• Bluebird Bio, Inc. v. Sloan Kettering Institute For Cancer ResearchNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00074 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because the cited May references did not sufficiently disclose or guide a skilled artisan to the claimed LCR fragments.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’061 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner states that “that no term of the ’061 patent requires construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51) (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not argue for any express claim constructions. See PO Resp. Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “represents the inventors’ own work, and thus the May Thesis is not prior art to the ’061 patent. PO Resp. 14–15. The May Thesis is authored by Chad May, who is a listed inventor of the ’061 patent. Id.; Ex. 1004, 3; Ex. 1001, code (75). Thus, the May Thesis represents the work of one of the ’061 inventors and is therefore ineligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on the July 1, 2002 priority date. See, e.g., In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454–455 (CCPA 1982) (a prior publication by inventors or a subset of the inventors does not qualify as prior art under 102(a)). With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we find that the May Thesis is ineligible as prior art, even assuming that the Challenged Claims are not entitled to receive benefit of an earlier filing date. Petitioner provides evidence that the May Thesis was publicly available as of November 26, 2001. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 1–26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). Patent Owner does not dispute that evidence. Based on the undisputed November 26, 2001 public availability date, the May Thesis represents a disclosure less than one year before the asserted effective filing date, i.e., July 1, 2002. Based on that timing and because the disclosure was made by the inventor, the May Thesis is not available as prior art to the Challenged Claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).” slip op. at 11

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

    “summarized above, we determine that the May Article fails to disclose the restriction sites surrounding the BstXI and SnaBI HS2-, BamHI and HindIII HS3-, or BamHI and BanII HS4-spanning nucleotide fragments, as required by the challenged claims. According to Petitioner, that limitation is inherently disclosed by the May Article’s description of the lengths of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments in the TNS9 vector and its depiction of those fragments on a map of the LCR. Pet. 28. To support its inherency argument, Petitioner relies on knowledge in the art, i.e., the availability of the entire map of the LCR region, and the availability of restriction enzymes, including BstX1, SnaBI, BamHI, HindIII, and BanII. Id. at 39–40 (citing Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1381–83). Based on that combined information, Petitioner contends that a POSA would “have been able to map all of the possible restriction sites in the regions flanking the cores of HS2, HS3, and HS4.” Id. Petitioner asserts further that “[g]iven the May Article’s disclosure regarding the size and location of TNS9’s HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments, a POSA would have placed these fragments onto the restrictionsite map of the LCR” that was available at the time, and would have identified only six possible combinations of restriction enzyme fragments, including the one recited in claim 1. Id. Upon closer inspection, however, we appreciate from the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bungert, that the process involved in arriving at those six possible combinations is predicated on numerous assumptions guiding a number of exacting steps to be performed in order to achieve the the claimed LCR fragment would have involved the steps of (a) placing fragments that are the disclosed size of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments from the TNS9 vector in the May Article onto the known restriction-site map of the LCR; (b) comparing those fragments to the “‘drawn to scale’ map” in the May Article; and then (c) identifying various fragments and determining which ones are consistent with the May Article’s description and match up with the fragments on the May Article’s drawn to scale map. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–156. To identify the fragments consistent with the May Article’s description, it was necessary for Dr. Bungert to use certain assumptions that exclude unfavorable enzymes, such as using a range of ± 20 bp in order to identify fragments with lengths that are within 20 bp of the fragments reported in the May Article. Id. In view of the number of assumptions and steps required to get from what is disclosed in the May Article to arrive at the alleged “six possible LCRs (i.e., combination of HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments based on the TNS9 LCR disclosed in the May Article)—including the LCR recited in claim 1,” Ex. 1002 ¶ 156, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated that fragments having the restriction sites recited in claim 1 would have been “at once envisaged” by a skilled artisan as argued by Petitioner. Pet. 39–40.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,058,061 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,058,061
• Bluebird Bio, Inc. v. Sloan Kettering Institute For Cancer ResearchNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00070 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10, 19, and 22 were not shown unpatentable because the May Thesis was not prior art and the May Article and May Abstract did not establish the claimed LCR fragments.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’179 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “the ’179 patent. Id.; Ex. 1004, 3; Ex. 1001, code (75). Thus, the May Thesis represents the work of one of the ’179 inventors and is therefore ineligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) for challenged claims 1, 19, and 22. See, e.g., In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454–455 (CCPA 1982) (a prior publication by inventors or a subset of the inventors does not qualify as prior art under 102(a)). With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we find that the May Thesis is ineligible as prior art, even assuming that claims 1, 19, and 22 are not entitled to receive benefit of an earlier filing date. Petitioner provides evidence that the May Thesis was publicly available as of November 26, 2001. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 1–26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). Patent Owner does not dispute that evidence. Based on the undisputed November 26, 2001 public availability date, the May Thesis represents a disclosure less than one year before the asserted effective filing date, i.e., the July 1, 2002, for claims 1, 19, and 22 challenged with this reference. Based on that timing and because the disclosure was made by the inventor, the May Thesis is not available as prior art to challenged claims 1, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Petitioner has not established that the May Thesis is prior art to claims” slip op. at 11

