• Dyson Technology Ltd. / Dyson, Inc. v. Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00766 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious over the prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5

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

    “However, each of these asserted modifications is based on a teaching that is not present in Brown. Brown does not teach “a projection that provides resistance against ‘handle’ movement” or that “opening Brown’s ‘cover’ requires bending Brown’s ‘port,’” as asserted by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 22. As repeatedly noted, the identified “projection” appears to be nothing more than a portion of cover 14 the accessory/hose port. Petitioner’s arguments regarding a projection that provides resistance and a bendable port in Brown, appear to be nothing more than an effort to create the limitations of the claims in the prior art based on improper hindsight. For at least the above reasons, the Petition does not show how Brown teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the independent claims.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner argues that when cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) is in position on the vacuum, end wall 26 cannot open and, thus, that end wall is inhibited from opening. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 37, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–145 (similar statements from Petitioner’s declarant)). Petitioner then asserts that the catch is therefore inhibited from moving to the disengaged position. Id. at 46. The combination of Dimbylow and Howes does not teach this limitation and Petitioner’s assertions are not persuasive. As can be seen from the above annotated Figure, nothing inhibits Dimbylow’s catch 42 from moving to a disengaged position. See also Prelim. Resp 11–14. Rather, any time Howe’s button is pressed, thereby moving the push-rod (to the right in the Figure), catch 42 would disengage, whether the door opened or not. Though cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) inhibits end wall 26 from opening, it has no impact on movement of catch 42 (i.e. lock engaging member) from the engaged to disengaged position as required by the claim. Thus, the lock engaging member of Petitioner’s combination, i.e., the catch, is not inhibited from moving to a disengaged position when the accessory, i.e., the cleaning” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA”). Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner’s declarant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field and 2-3 years of experience in machine design, such as vacuum cleaners. Additional education could offset less experience and vice versa, and a POSA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means. Ex. 1002 ¶ 42; see also Pet. 22 (making the same assertion without citation to declarant). Patent Owner does not contest the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 2. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s (and its declarant’s) proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’477 patent and prior art of record. We adopt the above definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,568,477
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00520 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Dexcom did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 were unpatentable under either Stafford–Raymond ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Burden of Proof “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity … the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Therefore, in an inter partes review, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable; that burden never shifts to the patentee. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). At the institution stage, Petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We do not find these arguments persuasive. It may be so that Turner teaches that its recesses 77 receive rotation-restricting protrusions 71, which “extend[] into each recess 77 such that the recess side walls interfere with the protrusions to prevent rotation of the insertion device relative to body 20.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 69. And, it may also be so that Turner teaches this assembly as an advantage in that it prevents rotation of body 20. Id. However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its” slip op. at 32

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

    “In each of the ’335 Specification, Stafford, Raymond, and Turner, the OBU is universally depicted as having a circular perimeter oriented around a longitudinal axis, and possessing either a cylindrical shape (’335 patent, Stafford, Raymond) or a roughly domed shape, with a circular, circumferential collar. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8, 17, 52, 54; Ex. 1009, Figs 3A–C, 4A; Ex. 1010, Figs. 14–16, Ex. 1011, Figs. 2A–B, 5G, 7A-B, 9, 11, 13A–B, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 30, 37, 38. Moreover, in each description of the location of recesses 3766 in the ’335 Specification, the recesses are described as being located “on the side walls” of the OBU. See Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 8–12; col. 45, ll. 61–64. Given the circular perimeter of all of these embodiments of the disclosures of the ’335 Specification, the teachings of Petitioner’s cited references, the dictionary definition of “periphery” as being “the perimeter of a circle or other closed curve,” and the ordinary meaning that the terms would have had to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention, in view of the ’335 Specification and file history” (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13), we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on body electronics unit housing” would be located “on the circumference of the on-body housing,” as we concluded in the ’01396 IPR Decision. See Dec. 48; see also Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 9–14 (stating that “gripping arms 3762 [of medical device carrier 3730] are provided with engagement boss 3764 which are configured to engage with corresponding recesses 3766 provided on the side walls of the on body housing 322”).” slip op. at 38

