• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00115 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 10, 11, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28–30, 32, 33, and 35 are unpatentable; claim 15 is not shown unpatentable, based on the four asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Wieselthaler’s Declaration (Exhibit 1041), portions of Mr. Crosby’s Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1042), portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Wieselthaler (Exhibit 2028), and the exhibits “upon which that testimony is based” (Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050). Mot. 1. According to Patent Owner, the Motion was made “to preserve objections previously made in the record.” Id. (citations omitted). Patent Owner did not timely move to strike any of the evidence at issue as being outside the scope of reply evidence. Patent Owner asserts that because an inter partes review must be based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications (citing 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), the testimony of Mr. Crosby and Dr. Wieselthaler concerning “various physical devices allegedly known” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is inadmissible, along with all of the exhibits (consisting of printed materials such a journal abstracts, press releases, and papers) related to those physical devices. Id. at 3–4; see also Mot. Reply 1–4 (arguing that “devices that Petitioner’s witnesses assert were in public use prior to the claimed inventions, are not prior art that can form the basis of an inter partes review”). According to Patent Owner, Dr. Wieselthaler was unable to “link two of these physical devices to the printed prior art asserted in this [inter partes review], but those attempts fell apart during his cross examination.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner further reasons that because the evidence “cannot be the basis” of an inter partes review, it “has probable,” “is irrelevant and not admissible,” “presents substantial danger of confusing the issues, causing undue delay, and wasting time in this trial,” and “are not ‘based on sufficient facts[,] the product of reliable principles and methods[, or] ‘a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.’” Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401–403, 702) (modification in original). With regard to Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Patent Owner identifies no plausible legal theory for their inadmissibility based on the contention that they discuss physical devices. See Mot. Resp. 3. We also agree with Petitioner that the exhibits are not “the basis for any ground” asserted in this proceeding, and may be properly relied upon by Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby as support for their rebuttal testimony directed to Patent Owner’s arguments disputing Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine the prior art relied upon in the instituted grounds. See id. at 3–4. In regard to the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and” slip op. at 80

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “‘electronics for power and control’”). According to Mr. Crosby, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood based on the disclosure of this setup that these speed and motor parameters were monitored by a sensor providing feedback to the controller.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 725. Mr. Crosby identifies no support for this opinion, which we give little weight to. The mere fact that Bourque’s pump used software to control speed and motor parameters does not show that Bourque used “one or more sensors” to provide feedback signals to the external control unit. Indeed, Petitioner fails to identify any evidence that Bourque used any “sensor” to monitor “speed and motor parameters.” Mr. Crosby also states that “[e]ach of the ‘ultrasonic flow probe’ and the ‘solid-state catheter-type pressure transducer’ described in [Bourque] is a ‘sensor’ as recited in Claim 33 that provides feedback signals to the external control unit (e.g., ‘electronics for power and control’ and ‘data acquisition’).” Id. ¶¶ 581, 726. Mr. Crosby’s opinion is again unsupported by the evidence, because, as explained above, there is no teaching in Bourque that either the “ultrasonic flow probe” or the “pressure transducers” used in the “in vitro characterization” studies were part of the heart assist pump device. Based on our review and consideration of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence directed to claim 11, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted combination of Bourque and Wampler teaches or suggests each of the limitations of dependent claim 11. We reach the same conclusion for the same reasons with regard to claim 33.” slip op. at 48

