providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas requires providing information to the medical provider to safely administer the nitric oxide gas,” thus “confirm[ing] that the ‘providing . . . information’ step is functionally related to the steps in the claimed method.” PO Resp. 31–33. As an initial matter, whether the claims should be interpreted as requiring such a functional relationship is a legal conclusion. See PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner’s conclusion regarding functional relationship between claim terms is based, at least in part, on an overly-limited reading of “pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas,” as discussed above. See PO Resp. 27. Further, we do not read the transcript testimony relied on by Patent Owner as clearly admitting a functional relationship between the steps of “providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas” and the information of (ii). See PO Resp. 31–32 (citing Ex. 2022, 78:15–80:4, 81:11–22, 111:2–17)). To the contrary, Dr. Beghetti appears to have testified that the claim elements are not directly related. Ex. 2022, 86:10– 25. Although Patent Owner points to In re Distefano, 808 F.3d at 848, as evidence that a “printed matter analysis includes ‘factual findings’” (PO Sur Reply 4, n.6), which inform the ultimate legal conclusion, we do not find the evidence as a whole compelling.” slip op. at 19

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther

    “IV. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner moves to exclude certain portions of Ex. 2024 on the grounds that they “are declarations and supporting materials submitted during patent examination . . . in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a)” and “lack foundation (FRE 602) and authentication (FRE 901) and constitute impermissible hearsay (FRE 901).” Paper 31, 2–3. Petitioner likewise moves to exclude Exhibit 2029 as not relied on in the Patent Owner Response or by Patent Owner’s expert. Id. at 3. As we do not rely on the objected-to materials in this opinion, we dismiss the motion as moot.” slip op. at 45

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “V. OBJECTIONS TO DEMONSTRATIVES The parties also submit competing objections to demonstrative exhibits used at trial. Papers 46, 47. Specifically, both parties object to certain slides as setting forth a new argument not previously made in any paper. Papers 46, 47. The parties are reminded that demonstrative exhibits are illustrative only and are not part of the trial record. Indeed, in accordance with our Order on requests for oral argument, neither party filed its demonstratives with the Board. See Paper 45, 2 (“Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in this proceeding without prior authorization from the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). Demonstrative exhibits are intended to be visual aids to assist a party in making its oral presentation and will not be entered into the record of these proceedings.”). Nevertheless, in this Final Written Decision, we rely on the arguments presented properly in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record and do not consider any new arguments not previously set forth in any paper. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”).” slip op. at 45

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “The Applicant amended the preamble of the rejected independent claims to recite “[a] method of providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas,” as presently set forth in claims 1 and 7. Id. at 746–747. Subsequent to the amendment, the Examiner withdrew the objection. Id. at 765; see id. at 733 (“If all the priority issues are resolved then it appears that the primary reference in the 103 rejection will no longer be prior art.” (italics omitted)). On pages 19 and 20 of its Response, Patent Owner argues that the preamble is, therefore, limiting in light of Catalina Mktg. International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002), which holds that “clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates the use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.” Although the prosecution history shows that amendment of the preamble only indirectly distinguished the claims over the prior art by establishing an earlier priority date, we conclude that both the Applicant and the Examiner treated the preamble as a claim limitation. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the preamble language “pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas” is limiting.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,846,112 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,846,112

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.