• Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01462 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “experience working on the development of materials or components for electronic devices such as batteries.” Pet. 2. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education, such as a graduate degree, could compensate for less work experience, and additional work experience could compensate for less formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition because it appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’014 patent. See 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 8

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

    “customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). in this proceeding.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner contends that “[t]he Board need not construe any term in order to determine that institution should be denied.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 8

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

    “For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Hanafusa in light of Dobashi with a reasonable expectation of success as Petitioner contends. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that the subject matter of claim 1, and claims 4 and 8 that depend therefrom, would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Hanafusa and Dobashi.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner also focuses on Hanafusa’s teaching that all known methods can be used to make a rough surface low-profile, and Dobashi’s teaching that RSm can be used as an indicator for judgment of the surface, to support its contention that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Dobashi’s RSm to further achieve Hanafusa’s purpose, without explaining how and why that would be the case. In particular, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz adequately explain why a POSITA looking for ways to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile would look to methods to achieve as the period of waviness, RSm can also be used as an indicator for judgment of the surface.” Ex. 1005, 2:66–3:1, 6:23–26. Dobashi explains that waviness is “an indicator for determining whether the fine pattern forming performance is good or bad,” and “[t]he surface has small waviness and is smooth when RSm is large, and the surface has large waviness and is rough when RSm is small.” Id. at 3:1–3, 6:27–29. Dobashi also teaches that surface roughness Rzjis is used as a low-profile indicator. Ex. 1005, 2:66– 3:1. Dobashi, therefore, teaches that RSm is an indicator of surface waviness, which Dobashi explains is different than surface roughness. Id. at 2:66–3:3, 6:23–29. Given these teachings in Dobashi, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz sufficiently explains how or why a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Dobashi’s RSm values to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile. See Pet. 10–12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–52.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,346,014
• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01383 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not sufficiently establish a reason to modify the asserted prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s argument because it fails to address Dr. Schubert’s academic and other experience with GaN transistors. Dr. Schubert is currently a tenured full professor in the Department of Electrical Computer, and Systems Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and was previously a tenured full professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boston University. Ex. 2001, 129. Additionally, Dr. Schubert was the director of Boston University’s Semiconductor Devices Research Laboratory. Ex. 2001, 129. Dr. Schubert persuasively explains that his general expertise is in the field of electrical engineering and applied physics, including semiconductors, processing, and devices and his specific expertise is in the field of semiconductor materials (such as GaN), semiconductor devices, semiconductor integrated circuits, ohmic contacts, Schottky contacts, HEMTs, and optoelectronic devices such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Ex. 2001 ¶ 11, App’x A pp.129–137. His experience includes “the design, growth, fabrication, and testing of semiconductor devices as well as the employment of these devices in a variety of applications” and he is “familiar with both the design of such transistors [HEMTs] and the manufacturing processes used for FETs. Ex. 2001 ¶ 11, App’x A, pp. 129–137. He is an author or co-author of numerous text books and articles, and co-inventor of numerous patents, including those dealing with HEMT transistors and GaN devices. Ex. 2001 ¶ 13, App’x A, pp. 129–137. Petitioner fails to present any persuasive argument or evidence that Dr. Schubert’s extensive education and experience regarding GaN transistors is insufficient or lacking such that his testimony should be given little weight. Finally, we disagree with Petitioner’s additional argument that that its expert’s testimony (Dr. Shealy) should be given more weight than Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony (Dr. Schubert) because “[u]nlike Dr. Schubert, Dr. Shealy is one of the pioneer scientists in the field of GaN transistors.” Reply 34 (stating that Dr. Shealy’s research lab built the first GaN HEMT device on silicon in 1999 and citing Ex. 2002, 87:19–238). Obviousness is determined through the lens of a “person of ordinary skill in the art,” not through the lens of a person with extraordinary skill or a pioneer in the field. Given Dr. Schubert’s extensive relevant education and experience, Petitioner does not persuasively explain why Dr. Shealy’s testimony on any specific topic, or his testimony in general, should be given more weight than Dr. Schubert’s.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”). Graham, , 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or material science or a closely related field and at least two years of experience in semiconductor device design or fabrication, including the processing of semiconductor materials, analysis of device operation, or the development of new device topologies. Additional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex 1003 ¶ 69). Patent Owner did not dispute this proposed definition prior to institution. See generally Prelim. Resp. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. After institution, Patent Owner asserted a slightly different definition of a POSITA, namely someone who “would have possessed at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, physics, material science, or a closely related field, and three years of professional work experience in the epitaxial growth, design, and fabrication of semiconductor electronic devices, including those of GaN.” Resp. 17. Relevant graduate education could substitute for the professional work experience. Id. Upon review of the full record, we see no reason to modify, and we thus maintain, the definition of a POSITA applied in our Decision on Institution. We also determine that our decision would be the same under either of the parties’ proposed definitions.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “During the proceeding, the parties also dispute the proper construction of “etching away the doped GaN layer, except a portion of the doped GaN layer beneath the gate contact” as recited in step [1e4] and provided briefing on this issue. Papers 35, 36, 37, 38. Because, as explained below, our determination rests upon Petitioner’s failure to show a sufficient reason to modify the asserted art, which is not dependent upon any particular claim construction, we need not, and do not, address these claim construction issues. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeDenied

