• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 27, 2026 · IPR2024-01310 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Remand

  On Director remand, the Board determined claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 103, including claims 1–11 over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “all Challenged Claims unpatentable and denying Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Paper 47 (“Original Final Decision”). Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a Request for Director Review and Petitioner filed an authorized Response thereto. Papers 48, 49. On July 29, 2026, the Director granted review, vacated-in-part the Original Final Decision, and remanded the case to the Board. Paper 50. In particular, the Director directed the Board “to consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to the webserver limitation in deciding whether Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 are unpatentable under Petitioner’s Ground 1B.” Id. at 4. We do so in this Final Written Decision on Remand (“Remand Decision”). See infra § III.E (Ground 1B). For completeness, we repeat herein our analysis in the Original Final Decision for all other grounds.” slip op. at 2

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

    “C. Claim Construction We construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In this context, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; see CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (There is “a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.”). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Petitioner contends that “[t]he claim terms of the ’218 [patent] should be given their plain and ordinary meaning” as understood by the relevant artisan. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that the relevant artisan “would have understood a ‘socket’ to be a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a [viewer client device] VCD.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 170). Petitioner argues that the relevant artisan also would have understood an “event socket,” in turn, to be “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Beyond such proposed plain meanings for “socket” and “event” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “(6) Conclusion as to Objective Indicia of Non- Obviousness For the foregoing reasons, although we have considered Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness, we accord it little weight, and find that it does not outweigh Petitioner’s strong countervailing evidence supporting a conclusion of obviousness.” slip op. at 53

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

    “engineer with substantial experience in Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols, including an understanding of relaytype and orchestrator-type webservers, would have considered the subject matter of claim 1 as a whole, including the webserver, to be obvious in light of the combined teachings of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. Based on the context discussed above, and for the reasons provided above, we determine that the answer is yes. See Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“That the proposed combination of [two references]—rather than one of the individual references—discloses the disputed claim limitations does not defeat the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. In this case, it is sufficient that [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to combine the prior art in a way such that the combination discloses the claim limitations.”).” slip op. at 78

  Patent outcomesUS 11,039,218 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,039,218
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2021-01266 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58 unpatentable as obvious over Reime, with additional grounds also supporting the challenged claims.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain of Petitioner’s evidence (Paper 32) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 33). We denied this motion. See Final Dec. 58–61.” slip op. at 3

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

    “transmission paths. See Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. And we agree with both parties that the light that is transmitted directly through the plate to the sensor element does not have intervening reflections—such is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “directly to.” See PO Resp. 31–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. Nothing in claim 48’s language, however, requires that all of the reflected light be transmitted directly to the sensor element, which Patent Owner argues. Ex. 1001, 70:32–35; PO Resp. 31–32; PO Sur-reply 14–16. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the claim language “merely requires that some light reflected by the object goes ‘directly to’ at least one sensor element once it is transmitted through the viewing plane defining plate.” Pet. Reply 14. We also agree that “none of these dependent claims purport to be exclusive of one another.” Id. at 15. Rather, claims 46–48 simply require some light be transmitted (or propagated) for their particular transmission path, without reciting all light. See Ex. 1001, 70:24–35.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments based on Reime alone insufficient. Thus, we find that Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 49 is rendered obvious by Reime alone.” slip op. at 52