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

    “1. “magneto coupling” Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a second magnetic device “positioned” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,674,517 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,674,517
• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2025-00096 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Schima and Akamatsu; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Fed. R. Evid. 702 serves “a ‘gatekeeping role,’ the objective of which is to ensure that expert testimony admitted into evidence is both reliable and relevant.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). There is no question that the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby is relevant to the asserted motivation to combine and reliable, only whether it becomes “not relevant” or “unreliable,” in light of limited scope upon which grounds of unpatentability may be based under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), because the testimony is based on, or supported by, knowledge of physical devices and publications discussing physical devices. Patent Owner directs us to no support for the notion that an expert’s testimony in an inter partes review must be limited to only the prior art relied upon as grounds for unpatentability and may not take into account any knowledge of, or publications concerning, other “physical devices” that would have been known to a person of ordinary skill at the relevant time. See generally Mot.25 In sum, we find that Patent Owner has 25 Patent Owner improperly asserts for the first time in its Reply in support of the Motion that “Petitioner in this case is improperly relying on non-prior art evidence.” Mot. Reply 3. This argument was not made in the Motion, and Patent Owner fails to identify what “non-prior art evidence” it seeks to exclude. We recognize that Petitioner appears to raise the argument that “non-prior art evidence” may be relied upon by an expert, but Petitioner also fails to identify what evidence it is referring to and that argument was not responsive to any issue Patent Owner raised in the Motion. See Mot. Resp. 5. To the extent the Parties intend “non-prior art evidence” to refer to the testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby, we view the issue as pertaining to the weight afforded that testimony, in light of the supporting evidence relied upon, rather than one of admissibility. for the exclusion of evidence in this proceeding and deny the Motion.” slip op. at 83

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 10

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

    “D. Claim Construction In this proceeding we construe claims using the same claim” slip op. at 20

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

    “5. Rationale in Support of Asserted Combination Petitioner shows, and there is no dispute, that Bourque and Wampler” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 11,351,356 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,351,356
• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00114 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under §103; claim 20 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyDenied

    “IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Wieselthaler’s Declaration (Exhibit 1041), portions of Mr. Crosby’s Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1042), portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Wieselthaler (Exhibit 2028), and the exhibits “upon which that testimony is based” (Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050). Mot. 1. According to Patent Owner, the Motion was made “to preserve objections previously made in the record.” Id. (citations omitted). Patent Owner did not timely move to strike any of the evidence at issue as being outside the scope of reply evidence. Patent Owner asserts that because an inter partes review must be based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications (citing 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), the testimony of Mr. Crosby and Dr. Wieselthaler concerning “various physical devices allegedly known” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is inadmissible, along with all of the exhibits (consisting of printed materials such a journal abstracts, press releases, and papers) related to those physical devices. Id. at 3–4; see also Mot. Reply 1–4 (arguing that “devices that Petitioner’s witnesses assert were the basis of an inter partes review”). According to Patent Owner, Dr. Wieselthaler was unable to “link two of these physical devices to the printed prior art asserted in this [inter partes review], but those attempts fell apart during his cross examination.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner further reasons that because the evidence “cannot be the basis” of an inter partes review, it “has no tendency to make any fact of consequence in this trial more or less probable,” “is irrelevant and not admissible,” “presents substantial danger of confusing the issues, causing undue delay, and wasting time in this trial,” and “are not ‘based on sufficient facts[,] the product of reliable principles and methods[, or] ‘a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.’” Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401–403, 702) (modification in original). With regard to Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Patent Owner identifies no plausible legal theory for their inadmissibility based on the contention that they discuss physical devices. See Mot. Resp. 3. We also agree with Petitioner that the exhibits are not “the basis for any ground” asserted in this proceeding, and may be properly relied upon by Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby as support for their rebuttal testimony directed to Patent Owner’s arguments disputing Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine the prior art relied upon in the instituted grounds. See id. at 3–4. In regard to the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and” slip op. at 77