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

    “summarized above, we determine that the May Article fails to disclose the restriction sites surrounding the BstXI and SnaBI HS2-, BamHI and HindIII HS3-, or BamHI and BanII HS4-spanning nucleotide fragments, as required by the challenged claims. According to Petitioner, that limitation is inherently disclosed by the May Article’s description of the lengths of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments in the TNS9 vector and its depiction of those fragments on a map of the LCR. Pet. 28. To support its inherency argument, Petitioner relies on knowledge in the art, i.e., the availability of the entire map of the LCR region, and the availability of restriction enzymes, including BstX1, SnaBI, BamHI, HindIII, and BanII. Id. at 30–31 (citing Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1381–83). Based on that combined information, Petitioner contends that a POSA would “have been able to map all of the possible restriction sites in the regions flanking the cores of HS2, HS3, and HS4.” Id. Petitioner asserts further that “[g]iven the May Article’s disclosure regarding the size and location of [TNS9’s] HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments, a POSA would have placed these fragments onto the restrictionsite map of the LCR” that was available at the time, and would have identified only six possible combinations of restriction enzyme fragments, including the one recited in claim 1. Id. Upon closer inspection, however, we appreciate from the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bungert, that the process involved in arriving at those six possible combinations is predicated on numerous assumptions guiding a number of exacting steps to be performed in order to achieve the claimed LCR fragment. According to Dr. Bungert, the process for making the claimed LCR fragment would have involved the steps of (a) placing fragments that are the disclosed size of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments from the TNS9 vector in the May Article onto the known restriction-site map of the LCR; (b) comparing those fragments to the “‘drawn to scale’ map” in the May Article; and then (c) identifying various fragments and determining which ones are consistent with the May Article’s description and match up with the fragments on the May Article’s drawn to scale map. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117. To identify the fragments consistent with the May Article’s description, it was necessary for Dr. Bungert to use certain assumptions that exclude unfavorable enzymes such as using a range of ± 20 bp in order to identify fragments with lengths that are within 20 bp of the fragments reported in the May Article. Id. In view of the number of assumptions and steps required to get from what is disclosed in the May Article to arrive at the alleged “six possible LCRs (i.e., combination of HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments based on the TNS9 LCR disclosed in the May Article)—including the LCR recited in claim 1,” Ex. 1002 ¶ 117, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated that fragments having the restriction sites recited in claim 1 would have been “at once envisage[d]” by a skilled artisan as argued by Petitioner. Pet. 30–31.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,541,179 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,541,179
• BTC Corporation v. TG Biotech Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00998 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to strike Exhibit 1038 was granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that we should disregard Dr. Naumovski’s testimony because she may have taken a leave of absence from work for a couple of years. The record supports that Dr. Naumovski not only meets the requirements of the person of ordinary skill in the art, but also appears to have relevant knowledge with respect to Gynostemma pentaphylum (“GP”) saponins. See Ex. 2015 (Appendix A). related field, and at least two years of experience using techniques for extraction and characterization of plant-based materials.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 74). Because there are more than 400 species of plants that contain saponins, Patent Owner disagrees that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the structure and utility of saponins. Id. The level of skill in the art is a reference point for gauging what would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner, however, does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would meaningfully alter the Petition’s assertions of obviousness. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner, but there would be no difference in the outcome of this Decision if we were to apply the level of skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. C.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “during the full trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that applying the methods of Kim 460 to the G. pentaphyllum starting material of Razmovski necessarily results in the damulin levels as claimed. We agree with Dr. Naumovski’s explanation that the use of an impure damulin B standard containing a double peak renders the results as shown in Exhibit 1013 unreliable. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 141–143, 162–173; see Ex. 2007. Dr. Naumovski further explains that the use of an impure standard would require the application of a correction factor, but this correction factor would need to be reassessed as the purity of the standard decreases over time. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 166. As Dr. Naumovski explains that applying a correction factor to the linear regression would result in a shallower slope. Ex. 2015 ¶ 165 (citing 2006, 71:12–73:5; 99:2–9). “Reducing the calibration curve slope increases the amount of damulin B calculated from the experimental extracts.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 165. However, in the Experimental Report-1 the same correction factor for the damulin B standard was used to” slip op. at 41