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its 12 The Petition makes a design choice argument with respect to the teachings of Raymond on Ground 1, contending that “it would have been an obvious design choice to implement two spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing—one to engage the protrusions on each of the two arms taught by Raymond.” Pet. 38. However, Petitioner adduced no prior art teaching or evidence of record of “spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing” that Reply Brief if that argument could first have been raised in its Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Univ. of Massachusetts, 2018 WL 4278992, *5 n.4 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2018); Matterport, Inc. v. Appliance Comp. III, Inc., 2021 WL 6340164, *9–10 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2021).” slip op. at 32

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,266,335
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01232 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 11–13 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 11–13 of the ’310 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in November 2012 “would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. This [POSA] would, where necessary, work with a medical device engineer to experiment with or manufacture a prosthetic heart valve.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50). Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s proposed definition or offer an alternative. See generally Prelim. Resp. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This POSA level is also consistent with the level the Board applied in earlier decisions involving the same parties and related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 2124, 11; Ex. 1120, 11–12.” slip op. at 14

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

    “construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims’ language in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA, in view of the patent’s specification and considering the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only as needed to resolve the matters in dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner contends that “[n]o terms of the ’310 patent require construction to resolve the patentability issues herein.” Pet. 19. Also, Petitioner contends, its “grounds are based on [Patent Owner’s] allegations that the ’310 patent covers Petitioner’s SAPIEN 3 Ultra valve and the scope of the claims asserted by [Patent Owner] in litigation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1122 (Complaint); Ex. 1123 (Infringement Contentions), 2, 262–476).11 Patent Owner does not propose any express claim construction. Instead, Patent Owner contends that the claims should be interpreted according to their ordinary and customary meaning. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 18–19, 35–36 (asserting that Petitioner’s mapping of the claims is, in respects, contrary to the “plain language” of the claims). 11 Petitioner identifies a claim construction order in related litigation where the district court construed an “outer frame” as a “self-expanding frame.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1140, 17). We need not further construe the “outer frame” term here because Petitioner contends, without dispute, that the prior art discloses self-expanding frames. Id. at 19–20, 26. Moreover, Patent Owner states that it has disclaimed those claims reciting the term “outer frame” to reduce the number of issues before the Board. Prelim. Resp. 75. about the scope of the claims, we address those arguments below in our discussion of the mapping of claims to the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We are unpersuaded. The language of claim 11 states the “sealing material is attached to the frame,” but also that it is the plurality of outwardly-extending “fibers” that maintain “contact with the frame along the height of the sealing material” whether the valve assembly is compressed or expanded. Supra Section II(D). Thus, according to this plain language, Petitioner must demonstrate that Spenser II’s identified fibers contact with the frame in its modification of Spenser or Levi—not just that some portion of Spenser II’s compressible material be attached to and contact the frame. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contrary interpretation is “at-odds with the plain language of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 18, 35. The cited excerpt from the prosecution history does not support Petitioner’s position that the “in contact” limitation is met if the sealing material—but not necessarily the fibers—contacts the frame. Petitioner cites an assertion by applicant during prosecution that modifying Levi’s valve so that the “sealing material” is in contact with the frame would not show that the claimed subject matter is obvious. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002, 147–148). In its more complete context, however, applicant’s prosecution argument was made in furtherance of applicant’s repeated assertion that replacing Levi’s loosely-fit, “billowing” skirt with a tightly-held and bulky sleeve would change Levi’s principle of operation and make it too large and Resp. 35–36 (arguing applicant’s position is also “consistent” with claims’ plain language because, if Levi’s billowing skirt included outwardly-extending fibers, such fibers could not contact the frame along the skirt’s height when it billows out from the frame).15 Applicant’s argument does not rise to a concession that the “fibers in contact with the frame” limitation can be met so long as the sealing material contacts the frame. At best for Petitioner, the relevant prosecution history could be characterized as ambiguous; it does not justify rewriting claim 11’s plain language. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 127–128 (earlier version of proposed amendment to application claim 31, reciting “the sealing material is in contact with the outer frame”), 138–139 (later version of the proposed and as-entered amendment, expressly changing the language to require “the plurality of fibers is in contact with the outer frame”).” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,389,310
• Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Surgetech LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00738 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–6 because the Petition failed to identify its numerous, ambiguous obviousness grounds with the particularity required by § 312(a)(3).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “An inter partes review may be instituted if the information presented by the petitioner in the petition, in view of the patent owner’s preliminary response and the preliminary record, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenDenied