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

    “1. “magneto coupling” Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a second magnetic device . . . positioned to magnetically drive rotation of the magnetically driven rotor via a magneto coupling with the first magnetic device.” Ex. 1001, 5:34–37. Claim 11 recites, in relevant part, “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor so as to magnetically drive rotation of the magnetically driven rotor relative to the one or more walls via a magneto coupling with the first magnetic device.” Id. at 6:42–48. Petitioner argues that “magneto coupling” means “a transfer of torque from one rotating permanent magnetic component to another rotating permanent magnetic component via a magnetic field.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–87). According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with the ’879 patent, which describes “a coupling between two rotating ‘bar magnets’—a drive wheel rotates one bar magnet which causes another bar magnet (connected to a rotor) to rotate.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–55 (analyzing Ex. 1001, 2:28–52, 4:44–64, Fig. 2)). Patent Owner argues that “magneto coupling” should be afforded “its plain and ordinary meaning, which would encompass a magnetic coupling through both rotating magnets and the use of a rotating magnetic Owner directs us to the testimony of Mr. Leschinsky, who explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’879 patent to use “magneto coupling” to generally describe “a way to couple the rotor to a drive element while sealing the two from one another and avoiding use of a direct mechanical coupling.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 67. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner provides no recognizable basis for limiting the plain meaning of magnetic coupling to one type of magnet and excluding another type of magnet.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc., v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989–992 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not provide a sufficient basis for limiting the plain meaning of “magneto coupling.” That the ’879 patent describes embodiments using bar magnets does not serve to require the use of permanent magnets for the recited “magneto coupling.” See Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”)). Moreover, the claim language here is not so limited. 13 Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on Wampler and Bourque depend on the disclosure only of electromagnetic drives in each reference, implying that “Petitioner does not believe its own proposed narrower construction.” PO Resp. 6; see also Pet. 8 (Petitioner alleging that in the Parallel Proceeding Patent Owner “conflates ‘magneto coupling’ . . . with a stator drive using a stationary electromagnet, instead of a rotating magnet, to rotate the rotor magnet,” and asserting that as the basis for Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler and Bourque as teaching a “magneto coupling” in this proceeding (citing Ex. 1019, 7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87)).” slip op. at 24

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

    “reasons discussed above. See supra Section III.D.3. Accordingly, because Petitioner’s contentions are premised on an unsupported claim construction that we reject, Petitioner fails to show how Wampler teaches or suggests “a magnetically driven rotor . . . axially adjacent to a first magnet device,” as required by claims 1 and 11, as well as by claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14– 16, and 18–20, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 11. In its Reply, Petitioner suggests that “[u]nder [Patent Owner’s] construction from the [Patent Owner Response], Wampler also teaches or suggests this limitation,” because Patent Owner “concedes [that] ‘axially adjacent’ components ‘have” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 11,572,879 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,572,879
• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SAAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00112 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 10, 11, 14, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Schima and Akamatsu; the other asserted grounds were not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18).” slip op. at 10

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

    “sufficient basis for limiting the plain meaning of “magneto coupling.” That the ’357 patent describes embodiments using bar magnets does not serve to require the use of permanent magnets for the recited “magneto coupling.” See Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”)). Moreover, the claim language here is not so limited. 11 Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on Wampler and Bourque depend on the disclosure only of electromagnetic drives in each reference, implying that “Petitioner does not believe its own proposed narrower construction.” PO Resp. 6; see also Pet. 8 (Petitioner alleging that in the Parallel Proceeding Patent Owner “conflates ‘magneto coupling’ . . . with a stator drive using a stationary electromagnet, instead of a rotating magnet, to rotate the rotor magnet,” and asserting that as the basis for Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler and Bourque as teaching a “magneto coupling” in this proceeding (citing Ex. 1019, 9–11; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87)). distinguished “magneto coupling” drives from drives using stators. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1011, 1 (explaining that the rotating field is generated by rotating magnets in a magnetic coupling pump and by electric stator windings in a stator pump)). Petitioner does not explain how this cited reference evidences that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “magneto coupling” requires rotating permanent magnets. At most, this reference teaches an example device that provides “magneto coupling.” See Ex. 1011, 1. In sum, we agree with Patent Owner that “magneto coupling,” consistent with our Institution Decision, encompasses generating a rotating field either by rotating magnets or by an electromagnet / stator. See Inst. Dec. 22” slip op. at 22

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

    “ignores the readily apparent fact that the lower arrow is placed in a location that misrepresents the minimum distance between the magnetically driven rotor and the second magnetic device to suggest that Wampler teaches “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor,” as required by claim 1. Petitioner purports to justify this misrepresentation by asserting that “the vast majority of the impeller 74 is spaced significantly farther apart from the stators 90 and 94 than the magnetic pieces 88 are positioned from the stators 90 and 94.” Id. at 33–34. Claim 1 does not recite any feature based on the “vast majority” of a component and it is readily apparent from Petitioner’s own annotated version of Figure 11a that the distance from both the “motor magnets [88]” and “impeller 74” to the “circular electromagnetic stator[s] [90 and 94]” is the same. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has provided a “misleading Figure with two red arrows denoting measurement distances to illustrate its incorrect view that the second magnetic device is farther from the magnetically driven rotor than from the first magnetic device.” PO Resp. 13–15 (providing an annotated version of Wampler’s Figure 11a with an orange arrow showing that in Wampler the distances from the second magnetic device to both the rotor and the first magnetic device are the same). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to show that Wampler teaches “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor.”” slip op. at 29