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

    “Petitioner requests construction of the terms “an effective amount for improving or treating the metabolic syndrome,” which is found in claims 11–13, as meaning “an amount that produces any measurable amount of improvement in the metabolic syndrome” (Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91)) and “[a] pharmaceutical composition for improving and treating a metabolic syndrome, comprising at least one of at least 0.7% damulin A and at least 0.5% damulin B . . . and a pharmacologically acceptable carrier or excipient,” which is found in claim 8, as meaning “a pharmaceutical composition that includes an extract with 0.7% and 0.5% of damulin A and damulin B[, respectively,] along with a carrier or excipient” (id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002, 64–65, 251–52, 280; Ex. 1001, 12:15–67, Table 2)). Patent Owner argues that “constructions are not necessary.” PO Resp. 11–12. We agree with Patent Owner and determine that it is not necessary for purposes of this Decision to construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms” slip op. at 15

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

    “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Droge, 695 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed.Cir.1988)); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the expectation of success issue involves a showing of “a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed”) (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner relies on Kim 460 to show that heating ginseng, which contains the ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, results in a teaches that ginseng with the higher Rg3 and Rg5 content is 50-fold more potent in their vasodilation studies than the non-treated samples. Razmovski teaches that G. pentaphyllum contains over 100 saponins and eight of those saponins are the same as protoparaxadiol-type ginsenosides Rb1, Rc, Rb3, Rd, F2, Rg3, malonyl-Rb1, and malonyl-Rd that are found in P. ginseng. Ex. 1007, 4. Knowing that G. pentaphyllum also contains ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, we find Petitioner’s conclusion that heating a G. pentaphyllum extract that contains these ginsenosides would similarly increase the ginsenoside levels of Rg3 and Rg5 is a reasonable inference from the cited references. Based on the teachings in Kim 460, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been reasonable to expect that the same source material, although derived from a different plant, would behave similarly to heat treatment. See Pet. 24. Because G. pentaphyllum is a less expensive starting material, we also agree with Petitioner that there is sufficient motivation to substitute G. pentaphyllum for ginseng in the methods of Kim 460. slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,357,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,357,786
• Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00037 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.12 PO Resp. 16. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are materially similar. 12 Petitioner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Reply. definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Also, the Petition merely states that “Ono supports instances where the user stops the step-counting mode operation using switch S2 after the processor detects that” the target distance or the target number of steps has been reached and notifies the user by generating an alarm sound. Pet. 53 (emphasis added). In this case, supporting the notion of the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm is not the same as teaching or suggesting the notion to one of ordinary skill in the art. The possibility that a user could stop the step-counting operation in response the alarm is insufficient to render claims 1 and 20 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Petitioner’s reliance on the Hewlett-Packard and Unwired Planet cases (Pet. 56) is unavailing, as the facts in those cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present proceeding. Namely, both of those cases involved prior art references that disclosed operations that satisfied a claimed feature some, but not all, of the time. Hewlett-Packard, 340 F.3d at 1326; Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1002. Here, Ono does not disclose the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm even some of the time. In view of the above, we determine, based on the full record, that the combination of Ono and Hutchings does not disclose limitations [1f] or [20f]. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono and Hutchings.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We have determined incorporated Grounds 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4, as well as Ground 5A, deficient for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner contends that any of these combinations somehow adds something to supplement or strengthen the patentability analysis of the incorporated grounds, we note that neither the Petition nor Dr. Kenny provides sufficient particularity to support such a position. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the complete record before us that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 5B); (2) claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 31, 36, 39–42, 45–47, 49, and 61–65 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Conlan (Ground 6A); (3) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, and Hickman (Ground 6B); (4) claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39–42, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Kaufman (Ground 7); (5) claims 1–5, 8, 10, 20, 25, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 45–47, 49, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, and Kaufman (Ground 8A); and (6) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 8B).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,059,576
• Abs Global, Inc. / Genus, PLC v. Cytonome/St, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2022 · IPR2021-00088 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable because Simonnet disclosed split sample streams, and Petitioner did not adequately show a reason to modify it to form a single stream.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “focused split sample typically would not allow two cells to arrive at the inspection region at once, because there is not enough space for two 10-μm cells to travel side by side.” See Ex. 1054 ¶ 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 5662) (emphasis added). The qualifier “typically” for two cells not arriving at the same time does not indicate that there would be no split stream. And Dr. Issadore seems to concede there could be a split sample. Id. Further, Dr. Issadore does not state which dimensions of which of Simonnet’s channels that he is using as a reference.27 We determine that Dr. Issadore provides insufficient evidence and reasoning for an understanding that there would be a single stream if mammalian cells were used, in addition to making a statement that stops short of that conclusion. Although not argued by Petitioner nor discussed by Dr. Issadore, Simonnet does state: “we expect the HTD to be compatible with cells up to ~15 µm in size.” Ex. 1005, 5662. Simonnet also states: “We expect that with the improvements in optics and detection electronics, a cytometry system based on the HTD would match the throughput, sensitivity, and accuracy of commercial flow cytometers and would be an adequate tool for assaying fluorescently marked live cells.” Id. These statements can be fairly read as a statement of reasonable expectation of success of using mammalian cells in the device. However, Simonnet is silent as to whether the mammalian cells would be in a single stream, and if anything, Simonnet appears to be inviting further experimentation. Accordingly, Petitioner has not provided adequate reasoning to modify Simonnet to form a single sample stream.” slip op. at 52