    “to the issue of thousands of asserted combinations of art. Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that Petitioner presents in the Petition “a single, omnibus claim chart that cites to numerous pages of prior art without any substantive explanation describing how those quotations are relevant or how they should be combined” and “exacerbates this confusion by citing to Dr. Regan’s seven-hundred seventy-eight page expert report, which, despite its length, is equally conclusory.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. Moreover, by citing “dozens of disparate passages from Jacob” in regard to a single limitation, along with “numerous citations to multiple prior art references,” the Petition fails to “identify how the prior art teachings should be combined in the grounds of a petition.” Id. at 18–19. In sum, rather than present its challenges with particularity, the Petition simply reproduces large excerpts from multiple references, while improperly incorporating by reference hundreds of pages from an expert declaration that frequently includes conclusory assertions. See generally Pet.; Ex. 1003. Accordingly, we find that the Petition falls short of the requirement that it present “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). In our view, the large number of ambiguous grounds is far out of proportion with the number of claims and the complexity of the issues involved. This excessiveness indicates that it would impose an undue burden for Patent Owner to respond to and for the Board to resolve all of the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts: POSITA would at minimum have a bachelor’s degree in software/computer/electrical engineering, computer science, or industrial engineering and management with at least two years’ experience in inventory and pricing management, including with respect to systems for dynamically managing inventory and pricing of transportation services or other types of inventory, or the equivalent. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant inventory and pricing management experience could substitute for formal education. EX1003, ¶17. POSITA are presumed knowledgeable of all relevant art, and would thus have been familiar with each reference cited herein and its full teachings. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner applies this same definition. Prelim. Resp. 10. For the purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’047 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim language “receiving . . . in real time.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not argue for any specific claim constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that, here, no construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. C. LEGAL STANDARDS CONCERNING INSTITUTION AND” slip op. at 11