    “III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBIT 2008 Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 25, “Mot.”) Exhibit 2008, which is a hearing transcript from the parallel ITC investigation. Mot. 1. Because we do not rely upon Exhibit 2008 in our Decision, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 8,404,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,404,508
• LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v. Molecular Rebar Design, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-01005 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–23 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been shown unpatentable.

  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) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, 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 under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2

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

    “under the sixth Fintiv factor only after a determination that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial. CommScope, 4–5. Here, we do not find the first five factors cumulatively weigh in favor of discretionary denial. Therefore, we determine that the circumstances here do not warrant an analysis of whether the Petition presents compelling merits, and the considerations of the sixth Fintiv factor weigh against exercising discretionary denial. F. Conclusion Having considered the parties’ arguments in view of the Fintiv factors, and taking into account Petitioner’s stipulation, we determine that the circumstances here do not warrant exercising discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. IV.” slip op. at 35

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

    “Thus, although both parties indicate that no claim construction is necessary at this stage of the proceeding, it is apparent that they disagree as to the meaning of “discrete carbon nanotubes.” While Petitioner appears to construe “discrete carbon nanotubes” as “nanotubes that are generally individually distinct” (Pet. 13), Patent Owner argues a more restricted construction requiring that “discrete carbon nanotubes” not be reacted with other components. Prelim. Resp. 3. The evidence relating to claim 10 In quotations from the Preliminary Response throughout this Decision, we have retained bolding and underlining added to the text by Patent Owner. construction that Patent Owner offers on the current record, however, does not address its proposed restriction. See id. at 9, n. 4, citing Ex. 1001, 3:9, 5:39–40 (“The ’649 Patent describes the ‘discrete carbon nanotubes’ as, for example, ‘individually dispersed’, ‘individualized carbon nanotubes’, ‘dispersed as individual nanotubes’, and ‘essentially discrete individual fibers, not entangled as a mass.’”). As discussed in Section II.D.2 below, we determine based on the record at this stage of the proceeding that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that Sun discloses or suggests “discrete carbon nanotubes.” Therefore, we do not explicitly construe any claim terms in this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“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))). If either party intends to argue a claim construction at trial, however, including what is the ordinary meaning of a term, they should do so in a clearly designated section of their briefing. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 21, 2019) (“CTPG”), 46, 49 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”). Claim construction arguments should not be relegated to patentability arguments on the facts.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least [a] Master’s degree in materials science, chemistry, chemical engineering, a field relevant to polymer science and engineering, or the equivalent, and at least three years of experience in nanomaterials, electrochemistry, batteries, or polymer related activities.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditional work experience can compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’649 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,636,649
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00900 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–17 were not shown unpatentable: Lee-based grounds fail on the stackable add-on layer limitation, and Watanabe-based grounds fail on nonvolatile memory, enablement, or motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “meaning in the art. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that, absent an accepted meaning in the art, “we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided for by the patent itself”). Thus, we must attempt to discern the meaning of this term from the claim language itself and from the remainder of the intrinsic record. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate.” slip op. at 10