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “And in view of the above, we find persuasive Dr. Bederson’s testimony that “[c]hoosing a multi-element detector or a single-element detector would have been a simple design choice using commercially available detectors.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 117. Accordingly, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for Reime’s receivers to be implemented using discrete single-element detectors. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”). We find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner relies on expert testimony to gap-fill missing elements regarding Reime’s failure to disclose or suggest the different claim arrangements of detector elements in a ‘detector assembly.’” PO Resp. 78 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–119; Ex. 2056 ¶ 171). Rather, in light of Reime’s teachings, coupled with the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to employ discrete single-element detectors for Reime’s receivers. See Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding obviousness can rely on supported expert testimony to supply an element of a claim). We appropriately consider such evidence of the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had as part of our obviousness analysis. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Moreover, “AAPA can be important evidence of general background knowledge, and general knowledge can be used to supply a missing claim 1371, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Here, Petitioner relies on the cited AAPA as evidence of one of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge at the time of the ’093 patent, and the AAPA is not the basis for this ground. See Pet. 4, 42–43; Pet. Remand 4–5. As Shockwave Med. explains, Federal Circuit “case law has long recognized numerous permissible uses for general background knowledge in an IPR such as, ‘for example, furnishing a motivation to combine, or supplying a missing claim limitation.” 142 F.4th at 1378–79 (quoting Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Randall Mfg., 733 F.3d at 1362; Koninklijke, 948 F.3d at 1337–38)).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,569,093 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,569,093
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2021-01239 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, and 30 unpatentable as obvious over Reime, with claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 30 also obvious over Reime and Hinckley.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain of Petitioner’s evidence (Paper 28) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 34). We denied this motion. See Paper 41, 47–50.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’850 patent: one who “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and . . . years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch and/or proximity sensors, human-machine interaction and 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’850 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply the pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability. 4 US 2003/0034439 A1, published Feb. 20, 2003 (Ex. 1010, “Reime”). 5 US 2002/0021278 A1, published Feb. 21, 2002 (Ex. 1011, “Hinckley”). Petitioner lists the combination of Reime and Hinckley as a separate asserted ground for claim 26. We combine these two asserted grounds into one as they rely on the same combination. additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Final Dec. 8–9. This definition for one having ordinary skill was not the subject of appeal, and we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision on Remand. Moreover, it is consistent with the ’850 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “PO Resp. 17–29; Pet. Reply 8–15; PO Sur-reply 6–11. We construed this term in the Final Written Decision. Final Dec. 10–24. In particular, we concluded that (i) “detector assembly” means “two or more detector elements that detect electromagnetic radiation,” and (ii) a detector assembly is not required to be physically separate from (i.e., not interspersed with) a pixel array. Id. at 20, 22. The Federal Circuit found the first part of our construction erroneous. Appeal Dec. 7–10. In particular, the Federal Circuit concluded that “[t]he element.” Id. at 8. In addition, to guide the Board’s analysis on remand, the Federal Circuit construed “the terms ‘at an edge’ and ‘at least one edge’ [to] require a detector assembly to be arranged along one or more edges of a viewing plane defining plate.” Id. at 10–11. In other words, the Federal Circuit “clarif[ied] that arranging a detector assembly ‘at,’ ‘along,’ or ‘about’ ‘at least one edge’ or ‘an edge’ does not limit the detector assembly to being arranged entirely on ‘one edge.’” Id. at 12.” slip op. at 9