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,475,047
• Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Surgetech LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00735 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and failed to identify its grounds and supporting evidence with particularity.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Even when that standard is satisfied, however, the Board has discretion to deny institution.4” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “Accordingly, we find that the Petition falls short of the requirement that it present “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). In our view, the large number of grounds is far out of proportion with the number of claims and the complexity of the issues involved. This excessiveness indicates that it would impose an undue burden for Patent Owner to respond to and for the Board to resolve all of the grounds asserted in the Petition. Moreover, in addition to the number of grounds asserted, Petitioner’s arguments in support of those grounds are unclear and impossible to discern. Petitioner does not separately discuss each individual ground, but instead lumps together the discussion of all grounds under a single heading. This grouping together of multiple grounds obscures the specific arguments advanced and the claims challenged in each individual ground. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not adequately explain these multiple-reference combinations, or why ordinarily skilled artisans would be motivated to combine them in the manner recited. In these circumstances, we determine that denial is appropriate because the Petition asserts voluminous and excessive grounds and fails to identify them with the requisite particularity. See Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC, 860 Fed. Appx. 708, 713 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“It is not the Board’s job to cobble together assertions from different sections of a petition or citations of various exhibits in order to infer every possible permutation of a petitioner’s arguments. Arguments in a petition must be made with particularity, not opacity”). We further determine that Petitioner fails to” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would at minimum have a bachelor’s degree in software/computer/electrical engineering, computer science, or industrial engineering and management including with respect to systems for dynamically managing inventory and pricing of transportation services or other types of inventory, or the equivalent.” Pet. 16. Petitioner also contends “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant inventory and pricing management experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill identified by Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill because, on the current record, it is consistent with the level of skill at the time of the claimed invention reflected by the ’598 patent and the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In sum, rather than present its challenges with particularity, the Petition simply reproduces large excerpts from multiple references while improperly incorporating by reference hundreds of pages from an expert declaration that frequently includes conclusory assertions. See, e.g., Ex 1003 ¶¶ 162, 188, 201, 226, 227, 240, 250, 264, 274, 282, 292, 302, 309, 318, 326, 332, 341, 363, 384, 387, 416, 428, 444, 456, 458, 476, 495, 504, 511, 521, 535, 633, 641 (stating in substantially similar terms that it “would have been routine to make such an implementation choice,” and “clear it results with a reasonable expectation of success”). Accordingly, we find that the Petition falls short of the requirement that it present “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). In our view, the large number of grounds is far out of proportion with the number of claims and the complexity of the issues involved. This excessiveness indicates that it would impose an undue burden for Patent Owner to respond to and for the Board to resolve all of the grounds asserted in the Petition. Moreover, in addition to the number of grounds asserted, Petitioner’s arguments in support of those grounds are unclear and impossible to discern. Petitioner does not separately discuss each individual ground, but instead lumps together the discussion of all grounds under a single heading. This grouping together of multiple grounds obscures the specific arguments advanced and the claims challenged in each individual ground. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not adequately explain these multiple-reference combinations, or why ordinarily skilled artisans would be motivated to combine them in the manner recited.” slip op. at 19

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,334,598
• Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Surgetech LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00737 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution

  Denied institution of IPR for claims 1–10 because the petition lacked particularity and failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s citations to Dr. Regan’s testimony, as well as to Jacob, Tamura, and Kono, fail to show a reasonable likelihood that the cited art satisfies that the steps recited in limitations 9(g) and 9(h) are performed “based on the query,” as required in limitation 9(f). Petitioner’s treatment of these limitations lacks sufficient substantive analysis. See Pet. 60–62.” slip op. at 17

  • BurdenDenied

    “1. Petitioner fails to clearly map how the claim limitations are mapped to the prior art, and “simply combines the references together in a single, omnibus chart, with no delineation between grounds.” Id. at 9. 2. The Petition fails to identify how the references are being combined. Id. at 14. 3. Petitioner’s motivations to combine are deficient, as Petitioner simply relies on boilerplate language without “address[ing] the combination of any specific teachings in the prior art, let alone explain why a POSITA would have understood such combinations.” Id. at 20. We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has a duty to identify “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also Playtika Ltd. V. NexRF Corp., IPR2021- 00952, Paper 14 (denying institution based on discretionary factors and lack of sufficient particularity). The importance of this requirement has been stressed by our reviewing court. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”). Our Rules further require that the Petition must identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge” (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)) and that each petition must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent” (id. § 42.22(a)(2)). Our Practice Guide also instructs that “parties should avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (Nov. 14, 2019), at 39.2 The Petition falls short of these requirements. Rather than present its challenges in a concise and understandable” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “would at minimum have a bachelor’s degree in software/computer/electrical engineering, computer science, or industrial engineering and management with at least two years’ experience in inventory and pricing management, including with respect to systems for dynamically managing inventory and pricing of inventory, or the equivalent. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant inventory and pricing management experience could substitute for formal education. Pet. 10; see also Prelim. Resp. 7 (“This is the same level of skill agreed to by the parties in the litigation. Patent Owner applies this definition for purposes of this Preliminary Response.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the parties’ assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We find that their assessment is consistent with the ’999 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther