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

    “To orient the pump in the least obtrusive position (i.e., in the human configuration, as in Figure 3), it was decided that the rotational axis of the pump’s rotor should be perpendicular to the body’s long axis. That resulted in a sharp bend in the flow before it enters the impeller. To minimize the losses in this transition, the flow is slightly accelerated through this elbow. that this type of elbow [i.e., the elbow used with Bourque’s centrifugal pump] was unnecessary,” applying Wampler to Bourque would have improved “blood flow.” Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 418–419; Ex. 1007, 402; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76). As explained above, Wampler does not teach that “this type of elbow” was unnecessary. Bourque uses a centrifugal pump with an additional elbow specifically so that the centrifugal pump may be oriented “in the least obtrusive position.” Ex. 1007, 402. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion that eliminating the elbow from Bourque would improve “blood flow.” Mr. Crosby’s declaration provides no additional explanation or support to show how “blood flow” would have been improved. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 419. Nor does Mr. Crosby address the fact that Bourque expressly states that “flow is slightly accelerated” through the elbow to “minimize losses in this transition.” Ex. 1007, 402. Eliminating the elbow from Bourque, as Petitioner and Mr. Crosby propose, would mean the pump could no longer be placed in “the least obtrusive position” according to Bourque and there is no persuasive evidence that such a modification would improve blood flow.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 11,351,357 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,351,357
• Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC / Solaris Oilfield Site Services Personnel, LLC v. Masaba, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01179 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–25 are unpatentable under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Waldner, Dynatek, and additional references; the Board cancelled all challenged claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Also, to the extent Masaba relies on extrinsic expert testimony, we note that Masaba’s expert cites absolutely no support for his understanding of the claims, much less explains why we should adopt his understanding over the plain and ordinary meaning of “conveying aggregate” and “moving aggregate.” See Ex. 2004 ¶ 34. Absent supporting citations, such extrinsic testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. As such, we reject the notion that Waldner’s discharge chute member 242 is not a conveyor “for conveying aggregate” or “for moving aggregate,” as required by claim elements 1[h] and 1[i].” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree that Dr. Durham does not possess the necessary level of skill in the art to qualify as an expert in this case. Looking at the specification of the ’689 patent and the prior art of record, we think Masaba sets the bar too high. We acknowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art should have some education and/or experience in the mechanical art of conveying aggregate materials, but we do not think opining on the ’689 patent and asserted prior art necessarily requires that person to have the amount of education and experience that Masaba advocates. The ’689 patent relates generally to an “aggregate transferring system for receiving aggregate from a vehicle and elevating the aggregate to a higher vertical level for deposit into, for example, a silo.” Ex. 1001, 1:15– 18. And, as described in the ’689 patent and discussed later, the transferring system is an assembly of known types of conveyors, such as a belly-dump truck conveyor, a bucket elevator, and an articulated belt conveyor, for transferring the aggregate horizontally and vertically from a belly-dump truck to the discharge point, such as a silo. Without doubt, Dr. Durham has enough education and experience to reliably opine on the combination of known parts.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We reject this argument for several reasons. First, nowhere does the plain language of the claims specify how the aggregate is conveyed or moved from the conveyor extension assembly’s inlet to its outlet, be it passively by means of gravity or actively by means of a conveyor belt. Instead, the claims simply use those verbs according to their plain and ordinary meaning, which is “to transfer or deliver” or “to cause to go or pass” from one place to another. See Ex. 3001, 253 (defining “convey”), 760 (defining “move”).10 Second, the specification of the ’689 patent similarly uses these terms in a plain and ordinary sense, without ever attributing to them some sort of special meaning. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:9–12 (“The apparatus 10 is suitable for performing the transfer of aggregate from 10 We reference the original pagination of the dictionary in which these definitions appear. one location to another, such as, for example, from a vehicle carrying the aggregate to a silo 1 for storing the aggregate.”). The ’689 patent specification also makes clear that active conveyance of the aggregate is an option and not a requirement of the claimed invention, stating that the conveyor extension assembly “may further include a conveyor belt 150.” Ex. 1001, 10:60–66 (emphasis added). Limiting claim elements 1[h] and 1[i] to a device “for actively conveying” or “for actively moving aggregate” would improperly import limitations from the specification into the claims. Thus, based on the intrinsic evidence, we determine that claim elements 1h and 1k are properly construed to encompass passive and/or active movement of the aggregate via the conveyor extension assembly.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached