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we set forth our preliminary determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in the field of bioengineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or analytical chemistry, or a related field and at least three years of experience in designing or developing microfluidic systems. See Dec. 10–11. Patent Owner does not dispute this definition. See PO Resp. 4. 6 The parties do not present or address objective evidence of non-obviousness in this proceeding. After considering all evidence and arguments anew, we determine that it is proper to maintain our definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “sheath flow does not mean that “focusing” requires sheath flow. In other words, the Specification does not contain a definition of “focusing” that defines “focusing” as requiring “sheath flow.” As discussed above, the Specification does state “focusing (e.g., constricting).” See also Tr. 41:22– 42:8 (discussing the Specification of the ’439 patent). Whether or not this disclosure rises to the level of a definition, it indicates that focusing is understood to be constricting and does not mention “sheath flow.” Although sheath flow may, in certain cases, be a natural result of having multiple fluid focusing features (see Ex. 1001, 14:6), the claim itself does not require that focusing include sheath flow.11 11 In terms of resolving the dispute between the parties, the real question appears to be whether the sample stream that exits the focusing region must be a single sample stream or whether it may encompass split sample streams, a question that we address in the next subsection. Patent Owner’s ultimate argument appears to be that “focusing” requires a single sample stream because “focusing” requires sheath flow and sheath flow requires a single sample stream. However, we agree with Petitioner that persons of ordinary skill could still refer to split streams as having “sheath flow” (see Ex. 1054 ¶ 11; Ex. 1043, 2215, Fig. 10 and caption (“separated two-sample 3D sheath flow”); Ex. 1044, 2 (“multiple core-sheath flow”), and therefore, even if we agreed with Patent Owner that focusing requires sheath flow, that would not clarify whether “focusing” precludes split sample streams. In any event, we conclude that focusing does not require sheath flow. We recognize that there are examples in the Specification where there is sheath flow. E.g., Ex. 1001, 5:30–32 (“Certain embodiments described herein relate [to] systems and methods for producing a sheath flow . . .”), 10:35–37 (“The illustrated core stream forming geometry 400 provides improved sheath flow capabilities and thus improved sample focusing capabilities.”). However, case law generally counsels against importing limitations from the Specification into the claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (“To avoid importing limitations from the specification into the claims, it is important to keep in mind that the purposes of the specification are to teach and enable those of skill in the art to make and use the invention and to provide a best mode for doing so.”).12 We, therefore, do not import “sheath flow” into the definition of focusing.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Therefore, we construe “the sample stream” in the claim phrase “configured to focus the sample stream” to refer to a singular stream. c) Conclusion as to “focusing” and “configured to focus the sample stream” We maintain our construction of “focusing” as “pinching, confining, squeezing, or constricting” and decline to import additional requirements such as sheath flow into the term “focusing.” Nevertheless, we construe “the sample stream” in the claim phrase “configured to focus the sample stream” to refer to a singular stream.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,583,439 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,583,439
• Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Dodots Licensing Solutions LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2021 · IPR2019-01279 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 8–13, and 20–24 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted §103 ground because the prior art did not teach a separate NIM template excluding executable code.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical or Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field and have three or more years of experience” in the field. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 (“Madisetti Decl.”) ¶ 44). Patent Owner does not provide an alternative description of the proper level of ordinary skill or comment on Petitioner’s proposal. Petitioner’s proposal appears to be consistent with the prior art of record. 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). We adopt this proposal for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “1. “outside of and separate from any graphical user interface of any other application” In the Petition, Petitioner requests that we construe one term, found in element 1.F of claim 1: that presentation of the viewer graphical user interface (“GUI”) defined by the networked information monitor template be “outside of and separate from any graphical user interface of any other application.” Pet. 4–8. Petitioner argues that the correct construction should be “so that the viewer [graphical user interface] is distinct from and not presented within the frame of any other GUI generated by another application.” Id. Because our ultimate decision does not rest on the construction of this claim term, we do not construe it. See 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.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 9