    “Rather, the parties do not propose competing constructions for any term. Compare Pet. 8–9, with Prelim. Resp. 42–45. For purposes of this Decision, we give the claims their plain and ordinary meaning, and we need not and do not expressly construe any term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,360,999
• Apotex Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2023 · IPR2022-01524 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  Institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 and 26–30 were unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). An inter partes review may be instituted if the information presented by Petitioner in the Petition, in view of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and the preliminary record, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 19

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “As an initial matter, we find Petitioner has insufficiently addressed the issue of inherent anticipation by Dixon (or any other prior art) and has done so in a merely conclusory manner. There is no dispute that Dixon (as well as the other asserted prior art) discloses angiogenic eye disorder treatment using the same drug (aflibercept), at the same dose (2 mg), administered in the same way (intravitreal injection), and administered at the same dosing regimen (an initial, a secondary, and a tertiary dose), as required by all challenged claims. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. Petitioner relies on these facts, and the results of a phase 2 clinical trial that followed a different dosing protocol (one not claimed) to establish that the results limitations of claims 1, 26, and 29 are inherent to the phase 3 clinical trials (VIEW 1 and 2) with a dosing regimen that is claimed. See Pet. 38–39. Petitioner calls the claimed results limitations mere newly discovered results of a known process. Id. (citing Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1381). As Patent Owner identifies, it is not so simple. The evidence of the results of the VIEW 1 and 2 trials itself (found in the ’572 patent) shows that some, but not all, patients treated with the claimed dosing regimen achieved “a gain in visual acuity” as recited by claim 1, “a gain in visual acuity” that is “as effective” “as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab” as recited by claim 26, or “maintaining visual acuity” “as effective[ly]” “as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab” as recited by claim 29. See Ex. 1001, 13:5–38 (Table 1). As Patent Owner points out, the ’572 patent’s described studies 1 and 2, when following the claimed dosing regimen (2Q8), were not always effective treatments––achieving mere maintenance (as opposed to improvement or “gains”) of vision 95.1% and 95.6% (respectively) of the time. Id.; see Prelim. Resp. 34–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:8–27; Ex. 1014, 4, 6; Ex. 1030, 9; Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 109–111; Ex. 2022). Thus, the evidence shows that, although most would, about 4–5% of patients (or, possibly, an even higher number based on Patent Owner’s cited evidence––Ex. 1030, 9) would not see the gains in visual acuity required by claims 1 and 26 or the maintenance in visual acuity required by claim 29. It is well established that “[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities” and “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re. Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)). Here, the evidence shows that the claimed results limitations may typically flow from the claimed method, but not necessarily.” slip op. at 33