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

    “As discussed above, we construe “stackable add-on layer” to not include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. See Pet. 52 (asserting that in Lee “the layers of the array are directly deposited on the layers of each underlying level, and the array is deposited on the interlayer insulating layer formed over a substrate”); see also id. at 70 (“Lee discloses forming vertical memory devices through layer-by-layer sequential deposition on the substrate . . . .”). Therefore, Petitioner does not show that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 54–59. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 15 would have been obvious in view of Lee alone. E. Claims 16 and 17 over Lee and Endoh Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Lee and Endoh. Pet. 59–69. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims, however, do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Lee and its monolithic, sequentially deposited memory array. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over Lee and Endoh.” slip op. at 18

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

    “combined Lee and Watanabe to achieve improved integration density. Pet. 71. Petitioner concedes, however, that the benefits of Lee’s design related to 3-D integration and improved integration density would be obtained if Lee’s memory structures are formed using either Lee’s monolithic construction method or Watanabe’s alternative stacking method. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶ 34). Thus, we are not persuaded that improved integration density provides a sufficient rationale for Petitioner’s combination of Lee’s memory device and Watanabe’s stacking method. Petitioner argues that Watanabe’s stacking method “improves the accuracy of the wiring” because the wiring is made “for each planar member.” Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:1–3). Watanabe also states that its disclosed methods provide “a low interconnection wire resistance.” Ex. 1005, 6:20–23. Petitioner does not, however, explain sufficiently how Watanabe’s stacking method would improve Lee’s device. For example, Petitioner does not address whether the alleged wiring benefit already existed in Lee’s monolithic array or explain how this benefit would also apply to Lee’s particular memory array, which differs in construction and elements from Watanabe’s device. This diminishes Petitioner’s benefits-based motivation to combine arguments. In general, a petitioner need not demonstrate that a particular alternate method would improve a prior art device in order to show a motivation to combine. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023); see Pet. Reply 20 (citing Intel). But here, Petitioner affirmatively invokes improvement of Lee’s device as a reason for the combination, and we must evaluate Petitioner’s contention. Moreover, any relative lack of improvement or benefits must be weighed against any problems the alternative method would introduce. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795–96 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting that simultaneous advantages and disadvantages to a proposed combination must be analyzed to determine whether the disadvantages “outweighed any reason to combine”). Here, as discussed above in more detail with respect to the ground based on Watanabe, the evidence shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Watanabe’s bonding temperature of 900– 1000° C to damage the electronic devices in an underlying substrate. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 75–76; Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7; Ex. 2027, 715. The expected damage to Lee’s device, when balanced against the limited evidence of a benefit to the combination,7 outweighs the reason to combine Lee and Watanabe set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe. 2. Analysis – Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 both depend directly from independent claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claims 14 and 15 do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 73. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe.” slip op. at 40

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “We credit the testimony of Dr. Przybylski that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Watanabe’s stacked structure would be severely impacted if bonded at a temperature above 900° C, as disclosed in Watanabe. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 76–77. Dr. Przybylski’s opinion is supported by Dr. Lee’s testimony (Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7, 125:6–126:7), as well as Watanabe (Ex. 1005, 6:6–14) and Batude (Ex. 2027, 715). As further discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not rebutted Patent Owner’s showing of nonenablement, and Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate that Watanabe was not enabled for bonding temperatures of 900–1000° C, as of the 2004 filing date of the ’702 patent.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,378,702
• Honeywell International Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00493 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Honeywell did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were unpatentable over any of its three obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claim 1 or dependent claims 2–9 over the combination of Simmelink and Section 73.1015.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelOther

    “PHOSITA) at the time of the ’532 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in the field of chemistry, chemical engineering, polymer chemistry, or materials science and at least three years of relevant work experience in the field of high strength fibers.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Petitioner adds that individuals with different educational backgrounds could still be of ordinary skill in the art if they have “additional experience [that] compensates for a deficit in their education and experience stated above.” Id. According to Patent Owner, a person or ordinary skill in the art, would have (i) a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, polymer chemistry, materials science, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering and (ii) three years of experience in designing and manufacturing gel-spun UHMWPE yarns. At this level of skill, a PHOSITA would have a detailed understanding of the information provided in the Technology Background, Section II, supra, including (i) the differences between linear HDPE and UHMWPE, (ii) the history underlying Section 73.1015 and the early failures of the 1960s-era blue, melt-extruded polyethylene sutures, (iii) why the molecular orientation of polyethylene molecules leads to strong yarns in the special case of gel-spun UHMWPE, and (iv) the challenges associated with coloring gel-spun UHMWPE yarns, especially for end-use medical applications. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar, except that Patent Owner additionally recognizes a Bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering and requires experience in designing and manufacturing gel-spun UHMWPE yarns. In any event, we do not need to the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 6