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

    “The definition of NIM provided in the Specification describes a frame “through which content is optionally presented.” Ex. 1001, 5:21–24. Claim 1 also describes the subject of the definition in a NIM template alternatively as (a) a NIM (in 1.C), (b) “a viewer graphical user interface having a frame within which time-varying content in a web browser-readable language may be presented on a display associated with the client computing device” (in 1.B), or (c) a “viewer graphical user interface” (in 1.D, 1.F, 1.G). Id. at consistent with the use in the claim. With respect to the word “optionally” in the Specification definition, we note that, in the claims, time-varying content is recited as being presented on the display within a frame (element 1.G and the last element of claim 13). Id.; see also id. at 43:61–44:31. For these reasons, we determine that the correct construction of a NIM is “a fully configurable frame, with one or more controls, through which content is presented to the user,” and this is the interpretation we apply here.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In one embodiment, the NIM definitions are defined using Extensible Markup Language (XML), so that the NIM as a whole–the frame and the content within the viewer––is advantageously as flexible as standard web content. NIMs are extremely flexible, because the definition of the NIM is content, rather than compiled code. The NIM definition defines the structure of the NIM, and everything that is visible in a NIM is based on standard Internet content, such as HTML, dHTML, or GIFs, and is referenced or pointed to by the NIM definition. An “application”–type NIM, such as a web calendar or web mail, may be changed by the user, by the content provider, or by other content, while advantageously avoiding the need to distribute and support a hard-coded compiled application. The definition of a NIM thus includes everything that is needed for the NIM to be rendered and filled with Internet content. Id. at 21:45–60 (emphases added). From this disclosure, we understand that the Specification prohibits the NIM template from using compiled code or an executable application. Our review of the Specification did not identify disclosure of use of compiled code or an executable application by the NIM template.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,510,407 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,510,407
• Oticon Medical AB / Oticon Medical LLC et al. v. Cochlear LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00975 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14, 16, 17, 25, 28, 33–35, 37–41, and 45–47 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a rationale to combine Westerkull ’794 and Choi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “At the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that the differences between the parties’ assertions regarding the level of skill in the art would not be dispositive. Tr. 25:12–26:11. In view of the lack of material dispute on this issue, we adopt Patent Owner’s asserted level of skill, which we find to be supported by the testimony of Dr. Rentschler. See Ex. 2037 ¶¶ 54–55; see also Tr. 26:10–11 (Counsel for Petitioner: “We agree that the issues really here are highly mechanical.”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We now turn to the issue of whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. Petitioner argues that the preamble recites an intended use because the body of claim 1 recites the structural limitations but the preamble does not. Pet. Supp. Br. 3. Petitioner also argues that the preamble recites an intended use because, in another case between the same parties involving a different claim relating to the same subject matter, the court concluded that the preamble recited an intended use. Id. at 3 (citing Cochlear Bone Anchored Sols. AB v. Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Patent Owner argues that the preamble is limiting because the phrase “the bone” has its antecedent basis in the phrase “a skull bone” in the preamble. PO Supp. Br. 3 (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). We determine, as a matter of reading the words of the claim, that the antecedent basis for “the bone” is “a skull bone” in the preamble of claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 5:56–57. Accordingly, we determine that the preamble is limiting. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 436 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“anode gel” was understood to be the antecedent basis for “said zinc anode”).9 In other words, it is a requirement that the prosthesis is structured so that it is appropriate for being anchored into the skull bone. See Catalina 9 Patent Owner also argues that the cases relied on in the Petition to argue that the preamble is not limiting stand for the opposite proposition because, in those cases, the preambles were limiting because they introduced or defined terms later used in the claims. PO Supp. Br. 4 n.1 (citing Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). We agree with Patent Owner that the statement of law in the Petition, i.e., that a preamble may recite an intended use when the body of the claim recites all structural elements (see Pet. 19), is not dispositive of this case because the body of the claim refers back to the preamble. Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.”). 2. the preamble: “bone fixture configured to anchor to bone” (claim 8) For similar reasons as for the preamble of claim 1, we determine that the preamble of claim 8 is limiting, i.e., because it provides antecedent basis for “the bone” in the body of the claim. However, the preamble of claim 8 only refers to “bone” and not to “a skull bone” and therefore does not itself impose a limitation of a “skull bone.” Compare Ex. 1001, 6:22, with id. at 5:56–57.” slip op. at 12