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Relating to the claim construction, the Federal Circuit found that patent at issue was “clear” that the tissue fibrosis, recited by the claim as arrested or regressed by the otherwise recited treatment, was not the same as and did not necessarily accompany the symptom of erectile disfunction (taught in and the focus of the relied-upon prior art), although the former (fibrosis) may frequently result in the latter (disfunction). Id. at 1059. The Federal Circuit held that the “arresting or regressing” clause was more than a mere statement of intended result, but was a limitation carrying patentable weight because the phrase was drafted as a part of a separate step of the method rather than of the preamble, the “arresting or regressing” language demanded efficacy, and the efficacy was linked to specific treatment minimum duration and dosage. Id. at 1060–61. The patients exhibiting these two issues were not necessarily the same. In part because the Board did not consider the arresting/regressing result limitation in its unpatentability analysis, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patent owner that the Board’s findings were insufficient. Id. at 1064, 1067. The Federal Circuit found that that prior art reference relied upon in the Board’s decision for teaching the claimed treatment, and also relied upon to link the condition of fibrosis with the symptom of erectile dysfunction, did not teach treating a population of patients suffering from erectile dysfunction only because of a fibrosis condition and, even though such patients may have had fibrosis, it was not certain; and further found that other cited prior art did not make certain a link between fibrosis and such dysfunction. Id. at 1065–66. This, the Federal Circuit found, was error. We find in agreement with Patent Owner that the results limitations of the challenged claims are limitations and must be given patentable weight for the same reasons arresting or regressing a tissue fibrosis was a limitation in Los Angeles Biomed. Similarly, here the claims are directed to expressly required results of the administration of aflibercept to patients at 2 mg at an initial dose, in at least one secondary dose 4 weeks later, and in at least one tertiary dose 8 weeks later. Therefore, we find that in claim 1, “wherein the patient achieves a gain in visual acuity within 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation. Further, in claim 26, “wherein the method is as effective in achieving a gain in visual acuity as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab by intravitreal injection in human subjects with age-related macular degeneration at 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation. And, in claim 29, “wherein the method is as effective in maintaining visual acuity as monthly administration of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab by intravitreal injection in human subjects with age-related macular degeneration at 52 weeks following the initial dose,” is a limitation.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “A prior art reference without express reference to a claim limitation may anticipate by inherency. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” Id. (quoting MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,253,572
• Adama Agan Ltd. v. Bayer Cropscience LPInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2023 · PGR2022-00057 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–18 lacked written description or enablement, or were unpatentable over the asserted prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Institution of post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in agronomy, agricultural sciences, or a related field and at least 3-5 years of experience in the application of pesticides, including experience conducting weed science research, such as field trials to determine herbicide efficacy and safety.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner responds that it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a POSA at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 15. Because Petitioner’s definition of a person of skill in the art appears commensurate with the level of skill reflected in the asserted art in this case, as well as the ’463 patent itself, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “When claim 1 is read in light of the Specification of the ’463 patent, we find that Petitioner’s construction is too expansive and not commensurate with the appropriate scope of claim 1 when the Specification of the ’463 patent is considered. As the Specification of the ’463 patent makes clear, indaziflam has been in use as an herbicide and is well-characterized. See Ex. 1001, 3:17–6:6. The Specification of the ’463 patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 8,114,991, which describes indaziflam, and the Specification of the ’463 patent also describes several commercially available herbicides incorporating indaziflam as their active ingredient. See id. at 3:22–27, 4:15–41. The Specification of the ’463 patent sets forth embodiments with specific ranges for the amount of indaziflam. See id. at 5:45–6:6. Finally, the Specification of the ’463 patent states: A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand how to adjust dosages and concentrations depending on whether the composition is to be applied to a desirable plant or seed, part or habitat thereof, or directly to a site in which no desirable plants are present or growing (e.g., a monoculture of unwanted annual grass).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction needed

