• Delta Electronics, Inc. v. Vicor Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00227 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–7 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of work experience relating to power electronics and the manufacture of power converters or printed circuit board design for power converters,” but acknowledges that “[a]dditional education might compensate for less work experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1013, 79). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition or proffer a definition of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Rivas-Davila, asserts that he applies Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2001 ¶ 77. We find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’761 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Ex. 1001, 28:13–33. The court’s analysis of “plurality” in Apple applies here. Consistent with Apple and other precedent of our reviewing court, we interpret “plurality” to mean two or more. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 258 F.3d 1317, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In accordance with standard dictionary definitions, we have held that ‘plurality,’ when used in a claim, refers to two or more items, absent some indication to the contrary.”); York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The term [‘plurality’] means, simply, ‘the state of being plural.’”). And as explained above, neither the ’761 patent nor its prosecution history indicates that “a plurality of power semiconductor devices” as used in claim 1 refers to a subset, rather than all, of the power semiconductor devices in the power converter. See Ex. 1001, 23:24–42, 24:7–25:32; generally, Ex. 1004. As discussed in more detail below, Petitioner maps “plurality of power semiconductor devices” to a subset of the power semiconductor devices in the device disclosed in Ericsson-BMR, implicitly interpreting this language to mean less than all of the power converter power semiconductor devices of the power converter. Petitioner’s interpretation that “plurality of power semiconductor devices” is satisfied by a subset of the power semiconductor devices does not accord with the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of “plurality” as set forth in Apple and is at odds with the requirement that “the power semiconductor devices are distributed between the first and second sets” as recited in claim 1. See Apple, 695 F.3d at 1379. Accordingly, we interpret “a power converter including . . . a plurality of power semiconductor devices” as recited in claim 1 to refer to all of the power semiconductor devices in the power converter, not merely a subset of the power semiconductor devices.” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner fails to identify with requisite particularity how BMR-2008 renders the challenged claims obvious. See 35 U.S.C. § 312 (a)(3). Petitioner has made no showing of the grounds on which the challenged claims are based; Petitioner makes no mapping whatsoever of the BMR-2008 disclosure to the challenged claims, instead suggesting that we compare the disclosures of BMR-2008 and Ericsson-BMR. This is insufficient to meet Petitioner’s obligation to identify with particularity how the asserted references satisfy the requirements of the challenged claims. For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1, or its dependent claims 2–7, would have been obvious in view of Ericsson-BMR alone or in combination with Spiazzi, Wanes, or Takeshima.” slip op. at 46

  Claim constructioncites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,516,761

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.