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

    “a skilled artisan would have understood that the “gel spinning” process recited in the claims requires the use of a solvent during the spinning process. Indeed, the Specification describes this term, as follows: Gel spinning is understood to include at least the steps of spinning filaments from a solution of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in a spin solvent; cooling the filament obtained to form a gel filament removing at least partly the spin solvent from the gel filament; removing at least partly the spin solvent from the gel filament; and drawing the filament in at least one drawing step before during or after removing spin solvent. Ex. 1001, 2:31–37. We recognize the inventor’s lexicography as dispositive with respect to the meaning of the term “gel spinning.” See Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005); SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Claim 1 describes gel spinning as the manner by which the filaments comprised in the claimed colored multi-filament yarn are obtained. This, on its face, is a product-by-process claim element because it describes the filament structure being obtained in a particular way, i.e., by gel spinning. See Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, 43 F.4th 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (agreeing with the Board that “cast in one piece” is a product-by-process claim element as it describes the structure being cast “in a particular way”). For this element to be limiting, it must impart “structural and functional differences” that distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, 580 F.3d 1340, 1365–67 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Patent Owner argues persuasively that gel spinning imparts structural and functional differences to the claimed product because the process “creates overlap between polyethylene molecules within the UHMWPE filaments that maximizes the intermolecular Van der Waals interactions, resulting in highly crystalline filaments with high tensile strength.” Prelim. Resp. 38, 22 (citing Ex. 1014, 62–66). According to Patent Owner, “the structure of the gel spun UHMWPE is substantially different from other types of UHMWPE such as compression-molded and ram-extruded UHMWPE used to make joint replacements and other orthopedic implants.” Id. at 38.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,280,532
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00239 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of claims 1–20 of the ’094 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The express language of the claim, however, does not support using the “central axis” as the measuring point for determining if one object is laterally offset from another. For example, the term “central axis” is not used in the relevant claim phrase and the dictionary definitions of “lateral” relied upon by Petitioner and Mr. Jobin to show the ordinary meaning of the claim term do not suggest that the “central axis” is the reference point for determining whether a first object is “laterally offset” from a second object. As such, we determine that the claim language supports Patent Owner’s construction requiring that the “groove” be “off to the side” of the entire mandrel, and not merely the “central axis” of the mandrel. Prelim. Resp. 54. We must also resolve whether the entire groove is required to be laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel, or only a portion of it. On this point, the claims do not use the term “portion,” but rather specify that the “groove” is “laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel.” Ex. 1001, 14:4– 5, 15:19–20. This suggests that the entire “groove” must be offset from the “chamfered mandrel.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “That argument, however, does not explain why it would have been obvious to laterally offset the groove of Yoakim from the chamfered mandrel. Rather, as demonstrated by Mr. Jobin’s testimony, this argument relates to the general use of a sealing member in a groove, to the extent it was ultimately determined that such a configuration is not expressly disclosed in Yoakim. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 296 (“It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to position a sealing member in a groove to solidify the between counter-force portion 161 and engaging portion 157 in Figure 35 of Yoakim is more appropriately identified as the claimed “groove.” Prelim. Resp. 60–61. We need not resolve this issue, however, as Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate that either potential “groove” is “laterally offset” from the chamfered mandrel. placement of the seal and improve its sealing stability and strength. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a groove and seal configuration in the brewing head . . . .”) (emphasis added). Even if we interpret the recited portion of the Petition as an argument for placing the groove entirely to the side of the mandrel in Yoakim, the Petition does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to do so. In Figure 35 of Yoakim, the seal and groove, as well as an elastic loading means, act as a valve means to control the level of pressure exerted in the capsule and “optimize interaction of water and the ground coffee particles to obtain a good extraction of the coffee and aroma compounds.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 370–372, 382, 396–398, 434–436, 445; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 286–290; Pet. 63. These are the same beneficial properties relied upon by Petitioner to support the proposed combination, and Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yoakim in order to achieve results that are already obtained in the identified embodiment. Pet. 63. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 12 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch 929, and Rossi.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,542,094
• Mahle Behr Charleston Inc. v. Frank Amidio CatalanoOther
  PTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Remand