    “Owner asserts” that two claim terms—“unloader structure” and “trailer structure”—should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Solaris submits an express construction detailing the corresponding structure in the specification for performing the recited function of the claimed unloader and trailer structures. See id. at 24–25. Only in disputing Solaris’s Ground 3 does Masaba advocate that the claim term “trailer structure” should be construed under § 112(f), and then only in conjunction with dependent claims 3 and 21. See PO Resp. 58. As such, we address Masaba’s proposed construction in our analysis of Ground 3. We now turn to Solaris’s grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 11,780,689 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,780,689
• First Quality Retail Services, LLC / First Quality Consumer Products, LLC et al. v. Essity Hygiene And Health ABInstituted
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01487 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Nakazawa and Glaug.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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). Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the record at this stage, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. We also determine that the arguments and evidence of record do not support discretionary denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2

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

    “person of ordinary skill would modify either Nakazawa’s diffusion sheet or Glaug’s fluid acquisition system, but rather Petitioner argues “various layers in absorbent articles are invariably interchangeable.” Prelim. Resp. 41–42. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, as discussed above, Petitioner explains why and how a person of ordinary skill would modify Nakazawa’s diffusion sheet, and provides reasons for doing so. On this record, we find Petitioner’s reasoning sufficient.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner further argues Nakazawa teaches away from Petitioner’s asserted modification in which Glaug’s lower non-perforated layer is added to Nakazawa’s diffusion sheet. Prelim. Resp. 42. Specifically, Patent Owner argues Nakazawa teaches that its embodiment in which the second absorbent material is wrapped in a hydrophilic sheet has the advantage of preventing leakage of super absorbent polymer (“SAP”) from the second absorbent material without impeding permeation of excretory fluid through the hydrophilic sheet. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 85, Fig. 15). Patent Owner further relies on Petitioner’s argument that Nakazawa’s hydrophilic layer is analogous to the lower non-perforated layer in Glaug. Id. (citing Pet. 93–94). Therefore, Patent Owner argues, Nakazawa teaches that Glaug’s fluid acquisition system would impede permeation of fluid rather than promote it. Id. Patent Owner’s teaching away argument is unavailing based on the current record. Patent Owner improperly relies on Petitioner’s contention in its anticipation challenge based on Nakazawa, and characterizes it as an argument about Glaug. As further discussed in Section II.G below, Petitioner’s anticipation challenge is based on analogizing Nakazawa’s hydrophilic sheet to a core wrap feature identified in Patent Owner’s infringement contention in parallel district court litigation. See Pet. 92–93. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner’s obviousness contention does not argue Nakazawa’s hydrophilic layer is analogous to Glaug’s nonperforated fibrous layer. Because Patent Owner is not properly characterizing Petitioner’s obviousness contention, Patent Owner’s teaching away argument is not persuasive.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “Under Fintiv, we consider the following factors: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv at 5–6.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,308,138
• Deere & Company v. David’S Dozer V-Loc System, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01442 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–4 unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition and the Preliminary Response (including any other authorized submissions) “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.”” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art differs from that of Petitioner, primarily because Patent Owner contends that such a person of ordinary skill would have a certain degree of experience relating specifically to skid steers, or similar machinery, and their hydraulic systems. See Prelim. Resp. 8–10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 31). Insofar as we understand the significance of Patent Owner’s concerns about the differences between the parties’ proposals, these differences do not bear upon the issues addressed herein. Accordingly, for the purposes of the present Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, with regard to the issues addressed in this Decision, Petitioner’s proposed description of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill indicated by the ’300 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner made the deliberate choice to claim broadly,” eschewing “structural limitations that would have expressly or implicitly required the hydraulic of Element [1.4] to differ from the hydraulic of Element [1.5].” Reply 7. Further, Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner chose to generically recite ‘a hydraulic’ in each of Elements [1.4] and [1.5] without distinguishing labels, identifiers, or qualifiers.” Id. To the contrary, the two recited “hydraulic[s]” are distinguished by the language surrounding and modifying each instance in the method of claim 1. Indeed, the recitations of distinct operations performed by each “hydraulic,” in the claimed method, further support the understanding these are distinct and different structures. Additionally, as Patent Owner contends (see Prelim. Resp. 16), each instance of “hydraulic” is introduced with the indefinite article “a” — a signal that the two instances of “a hydraulic” do not refer to the same structure. See Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct components’ of the patented invention.”) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a “return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As Patent Owner argues, Petitioner’s proposed combination of Funk and Lewis “would interfere with the intended operation of the Funk control system to move the lift arms up and down in response to inter alia changes in the height signal.” Prelim. Resp. 20. This scenario is similar to that in Tec Air, 192 F.3d at 1356, which involved a claimed injection-molding technique that used screw-threaded adjustable plugs accessed from the inner, cavity-facing, side of the mold. The proposed combination included a prior art reference disclosing adjustment members accessed from the opposite, outer, side of the mold, and having a non-threaded smooth tip that extended through the mold and into the cavity. Id. at 1360. The Federal Circuit held that the prior art reference was properly determined to teach away from the claimed invention, because “no screw driver would be able to turn the smooth-headed screws from the cavity-side of the mold,” hence the proposed “combination would be inoperable for its intended purpose.” Id. Likewise, the proposed combination in the present matter teaches away from the subject matter of claim 1, because it would “immobilize [Funk’s] main arm,” and its associated hydraulic cylinder 18, “leaving just ‘one’ of Funk’s two adjustment mechanisms — blade tilt — available for grade control” (Pet. 10), thereby decreasing the system’s accuracy (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 113– 14) and negating the very technique that Funk relies upon to achieve its stated goal. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 7 (“[O]ne object of the present invention is to provide an automatic leveling control system that is sufficiently accurate for preparing the ground prior to the construction of concrete floors and foundations.”)” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,533,300
• Tommy John, Inc. v. Pakage Apparel, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01163 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–13, 15, and 16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition and the Preliminary Response (including any authorized submissions) “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.”” slip op. at 5