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

    “the Federal Circuit already has concluded that claim 15 is obvious in view of Reime. Appeal Dec. 9–10. Claim 17 further recites “wherein the detector assembly comprises: a support substrate, and an arrangement of detector elements.” Ex. 1001, 67:15–18. We agree with Petitioner and find that Reime teaches these further limitations. Pet. 34–35; Pet. Remand 2–4; Pet. Resp. Remand 1–3. First, as we found in the Final Written Decision, Reime’s receivers 30 and 32 are two detector elements that detect electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light), and Reime’s receivers 30 and 32, collectively, comprise a detector assembly. Final Dec. 27–28 (citations omitted). Moreover, Reime’s two receivers 30 and 32 comprise a detector assembly having multiple detector elements (e.g., two receivers) to teach “an arrangement of detector elements.” Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 73, 86, Figs. 9A–9C; Ex. 2060,7 127:17–18; Pet. 32–33; Pet. Reply 20; Pet. Remand 3. In addition, as we found in the Final Written Decision, Reime teaches that each of receivers 30 and 32 are centered on opposite edges of the plate. 7 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Benjamin Bederson (Apr. 7, 2022). Ex. 1010, Fig. 6A, ¶ 82) (affirming that Reime teaches having one light receiver (e.g., 30 or 32) on each side of a four-sided touch pad). In further support, we agree with Petitioner and find that Reime teaches that receivers 30 and 32 “are mounted in the peripheral area surrounding the LCD 92.” Pet. 32–33; Ex. 1010 ¶ 86; see also id. at Figs. 9A–9C (showing that the receivers are positioned at the edge of the LCD screen); infra annotated Fig. 9E (showing receivers 30 and 32 along edges of the LCD). Accordingly, we find Reime’s detector assembly that comprises receivers 30 and 32 is arranged along two edges (one edge for each receiver) of the LCD, which meets the Federal Circuit’s construction for being arranged at at least one edge. See supra Section III (concluding “at least one edge” means “arranged along one or more edges”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,624,850 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,624,850
• Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2025 · IPR2022-00218 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 2, 5, and 6 were held unpatentable as obvious; the motion to amend was denied for proposed claims 16–21 and dismissed for claims 22–23.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated by Patent Owner, more accurately reflects the subject matter of the ’704 Patent and the asserted prior art than does Petitioner’s articulation. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Petitioner does not explain how “control theory” and “applied mathematics” (Pet. 16) relate to the subject matter of the ’704 Patent or the asserted prior art, and Petitioner’s reference to “laboratory experience” (id.) is too general to be useful in defining the level of skill. Furthermore, whereas Petitioner requires a POSITA to have “x-ray and computing imaging experience” (id.), Patent Owner more particularly specifies “x-ray microtomography experience” (PO Resp. 5), which is the field of art for the ’704 Patent, as well as many of the asserted prior art references. Ex. 1001, code (54) (“High resolution direct-projection type x-ray microtomography system using synchrotron or laboratory-based x-ray source”); Ex. 1007 (discussing X-ray microcomputed tomography); Ex. 1008 (discussing X-ray nanotomography and microtomography); Ex. 1010, code (54) (“Method and apparatus for utilizing an electro-optic detector in a microtomography system”); Ex. 1011 (title: “Three- Dimensional X-ray Microtomography”). For those reasons, we apply Patent Owner’s definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Neither party proposes any express claim constructions. See Pet. 17 (“all claim terms should receive their plain and ordinary meaning”); PO Resp. 5 (applying the same constructions as Petitioner). In accordance with the Federal Circuit’s mandate, however, we adopt and apply herein “[t]he plain meaning of the term ‘between 1 and 10,’” which “includes tiny, and even undetectable, magnification” and, moreover, we take account that Jorgensen anticipates claim 1, including that limitation. Paper 38, 11–12. We determine that no other claim term requires express construction for purposes of resolving any controversy between the parties. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “i. Spot Size as a Result-Effective Variable First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to “identify any prior art that discloses an x-ray source having the claimed spot size.” PO Resp. 45. We agree with Petitioner, however, that Patent Owner “fails to consider the advantages of a smaller spot size” –– advantages that would have been known to a POSITA, given that they are discussed “in each of these references.” Reply 19. Petitioner further directs us to evidence that Patent Owner’s own witness, Dr. Bentley, “agreed that a POSITA would have been aware of tradeoffs between smaller and larger spot sizes.” Id. (citing Ex. 1024, 45:14–47:20). In other words, the evidence supports that spot size would have been a result effective variable and, on this record, that optimizing that variable in view of various “tradeoffs,” recognized by Patent Owner’s own witness, would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id.; see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art”). Patent Owner does not counter Petitioner’s evidence on that point, but instead, refers us back to a related argument in the Response, pertaining to whether one would have undertaken that modification with a reasonable expectation of success, which we address below in connection with Patent Owner’s third argument. Sur-reply 18 (citing PO Resp. 47–49).” slip op. at 12

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

    “smaller spot sizes.” PO Resp. 45. We recognize that an obviousness challenge may be overcome “by showing that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention in any material respect.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). For a reference to teach away, however, it must state more than a general preference for an alternative invention. Specifically, it must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In Patent Owner’s view, “Jorgensen teaches away from smaller spot sizes” because smaller spot sizes “require significantly more power to generate the desired flux.” PO Resp. 45. Patent Owner directs us to evidence that, at best, illustrates that this disadvantage would have been among the “tradeoffs between smaller and larger spot sizes” that inform the selection. Ex. 1024, 45:14–47:20 (Dr. Bentley’s cross-examination testimony); see PO Resp. 45–46 (evidence of proposed disadvantage). This evidence does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. At best, we find that it may indicate a preference for a different spot size depending on the desired application.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,400,704 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,400,704
• Apple, Inc. v. Omni Medsci Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2021-00453 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board determined claims 1–23 unpatentable, finding claims 3–6 and 8–14 obvious under the asserted combinations and leaving the prior findings on other claims intact.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “No appeal was taken as to claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23. Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s Mandate, we have reviewed the merits and determine 3–6 and 8–14 are unpatentable, and recognizing that all other claims have previously been determined to be unpatentable, we determine that claims 1–23 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “Our mandate is to consider the argument the Court determined we did not consider in the Petitioner Reply, which argument, as each party acknowledges, both parties had the opportunity to discuss in the briefs that are in our current record. Under the circumstances, we determine that no additional briefing is required to carry out that mandate.” slip op. at 4