    “We find that Petitioner’s expansive construction of the claim phrase “a composition comprising a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor” to be inconsistent with the meaning of the transitional phrase “comprising” within the context of the claim as a whole and also inconsistent with the teachings set forth in the Specification of the ’463 patent. The transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and should be read to not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition ‘comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Comprising” is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”) (citing In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, although the term “comprising” does not exclude additional steps or elements, that does not mean that any other step or element may or should be added, such as any other chemical, as Petitioner asserts. The Specification of the ’463 patent contemplates using indaziflam as the herbicidally active ingredient, but also contemplates the addition of other active ingredients in the composition. Ex. 1001, 5:59–65; 6:7–11. The Specification of the ’463 patent also contemplates the addition of other ingredients in the composition as well. Specifically, the Specification states: These formulations are produced in any desired or known manner, for example by mixing the active compounds with extenders, such as liquid solvents, pressurized liquefied gases and/or solid carriers, optionally with the use of surface-active agents, such as emulsifiers and/or dispersants and/or foam formers. Id. at 17:6–11. This and the remainder of the Specification does not suggest the expansive interpretation of the claim limitation argued by Petitioner. For example, the Specification explains that the point of the invention is to treat vegetation that is or will be consumed by livestock animals, and, more specifically, that such animals will provide food (e.g., milk or meat) for others (e.g., people or pets) further up the food chain. Id. at 2:31–35, 2:39– 59. Reason and the evidence of record support that such goals are not commensurate with co-applying any chemical in any amount to the same area. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23, 30, 34–36, 38–43, 55, 59–61, 63” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,166,463
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2022 · IPR2022-00549 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9, 11, and 12 were obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review to be instituted unless … the information presented in the petition … and any response … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Supplemental and Reply Briefs, and the evidence of record, we determine that the evidence presented fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. Pet. 30. Petitioner contends that such a skilled artisan would, when necessary, work as a member of a team in combination with a medical device engineer to experiment with, or manufacture, a prosthetic heart valve. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. See generally Prelim. Resp. Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because we find that that definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See generally, e.g., Exs. 1007, 1010, 1011, 1012; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 100(b) (2020). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In determining the evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes a construction for any claim terms apart from their plain and customary meaning. Pet. 30; see generally Prelim. Resp. Nor do we perceive a need to construe any claim terms of the ’735 patent for purposes of determining whether to institute trial. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 295, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, 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).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner argues additionally that “POSITAs were motivated to routinely adjust the size and shape of outer cloths to maximize sealing while minimizing the profile of the valve.” Pet. 52. Even accepting that, however, does not provide an adequate motivation to modify Walther’s valve in a way that would result in the claimed valve. Petitioner has not shown, for example, that the small reduction possible in the outer cloth (which protruded below the native valve no more than 2 mm) would have meaningfully minimized the Walther’s valve profile. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not adequately justified modifying Walther’s valve such that the apices extend proximally beyond the outer cloth. Having found that Walther, upon which Petitioner relies, neither teaches nor suggests the limitations at issue, we are consequently not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in prevailing at trial on Grounds 1 and 2.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,129,735
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2022 · IPR2022-00637 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25 were obvious over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “III. Conclusion After considering the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition.10 Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review. IV. Order In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Regarding a motivation to replace Gravesen’s lever with Yodfat’s cylindrical rotor, Petitioner argues that (1) “[t]he ’440 patent does not describe any benefit conferred by the claimed cylindrical rotor shape,” and (2) cylindrical rotors and levers were “similar solution[s]” for translating a torsion spring’s rotation to linear movement of an inserter. Pet. 96, 99; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 219, 233, 234. On this record, Petitioner’s contentions amount to little more than a statement that cylindrical rotors were known in the prior art. As stated in KSR, however, “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, Petitioner must demonstrate that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. While it may have been technically feasible for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Yodfat’s cylindrical rotor for Gravesen’s lever to achieve linear movement, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Standing alone, Petitioner’s allegation of interchangeability of a cylindrical rotor and a lever to effect linear movement of an inserter is insufficient to provide a reason to combine. Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized the utility of a cylindrically shaped rotor for positioning Gravesen’s driving spring 215 to provide both insertion force and at least some retraction force.” Pet. 96 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 124; Ex. 1004 ¶ 8). In Petitioner’s obviousness combination, however, separate driving springs effect insertion and retraction. See, e.g., id. at 52–53 (arguing that rotation of lever 211 operates to insert the needle), 46 (arguing that torsion spring 215 rotates lever 211), 58–59 (arguing that retraction spring 22 operates to retract the needle).8 Indeed, Petitioner contends that separating the operation of the insertion and retraction springs advantageously reduces the weight of the retraction apparatus, and thus the pain experienced by the subject. See id. at 24, 59; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 57, 114. Thus, on this record, Petitioner’s proffered motivation to use Yodfat’s cylindrical rotor to drive a spring for “both insertion force and at least some retraction” (Pet. 96) conflicts with the two-spring embodiment of Gravesen that is the basis for Petitioner’s obviousness argument. See Prelim. Resp. 58; Ex. 2001 ¶ 117.” slip op. at 18

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

    “and does not offer any express claim constructions. Pet. 17. Patent Owner also does not offer any express claim constructions, but disputes Petitioner’s understanding of the terms “rotor” and “recess.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22, 49, 51–53. For purposes of institution, we conclude that we need only address the term “recess.” We do so below in the context of analyzing Petitioner’s obviousness challenge based on Gravesen and Brister. See supra Section II.C.4; see also 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 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,013,440

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.