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

    “demonstrate any motivation to combine Kitsch and Brocks, other than they are both underwear” (Prelim. Resp. 23), we note that Petitioner articulates various reasons for combining the teachings of Kitsch with Brocks’ technique for shirring and gathering fabric with an elastic material, supported by Ms. Wagner’s testimony. See Pet. 25–27 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 68–72). Patent Owner does not address any of Petitioner’s stated reasons for combining Kitsch and Brocks. Moreover, whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine/modify the identified references’ teachings is “a question of fact.” WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1327. Petitioner’s argument is supported by the unrebutted testimony of Ms. Wagner, whereas Patent Owner’s contrary position amounts to attorney argument, which does not persuade us, in this instance, that there is not at least a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail at trial, based on the record before us. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner provides no sufficient evidence to rebut Ms. Wagner’s testimony as to what a POSITA would have understood, based upon Kitsch and Brocks, and as to the alleged motivations to combine Kitsch and Brocks, as provided in Ground 1.” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_dis trict_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Interim Procedure”). The Interim Procedure explains that “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure 3 (internal footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020- 01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”)). The Interim Procedure explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB . . . [and] allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8. In this proceeding, Petitioner “stipulates that if the Board institutes, it will not pursue in the related district court case ‘any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have raised’ during this proceeding.” Prelim. Reply. 5 (quoting Sotera 18–19). In view of Petitioner’s stipulation, which quotes Sotera and accords with the Interim Procedure, we decline to deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 23