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

    “In our Final Decision, we determined that the term “identify an object” in claims 3 and 8 is distinguished from the term “detect an object,” e.g. as in claim 1. Final Dec. 8–10. The Court affirmed our construction of “identify an object” to mean “to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing.” Fed. Cir. Dec. 10. The Court remanded, however, for further consideration of a “properly raised” argument Petitioner advanced in the Petitioner Reply with respect to our construction, referred to by the Federal Circuit as “the alternative argument.”. Id. at 2, 13.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Petitioner counterargues that it is not required to show why a person of ordinary skill would have considered every permutation of these references together and that it provided specific reasons for including features of Isaacson into Lisogurski’s device. Pet. Sur-reply 24–25. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to incorporate Isaacson’s sensor (an arrangement of LEDs and detectors) into Lisogurski’s device, which taught that any known sensor layout could be used. Id. (citing Ex.1011, 17:39–45; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 239–240). Petitioner further argues that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked to Isaacson because it discloses a known arrangement for that the sensor component of Lisogurski’s device, and because it also taught solutions to potential problems identified in Lisogurski (e.g., with skin pigmentation). Id. (citing Pet. 68–69; Ex.1003 ¶ 243; Ex.1063, 7:59–62, Fig. 1).” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,484 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,484
• PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games Inc.Other
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Sturman and Ho.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “(“Decision Denying Institution” or “DDI”). Petitioner filed a request for Director Review and the Director vacated and remanded our Decision Denying Institution. Paper 11 (Petitioner’s Request for Director Review); Paper 12 (“Remand Dec.” or “Remand Decision”). Specifically, the Director directed that we: shall issue a new decision on institution resolving the claim construction of “a non-promotional background object.” Consistent with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Board should resolve the proper meaning of that term by first assessing the intrinsic evidence, and then consulting extrinsic evidence if necessary. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Slyde Analytics, LLC, IPR2024-00040, Paper 14 at 7–8 (Vidal Aug. 2, 2024) (discussing the Phillips framework). The Board shall consider all remaining necessary issues, and determine whether to institute trial consistent with this decision. Id. at 7–8 (footnote omitted).” slip op. at 2

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

    “d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Sturman and Ho. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–10 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’089 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. See Prelim. Resp. 26–36. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 42

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

    “draws a distinction between foreground and background objects. Specifically, the prosecution history makes it clear that foreground objects are “in the forefront of the game play as primary objects to be manipulated or used during game play” and that background objects are “outside the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components.” Ex. 1002, 85. However, whether an object is “outside the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components” is based solely on the subjective perspective of the user. That is, what one user may consider a primary focus or expected object, another might consider outside the primary focus and unexpected. As the Director made clear in the Remand Decision, it is “improper[]” to have a claim construction “based on the subjective perspective of a user.” Remand Dec. 7; see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“We are not prepared to assign a meaning to a patent claim that depends on the state of mind of the accused infringer.”). Accordingly, we cannot and do not adopt that as our construction of the term background. Not finding a construction of “background” based on the intrinsic evidence, we turn to the extrinsic evidence. See Remand Dec. 7 (“[T]he Board should resolve the proper meaning of that term by first assessing the intrinsic evidence, and then consulting extrinsic evidence if necessary.” (emphasis added)). Specifically, as part of the Decision Denying Institution, we considered various dictionary definitions of the word “background.” According to those definitions, “background” refers to “[t]he part of a pictorial representation that appears to be in the distance and that provides relief for the principal objects in the foreground.” Ex. 3002 (AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY); see also Ex. 3003 (“the scenery or ground behind something,” “the part of a painting representing what lies behind objects in the foreground”) (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY). Consistent with those dictionary definitions, we construe the term “background” to mean the part of a pictorial representation that is not in the foreground. The prosecution history provides more useful guidance as to what a “non-promotional” object is. As the applicant argued in the Amendment discussed above, a non-promotional object is one “which does not have an ‘area’ in which advertisements directly appear, but instead represents a ‘hot spot’ that, upon activation, causes ‘hidden promotional content’ to then appear.” Ex. 1002, 85–86. In other words, a non-promotional object does not display a promotional message unless the hotspot is activated. This understanding of the meaning of non-promotional is consistent with an earlier argument (Ex. 1002, 113–25) the applicant made during the prosecution of the ’089 patent.12 At that time, the applicant argued: In an exemplary embodiment, the location in-game may be represented by a non-promotional object, such as a blank chalk board depicted in the background of the gaming environment. See Applicant’s Specification at ¶ [0045]. Upon activating the hot spot (e.g., by throwing a dart at the chalk board), a promotional message may be drawn on the chalk board and displayed to the user. See id. In other words, Applicant’s amended claims 15 and 22, inter alia, may present promotional content once the game user activates, unknowingly, a “hot spot” associated with a non-promotional object—the non-promotional object is not an ordinary or visible place for advertisement, the 12 This argument was made on December 2, 2011, which is prior to the amendment adding the term background on July 15, 2013. Compare Ex. 1002, 117 (then pending claim 15 without the word “background”) with id. at 80 (amendment adding “background” to claim 15). user does not know that the object has a hidden hot spot, and the user does not know that activating the hidden “hot spot” will display promotional content. Ex. 1002, 122 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15