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under any asserted ground.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Accordingly, the Director instructed us to “determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Figure 1 of Godefroy ‘is clear on its face’ or would have reasonably suggested the placement of Godefroy’s sacrificial anode ‘within 10 inches’ of the hot liquid inlet.” Id. at 9. “In making this determination,” the Director instructed us to “consider whether the expert testimony provides sufficient ‘technical detail, explanation, or statements supporting why the expert determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.’” Id. In addition, although the Director’s decision “is limited to [our] application of Hockerson to the grounds in the Petition involving Godefroy,” the Director instructed us also to “consider what effect, if any, this decision has on the other asserted grounds.” Id. Finally, the Director instructed us to “set forth [our] interpretation” of “the limitation ‘within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.’” Id. at 8 n.4.” slip op. at 4

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

    “original decision, the Director’s decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 19

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

    “evidence. The challenged claims require that a sacrificial anode be placed within a certain distance—10 inches—of the hot liquid inlet, and, because the inlet has some non-zero size, it might be possible for an anode to be within that distance from some parts, but not from all parts, of the inlet. Accordingly, specifying the center axis of the inlet as the point from which to measure the distance to the anode improves on the plain words of the claim in terms of achieving the claim’s objective of placing the anode within a specified distance of the inlet. Moreover, when discussing the distance from the inlet to the anode, the specification of the ’494 patent uses the language “within 10 inches in any direction of the center axis of the inlet connection.” Ex. 1001, 7:61–64. Thus, the intrinsic evidence supports adopting Petitioner’s claim construction. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Medlin, relies on Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20 (noting that the construction “within 10 inches of the center axis of [a] hot liquid inlet” “ha[s] been adopted by Petitioner”), 96 (“the sacrificial anodes contained in each of the turbulators 2 would be placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator of Tomosada”), 144 (“A POSITA would understand from Figure 1 that the sacrificial anode 14 is within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet”), 267 (“These teachings would further motivate a POSITA to located the sacrificial anode 12 within 10 inches of a center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”). This support for Petitioner’s proposed construction provides further reason for us to adopt it. Because it is supported by the intrinsic evidence of record, because Patent Owner proposes no alternative construction, and because Petitioner’s expert supports it, we adopt the construction of “within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator” that Petitioner proposes. Thus, we construe this term as “within 10 inches of the center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.” In other words, when discussing the distance between a hot liquid inlet and a sacrificial anode, we interpret “hot liquid inlet” as “center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Inherency may be relied upon in arguing either anticipation or obviousness. Schering, 339 F.3d at 1377 (applying inherency in an anticipation context); Par Pharma. Inc. v. TWI Pharma., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying inherency in an obviousness context). In both cases, however, “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements expressly disclosed by the prior art.” Par Pharma., 773 F.3d at 1195–96. Here, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that, in Godefroy, the sacrificial anode necessarily is placed within 10 inches of the center axis of the hot liquid inlet. Dr. Medlin testifies that Figure 1 of Godefroy shows that “an entirety . . . or at least a significant portion of the sacrificial anode 14, is within 10 inches of a center axis of the inlet.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 144. But we cannot say that Figure 1 of Godefroy is clear on its face, or reasonably suggests, that this is necessarily the case. There are no dimensions shown on Figure 1, so it is unclear from the figure what the diameter of pipe 12 is. If that diameter is larger than 20 inches, then it simply is untrue that “sacrificial anode 14 is . . . necessarily placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator,” as Dr. Medlin testifies. Id. ¶ 361. As noted above, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Medlin relies on the hot liquid inlet of Godefroy having any particular diameter, and Godefroy is silent as to the diameter of its inlet. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 144, 359–361, 381–382, 406–408; Ex. 1008, 1–15. Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, there is a wide range of sizes of radiators, including automobile radiators, available. Prelim. Resp. 3–5; Exs. 2001–2003. In the absence of any testimony or other evidence that tends to show that radiator inlet pipes necessarily have diameters less than 20 inches, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the diameter of Godefroy’s inlet pipe is small enough to ensure that any portion of the anode necessarily is within 10 inches of the center axis of the inlet.” slip op. at 11