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,834,974
• Catalyst Orthoscience Inc. v. Shoulder Innovations, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2024 · PGR2024-00042 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR challenging claims 1–16, finding the first five Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “during the conference and in the Minute Entry, and in the court’s subsequent Order Regarding Schedule. We also note that the evidence shows the district court may intend to reschedule the trial to a date substantially earlier than March 9, 2026. See Ex. 2010, 5; Ex. 1029, 10−11. However, given that the Order does not unambiguously set a trial date for December 1, 2025, or even sometime in December 2025 or January 2026 (see Ex. 1028), we decline to speculate as to what date the court may ultimately select for trial. Moreover, the record shows that Petitioner has consistently opposed moving the trial to a date earlier than March 9, 2026. See Ex. 2010, 5; Ex. 1026, 2−4; Ex. 1029, 11. We view Petitioner’s opposition as creating yet more ambiguity as to the trial date in the co-pending litigation. Therefore, we find that factor 2 is neutral because the exact trial date in district court is uncertain.” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot reached

    “if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo 4. This standard is only met “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49 (Vidal Oct. 4, 2022) (precedential) (citing Guidance Memo 4). We have reviewed Petitioner’s challenges and Patent Owner’s arguments. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner’s challenges have not risen to the threshold of compelling merits. Before addressing the parties’ arguments regarding the asserted grounds, we address: (a) the level of ordinary skill in the art, (b) claim construction, and (c) relevant principles of law; and we provide (d) overviews of the asserted art.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that its proffered additional level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the experience Petitioner describes. See Pet. 16. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Petitioner and supplemented by Patent Owner, because, based on the current record, it is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’561 patent and prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “In this regard, Mr. Fallin testifies that I have decades of experience working directly with joint replacement systems, including hip joint replacement systems, knee replacement systems, and facet joint replacement systems. My work on these joint replacement systems included my direct engagement or supervision of and professionals in the inventing, designing, fabricating, testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring regulatory compliance, commercializing, and patenting of these systems. Ex. 1002 ¶ 10. Mr. Fallin also testifies that his experience “includes working directly with supervising professionals whose responsibilities included designing, developing, and commercializing joint replacement systems and similar device[s].” Id. ¶ 67 As such, Mr. Fallin identifies “decades” of experience with joint replacement systems. Ex. 1002 ¶ 10. Moreover, Patent Owner does not persuasively explain why Mr. Fallin’s “direct engagement” and “working directly with,” as well as “supervision” of, other individuals designing joint replacement systems, does not at least imply personal design experience. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Therefore, we determine that the current record reflects that Mr. Fallin is qualified to testify as to the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,771,561
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00891 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 23–46 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Shin anticipates at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsDenied

    “Under the circumstances presented here, we find that discretionary denial is not warranted for the Petition in this case due to the parallel petition in IPR2024-00890. Given the large number of claims asserted by Patent Owner against Petitioner in the district court litigation, we do not consider two petitions asserting two single-reference grounds against forty claims including five independent claims to be excessive. The CTPG provides that assertion of a large number of claims in litigation is one circumstance under which more than one petition may be necessary. CTPG at 59. Furthermore, the two petitions challenge different claims of the ’031 patent. Claim length and subject matter complexity also justify the additional briefing presented by two petitions for which Patent Owner has been afforded the same amount” slip op. at 4

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

    “(see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)) that the record demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims on the merits, so we grant institution of the petitioned inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution because of the parallel petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts that A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of the asserted priority date would have had a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering, chemical engineering, chemistry, or a related or equivalent field, and two or more years of experience researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating (or supervising the same) medical devices for measuring analyte levels, including some experience with algorithms for calibrating such devices, or equivalent experience. Such experience could include either formal coursework in signal processing, computer science, or electrical engineering, or it could also be obtained during on-the-job experience. A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard. A POSA may have been part of an interdisciplinary team with others having the relevant experience set forth above and/or with clinicians. The prior art also evidences the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Since Petitioner does not propose any alternative construction for “drift profile” or construction of any other term in this proceeding, there is no dispute over claim terms that we need to decide to resolve. Accordingly, we will apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms in our analysis of the challenge grounds without express construction. See Nidec, supra. Id. (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). We note in passing, however, that Patent Owner’s stated definition of “drift profile” in its Preliminary Response seems to comport both with Petitioner’s proposal in the district court litigation4 as well as how the ’031 patent’s specification uses the terms “drift” and “profile” in the context of “sensitivity.” See Ex. 1001, 21:36–48 (discussing “drift”), 210:39–60 (discussing “profile”).” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,020,031

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.