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

    “Moreover, even if we did consider only the specific references addressed in the Preliminary Response, we would not reach a different outcome. Patent Owner focuses on a high-level comparison of the references. See Prelim. Resp. 13–19. Such high-levels of similarity are to be expected as all of the references involve advertising in computer game programs. But such high-level similarity is not sufficient. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01445, Paper 15 at 16 (PTAB March 2, 2022) (Institution Decision) (“The issue is not just whether the same elements can be found in each of the references, but whether the elements function the same way. That is, even though Leong and Bates have the same elements, that does not mean that the elements interact with each other the same way or perform the same functions as recited in the claims.”); see also Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 15 (holding that prior art is substantially the same if “Petitioner relies on [the new art] in substantially the same manner as the Examiner cited [the previous art] during prosecution such that [the new art] discloses substantially the same information as [the previous art] in relevant part.”); Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Alexander Soto, IPR2023-00680, Paper 18 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 28, 2024) (Vidal) (determining the Board erred when “rather than identify material, substantive overlap between the arguments presented in the Petitions and those previously presented to the Office, the Board’s analysis relied on its discussion of high-level similarities but lacked detailed reasoning”); Wolfspeed, Inc. v . The Trustees of Purdue University, IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2023) (Vidal) (vacating the Board’s decision when the “analysis of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework did not consider sufficiently the material differences between” the art the Office previously considered and the art the Petition cited). Nor were any of Petitioner’s Reply arguments improper. We expressly authorized Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments that the prior art relied on in the Petition was substantially the same as prior art that was considered. Ex. 3005 (Email from the Board to the parties) (“Petitioner is authorized to file a preliminary reply brief addressing 1) Patent Owner’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. 325(d). . . .”). Moreover, given the facts of this proceeding, it is not reasonable to require Petitioner to anticipate “substantially the same prior art” arguments and address them in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument is a proper reply argument. 3. Conclusion Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,688,089
• Synaffix B.V. v. Hangzhou Dac Biotech Co., Ltd.Other
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2024 · IPR2022-01531 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–17, 20–21, 24–26, and 29–34 on all grounds stated in the Petition.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Director reviewOther

    “Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and did not institute inter partes review. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”). Petitioner requested Director review of our decision denying institution (Paper 18 (“Request”)). The Director delegated review of the decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel. Paper 19. Patent Owner was granted the option to file a response to Petitioner’s Request (Paper 22 (“Request Resp.”)). The Director Review Panel (“DRP”) vacated our decision and remanded the case to this panel with a revised construction for claim 1. Paper 23 (“DRP Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