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

    “means “a channel, distinct from the screw thread and distinct from the flange, extending around the cylindrical portion of the main body of the anchor, having an inner diameter and an outer diameter.” Pet. 20. Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill would understand that a circumferential groove is provided to “exert a compressive radial force on the skull bone to improve stability of the anchoring fixture.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). The District Court construed “circumferential groove” to mean “a narrow channel extending around the cylindrical periphery of the main body of the implant.” Ex. 3001, 33.10” slip op. at 13

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

    “In response to our question inviting further briefing, Petitioner submits that “periphery” refers to the widest portion of the fixture inserted into the skull and distinct from the flange. See Pet. Reply 2. Patent Owner does not comment on the question. See PO Resp. 15–17. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to further construe the term “periphery.” See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims are construed only to the extent necessary to resolve a dispute). 4. “wherein the anchoring fixture is configured for anchoring a hearing” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,838,807 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,838,807
• Lornic Design, Inc. v. Humboldt B.V.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 26, 2020 · IPR2019-00346 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–22 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that Machacek, Breitschmid, or Plamper was analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Bonenberger has significant education and experience in industrial engineering and with snap-fit applications. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 2–5; Ex. 1013; Ex. 2040, 63:24–64:11, 66:13–67:12. Mr. Bonenberger’s testimony about snap-fit connections and their application is potentially helpful in determining the scope of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and whether the asserted references could be combined. Regarding whether the testimony lacks sufficient basis in facts or data, Mr. Bonenberger’s declaration expressly indicates that Mr. Bonenberger is opining based on his knowledge and experience and providing his opinion of what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood or would have done. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 11 (“I have also relied upon my education, training and experience in the fields of mechanical attachments in general and, in particular, snap-fit attachment development for product applications.”), 14 (“I agree that a PHOSITA will have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent work experience.”), 16 (“A PHOSITA would make no such distinction.”), 18 (“For example, there is nothing in the relative forces experienced by the snap-fit in the application of the ‘225 that would lead a PHOSITA to believe . . . ”), 19 (“A PHOSITA would have easily understood . . . ”), 20 (“A PHOSITA would have easily understood . . . ”), 21 (“A PHOSITA would have easily understood . . . ”), 22 (“Both of these are well within the understanding of a PHOSITA.”), 23 (“Such a construction would be well within the understanding of a PHOSITA . . . ”), 25 (“In reviewing Machacek, Breits[ch]mid and Plamper, there is nothing in these patents that would cause a PHOSITA to . . . ”); Ex. 2040, 68:14–21 (Mr. Bonenberger answering “yes” to the question “[s]o, this is an example of your talking from the perspective of what a PHOSITA would understand?”). Mr. Bonenberger has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of this proceeding. Furthermore, even if Mr. Bonenberger does not meet the parties’ definition of one of ordinary skill in the art, his testimony, in combination with other record evidence, is useful in determining what he believes one of ordinary skill in the art may have known at the relevant time period about snap-fit connections and their application. Thus, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude with respect to Exhibit 1012.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the full record before us, we see no reason to disturb our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or with equivalent work experience.” Inst. Dec. 10–11 (citing Pet. 11; Ex. 1003 ¶ 46). This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’225 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 21