  Claim constructioncites Phillips
• Mara Renewables Corporation v. DSM IP Assets, B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00070 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 were anticipated by Radianingtyas or obvious over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we construe the claim term “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding that the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application”). Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any claim term.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not provide a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent Owner also states that any differences between the parties’ proposed definition of the skill level would not impact its arguments. Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the skill level because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill at the relevant time. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “triglyceride, DHA, and heptadecanoic acid content recited therein. In order to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). A reference, however, can anticipate a claim “even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). As explained below, here, Petitioner has not shown Radianingtyas discloses a microbial oil comprising the required triglyceride, DHA and heptadecanoic acid content. Specifically, although the exemplified strain ONC-T18 produces oil that meets the claimed triglyceride fraction and heptadecanoic acid level, Petitioner has not shown the same oil contains the recited DHA level.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,207,363
• Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01349 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim on any ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “Given this, to show that Blangero’s disclosure of MgO or LiF in its coating teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure, Petitioner needs to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood the compounds to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO or LiF in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. On the first point, Petitioner argues that “‘the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions’ of MgO is ‘a rocksalt cubic structure of NaCl (space group Fm-3m).’” Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1030, 16; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 142). But, as Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hayes, points out, Blangero does not teach forming MgO in a room-temperature process. Ex. 1003 ¶ 142 (Blangero’s “second firing step” occurs at “925 °C for 12 hours”); see Ex. 1005 ¶ 110 (teaching the firing step to which Dr. Hayes refers). Thus, the significance of rock-salt-type MgO being “the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions” is unclear. To the extent that Dr. Hayes explains why MgO, which “is well known to crystallize even at substantially lower temperatures,” such as “room temperature and pressure conditions,” would “do so more readily at [a higher temperature of] 925 °C,” this argument is not discussed, nor even cited, in the Petition. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–94; see Pet. 28. Accordingly, any reliance on this argument by Petitioner constitutes improper incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood MgO to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. Similarly, with respect to LiF, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Hayes sufficiently explains the choice of rock-salt-type material over other options. Pet. 29 (arguing only that Ex. 1013 shows that “LiF has rock salt structure”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 143 (same). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure by virtue of its teaching that either MgO or LiF is present.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The 2012 study on which Petitioner relies did not find “superior structural stability” over other lithium-titanium-oxygen compounds, as Petitioner argues. Instead, the study noted that the structure of “LiTiO2 prepared by high-temperature sintering TiO2 with lithium salt . . . impl[ies] LiTiO2 has superior structural stability in organic electrolyte as compared to other Li-Ti-O oxides.” Ex. 1029, 1. Thus, the structural stability was implied from the chemical structure of the material rather than found through study of the material. Moreover, the implied structural stability was only for LiTiO2 that was prepared in a particular way, by high-temperature sintering of TiO2 with lithium salt, and Petitioner does not allege that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared the LiTiO2 they substituted for Blangero’s Li2TiO3 using this method. As for Petitioner’s argument that the study found that LiTiO2 outperformed Li2TiO3, we are not persuaded. The study compared particles with an LiTiO2 coating to uncoated particles, not to particles coated with Li2TiO3. Ex. 1029, 4, Figs. 4(c), 4(d). Although the study notes that particles coated with “[m]onoclinic Li2TiO3 and spinel Li4Ti5O12” exhibit “a noticeable capacity decay . . . when charged at high operating voltage and cycled above room temperature,” it concludes only that particles coated with LiTiO2 “exhibited inspiring high-voltage cycling capability as well as thermal stability than the pristine counterpart.” Id. at 1, 4. In addition, the pristine particles used in the study were made from “Li[NixCoyMnz]O2 (0≤x,y,z<1) (called as LNCM),” and the particles in Blangero do not contain either nickel or manganese in their cores. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9–40 (particles contain lithium, oxygen, cobalt, and metals chosen from the group consisting of aluminum, gallium, boron, magnesium, titanium, iron, copper, calcium, barium, yttrium, tin, antimony, sodium, zinc, zirconium, silicon); Ex. 1029, 1. Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the study’s results to extend to Blangero’s particles made from a different material. Pet. 29–30. Because Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a second region comprising a rock-salt crystal structure or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to substitute rocksalt-type LiTiO2 for the materials disclosed in Blangero, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on claim 1 on its Blangero-based grounds.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, “[i]ndividuals with different education and additional experience could still [have been] of ordinary skill in the art if that additional experience compensate[d] for a deficit in their education and experience.” Id. On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’660 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’660 patent and the prior art. See 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 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,043,660