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

    “An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect (2018). Upon reconsideration of the briefing and the evidence of record in light of the DRP’s claim construction, we conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we grant institution of inter partes review of claims 1–17, 20–21, 24–26, and 29–34 of the ’682 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “We find that Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in the prior consideration of Morales-Sanfrutos, Straus, Singh, and Lees. For instance, under the second prong of Advanced Bionics, we consider “(c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during “(e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art.” Becton, Dickinson, 17–18. We agree with Petitioner that the Office overlooked Morales- Sanfrutos’ and Singh’s teachings during examination and reexamination. Pet. 79. Although Morales-Sanfrutos, Straus, and Singh were listed on an IDS, they were not the subject of a rejection during examination or reexamination. Moreover, for the reasons discussed below at this stage with regard to Petitioner’s grounds over Morales-Sanfrutos, as evidenced by Straus, and over Singh, Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that the Office materially erred in overlooking Morales-Sanfrutos’s and Singh’s teachings regarding their linker structures. Id. Further, to the extent the Lees’ teachings were considered during examination and reexamination, Lees’ disclosure of a homobifunctional sulfone linker was overlooked. Lees’ homobifunctional linker, which Patent Owner argues is substantially similar to Harris’ homobifunctional linker, which Petitioner chiefly relies upon in Grounds 2–5, was not the subject of a rejection during examination. Pet. Resp. Brief 1; Prelim. Resp. 25–26. We agree with Petitioner that only Lees’ heterobifunctional linker was applied in a rejection during examination. Pet. Resp. Brief 1; Ex. 1018, 42–43, 62. 4. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply Petitioner’s unopposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,131,682
• Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2024 · IPR2020-01504 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over Wedekind and Ehlers and denied Petitioner’s motion to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Circuit held that we erred in construing limitation 1m. According to the Federal Circuit, In sum, both the claim language and the specification support a broader construction than the Board accorded the [1m] limitation. The proper construction of the term must allow for any of the five claimed inputs to potentially be used to calculate another claimed input. We agree, then, with Google’s proposed construction, which simply “require[s] that each of the five inputs be used at some point during the determination of the first time prior to said target time.” Appellant Br. 52 (emphasis and quotation marks omitted). Id. at 1059 (alteration in original). The Federal Circuit further ordered that we “apply this construction on remand.” Id. Following the issuance of the mandate, we held a conference call with the parties. See Paper 51, 2 (Order on Conduct of Proceedings on Remand). As noted in the previous paragraph, the Federal Circuit instructed us to apply Petitioner’s construction for limitation 1m on remand. Google, 92 F.4th at 1059. Because the construction was implicitly argued in the Petition, the parties had notice and opportunity to be heard. Paper 51, 5. Therefore, in accordance with PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 3,4 we “determine[d] that additional briefing [was] not warranted in this proceeding.” Id. at 4.5 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a 4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ptab_ sop_3-2023-oct.pdf. 5 Neither party requested to submit additional evidence or have an oral hearing on remand. Ex. 3002 (Email from the parties to the Board). unpatentable.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. Although not cited in the Response, when Dr. Palmer testifies to the level of skill in the art, he opinion: EcoFactor contends that a person of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the invention would have had a (a) bachelor's degree in engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (b) at least 2 years of professional experience in electronic thermostats, HVAC controls, building energy management and controls or other similarly relevant industry experience. Additional relevant industry experience may compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa. Ex. 2002 ¶ 22 (emphasis added). It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are generally entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.9” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “After briefing, we issued an order inviting supplemental briefing regarding the preambles of the challenged claims. Paper 28. In the Order, we proposed that the preamble of each of the challenged claims was not limiting. Id. at 2–3. In supplemental briefing, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed with that construction. PO Claim Constr. Br. 1; Pet. Claim Constr. Br. 5. We adopt the parties undisputed construction that the preamble of each of the claims is not limiting. In doing so, we conclude that the preamble is not limiting because it is “only a statement of purpose and intended result” and “[t]he expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 18