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “adopted the interpretations quoted above for “female receiving end,” “narrowed entrance,” “the receiving space being substantially larger than the narrowed entrance channel along the longitudinal axis of the whip,” and “the narrowed entrance channel is directed facing away from the profiled side of the whip.” Inst. Dec. 12. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that the terms listed in the Petition should have the same interpretations as determined by the district court. PO Resp. 5 (citing Pet. 12). As shown above in emphases, some interpretations include “during use of the brush element.” Petitioner argues that “[n]owhere does the Court require, nor did the Board adopt a definition that requires, that the ‘use’ be the specific cleaning of animal carcasses shown in the ’225 patent.” Pet. Reply 10. We do not need to decide whether the use is specific to cleaning animal carcasses because, even if the use were not so specific, for the reasons set forth below in Section G., we would still determine that Machacek, Breitschmid, and Plamper are not in the same field of endeavor as the ’225 patent, are not reasonably pertinent to the problem facing the inventor of the ’225 patent, and would not have logically commended themselves to the inventor’s attention in considering the problem of the ’225 patent. The full record before us, thus, provides no reason to modify our preliminary decision to adopt the district court’s interpretations for the terms listed and discussed above. We, therefore, continue to apply the above-identified district court’s interpretations for (1) “female receiving space,” (2) “narrowed entrance channel” and “narrowed entrance,” (3) “the receiving space being substantially larger than the narrowed entrance channel along the longitudinal axis of the whip,” and (4) “the narrowed entrance channel is directed facing away from the profiled side of the whip” to resolve the parties’ dispute. Pet. 12–14; Ex. 1011, 16.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “been brought to the attention of the ordinary skilled artisan, the application of Machacek to Debaere, despite the differences in male and female connections and the forces involved, would have been a matter of ordinary skill to a “person of ordinary creativity.” See Pet. 17–19; Pet. Reply 2–8; see also Tr. 45:6–47:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel addressing ordinary skill). However, Petitioner does not argue sufficiently or present sufficient evidence that Machacek logically would have commended itself to the inventor’s attention in considering the problem of the ’225 patent. See Pet. 17–19; Pet. Reply 2–8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 60. Specifically, Petitioner does not present sufficient argument and evidence why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Machacek for a solution to the problem addressed by the ’225 patent or why Machacek’s pinwheel testing device that reduces the risk of transferring blood borne disease logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention when considering the problem of replacing brush elements attached to a rotatable body that imparts rotation to the brushes rotatably attached to it. Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. Even considering the structural similarities of Debaere and Machacek, which is Petitioner’s basis for combining the references, the full record does not explain why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Machacek at all so that the asserted structural similarities would have been perceived or Machacek would have prompted applying a particular connection to Debaere. Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The pertinence of the reference as a source of solution to the inventor’s problem must be recognizable with the foresight of a person of ordinary skill, not with the hindsight of the inventor’s successful achievement.”).” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 9,433,225 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,433,225
• Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2020 · IPR2018-01711 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–18 of the ’907 patent not unpatentable over Olesen, Tan, and Queen under §103, finding Lilly had not met its burden.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “appreciable difference in the parties’ respective definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. Accordingly, we determined for purposes of our Institution Decision that a person of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 13