• Mara Renewables Corporation v. DSM IP Assets, B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01342 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was anticipated or obvious over the asserted references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’959 patent. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that, as of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’959 patent, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a Master of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing chemistry, chemical engineering, or biochemistry, in combination with training or at least two to three years of related work experience with lipid chemistry technologies, including but not limited to lipid extraction technologies.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–64). Alternatively, Petitioner proposes that an ordinarily skilled artisan “could have also had a Doctorate degree in a relevant academic discipline with one to two years of related work experience in the same discipline.” Id. Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with microbial oils” and “would have understood the benefits of polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), microbial sources for obtaining them, and methods for culturing and extracting oils from those microbial sources.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–48, 64). Patent Owner does not provide a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but “reserves its right to proffer what it contends to be the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art should the Board institute review.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner asserts, however, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a detailed understanding of the information provided in its Technology Background section, including “the expected impact of cellular biomass growth characteristics on the proportion of triglycerides and phospholipids produced during a microbial fermentation.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). As to the background knowledge possessed by the ordinarily skilled artisan, we agree that such an artisan would have been aware of methods for culturing and extracting oils from microbial sources, including the impact of growth characteristics on the proportions of triglycerides and phospholipids produced during microbial fermentation. Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 15.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms of the ’959 patent “should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not contend that any claim terms require construction. Prelim. Resp. 14–15. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “3. Analysis In order to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Radianingtyas discloses microbial oils with various levels of DHA and arachidonic acid. There is no disclosure of an individual microbial oil, however, that contains at least 45% DHA and 1.5% or less arachidonic acid by weight as required by claim 1. With respect to the level of DHA, although Radianingtyas might be interpreted to disclose that some microorganisms can produce up to 60% DHA,8 Radianingtyas discloses that the DHA content of ONC-T18 is “typical[ly]” 35% of the total intracellular fatty acids, and in each experiment disclosed in Radianingtyas DHA was produced by ONC-T18 at 8 Radianingtyas discloses that “the oil producing microbe can produce a lipid composition comprising from about 25% to about 40% of an omega-3 fatty acid, such as n-3 DHA.” Ex. 1007, 26:31–33. It then gives examples that include 15%, 20%, 45%, 50%, 55%, and 60%, which are outside of the disclosed range. Id. at 26:33–34. Dr. Curtis contends the disclosure as a whole should be read as “from about 15% to about 60% of an omega-3 fatty acid, such as n-3 DHA.” Ex. 1003, 39 n.1. Dr. Curtis identifies no microbe in Radianingtyas, however, that is shown to produce more than 40% DHA, and Radianingtyas expressly notes that the typical DHA content produced by ONC-T18 is 35%. Thus, we question Dr. Curtis’ conclusions regarding the DHA content disclosure of Radianingtyas. levels less than “at least 45%.”9 Ex. 1007, 32:21–25 (noting that the “typical composition of fatty acids” produced by ONC-T18 includes 25% DHA), 34:4–37:14 (noting that the control microorganism produced 13.54%, 19.98%, 18.77%, 18.77%, 21.48%, 28.48%, and 14.13% DHA) (Figure 12), 91 (Table 5) (noting that total DHA produced by ONC-T18 was from 24- 34.2%), 99:22–24 (“Of particular interest is ONC-T18 which produces up to 90% of its C20 to C22 content as DHA which is approximately 35% of the total intracellular fatty acids.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that Radianingtyas discloses microbial oils produced by ONC-T18 that have a DHA content of “at least 45%.” As noted by Petitioner, Radianingtyas provides a definition of “purify” and “purifying,” and notes that when these terms are used, it means that a composition could be, for example, 90% pure. Pet. 11; Ex. 1007, 7:26–8:2. As an example of how the term “purified” may be used, Radianingtyas states “[f]or example, if a disclosed eukaryotic microorganism, for example, produces 35% DHA, this could be further ‘purified’ such that the final lipid composition was greater than 90% DHA.” Id. at 8:2–4. We are directed to no actual microbial oil in Radianingtyas, however, that was purified to have increased levels of DHA. Rather, Petitioner only proffers what Radianingtyas might say if such an oil existed or had been purified to increase levels of DHA.10” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,757,959

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.