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

    “s) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Wedekind and Ehlers. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–4, 6–20 Petitioner argues that the combination of Wedekind and Ehlers teaches the limitations recited in claims 2–4 and 6–20 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 61–62, 64–75. Petitioner’s arguments are supported by citations to the prior art and the testimony of Mr. Shah. See id. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, agree with them, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as our own.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,498,753
• Sanofi Pasteur Inc. / SK Chemicals Co., Ltd. et al. v. Pfizer Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2018-00187 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board found proposed substitute claims 48 and 49 unpatentable as obvious over GSK-711, Merck-086, and Hausdorff, and denied the motion to amend as to those claims.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “I. INTRODUCTION This case was remanded to the Board by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with instructions that we address the patentability of Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims 48 and 49 to U.S. Patent No. 9,492,559 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’559 patent”). Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 94 F.4th 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2024); see Paper 15 (Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend, “Mot. Amend.”). The Court stated that: we affirm in toto the Board’s decision at issue in Appeals 2019- 1875 and 2019-1876. We further affirm the Board’s decisions at issue in Appeals 2019-1871, 2019-1873, and 2019-2224 as to claims 1–45 and proposed substitute claims 46, 47, and 50–52. Claims 1–45 are therefore unpatentable. But we vacate the Board’s denials of Pfizer’s motions to amend in those decisions as to proposed substitute claims 48 and 49 and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pfizer, 94 F.4th at 1354.3 We therefore limit our analysis to proposed substitute claims 48 and 49 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’559 patent. For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable. 3 The same issues on remand in IPR2018-00187 remain for IPR2017-02131 and IPR2017-02132, and all three of these pending cases are addressed together in both the Federal Circuit’s Decision from which these proceedings are remanded, and in this consolidated Final Decision, because the issues presented are substantively identical. See Pfizer, 94 F.4th 1341, 1350–54. We generally cite to the record of the IPR2018-00187 proceeding, as it is representative, and will specifically note when we cite to the record in either of the IPR2017-02131 or IPR2017-02132 proceedings.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “V. CONCLUSION We conclude on remand that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 48 and 49 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of GSK-711, Merck-086, and Hausdorff, in view of the knowledge of the ordinary artisan. Motion to Amend Outcome19 Claim(s) Original Claims Cancelled by Amendment Substitute Claims Proposed in the Amendment 48, 49 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Granted Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 48, 49” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “12 Petitioner states that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent degree in chemistry, immunology, or other biological sciences or an MD and at least 2 years of experience in glycoconjugate vaccine research and development, or would objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness.13 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In KSR, the Supreme Court also stated that an invention may be found obvious if trying a course of conduct would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. Id. at 421. “KSR affirmed the logical inverse of this statement by stating that § 103 bars patentability unless ‘the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established have an M.S. degree and at least 4 years of relevant experience.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 77). Patent Owner “does not dispute Sanofi’s proposed level of skill for the person having ordinary skill in the art.” PO Response 8. We agree with the parties regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 13 Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner presents evidence on the fourth Graham factor.” slip op. at 9

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Interpretation As discussed in the Final Written Decision, and left undisturbed by the Federal Circuit Decision, upon review of the parties’ arguments and the evidence before us, we maintain our conclusion that the claim term “immunogenic,” as it is used in the ’559 patent and recited by proposed substitute claims 46, 48, and 49, requires that a functional antibody be elicited against each immunogen contained in the respective composition. Paper 61, 7–9. Consequently, for proposed substitute claims 48 and 49, the term “immunogenic” requires that functional antibodies be elicited against each immunogen specifically recited and required.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 9,492,559 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,492,559
• Sanofi Pasteur Inc. / SK Chemicals Co., Ltd. et al. v. Pfizer Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2017-02131 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board denied the motion to amend proposed substitute claims 48 and 49, finding them obvious over GSK-711, Merck-086, and Hausdorff in view of ordinary skill.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Interpretation As discussed in the Final Written Decision, and left undisturbed by the Federal Circuit Decision, upon review of the parties’ arguments and the evidence before us, we maintain our conclusion that the claim term “immunogenic,” as it is used in the ’559 patent and recited by proposed substitute claims 46, 48, and 49, requires that a functional antibody be elicited against each immunogen contained in the respective composition. Paper 61, 7–9. Consequently, for proposed substitute claims 48 and 49, the term “immunogenic” requires that functional antibodies be elicited against each immunogen specifically recited and required.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “12 Petitioner states that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent degree in chemistry, immunology, or other biological sciences or an MD and at least 2 years of experience in glycoconjugate vaccine research and development, or would objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness.13 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “of success in obtaining a 2-log increase, we find Table 3 of Hausdorff shows that a composition with thirteen of the fourteen serotypes that were required by proposed substitute claim 46, conjugated with CRM197, produced an immune response with more than a 2-log increase above baseline serum IgG levels in New Zealand White Rabbits after administration of the two equal doses with or without the aluminum salt adjuvant. Ex. 2027 ¶ 231, Table 3. Thus, we find there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in the inclusion of serotypes 22F, 33F, 8, 10A, 11A, 12F, and 15B in Hausdorff’s pneumococcal vaccine composition while retaining the 2-log increased immune response of the thirteen serotypes and also retaining a 2- log increase in the immune response to the added serotypes. We note that Patent Owner does not identify any particularized evidence drawn to the seven serotypes recited in the challenged claims showing any expected difference in the behavior of these serotypes from the fourteen serotypes already included in the Hausdorff composition.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,492,559 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,492,559

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.