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

    “2. “effective amount” The term “effective amount” is recited in all of the independent” slip op. at 18

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

    “Reply. In fact, Petitioner argues that “[t]he prior art expressly recognized the downside of treating migraine patients with CGRP inhibitors having a short half-life,” citing to a report that CGRP8-37 (a peptide fragment of CGRP) “‘proved ineffective in migraine treatment’ due to ‘its low potency and short half-life.’” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1031, 323; Ex. 1014 ¶ 124) (emphasis by Petitioner). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a POSA would have been motivated to humanize an anti-CGRP antibody fragment.” slip op. at 93

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “the cross-examination of Dr. Ferrari as beyond the scope of Dr. Ferrari’s direct testimony. Mot. Excl. 9. Upon review of the Ferrari Declaration, Exhibit 2268, we agree that questions on cyclic AMP were beyond the scope of the Ferrari Declaration. Accordingly, we grant this aspect of the motion.” slip op. at 159

  Patent outcomesUS 9,884,907 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,884,907
• Garmin International, Inc. / Garmin USA, Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2019 · IPR2018-00565 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–14, 56–58, 140, 144, and 146 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over the instituted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ respective proposals are substantially similar such that there is no apparent dispute between the parties. Also, based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our findings in this proceeding would not differ under Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “The ’576 patent does not include an explicit definition for “interpreting.” See generally Ex. 1001. We note, however, that claims 1 and 13 recite “a “microprocessor capable of . . . interpreting . . . said movement data.” With this language in mind, the ’576 patent discloses that the device “employs a user-programmable microprocessor which receives, interprets, stores and responds to the movement data.” Id. at 2:13–15; see also id. at Abstract (making substantially similar statement). These disclosures indicate that “interpreting” is distinct from receiving, storing, and responding to the data, and are consistent with claims 1 and 13, which recite “interpreting” distinctly from receiving, storing, and responding. Furthermore, the ’576 patent discloses that microprocessor 32 “receives the signals generated by the movement sensor 30 for analysis and subsequent processing” and “analyzes and responds to the movement data signals from the sensor 30.” Id. at 4:52–57 (emphases added). Therefore, in the context of the claims and the Specification of the ’576 patent, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase “interpreting . . . said movement data” is “analyzing the movement data.”” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner

    “We note, however, that Federal Circuit has recently held that “the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, No. 2018-1167, 2019 WL 3418549, at *16 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019). The Federal Circuit addressed arguments made under both the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment in so holding. Id. at *11–16. We discern no other argument from Patent Owner in this case other than those expressly rejected by the Federal Circuit. Thus, in view of Celgene, we find Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “On balance, we are not persuaded on the full record that Stewart discloses that processor 52 controls the comparing function. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing that Stewart’s processor 52 interprets movement data. Regarding the limitation of the microprocessor being capable of “detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined operational parameters regarding the movement data,” Petitioner asserts that Stewart discloses a processor detecting an event, such as a spearing movement in football, based on acceleration data and a defined/predetermined threshold. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:4–7, 14:6–11). Petitioner also asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stewart’s system to enable user adjustment of the predetermined threshold to accommodate different users as taught by Rush. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 59). As an initial point, we note that Petitioner relies on the same disclosures from Stewart (i.e., Ex. 1004, 5:4–7, 14:6–11) for disclosing both interpreting data and detecting an event, but does not provide a sufficient explanation of how these same disclosures teach two different claim limitations. Moreover, we disagree that Stewart expressly discloses that processor 52 detects an event such as spearing. Stewart merely discloses that it may be “possible to determine if a football player is improperly using his helmet (e.g., illegal spearing)” without specifying that such determination is performed by processor 52. See Ex. 1004, 14:4–14). As discussed above, Stewart’s disclosure with respect to the accelerometer responses exceeding a predetermined threshold indicates that this processing is accomplished by a receiver remote from the self-contained helmet system and, thus, is not performed by the processor. See id. at 14:6–9 (disclosing that when correlating accelerometer responses “with desirable punches exceeding a predetermined threshold,” the responses are “processed and scored at a ringside receiver”). For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Stewart and Rush teaches or suggests the detecting limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,059,576

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.